Train Driver Jobs: Internal or external recruitment

Stigy said:

Driving in a shed indeed is very different....I guess it should be noted though that depot driving is often more technical too and with increased likelihood of incident. 5mph or 125mph, a SPAD is a SPAD.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed.

There’s probably a lot more risk of an operational incident driving in the shed. It’s a different job - not necessarily more or less skilled than 125mph on the mainline - but very different skills are required, for sure.

Being good at one job doesn’t mean you’ll be good at the other.

At my toc ,

43066 said:

Yes indeed.

There’s probably a lot more risk of an operational incident driving in the shed. It’s a different job - not necessarily more or less skilled than 125mph on the mainline - but very different skills are required, for sure.

Being good at one job doesn’t mean you’ll be good at the other.

Click to expand...

At my toc , we don't quite get to 125 . However , we have a shed turn and it's a black ink turn for driver's , so we are both mainline and depot driver's. I very much agree with the previous posts you made . A toc is very much missing a trick to close recruitment to external applicants. To say, as one poster did , that they do it because they are fed up with training new guards is rather short sighted. If the guards make it to driving grade , then you have to replace them anyway.

43066 said:

There are a wide range of people now doing the job, many of whom will be better at it than people who joined up as box boys in the 1970s.

The fact is that T’s and C’s during the 70s and 80s were so terrible that people only joined the railway if they couldn’t do anything else. It was way before my time but I’ve been told that by enough ex BR men to know that it’s true.

Nowadays the salary and T’s and C’s for drivers compare favourably with many other industries, far more is expected of drivers, and the role has been professionalised to a large extent. That’s a good thing, in my view.



You don’t have to be superhuman to get into Oxbridge either.

I disagree that anyone of average ability can drive a train - I also don’t know a single person in the grade who would agree with that view. Plenty of people fail the selection and many of those who get a key end up making mistakes left right and centre.

Do your own job down if you wish, but don’t do mine down. I can assure you there’s plenty of skill involved in what I do, thanks very much!

Anyone who questions the skill involved in driving 125mph trains on greens has quite clearly never done it. Driving at 5mph in the shed is a fundamentally different job, and shed drivers often struggle to transition to the mainline.



Nobody has said those people shouldn’t be given a chance. All I’ve said is that that by opening up to externals from other industries a wider pool of applicants would be available. There would be nothing to stop railway people applying, along with everyone else. So long as they demonstrated that they were best candidates, they would get the job. What are they so afraid of?!

A job shouldn’t ever be given to somebody as a reward for “commitment to the industry”, whatever that means. Jobs should be given to those who can best demonstrate the skills required. That’s just the way things are in the real world - the railway shouldn’t be any different.

Click to expand...

And where exactly did these T's and C's come from? Did they just fall out of the air? No they came about because of a strong union, and a union is only as strong as it's members. The T's and C's have stayed that way because of a strong union without which the T's and C's would have been vastly diluted. Without the ex BR men and people of that character none of that would have come about. There is a reason why people from all these industries are joining the railway and not the other way around and that is because the old school culture within the railway has managed to keep a hold of decent rights and rates whereas the ''modern'' industries haven't. I am far from a BR man myself, I am way to young, but I am not so ignorant as to ignore that fact and not appreciate it. Yes there are people from the BR days who weren't so good at their job but just like the driver role lesser roles like guard are attracting a higher calibre of people as well who want to progress on to be train drivers so the pool of talent already in the railway is better than in the 1970's.

Oxbridge is world renowned as a centre of learning excellence for the elites of the world to go to. It is a paragon of excellence and talent that is why I used it to say you do not have to be quite at these levels in order to qualify as a train driver as that would limit it to a very small group of individuals and you would not be able to find enough already in the railway and would indeed have to go external. I don't think that was difficult for people to understand but obviously was for you.

I'm not doing my own job down at all. And it is a bit rich coming from you who does do down the other jobs in the railway as idiots who just hit 2 on the buzzer! I emphasised ATTITUDE as well as ability. If someone of average ability has the right attitude they can make a very good train driver and I have many colleagues who fit this bill and would agree with it. There are colleagues like you that like to make out it is some sort of black magic and highly complicated when it isn't. Of course there is a lot to it and a substantial amount of knowledge but it is not out of reach of the average person should they have the right ATTITUDE. Being a chemical engineer or a quantity surveyor is all very well and good and they will have abstract transferable skills but that has nothing to do with being able to be on your own for long periods of time day in day out going backwards and forwards without making any mistakes.

You are just further reinforcing your poor attention skills and the fact you get easily task fixated. I was using a metaphor made out of your previous pompous statement to highlight your poor attention skills. I stated I wouldn't trust you to drive at 5mph around the yard let alone 125 mph on greens thus implying the latter is indeed harder!

