And occasional detraining as well.The common, basic part of a driver‘s training is education, in the same way that the basics of medicine, law, acccountancy and engineering are an education. The training comes later, on the job.
And occasional detraining as well.The common, basic part of a driver‘s training is education, in the same way that the basics of medicine, law, acccountancy and engineering are an education. The training comes later, on the job.
And occasional detraining as well.
Do we know why not?Ultimately I think it's going to have to be "hope ETCS arrives on time and rollout can continue", and perhaps attempting to standardise working practice across the entire system to make training somewhat easier.
But ultimately not enough people want to do jobs like long distance driving any more, and we have to adapt to that reality.
You can have other training colleges than universities, such as business schools. HE colleges offer public services courses for people looking at joining the police, etc as well as numerous other foundation courses for careers where people's A levels may not necessarily align. Higher Education isn't purely academic research.Your examples are all professions where practising depends on a large body of very specialised knowledge which is crammed in as a foundation, and without which you cannot get further.
I don't know of any degree course which is relevant to being a driver, and with the financial pressures these days I am sure there are lots of people who would make very good drivers who don't go to university.
This answer depends quite a lot on what you studied, what else you did at University, and what you ended up working as. I studied History and got involved with running a society, and ended up planning timetables (both active and future) for NR. The job didn't need a degree, but I found my research and presentation skills being regularly put to use. Also getting some exposure to management at the age of 20 was something that came back around towards the end of my time at NR.I had just this argument with a very old friend's (new) wife who asked me "Did I think university had trained me well for my job?" My answer was "Of course not!" which offended the Mail-reading numbskull.
The forum did not separate your comments so I will reply in order.The whole "poaching" argument is a little unfair on the TOCs. Should people be free to apply wherever they choose in a free market ? We have people who apply, knowing they will leave within a few years. They are literally there for a key.
I do support the idea of a Training School but what would it look like ? Would they sift all the applications, arrange psychometric testing, and arrange the medical ? Who takes the hit on those costs ? Once you answer those questions you need to move to the next stage in the process. Rules. Will this Training School be there to specifically train Rules only ? Then what happens ?
So do you envisage this Training School to then hold the Trainees to ransom once they have passed ? If this school passes out fully fledged Trainees are they then fully contracted to the school or free to graduate and then leave ? This step in your process certainly needs clarification.
The TOC also has to deal with practical handling hours and any bespoke rules and policies applicable for the TOC. Who will carry out the interviews for the job ? Just because there is a fully fledged, rules trained Trainee, they still need a depot to go to and pass a job interview for the TOC or will the Trainees already be employed by the TOC before they start their training ?
Absolutely no. Any employee looking to move on from their TOC should be free to do so. If there was a 'Transfer fee' then their will certainly be TOCs who will never pay or see exorbitant fees. Even from an employee perspective. This is bad as you are then reliant on the new TOC agreeing to "buy" you.
In principle, I'd support schools but there are more questions than answers at the moment as to how it would work.
I'm aware that some TOCs use a "Driver Advisory System" (DAS) which shows an advisory target speed and power/brake position based on various factors like current speed limit, next speed restriction, incline, current signal block state, next signal state, etc.
To me it would make sense to just integrate this into the train and just have the driver supervise it? For mainline running anyway. For precise positioning around platforms and such the driver could still retain full control.
The whole "poaching" argument is a little unfair on the TOCs. Should people be free to apply wherever they choose in a free market ?
Ah, apologies then, I thought it was far more advanced than that.Sorry, but DAS does almost none of those things.
All it does it advises the most efficient speed (not target speed) to drive in order to get to the next timing point. It takes no account of gradients, signal aspects, speed restrictions or other train movements. It is frequently wrong and gives incorrect information requiring the driver to exercise judgment on whether or not to simply ignore it (not being able to discern between fast and slow lines, even where a service is booked to use one or other, for example). It automatically suppresses itself if it predicts a delay greater than three minutes and is frequently broken.
It is no more than a moving timetable, and a tool at that.
Ah, apologies then, I thought it was far more advanced than that.
From the cost perspective, part of the reason why some TOCs are offering trainee driver positions as "apprenticeships" is to claim back a portion of the cost from the Government.
As they should. TOC's pay into the scheme, and provide valuable training, so it seems only fair that they should have a claim on the apprentichip money. The training doesn't really fit an apprenticeship very well and has to be fudged a bit, with things like access databases and female genital mutilation being highly unlikely to ever be relevant, but on the whole, TOC's being rewarded for more training is mostly positive.
The forum did not separate your comments so I will reply in order.
The training school could take things as far as is practically possible, you probably know how far this is this better than I do.
Money-go-roundThe toc's could then pay for trainees as needed.
They would not Be held to ransom, they could leave the industry, or they graduate and if they go on to be train drivers the toc pays for them, possibly using golden handcuffs for a period,
It did and it's an interesting discussion. Especially as the industry has tried it and is currently in a position where it's open to ideas like this.I don't claim to have all the answers. I posted to generate discussion and that worked.
They would, whoever does the initial interviews should ensure that trainees are suitable people
, if unsuitable people were trained then toc's would not employ them and the school would not be paid.
Toc's may decide to take a driver from another. If the transfer is made within a certain time they would pay the training fee to the initial toc, this should not affect the driver as they would have to pay the school anyway, after a suitable time period this could be waived.