Colour blind....

[msussams]

Hi. I have a face to face interview with GWR about a gateline assistant.

Reading around the job and process, I keep coming up with they check for colour blindness.

I was told a while back that my colour deficiency won’t be an issue with a gateline role on this forum but seeing posts talking about medical attached to gateline posts have spooked me.

A gateline assistant isn’t a safety critical role is it so my colour deficiency doesn’t matter?

 

[The One]

Gateline position you should be ok with being colour blind as you said it’s not safety critical. I will be surprised if that goes against you.

 

[msussams]

Gateline position you should be ok with being colour blind as you said it’s not safety critical. I will be surprised if that goes against you.

Thanks. Just don’t want to get so close but be prohibited on the final hurdle.

Just seems to be mismatched information.

 

[The One]

As long you don’t want to play with signals etc you should be ok
Good luck with it sure you be ok

 

[msussams]

As long you don’t want to play with signals etc you should be ok
Good luck with it sure you be ok

Sadly, I know my limitations.... thanks. First interview in a while I am looking forward to in a weird way

 

[whhistle]

It won't matter - it's not a safety critical role.

I have a big grate on the Ishihara test that is widely used to test for colour deficiency. It's over 100 years old and simply isn't appropriate for quite a large amount of people who would be fine in a safety critical role.

Compared with many airlines that use the City University test, the railway method is rubbbish. Even the RSSB state the City University test is one that could be used. As things stand, if you're colourblind, but can pass the City University test (IE, you're not severly colour deficient), you can fly a plane but can't wave a train off from a platform!

I suspect the problem is education.
Those that decide what test the company will recognise/use don't understand colour blindness and don't really care - more hassle for them.

London Underground, so I understand, use the City University test as a standard. No problems there...

 

[msussams]

It won't matter - it's not a safety critical role.

I have a big grate on the Ishihara test that is widely used to test for colour deficiency. It's over 100 years old and simply isn't appropriate for quite a large amount of people who would be fine in a safety critical role.

Compared with many airlines that use the City University test, the railway method is rubbbish. Even the RSSB state the City University test is one that could be used. As things stand, if you're colourblind, but can pass the City University test (IE, you're not severly colour deficient), you can fly a plane but can't wave a train off from a platform!

I suspect the problem is education.
Those that decide what test the company will recognise/use don't understand colour blindness and don't really care - more hassle for them.

London Underground, so I understand, use the City University test as a standard. No problems there...

Thank you.

It is frustrating indeed and I agree with you completely. Education/understanding is the key issue.

 

[Raul_Duke]

It won't matter - it's not a safety critical role.

I have a big grate on the Ishihara test that is widely used to test for colour deficiency. It's over 100 years old and simply isn't appropriate for quite a large amount of people who would be fine in a safety critical role.

Compared with many airlines that use the City University test, the railway method is rubbbish. Even the RSSB state the City University test is one that could be used. As things stand, if you're colourblind, but can pass the City University test (IE, you're not severly colour deficient), you can fly a plane but can't wave a train off from a platform!

I suspect the problem is education.
Those that decide what test the company will recognise/use don't understand colour blindness and don't really care - more hassle for them.

London Underground, so I understand, use the City University test as a standard. No problems there...

You never miss this rant do you

Ishihara isn’t as good at finding problems with ‘finesse,’ if you like. It will give you a rough idea of the specific deficiency.

But, what it is good at is being a simple to administer test that can differentiate between normal and abnormal colour vision easily.

That’s all the Railway cares about, normal or not. Not (if you’ll excuse the pun) ‘shades of grey.’

 

[msussams]

You never miss this rant do you

Ishihara isn’t as good at finding problems with ‘finesse,’ if you like. It will give you a rough idea of the specific deficiency.

But, what it is good at is being a simple to administer test that can differentiate between normal and abnormal colour vision easily.

That’s all the Railway cares about, normal or not. Not (if you’ll excuse the pun) ‘shades of grey.’

The point is that can the applicant see the difference in the necessary colours or not? There are tests out there that can tell you that more so than the ish. test. I’m not going to make comment about how hard done by life is etc. The rules are the rules at the moment. Maybe one day it’ll change, maybe it won’t. I’m trying to apply for jobs that I can do. Maybe if it does change, I’ll try for other roles.

 

[Raul_Duke]

The point is that can the applicant see the difference in the necessary colours or not? There are tests out there that can tell you that more so than the ish. test. I’m not going to make comment about how hard done by life is etc. The rules are the rules at the moment. Maybe one day it’ll change, maybe it won’t. I’m trying to apply for jobs that I can do. Maybe if it does change, I’ll try for other roles.

That’s not the point. The point is does the applicant have ‘normal’ colour vision. As defined by the Ishihara test.