Jobs should be given to people for commitment to the industry as it is indicative of their attitude and as I said attitude is very important. Their commitment shows that they have the right attitude and aren't just motivated by the money. They have decided to join the railway early on in their careers and wish to progress through the railway with their career. They aren't 20 years into another career and heard from a mate that you can earn XYZ as a train driver so apply. As a previous poster said it boosts staff morale by offering these opportunities which is beneficial for the company as a workforce who just sees the top jobs reserved for externals will have rock bottom morale and just down tools or just leave causing poor staff retention rates. Commitment is not enough it is rewarding people who have committed but also prove themselves to have the skills required. The fact the top 3 TOCs in the industry take this approach as I have stated speaks volumes. There is an abundance of external trainee driver positions at the bottom rung TOCs for people to then work their way up from to XC, Avanti etc. There are examples of TOC's who get government funding to train people off the street as train drivers therefore the TOC give the vast majority of positions to externals at a cost to internals. From my experience internals do not compete with externals there is a set number of vacancies for each category and they then compete amongst themselves i.e internals v internals. Therefore they are not in direct competition. Obv people applying from outside TOCs in this example would be external.

Paddy67 said:

And where exactly did these T's and C's come from? Did they just fall out of the air? No they came about because of a strong union, and a union is only as strong as it's members. The T's and C's have stayed that way because of a strong union without which the T's and C's would have been vastly diluted. Without the ex BR men and people of that character none of that would have come about. There is a reason why people from all these industries are joining the railway and not the other way around and that is because the old school culture within the railway has managed to keep a hold of decent rights and rates whereas the ''modern'' industries haven't. I am far from a BR man myself, I am way to young, but I am not so ignorant as to ignore that fact and not appreciate it. Yes there are people from the BR days wh

Click to expand...

None of the above has anything to do with the industry opening up to external applicants. All the externals I know have joined ASLEF.

As I said before, I’d far rather work with colleagues from a range of backgrounds than institutionalised railway people. They’re the ones who moan the most and spoil the job for everyone else, in my experience.

Which is ironic because, for all their bitching in the messroom, a lot of these people would be completely unemployable outside the railway, let alone able to do jobs which pay the equivalent of drivers’ wages.

Paddy67 said:

Oxbridge is world renowned as a centre of learning excellence for the elites of the world to go to. It is a paragon of excellence and talent that is why I used it to say you do not have to be quite at these levels in order to qualify as a train driver as that would limit it to a very small group of individuals and you would not be able to find enough already in the railway and would indeed have to go external. I don't think that was difficult for people to understand but obviously was for you.

Click to expand...

I’ve worked with many, many Oxbridge grads over the years. Some are a lot brighter than others, I can assure you.

It was you that waxed lyrical about having a degree earlier in the thread. I’m still not quite sure why. Having a degree makes zero difference to anyone’s ability to drive trains. On the other hand I can guarantee there will be Oxbridge grads out there who would be unable to do the job.

Transferable skills from working in other fields, or hobbies, may well make external candidates better suited for the driver role. It is blinkered of XC to ignore this.

Paddy67 said:

You are just further reinforcing your poor attention skills and the fact you get easily task fixated. I was using a metaphor made out of your previous pompous statement to highlight your poor attention skills. I stated I wouldn't trust you to drive at 5mph around the yard let alone 125 mph on greens thus implying the latter is indeed harder!

Click to expand...

You presume to know a great deal about me. Well luckily the people who pay my wages do trust me - and their opinion is rather more important than yours.

You’d better make sure you never get onto my train if you’re so concerned about my attention skills - do you want me to send you my roster so that you know when I’m working?

Paddy67 said:

Jobs should be given to people for commitment to the industry as it is indicative of their attitude and as I said attitude is very important. Their commitment shows that they have the right attitude and aren't just motivated by the money.

Click to expand...

Attitude is no substitute for ability. Just because somebody wants to do a job doesn’t mean they’ll be any good at it. There are plenty of “railway people” in non driving roles who have pound signs in their eyes and are obsessed with drivers’ wages.

Someone’s motivations for doing the job also don’t matter, if they have the ability to do it. I’m motivated by money to some extent - I wouldn’t be doing this job for £25k that’s for sure - but I’m also motivated by work life balance. If I’d just wanted to earn a lot of money I would have stayed in my previous career.

I met up with a mate from my previous industry the other day - he earned just under £200k last year - if he makes partner he’ll be earning £600k+. The hundred hour weeks he works, and the stress, wouldn’t be worth it for me.

