2006 Q1 RISK ASSESSMENT Level Crossings

[PJW]

peter, i have attached my attempt. i have not read your previous comments so forgive me if i make similar errors. I have used your guidance as to what the question may have been looking for, without which i would certainly been barking up the wrong tree!!

I am assuming that this is 2006 Q1 despite file name.
I'll look at this by the end of the week; no problem re you having done without reading the earlier posts etc, but you may care now to have a look at them whilst waiting my response

OK I l didn't make it as soon as I hoed; it has been a bad week.

I have made some comments /amendments in your text and have attached here. It started very well and indeed it was because of this that I started tweaking your text as I felt I could improve it slightly and it'd be beneficial for others.

I carried on doing this into the main section. There were definitely some good bits but I think it took too long to move from the general discussion of level crossing risk and get stuck into the main meat of the question; a short linking transition from the first part to the discussion re level crossings would be great, but I think it began to drift its own way and not getting to discuss the MEASURES. When amending I hoped to show how to re-present what was basically your original material in a way that was more relevant to the question- for a time I thought I was succeeding but it became more of a struggle. I therefore didn't continue throughout as it wasn't actually how I'd have addressed the question and I hope I have shown enough.

I think I would have treated the question as an abstract exercise "if designing a level crossing from first rinciles free of any rules and regulations, what measures would you incorporate and why, customising on a mix-and-match basis to optimise the protection at that crossing". Whereas I'd be drawing on my knowledge of UK level crossings and a basic awareness of some abroad, I wouldn't feel constrained and so if I felt that a mechanical wig-wag was good for one hazard and a rising ramp from the road surface good for another then I'd incorporate both in my answer even if they have never been used together before.
So my answer would have listed items such as
SIGNAGE
ROAD MARKING
ROAD SURFACE
TRESPASS GUARDS
FENCING
BARRIERS
RISING RAMPS
ROAD LIGHTS
AUDIBLE WARNING
OBSTACLE DETECTING RADAR
CAMERAS- CROSSING CLEAR
CAMERAS- ROAD USER ABUSE
LIGHTING
RUN BY TREADLES
INTERLOCKING FUNCTIONALITY
etc and for each described why they would be provided and in what circumstances of crossing usage and geography they should be provided. The combinations may very well end up not unlike what we know as the standard types in the UK, but I wouldn't be constrained by them- I don't really read the qustion as being about these per se.

Your answer was very much based on existing level crossing types. I think that this is not unreasonable, but I think it needed some form of lead-in rationale such as the section I added early in that section re the context of your answer.
However I did feel that you were spending too long on description- some of it was certainly material with just a little rearrangement and added text you could have made highly relevant to the question (I did some bits of this to give you the idea), other bits -although factually correct- were less useful in that regard.

Perhaps it is just me getting tired but your words seemed to be less addressed to the question as I continued through the piece- I think you fell a bit into the trap of wanting to display yur knowledge so much that you lost focus on actually answering the question. This was a shame because it starteed in a first class manner and had a lot of useful material within.