I think this was good, particularly for the first portion. It started excellently with quite a comprehensive list of bullet points and then did the a), b) c) relatively well, although perhaps more emphasis should have been given to the differences in the various environments. For example vibration is considerably more of an issue with a tachometer on a wheel axle or a point machine bolted to the rails or incorporated into its sleepers than on other items of equipment such as level crossing mechanisms and again less of an issue for a TDM system in a trackside REB and probably hardly an issue at all for the VDU control system in a main signalling centre.
I thought it was the 2nd portion of the question which was weakest; to be honest I couldn't really find it. There was some material (which really was focussed on design features of products and site application- certainly fairly relevant but not "hit nail firmly on the head" type stuff) associated with comments on a) and b) but certainly in the answer there was no separate section at the end. Overall the answer seemed a bit short [well this is as judged as a "30 min" attempt; I accept that this was actually asked in 2010 as a 20 min question], as if you had run out of time without really getting onto that section.
If the earlier comments were supposed to be addressing the last portion of the question, then that wasn't made obvious enough. If you are going to address a question not in strict chronological order then it is particularly important to make sure the examiner will recognise that you have done that. Hence use headings or wording in your text that "echo" phrases in the question, so that the "penny drops" with the examiner.
Also whilst recognising that there are no marks for spelling it is important that the meaning is not lost. So whereas someone of my generation will grimace when they see fantom rather then phantom, there is no problem understanding what is meant. However in your bullet point list, you wrote "lighting" when you meant I think "lightning", but how as an examiner can I give you credit just because I think you probably meant something else than that which you wrote?
Had there been a little more on related issues (which I think there should have been) such as traction transients, rolling stock compatibility issues, and wider EMI compatibility issues (you just mentioned one specific item of EM radiation in that list but did fortunately refer to inductive effects later), then the examiner would have felt better justified to correct mentally your spelling- if you are just going to use a single word then it must be right!
I'd possibly also have mentioned other "environmental" factors such as accessibility for maintenance and indeed the likely competence level of technicians and the organisation generally. i.e. think of the human side.
Although some of the heritage lines in the UK do use some pretty "cutting edge" stuff, generally they tend to use older more basic technologies. Sure one of the reasons they do this is that they are seeking to preserve history for posterity, sure they also haven't generally got much money for investment and so if can reuse and recycle that has great advantages, but also they do need to consider who as volunteers are going to design, install, test and maintain it. Those people that may well have the skills and experience to do so because of their 'day job", probably don't want to be committed to do much the same in their leisure hours and prefer to do something different! So some slight reference to "appropriate technology" that fits the current organisation and skill base that already exists in a particular railway's environment would have been a good addition.
I thought it was the 2nd portion of the question which was weakest; to be honest I couldn't really find it. There was some material (which really was focussed on design features of products and site application- certainly fairly relevant but not "hit nail firmly on the head" type stuff) associated with comments on a) and b) but certainly in the answer there was no separate section at the end. Overall the answer seemed a bit short [well this is as judged as a "30 min" attempt; I accept that this was actually asked in 2010 as a 20 min question], as if you had run out of time without really getting onto that section.
If the earlier comments were supposed to be addressing the last portion of the question, then that wasn't made obvious enough. If you are going to address a question not in strict chronological order then it is particularly important to make sure the examiner will recognise that you have done that. Hence use headings or wording in your text that "echo" phrases in the question, so that the "penny drops" with the examiner.
Also whilst recognising that there are no marks for spelling it is important that the meaning is not lost. So whereas someone of my generation will grimace when they see fantom rather then phantom, there is no problem understanding what is meant. However in your bullet point list, you wrote "lighting" when you meant I think "lightning", but how as an examiner can I give you credit just because I think you probably meant something else than that which you wrote?
Had there been a little more on related issues (which I think there should have been) such as traction transients, rolling stock compatibility issues, and wider EMI compatibility issues (you just mentioned one specific item of EM radiation in that list but did fortunately refer to inductive effects later), then the examiner would have felt better justified to correct mentally your spelling- if you are just going to use a single word then it must be right!
I'd possibly also have mentioned other "environmental" factors such as accessibility for maintenance and indeed the likely competence level of technicians and the organisation generally. i.e. think of the human side.
Although some of the heritage lines in the UK do use some pretty "cutting edge" stuff, generally they tend to use older more basic technologies. Sure one of the reasons they do this is that they are seeking to preserve history for posterity, sure they also haven't generally got much money for investment and so if can reuse and recycle that has great advantages, but also they do need to consider who as volunteers are going to design, install, test and maintain it. Those people that may well have the skills and experience to do so because of their 'day job", probably don't want to be committed to do much the same in their leisure hours and prefer to do something different! So some slight reference to "appropriate technology" that fits the current organisation and skill base that already exists in a particular railway's environment would have been a good addition.
(10-09-2011, 12:38 AM)Hort Wrote: Hi,
I have had a go at Q10 from last year's paper. I would welcome any comments.
PJW