Paddy67 said:

As a previous poster said it boosts staff morale by offering these opportunities which is beneficial for the company as a workforce who just sees the top jobs reserved for externals will have rock bottom morale and just down tools or just leave causing poor staff retention rates. Commitment is not enough it is rewarding people who have committed but also prove themselves to have the skills required. The fact the top 3 TOCs in the industry take this approach as I have stated speaks volumes.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

There should be no expectation that joining the railway as a guard (or anything else) leads to “promotion” to a driver. It is simply a seperate job, with a different line of promotion.

I have never said guards are idiots, or that being a guard is somehow a “lesser” job - indeed you are the only person posting on this thread who has said that:

Paddy67 said:

but just like the driver role lesser roles like guard are attracting a higher calibre of people

Click to expand...

43066 said:

None of the above has anything to do with the industry opening up to external applicants. All the externals I know have joined ASLEF.

As I said before, I’d far rather work with colleagues from a range of backgrounds than institutionalised railway people. They’re the ones who moan the most and spoil the job for everyone else, in my experience.

Which is ironic because, for all their bitching in the messroom, a lot of these people would be completely unemployable outside the railway, let alone able to do jobs which pay the equivalent of drivers’ wages.



I’ve worked with many, many Oxbridge grads over the years. Some are a lot brighter than others, I can assure you.

It was you that waxed lyrical about having a degree earlier in the thread. I’m still not quite sure why. Having a degree makes zero difference to anyone’s ability to drive trains. On the other hand I can guarantee there will be Oxbridge grads out there who would be unable to do the job.

Transferable skills from working in other fields, or hobbies, may well make external candidates better suited for the driver role. It is blinkered of XC to ignore this.



You presume to know a great deal about me. Well luckily the people who pay my wages do trust me - and their opinion is rather more important than yours.

You’d better make sure you never get onto my train if you’re so concerned about my attention skills - do you want me to send you my roster so that you know when I’m working?



Attitude is no substitute for ability. Just because somebody wants to do a job doesn’t mean they’ll be any good at it. There are plenty of “railway people” in non driving roles who have pound signs in their eyes and are obsessed with drivers’ wages.

Someone’s motivations for doing the job also don’t matter, if they have the ability to do it. I’m motivated by money to some extent - I wouldn’t be doing this job for £25k that’s for sure - but I’m also motivated by work life balance. If I’d just wanted to earn a lot of money I would have stayed in my previous career.

I met up with a mate from my previous industry the other day - he earned just under £200k last year - if he makes partner he’ll be earning £600k+. The hundred hour weeks he works, and the stress, wouldn’t be worth it for me.



I disagree.

There should be no expectation that joining the railway as a guard (or anything else) leads to “promotion” to a driver. It is simply a seperate job, with a different line of promotion.

I have never said guards are idiots, or that being a guard is somehow a “lesser” job - indeed you are the only person commenting in this thread who has said that:

Click to expand...

None of what you have said has anything to do with my previous statement about ''BR Dinosaurs'' as you put it in previous posts. My point is merely you bad mouth ''Br Dinosaurs'' and their moaning when it is because of them and their attitude you have the T's and C's that allow you to do the job you have. A bit of respect for this wouldn't go a miss! After all if "BR dinosaurs were as useless as you make out they wouldn't have lasted the last 40 years in the job far longer than you have so they are obviously doing something right. Nobody was born in the railway everyone was an external after all. Trainee drivers that join moan plenty as well usually about stupid things like how they aren't getting to go on their holiday during training exactly when they want as if it is some great hardship just after beating 1000 people who applied for that job. Most externals are fine just like most BR dinosaurs but there are a good few who have that cocksure trait for sure.

I merely stated that I had a degree as an example of how there are already people in the railway with a high level of skills and qualifications. A degree is definitely an example of how somebody can learn and retain new information to a high standard which is important during training as a train driver.

As I said commitment isn't solely the reason to give someone a job but again it adds to qualities an employer is going to view as favourable just like a degree. You are building up a list of desirable traits for an employer after all why wouldn't an employer want to employ someone who was committed?

All I knew about you was you drove at 125 mph on greens and didn't pay attention enough to my previous post therefore missing the context of what I had said. Talking of context you have cut out the bit I said on top of attitude ''Commitment is not enough it is rewarding people who have committed but also prove themselves to have the skills required''.

What exactly is a Guards line of promotion if not being a Train Driver??? The vast majority of internals I know across all TOC's were guards before they were Drivers. It is seen as a natural progression as you have already got at least a third of the rules, all of the route knowledge apart from obviously braking points etc, a bit of traction knowledge and fault finding etc etc etc. As I also said previously managers tell people in their feedback to get a guards job to help them gain experience and gain a driving job in the future. Yes the guards role is a lesser role it requires less training and is paid less money nothing controversial about that statement. That is why Driver is seen as a progression as it is a higher role to attain. Just being a guard isn't good enough you have to show yourself to be the best suited amongst your peers to become a Train Driver. So it is not about just joining as a guard and automatically becoming a driver.

