2009 Q6 LEGISLATION, STANDARDS & PRACTICE

[PJW]

I am attaching last years module 1 question paper here until the end of February.

The idea is that those who failed the exam last year can have another go at it and then get some feedback; the "next best thing" to getting their real answer papers back. See "learning from failure"

Also those that are seriously thinking of attempting the paper for the first time next year should also have a go- I am not expecting great things initially, but the important thing is to ACTUALLY START and get an idea about what writing the paper is all about at first hand.

It should only take an hour and a half to download, printout, get set-up, handwrite answers on the blank sheets (I have attached my representation of the official IRSE Exam A4 answer sheet- but there are also two varieties of A3 answer sheet which might prove useful for certain questions - see attachments in graph paper thread ), scan and submit.
Ideally use the "Answers Anonymous" facility
- no one else will be able to see your attempt at that time; otherwise email me and attach.

Allocate yourself a 4 digit candidate number of form DDHH where DD is the day of the month and HH the clock face hour when you start your answer.

At the end of the month I'll post all answers received into the "Module 1 Virtual Study Group" part of the website so will not be visible to all and sundry. Indeed submission of your attempt will be your initial "entry ticket" into this restricted area, so hopefully this will carrot active as an incentive and get you started. This is my way of finding out who is prepared to get "stuck-in" seriously and who isn't yet ready to make that committment.

[nicklawford]

(05-02-2010 03:40 PM)PJW Wrote:  I am attaching last years module 1 question paper here until the end of February.

Downloaded, read, and decided what I would have attempted had I been there, nothing more yet.



First:
Q6 : Discuss how legislation, standards and good practice contribute to the safety of the railway system. [25 marks]

Immediately I think ''how long is a piece of string ?'' .

I would not attempt that. IMHO way way too wide to deal with in 30 mins under exam pressure. I have no idea what the examiner might be after, and there are far too many avenues of digression to go up and waste a lot of time on one aspect, and lose marks.



I decided that right away - as soon as I read the question - nay nay and thrice nay for me.

Is this a good sign - eliminate right away what not to start on ??

Or am I being too hasty there - have past exams shown that is a good one to attempt by the very fact that it *is* wide and a chance to lay down generic knowledge without detailed background in any discipline ?



After about 6 min reading questions (I timed that) , I'd go for Q1 and Q3. My answers would undoubtedly draw on detail from LU i.e. a ''metro'' / underground environment - but keep in mind, and comment on, generic application.


Not sure when I might get around to an answer attempt ... .. . busy busy weeks right now. ...


--
Nick

[PJW]

(06-02-2010 08:44 PM)nicklawford Wrote:  Q6 : Discuss how legislation, standards and good practice contribute to the safety of the railway system. [25 marks]

Immediately I think ''how long is a piece of string ?'' .

I would not attempt that. IMHO way way too wide to deal with in 30 mins under exam pressure. I have no idea what the examiner might be after, and there are far too many avenues of digression to go up and waste a lot of time on one aspect, and lose marks.
I decided that right away - as soon as I read the question - nay nay and thrice nay for me.
Is this a good sign - eliminate right away what not to start on ??
Or am I being too hasty there - have past exams shown that is a good one to attempt by the very fact that it *is* wide and a chance to lay down generic knowledge without detailed background in any discipline ?
Nick

Some like the short questions: they take less time to read- particularly if English not your first language this can be important as less daunting). The more detailed a question, inevitably the more country / railway specific it tends to be. Also it gives you the widest scope to interpret as you wish; one person's freedom is the other person's agoraphobia.

You are right that a candidate might think that it gives them "carte blanche" t write anything pertinent to legislation and railways and if their answer is just detail of one thing that they know about they may think they have done well but actually they would score very badly. Perhaps it is easier with more detailed questions that tend to "guide the answer" to be sure that you are not "straying from the path"; however provided you treat these questions sensibly id does give you the freedom "to go where you will"; the examiner can scarcely say you are "off limits" when the question is so open- if it is a reasonable interpretation then the examiner will award the marks even if you have gone in some unexpected direction.

However you must be sure, as ever, to really answer the question asked- make sure you give some detail where appropriate but above all concentrate on breadth of answer.

If a candidate quoted long list of items of legislation by title / year then few marks would be given. Conversely if lots of gory detail is given on quoting clauses from say "The Railway Safety Regulations 1999" then again this will gain few marks.