The railway just wants normal colour vision. Which the majority of people have. There is no point faffing about with a hundred hue test or a Holmes-Wright lantern for that. The Ishihara does that simply and efficiently.

 

[msussams]

It may do it simply. Just not efficiently.

 

[Raul_Duke]

It may do it simply. Just not efficiently.

It does do it efficiently though. That’s the reason it’s used. It’s pass/fail.

It’s a screening test. Not a diagnostic test.

 

[msussams]

It’s not efficient If it excludes people who can do it - who would have no problems. One has excluded a who part of a community just because they are a specific gender orientation or whatever to be later found that a blanket exclusion isn’t effective, maybe simple, When they can put in tests or assessments to decide their ability.

Anyway my argument isn’t that I am hard done by I’ll apply for jobs that I can do. Perhaps if there is a change, maybe I’ll go other roles.

 

[Highlandspring]

I don't have a horse to back in this race but the Ishihara test certainly is 'efficient' from the point of view of the railway's OH companies in that it is administered using a book of plates that is relatively inexpensive to buy and takes seconds to do as part of a medical. No requirement to install fancy equipment or send candidates to some university lab somewhere. If it excludes candidates who have marginal colour vision issues then the railway hasn't lost anything because the pool of applicants is so large that there will be 20 replacements queuing up to take their place. It's a model of efficiency...

 

[Raul_Duke]

I don't have a horse to back in this argument but the Ishihara test certainly is 'efficient' from the point of view of the railway's OH companies in that it is administered using a book of plates that is relatively inexpensive to buy and takes seconds to do as part of a medical. No requirement to install fancy equipment or send candidates to some university lab somewhere.

This!

You can’t know you would have no problems, you can be reasonably sure you wouldn’t, but the Railway doesn’t work like that. That’s why it’s a normal/abnormal and pass/fail test.

 

[tsr]

Those of you praising the Ishihara as a valid testing method - a lot of research is presently being done into the railway use of this test, and virtually none of it is coming up with positive results for either the test, or those organisations who promote it. The abnormalities it detects need a lot more work before they can be determined to be of any risk to railway operations, and the plates themselves used in the test are open to misuse in various ways. There are also environmental factors in the operation of the test which, it seems, are rarely considered adequately.

I pass on this message as somebody who has actually passed the Ishihara test as well as several others, and currently does safety critical work on the railway. As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind which test is used, so long it is the fairest and most accurate.

That's all I shall say for the time being...

 

[Raul_Duke]

Those of you praising the Ishihara as a valid testing method - a lot of research is presently being done into the railway use of this test, and virtually none of it is coming up with positive results for either the test, or those organisations who promote it. The abnormalities it detects need a lot more work before they can be determined to be of any risk to railway operations, and the plates themselves used in the test are open to misuse in various ways. There are also environmental factors in the operation of the test which, it seems, are rarely considered adequately.

I pass on this message as somebody who has actually passed the Ishihara test as well as several others, and currently does safety critical work on the railway. As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind which test is used, so long it is the fairest and most accurate.

That's all I shall say for the time being...

I say what I’ve said as someone who has also passed the Ishihara and is safety crit on the railway.

I also say it as someone who, prior to working on the Railway, spent ten years as an optician, which involved writing a paper on methods of assessing colour deficiency and then administering tests daily.

That’s all I shall say for the time being.

Do I win d**k waving top trumps now.....?

 

[Bromley boy]

I be totally wrong on this but doesn’t Ishasria quickly and easily identify people with a red-green deficiency? These people will not be able to interpret signals, for obvious reasons, so there’d be little point in sending them for further testing once they’re identified.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I be totally wrong on this but doesn’t Ishasria quickly and easily identify people with a red-green deficiency? These people will not be able to interpret signals, for obvious reasons, so there’d be little point in sending them for further testing once they’re identified.

Certainly did in my day ....a management trainee failed the medical on this basis , after starting work (he saw brown as purple , but OK with the other colours - after further testing) , rather than suspend his contract - BR just made sure he was (a) not put into an operational role (b) insisted he had to be accompanied on any trackside activity.

Doubt that would happen today with medical BEFORE appointment.

 

[Raul_Duke]

I be totally wrong on this but doesn’t Ishasria quickly and easily identify people with a red-green deficiency? These people will not be able to interpret signals, for obvious reasons, so there’d be little point in sending them for further testing once they’re identified.

Basically yes.

The issue I think they’re referring to, is that it’s a very sensitive test. So you could have a deficiency that was so mild you don’t even notice it / wouldn’t affect anything, but still fail an Ishihara.

 

[whhistle]

But, what it is good at is being a simple to administer test that can differentiate between normal and abnormal colour vision easily.

That’s all the Railway cares about, normal or not. Not (if you’ll excuse the pun) ‘shades of grey.’