Finally I have never said I want everyone who wants to be a Train Driver to first join as a shunter guard etc. I just think it is obvious that in this case XC will have more than enough talent to choose from within the railway nationally to fill 14 positions. As a previous poster said this is XCs first time training people from scratch so people who already are familiar with railway rules training etc are going to be easier to train in general not always but in general. This was the case on my training course which was a mix of internal and external. So having railway experience is a valuable trait as opposed to somebody that doesn't. After all it is in common parlance for job adverts in any industry to state previous experience is desirable. It is no guarantee but nothing is a guarantee after all. I also know TOC's like to employ people in other roles first to asses their attitude and if they fit in which is a very important quality and also what their sickness record is like before they entrust them with such a valuable job.

Paddy67 said:

What exactly is a Guards line of promotion if not being a Train Driver???.

Click to expand...

Guards’ Manager.

You can’t have your cake and eat it. You called the Guard role a ‘lesser’ role in one breath, and in another accuse somebody else of putting them down?

Train Driver is a different role, not a line of promotion. Yes the money is better and there’s different responsibilities, but by saying driver is a form of promotion you’re suggesting it’s a higher grade of work and has seniority over that of a Guard. That’s not the case. A Driver isn’t a supervisory role to any other grade.

Wowza.. what a thread. Escalated badly! Some opinions flying about! I think a deep breath is in order, and relax.. Have a beer (as long as you are not working in the near future) and get your feet up.

43066 said:

I have simply said if XC are looking for the best possible candidates for the role, it seems blinkered to limit the pool to to railway employees.

Your chances of getting the best applicants out of the 20,000 or so applicants is pretty slim, you have to start narrowing down somewhere, and you might as well start by picking people who you know can cope with shifts, have decent attendance records etc.






A key shouldn’t be a reward for doing lesser jobs, it should be given to those who are best capable of doing the job.

Click to expand...

Many equally qualified to do it. Best looking on paper are almost certainly not actually the best.

43066 said:

I’ve explained time and again why I believe XC’s approach is wrong. Here I go again!

If they’re looking to appoint the best candidates for the job, they’re missing a trick by only looking within the industry.

I joined the railway industry, along with many others, directly as a trainee driver. We have all performed the role to a high standard. In my years of doing the job I’ve seen some truly shocking “internal” candidates enter the grade, perform terribly, and be swiftly removed from it.



I’ve been informed by managers and trainers that they actively prefer external candidates for the driving grade because they aren’t institutionalised, they’re a “blank canvas” and they frequently go on to perform better in the role.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some internal candidates who would make excellent drivers.



My point is simply this: if you want the best candidates for a job, you should pitch the vacancy to the widest possible audience. That’s where XC have gone wrong, by restricting the audience to those working within the industry.

Click to expand...

I am sure you have seen shocking internal candidates, but never external ones, I have seen both and for recruitment to get it very wrong with internal and 100%right with external would be remarkable

Basically what I am saying is that if you can get suitable staff from inside your company why look elsewhere.

philthetube said:

Basically what I am saying is that if you can get suitable staff from inside your company why look elsewhere.

Click to expand...

Said company still has to think about their establishment in all areas. If you recruit all internal candidates from the Guard role, you then have to find x number of new Guards. Whatever happens, they’ll more than likely have to go external at some point.

Looking at the very worst drivers at my place (and over the years theres been a few), I can think of one or two ex platform staff and guards who have been pretty terrible and countless externals who have been worse. But I guess that as the majority of trainee drivers seem to come from outside it would stand to reason that most of the worst ones are externals.

I can think of a few who have been absolutely shocking... funnily enough nobody ever seems to pull up the people who keep giving them the jobs and passing them out.

I think what my experience tells me is that the selection process is like a sieve and that plenty of bad trainees get through. Accidents waiting to happen. Get the right people and I dont think it matters where they came from before.

Cross Country tend not to recruit trainees so I wonder why they are suddenly doing it now. Their pay is good and most of their depots are at the same locations or near other TOC depots so it does make me wonder why they seem unable to fill the roles with qualifieds any more. Makes me think that maybe all is not well there.

SlimJim1694 said:

funnily enough nobody ever seems to pull up the people who keep giving them the jobs and passing them out.

Click to expand...

Nail, head.

Indeed I know of a trainee who trained for 22 months and was dismissed after just four weeks qualified