(28-03-2010, 11:07 AM)adikarina Wrote: Hi!
I have attempted Q7 from 2008 Module 5 paper.
Please review and provide feedback.
I have previously worked on a project where I was involved in introducing LED lamp on filament lamp area; therefore I have drawn from my knowledge from that project.
Thanks
Regards
Aditi
Initial impression is that this would be a Credit; it is evident that "you know your stuff", the experience you mentioned shows through and you actually attempted to answer the question set:
Lineside signals and indicators can be illuminated with conventional filament lamps or with
LED technology. Describe the relative advantages and disadvantages of each of these technologies. As a minimum you should consider:
a) design considerations; and [5 marks]
b) installation and maintenance; and [5 marks]
c) reliability. [5 marks]
If the technologies were to be intermixed in a localised area, describe what technical and operational considerations might have to be made. [5 marks]
We set basically this question for GM Rail last year and my gut feeling is that your answer is as good as any we got there. I haven't yet marked it against the schedule which I used then, but if it didn't score in the credit band then I'd be surprised and would be wondering whether the marking basis had been "too Mainline" and thus would need amending to be fair for a "Metro" answer.
It's a sad fact that few provide what I believe to be "decent answers", so this one would be in the minority and thus generally deserving of "Credit". I would call it "workmanlike" in that it was sound (no dodgy "facts"), covered the necessary ground, kept to material relevant to the question, was of reasonable length and clearly presented.
I was pleased to see that you had learned from the module 7 question feedback and I thought your introduction valuable and nigh on perfect to "set the scene"- it may not earn marks itself but it gives a good impression and ensures that what else you write will be judged in the correct context as some of what you wrote would not be "correct"/"appropriate" for Network Rail for example.
The end paragraph did summarise your answer ok; however you could have got it to work harder for you in gaining some marks- see later.
You note that whereas my gut feeling is "Credit", it certainly isn't "Distinction"- so why do I say that? For me to subjectively feel "Distinction" requires something to be particularly special about the quality of the answer- being "perfectly sound" is not enough, it has to excite in some way- the examiner needs to feel that they want to read the answer for its own sake rather than because they are marking an exam paper. Hard to explain, but it is the same sort of thing that sells a "premium product" over a "commodity item"- the reason why many feel that it is worth paying the extra perhaps for an ipod over other manufacturer's products that are perfectly good but somehow lack the "must have" attractiveness.
On a mark scoring basis you probably ought to have presented your answer so it more clearly showed the examiner that you had given what would be needed to get your 5 marks for "design considerations", your 5 marks for "installation and maintenance" and your 5 marks for "reliability". Whereas you did include something of each in your answer it isn't obvious how many you were "claiming" from each category.
Your presentation was a bit wasteful in that filament disadvantage 1 and LED advantage 1 are really the same thing, similarly t filament disadvantage 2 and LED advantage 2. So when looked at carefully when awarding marks, there isn't as much to score as first appears; a tabular approach with three columns would be more economical of space and time. The first column could be the generic description, the second its applicability to filament lamps and the third its applicability to LEDs. You could consider i) sudden complete loss of light output, ii) sudden diminishing of lamp output, iii) gradual diminishing of light output, iv) gradual colour degradation, v) false light output and put some comment against each of these potential failure modes as experienced by each of the types of illumination. A tick in every box would certainly get you the maximum of 5 marks for reliability- you have gone that extra mile and demonstrated a range of possible failure modes that would detract from reliability and commented upon the likelihood and severity of faults with each solution which could cause that failure mode. When writing the paper you would know that it was not worth you writing more on this section of the question and you are also saying to the examiner: "I dare you not to give me full marks for this bit, even if I haven't included something you would otherwise be looking for".
The other way to raise you game to get into the "Distinction" category is to read a bit more into the question, rather than just tackle what it seems to be at face value. Look for "hooks" within it on which you can attach markers to show that you are experienced and can interpret in a broad context; you need to stick to the question obviously but do just look at it from a range of different angles. Instead of just looking at "advantages / disadvantages", think a bit more about FOR WHOM (train operators, passengers, signallers / line controllers, maintainers, signalling designers, possession management), HOW (explain the consequences of a signal being out-how does the railway continue to operate, does it get fixed during the working day or only in possession hours etc) , IN WHAT CONTEXT (tube, sub-surface, open, stations, plain line auto section) and indeed THINK ABOUT THE WHOLE LIFECYCLE (specification, product approval, design, install, test, operate, maintain, decommission).
You could do this a little more throughout, but in particular the summary may have been the place to illustrate this.
PJW