But the world isn't like that.

No other test that I can think of works in the way the Ishihara test does.

The driving test, for example, allows you to have certain mistakes but still pass. Hell, even the other railway tests allow you to have mistakes and still pass. Plus, [Ishihara] doesn't test for blue/yellow deficiency. So either the railway doesn't care that much about yellow signals, or it unwittingly allows people who may not be able to see yellow properly drive trains - which is it?

The point is does the applicant have ‘normal’ colour vision. As defined by the Ishihara test.

But why use a test that's wildly out of date?
That's like saying we should use the driving test from 50 years ago and that'll be okay for the current standard.

It does do it efficiently though.

I agree - just too efficient.
If it's okay to use a simple pass/fail as a standard, maybe all tests should be like that. One mistake, you fail.

Yes, don't get me wrong, one mistake and hundreds could die on the railways. It's not about allowing those with colour deficiency drive trains left right and centre. It's about allowing those who can see colours fine - with no problems - drive trains if they so wish.
Colour deficiency isn't a clear yes/no problem, so the test used shouldn't be either.

I be totally wrong on this but doesn’t Ishasria quickly and easily identify people with a red-green deficiency? These people will not be able to interpret signals, for obvious reasons, so there’d be little point in sending them for further testing once they’re identified.

Yes and no.
Yes it does quickly identify those with a red-green deficiency. But there is a growing amount of people who can interpret signals as clearly as a colour-normal person, but cannot pass the test.


When people accept that colourblind doesn't mean thatyou can't see red or green, then the learning will begin. It's just ignorance. Much like 50 years ago, we as a nation were ignorant to many other disabilities. Even just a few years ago, we were ignorant to mental health issues compared with now.


For someone who it doesn't affect, it's dead easy not to really care. But for those who it does affect, it's hard to accept, when it's clearly in need of change, and is on the cusp of changing.

 

[mb88]

I be totally wrong on this but doesn’t Ishasria quickly and easily identify people with a red-green deficiency? These people will not be able to interpret signals, for obvious reasons, so there’d be little point in sending them for further testing once they’re identified.

Wrong. I can't pass Ishihara, but I 100% guarantee that you could sit me in front of any railway signal anywhere in the world in any weather condition or time of day and I would be able to correctly identify the colour of said signal 100% of the time. The railway do not have to spend millions on fancy new tests, or sending people to laboratories, they simply have to introduce a test which assesses the ability of the candidate to differentiate between colours in the context of the job for which they are applying. Various red/green/yellow signals on a sheet of paper or computer monitor with the candidate expected to correctly identify the colour is all that's needed.

 

[tsr]

Do I win d**k waving top trumps now.....?

Sadly not. I'm quite familiar with some major research which is being done in this field, which you almost certainly haven't read yet (unless one of my colleagues used to be an optician and for some weird reason they've not mentioned that to me when explaining their research on this matter...). I've also worked with staff who have somehow both passed and subsequently failed the same colour blindness tests, and independently checked their abilities to read signals which control train movements over both simple and very complex track layouts.

Post #21 in this thread is getting there (the Ishihara does not provide any accommodation for slightly deficient colour sight, which can sometimes be irrelevant to what any train driver would be expected to actually interpret), and post #22 has a point (though without appreciating the environmental constraints in which somebody might be expected to differentiate between colours of signals).

 

[Bromley boy]

Wrong. I can't pass Ishihara, but I 100% guarantee that you could sit me in front of any railway signal anywhere in the world in any weather condition or time of day and I would be able to correctly identify the colour of said signal 100% of the time.

With the greatest of respect, how can you know that?

If people want the railway to abandon what (I believe) is a widely used standard screening tool what do they propose is used instead, which will be equally effective and won’t cost any more?

I suspect the current approach taken reflects the reality of needing to be cheap and effective - excluding some people who may be able to drive is better than going the other way and risking letting people through who can’t drive safely.

Simply suggesting people are asked to look at pictures of signals on a piece of paper doesn’t sound particularly effective to me. Does that accurately replicate looking at a signal, clustered amongst many others, through torrential rain at night? The time to find out isn’t when you’re driving a train full of passengers towards it.

I do have a lot of sympathy for people with colour blindness, but what are they suggesting as an alternative to the current arrangements that will be:
1. No less effective;
2. No more expensive?

 

[mb88]

LUL and the Civil Aviation Authority use a test which I firmly believe I can pass. My gripe is that if these organisations can move with the times, why does the railway insist on using an outdated method to unfairly exclude people from a job which they are perfectly capable of carrying out safely.

 

[Bromley boy]

LUL and the Civil Aviation Authority use a test which I firmly believe I can pass. My gripe is that if these organisations can move with the times, why does the railway insist on using an outdated method to unfairly exclude people from a job which they are perfectly capable of carrying out safely.

