17-07-2009, 10:13 AM
(16-07-2009, 11:44 AM)mark bedford Wrote: I've attempted this question
Please give some feedback
Mark
Thank you Peter for your very helpful feedback.
Interesting how a question can be interpreted in different ways. I'm now thinking I should have made and stated some additional assumptions at the start of the answer. It would seem logical as you say to provide some sort of signalling system as this is a signalling exam. As this module covers ESM then stating what stage of the system life cycle this assessment covers is probably also important. The question says this is a proposal, so this is likely to be the concept & feasability or requirements stage.
Defining Hazard as a contribution towards the accident (rather than harm) leaves me pondering. The environment of the tunnel has to be a major consideration in the event of an accident and a consideration in the answer. Should further hazards after an accident has happened, i.e. fire, emergency access and egress, be in a separate risk assessment to the operations and staff safety? I hadn't considered that before but it opens another mind field of organising different hazard analysis to get to the final conclusions of the feasability study. I've no idea how this works in real life or what will be in the examiners mind! So I guess state some risks if a accident does occur but be aware not to over state these risks.
If this is a feasability then the conclusion of the analysis could be that this proposal is 'not feasable'. Therefore the assumption to only provide emergency crossover with no signalling may not have matter if I had then proven through the hazard assessment that this is a poor proposal. Probably best for the exam to use a system that would be acceptable.
Thamks for you help