2012 Q7 Signal Sighting

[PJW]

Another attempt for comments please

a)
Very full answer- probably more than you need for 4 marks but great if you can do it within the time as there isn't anything not relevant so only superfluous from a "marks per minute" perspective.

b)
In this particular case should have had a representative from the TOC or whoever responsible for the operation of the station(signage issues, dispatch arrangements).  Perhaps structures s well in case a solution may involve a banner mounted on the footbridge or similar.

c) To me the one hazard is a SPAD at HY7 but it can arise in the different ways:
a) driver fails to check signal at all as not clearly visible once doors are closed, so SAS-SPAD (I do not really see distinction between your 1 and 4; I suppose your 1 is failing to check signal at all, your 4 is failing to check that an RA is displayed.  I must admit to being pre-conditioned to it being a LU example (the Eastbound and Westbound are a bit of a clue!) and they don't use RA but driver CCTV either through the window or actually displayed in the cab. Your example 4 would be more to do with the placement of any mirro or CCTV monitor in that case, but yes NR may well use RA.
b) driver checks signal but by moving from their seat, then closes the doors and from driving position can't easily see that there has since been a reversion (but of course the route should still be locked, so unless it was replaced to protect an emergency it is difficult to see there is much risk,
c) as you said in your 2: "reading across",


In other circumstances I think you are right re your 3, but here it does seem unlikely that acceleration would be so great as to have a dangerous overspeed at the points.

So I am struggling to see how you get the 4 marks for this portion; I suppose you could mention that an incoming driver may not realise quite how close they need to approach the buffers in order to get the rear of the trai in clear and so could compound visibility problems for return journey and even leave the tail of the train still locking the scissors leading to delay and service disruption, but rather clutching at straws- easily solve by car stop markers in the facing direction!

d)
No issues with what you wrote, except that a splitting banner would solve your issue 3.
I image that it would generally be impracticable but perhaps the terminal platforms could be lengthened (or perhaps a more effective type of retarding buffer-stop may allow a greater length of the physical platform well actually to be utilised.

You made no assumption re the existing level of provision of train protection; one would assume at least "trainstop" type functionality at the signal, but could place another train stop or equivalent on the approach to the signal just ahead of where the nearest cab is expected to be, so as to intervene as soon as there is a move up to a signal at red (wouldn't help your item 4 re the RA observation though).  The situation could actually be worse with a more sophisticated form of train protection- given the reversal an the new opened cab, depending on the technology it may not be in full supervision yet!

e)
Yes just seemed to want standard "Yellow Book" type stuff. 
The one thing that was obviously missing was to demonstrate that the final risk was actually tolerable not just the best value for money of the two.
You said that both solutions needed to be ALARP, but of course they might not be; one may be disproportionate and provided the other does reduce the risk to a tolerable level (and there are no other ALARP solutions possible) then that is the one to adopt.

Overall I thought this was a good answer, but I a bit surprised of some of the examiners relative mark allocations, which always make one wonder if have missed something....