It’s probably something you need to take up with the RSSB as I believe they are responsible for setting the medical standards for safety critical rail workers.

The below linked doc gives a good overview of the current arrangements, and also mentions an ongoing research project into colour vision deficiency detection methods.

https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/GOGN3655 Iss 2.pdf

For operational safety purposes in the rail industry, there has been no requirement to determine the degree of colour vision deficiency and a test that simply discriminates between normal and defective has been sufficient. This is because an incident could occur where incorrect colour discrimination was suggested as a possible cause and it would have been almost impossible to refute that if the employee had any degree of colour vision defect.

 

[GB]

B.2 Testing of colour vision

B.2.1 Over many years, large numbers of rail workers have been required to pass a colour vision test at the pre-employment stage and at subsequent periodic medical examinations. Fitness standards for many groups, such as train drivers, guards, signallers, crossing keepers and shunters have included normal colour vision as determined using a specific colour vision test, the Ishihara Test. In some cases, employers and occupational health providers have chosen, for particular reasons, to use alternative testing methods, for example the City University Test.
B.2.2 Many different tests are available for detecting the presence of colour vision defects and some can also give an indication of the degree of abnormality. However, different tests may not be equivalent when measuring the same aspect of colour vision. Therefore, some individuals may be able to pass one test but not another and this has important implications for interoperability and for the employee that wishes to change their employer or job.
B.2.3 For operational safety purposes in the rail industry, there has been no requirement to determine the degree of colour vision deficiency and a test that simply discriminates between normal and defective has been sufficient. This is because an incident could occur where incorrect colour discrimination was suggested as a possible cause and it would have been almost impossible to refute that if the employee had any degree of colour vision defect.
B.2.4 Colour vision tests need to be easy to administer while giving accurate and reproducible results. The Ishihara Test meets these requirements and is very sensitive for detecting red-green abnormalities.
B.2.5 Ishihara is not useful for detecting blue-yellow deficiencies but these are less likely to have operational safety implications. Where a rare or acquired defect is suspected, or specific colour dependent tasks require it, the responsible occupational physician may recommend alternative or additional tests.
B.2.6 Newer technology may permit the development of bespoke colour vision testing methods for specific occupations, based on a detailed task analysis of the colour dependent tasks associated with those occupations. This may have the advantage of permitting a wider range of individuals to meet the fitness requirements for a given occupation, despite having some degree of permitted colour vision defect. However, employees with some defect of colour vision may not be eligible for promotion or transfer into other roles with different colour vision requirements and specialist colour vision testing methods may involve additional costs.
B.2.7 RSSB research project T924 ‘Identification of a robust colour-vision testing protocol for the rail industry’ provides an objective view of colour vision testing to identify cost effective practices that will enable employers to allow all qualified employees wishing to undertake colour-vision dependent safety critical work and to do so safely.

The above is found in the medical fitness for railway safety critical workers guidance book, Hope it helps explain a few things.

 

[mb88]

Thank you, certainly very interesting reading!

I’m currently going through the recruitment process for Croydon Tramlink and hoping that, since they do not use coloured signals, I will be ok. I’ve driven trams before one Edinburgh and got through the medical despite failing Ishihara. Fingers crossed it’s the same at Croydon.

 

[Bromley boy]

Thank you, certainly very interesting reading!

I’m currently going through the recruitment process for Croydon Tramlink and hoping that, since they do not use coloured signals, I will be ok. I’ve driven trams before one Edinburgh and got through the medical despite failing Ishihara. Fingers crossed it’s the same at Croydon.

Very best of luck with the application.

 

[Clansman]

In addition to GB's post, this was the response (which was later stated in T924-01) I received from the RSSB a while ago in regards to their own view on the use of alternative methods such as CAD, which has been proven itself in the Aviation Industry as a method of greater accuracy in detecting and analysing one's Red/Green deficiency in accordance to the regulations set out by the industry - which has seen a small proportion of those failing the Ishihara being able to pass the vision aspect of their medical and receive an unrestricted commercial license. The financial implications of such methods were outlined in the response, which shows a great contrast between older and newer methods available;

Standardising on a single colour-vision screening test, the Ishihara, and ensuring that it is administered in a consistent standardised manner to ensure consistency and fairness, offers the best solution in ensuring compliance with the colour-vision requirements of the EU Directive for train drivers whilst complying with national legal duties to avoid unnecessary discrimination.

In addition to the development costs involved, at current (2013) prices, each CAD test unit costs in excess of £5,000 (depending on the display option chosen). For comparison, again at 2013 prices, an Ishihara test book costs less than £120 with the additional lighting unit required costing a further £200.

Wishing you the best of luck with the application