Statement: Two local passenger trains collided while running in opposite directions on the same track because the signalling system failed for a brief period. Courses of Action: I. The services of the motormen of the trains should be terminated.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The stated cause of the collision is signalling failure. Rational courses must be aligned to the identified root cause and should avoid punitive steps against individuals without inquiry. Given Data / Assumptions: Event: Head-on/opposite-direction collision on same track. Cause given: Signalling failed briefly. Needs: Root-cause analysis, system audit, fail-safe mechanisms (block working, ATP), SOP review. Concept / Approach:Terminate vs. investigate: Termination (I) presumes motorman error despite a systems failure being cited. Systems engineering demands audits and technical remedies first; individual accountability, if any, should follow investigation. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I (terminate motormen): Not logically supported when the proximate cause is a signalling failure; premature without inquiry.2) II (constitute task force): Directly targets the system failure—review interlocking, signals, backups, maintenance, training, and incident-response. Logical and necessary.3) Therefore, only II follows. Verification / Alternative check:Rail safety practice prioritizes independent investigation, safety recommendations, and corrective actions (hardware redundancy, procedural safeguards). Why Other Options Are Wrong: • Only I / Either / Both: Punitive action without evidence conflicts with due process and systems logic.• Neither: Ignores the need to fix signalling. Common Pitfalls:Attributing complex failures to frontline staff without systemic review. Final Answer:Only II follows.

More Questions from Course of Action

Discussion & Comments