2012 Q9 Handsignalling a layout after derailment

[Peter]

Good afternoon,

I have attached an attempt at the above question for review. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Regards,

Neil

Some thoughts for you:-

Not sure how long you would have spend writing what is here, but the number of words looks to be insufficient for the number of marks on offer.
Your list of assumptions is a good idea because it is then clear what you are thinking when giving your answer. However, you need to be careful that your assumptions are reasonable. For instance, you have said "Further crossover from Down Fast to Down Slow available to the Down side of Station B" yet you have admitted at the end that the things show are shown for a reason and hence by implication, things that are not there are not available in this scenario.
Also, you have assumed that the two routes from 719 are to different places than the two routes from 101 signal. I think that this is unlikely since 719 is not likely to have a route up to 427 and not have a route up to 209 (I think 429 is there for turn back moves rather than having a route up to it). Of course, I have assumed that you are following UK mainline practice when putting this comment (you have not said) and hence under this assertion, we know that 719 only has two routes because the SI has to show an indication for all routes, whereas if it is the practice of the railway authority you are following to give no indication for the "straight" route from the signal with the SI, you could be assuming that there are in fact three routes from 719, and your point would be valid. This is a long winded way of saying that you must tell the examiner all that they need to know to interpret your answer.
You mention the tunnel from the perspective of staff safety, but I would expect there to have been some more discussion about the additional problems that operating degraded working through a tunnel. As you say, things are shown for a reason, so it is a good clue of areas to think about writing about.
The question asks you to describe a safe method of working. In option 1, you have said which way the trains are going to go and have quoted the appointment of hand signallers, together with the importance of good communication, but you have not actually said how things would operate. I think it is insufficient in this circumstance just to say that you will use a hand signaller - the question is crying out for a description of how hand signalling works. In option 2, you have mentioned staff or ticket working - again, a description would not go amiss here and if there is this option, what are the relative risks of doing this hence giving you more things to list in your risks and mitigations section.
One area that you would have got some credit is the thinking about how you might alternatively deal with the passengers who want to get off at B and having them go to A and travel back under normal signalling is perfectly valid.

Overall, I think the examiner would be struggling here to give many marks for this attempt.

Peter