An answer however that is considering UK Mainline might be expected to make mention of this legislation and give examples of the primary changes which it introduced which I regard as a) effectively mandating the Train Protection and Warning System as the minimum mitigation to control the risk of overrun following a Signal passed At Danger, requiring (with a few exceptions) central door locking for passenger trains and the phasing out of old fashioned rolling stock consisting fundamentally of a lightweight body on a heavy chassis to get the much greater crash resistance afforded by tubular constructions where the strength is in the body shell.

An answer which looked in this level of detail at the wide range of legislation which applies to railways would I am sure do well and it would be easy enough in such an answer for a candidate to gloss over a particular area of ignorance- if you give the detail for many but then just the title of another then you’d probably be given the benefit of the doubt (the examiner knows you only have 30 mins) and may just think you felt it better to concentrate efforts elsewhere when in reality you may not have known any more than you wrote.

I'd make sure that the range covered was wide:
a) any legislation needed to construct the line in the first place
b) any specific provisions relating to crossing public roads, footpaths etc
c) any obligation to run a specified level of passenger train service, act as a "common carrier" for transporting all types of commodities, any fares regulation ("in the past "parliamentary trains" at a maximum price per mile, nowadays perhaps the amount fares may be raised annually)
d) any thing applicable to any form of business undertaking, in particular "Health and Safety"- obligations to public, users and staff. Sometimes these may be partially specific (e.g. Factories, Shops and Railway Premises") but some could be much more general
e) legislation applicable to Contracting Entities undertaking works- Construction Design Management regulations come to mind

Hopefully you get the idea- because there is so much that could be encompassed then it is pretty easy to fill 30mins with highly pertinent stuff and you have the freedom to pick and choose- just as long as you answer the question and demonstrate a sufficiently wide understanding f what the question was all about.

So were you right to dismiss so quickly? Well if you know you just wouldn't be comfortable YES; use your time to zero in quickly on what you feel you'd do best and don't waste time pontificating. However should you always dismiss short questions on a point of principle, NO.

You have 10 questions to read and 10 minutes reading time. To me that is no more than a minute each on first reading; if you can discard some after 15 seconds then that is valuable time saved. Perhaps after first look you have found 4 favourites- that gives you another minute to revisit each and a final minute to make your mind up; if however you managed to reject some quickly when first reading then you can use that time within your "2nd pass review" and if you find you have decided early then actually think through in detail you first answer so when you can pick up your pen you can hit the ground running having already planned exactly in which direction you are heading.

[PJW]

(07-02-2010 03:43 PM)PJW Wrote:  

(06-02-2010 08:44 PM)nicklawford Wrote:  Q6 : Discuss how legislation, standards and good practice contribute to the safety of the railway system. [25 marks]

Immediately I think ''how long is a piece of string ?'' .

I would not attempt that. IMHO way way too wide to deal with in 30 mins under exam pressure. I have no idea what the examiner might be after, and there are far too many avenues of digression to go up and waste a lot of time on one aspect, and lose marks.
I decided that right away - as soon as I read the question - nay nay and thrice nay for me.
Is this a good sign - eliminate right away what not to start on ??
Or am I being too hasty there - have past exams shown that is a good one to attempt by the very fact that it *is* wide and a chance to lay down generic knowledge without detailed background in any discipline ?
Nick

Some like the short questions: they take less time to read- particularly if English not your first language this can be important as less daunting). The more detailed a question, inevitably the more country / railway specific it tends to be. Also it gives you the widest scope to interpret as you wish; one person's freedom is the other person's agoraphobia.

You are right that a candidate might think that it gives them "carte blanche" t write anything pertinent to legislation and railways and if their answer is just detail of one thing that they know about they may think they have done well but actually they would score very badly. Perhaps it is easier with more detailed questions that tend to "guide the answer" to be sure that you are not "straying from the path"; however provided you treat these questions sensibly id does give you the freedom "to go where you will"; the examiner can scarcely say you are "off limits" when the question is so open- if it is a reasonable interpretation then the examiner will award the marks even if you have gone in some unexpected direction.

However you must be sure, as ever, to really answer the question asked- make sure you give some detail where appropriate but above all concentrate on breadth of answer.

