Statement: Two local passenger trains collided while running in opposite directions on the same track because the signalling system failed for a short period. Courses of Action: I. The services of the motormen of the trains should be terminated immediately. II. The government should immediately constitute a task force to review the functioning of the signalling system. Which course(s) of action logically follow(s)?
-
AOnly I follows
-
BOnly II follows
-
CEither I or II follows
-
DNeither I nor III follows
-
EBoth I and II follow
Answer
Correct Answer: Only II follows
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The collision is explicitly attributed to a signalling failure. Logical action should address the technical root cause and ensure it does not recur, while avoiding premature blame without investigation.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Proximate cause: Signalling failure.
- Safety objective: Prevent future conflicts on the same block/track.
- Due process: Individual liability must follow inquiry.
Concept / Approach:Systems safety prioritizes root-cause analysis and corrective actions. Summary termination of motormen is unjustified unless evidence shows procedural violation beyond the system failure.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I (terminate motormen): Not supported by the stated cause; due process requires inquiry into adherence to rules and communications.2) II (constitute task force): Directly tackles the system failure—review interlocking, maintenance, backups, and fail-safes—hence logical.3) Therefore, only II follows.Verification / Alternative check:Independent safety boards typically recommend technical audits, SOP updates, and redundancy measures after such incidents.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
• I or Both: Premature punitive action.• Either: Suggests substitutability; not appropriate.• Neither: Ignores the urgent need to fix signalling.Common Pitfalls:Blaming frontline staff for systemic failures without evidence.
Final Answer:Only II follows.