If a candidate quoted long list of items of legislation by title / year then few marks would be given. Conversely if lots of gory detail is given on quoting clauses from say "The Railway Safety Regulations 1999" then again this will gain few marks.

An answer however that is considering UK Mainline might be expected to make mention of this legislation and give examples of the primary changes which it introduced which I regard as a) effectively mandating the Train Protection and Warning System as the minimum mitigation to control the risk of overrun following a Signal passed At Danger, requiring (with a few exceptions) central door locking for passenger trains and the phasing out of old fashioned rolling stock consisting fundamentally of a lightweight body on a heavy chassis to get the much greater crash resistance afforded by tubular constructions where the strength is in the body shell.

An answer which looked in this level of detail at the wide range of legislation which applies to railways would I am sure do well and it would be easy enough in such an answer for a candidate to gloss over a particular area of ignorance- if you give the detail for many but then just the title of another then you’d probably be given the benefit of the doubt (the examiner knows you only have 30 mins) and may just think you felt it better to concentrate efforts elsewhere when in reality you may not have known any more than you wrote.

I'd make sure that the range covered was wide:
a) any legislation needed to construct the line in the first place
b) any specific provisions relating to crossing public roads, footpaths etc
c) any obligation to run a specified level of passenger train service, act as a "common carrier" for transporting all types of commodities, any fares regulation ("in the past "parliamentary trains" at a maximum price per mile, nowadays perhaps the amount fares may be raised annually)
d) any thing applicable to any form of business undertaking, in particular "Health and Safety"- obligations to public, users and staff. Sometimes these may be partially specific (e.g. Factories, Shops and Railway Premises") but some could be much more general
e) legislation applicable to Contracting Entities undertaking works- Construction Design Management regulations come to mind
f) recommendations introduced after certain accident investigations- these may not just be public enquiries (it may not actually be illegal per se not to follow these but in reality you'd need a pretty good defence if intentionally failing to implement!) but it could be from internal investigations into failures and near-miss incidents
g) make sure that you also include something to answer the "good practice" part of the question, industry standards (In NR context this may be Railway Group Standards and the various level1/2/3 Company Standardds that may be maked up by Codes of practice, Guidance Notes, Typical Circuits, SSI Datat Prep DIS Papers etc),
h) include some comparison with other industries, particularly how they assess and manage risk etc
j) think about people and processes as much as technicalities relating to equipment
k) think about the influences of past legislation which may have passed into history decades back but generally are incorporated in some form into curent legislation (although perhaps not as perscriptively ). Even if the current rules now mandate a somewhat higher standard than in the past (since society and technology have changed and indeed some accidents have happened since) almost certainly the new grew out of the old. Explain that most established railways are often very slow to change and thereforean old law becomes enshrined into the culture (and is often physically embodied in the infrastructure inherited from our predecessors) and therefore can still be very influential many decades after it ceased to have legal standing.

Hopefully you get the idea- because there is so much that could be encompassed then it is pretty easy to fill 30mins with highly pertinent stuff and you have the freedom to pick and choose- just as long as you answer the question and demonstrate a sufficiently wide understanding of what the question was all about.

So were you right to dismiss so quickly? Well if you know you just wouldn't be comfortable YES; use your time to zero in quickly on what you feel you'd do best and don't waste time pontificating. However should you always dismiss short questions on a point of principle, NO.

You have 10 questions to read and 10 minutes reading time. To me that is no more than a minute each on first reading; if you can discard some after 15 seconds then that is valuable time saved. Perhaps after first look you have found 4 favourites- that gives you another minute to revisit each and a final minute to make your mind up; if however you managed to reject some quickly when first reading, then you can use that time within your "2nd pass review". If you then find you have decided early, use the ramianing reading time to think through in precise detail exactly your answer to the first question; when you can pick up your pen you can hit the ground running (having already planned exactly in which direction you are heading of course).

[nicklawford]

(07-02-2010 03:52 PM)PJW Wrote:  Some like the short questions ...........................

WOW thanks for the detailed reply.

I've spent a few minutes going over the question choice again - instead of at home I did it on a train - sometimes I have found a completely different environment to read the same piece gives a different slant on things.

After doing that again, I might have changed my selection for this particular paper to be two from Q1 Q3 Q5 but I'm tempted to stick with my original choice.

Not sure when I might get around to attempting answers.

--
Nick