And occasional detraining as well.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Resolving driver number problems
- Thread starter philthetube
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 16,701
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.
But ultimately not enough people want to do jobs like long distance driving any more, and we have to adapt to that reality.
Do we know why not?
Perhaps:-
Dont want long shifts. want to get home at tea time, not 23:00?
Or have a social life - not having to worry about a few pints and getting up at 5am still over the limit?
Better wages in warehouses? (Thats true for bus drivers)
Dont want public interaction?
Poor conditions, relationship with employer?
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.
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.
philthetube
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2016
- Messages
- 3,757
The forum did not separate your comments so I will reply in order.
I don't think I am being unfair on the toc's The ones who train have lower staff costs and can therefore afford to pay higher wages, I don't know figures but it must cost above £250.000 to fully train a driver based on " peoples salaries for two years, plus other expenses.
The training school could take things as far as is practically possible, you probably know how far this is this better than I do. The 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, "I think that is the correct phrase).
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.
O L Leigh
Established Member
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.
Completely agree with this.
Vacancies for qualified drivers are freely posted and open to all who meet the criteria, as is the case for many other positions in many other industries. "Poaching" would be if Company A deliberately targeted the drivers at Company B. That both companies are based in the same location resulting in a lot of Company A's intake coming from Company B is simply down to Company A being a more attractive option than Company B. It's just a quirk of location and convenience and not evidence of deliberate "poaching".
Last edited:
New Drivers for most TOC's already pay for their training by way of taking a reduced salary for the first 3 years of employment, including continuing to receive a reduced salary once fully productive.
In total, my pay was reduced by over 50k across my first three years, which is effectively the cost I have paid towards training. Once trained I was driving the same services, with the same responsibility as other drivers whilst earning less, but understood that was due to the cost of my training.
You could change the system to pay some of this cost upfront for the classroom learning, but that is only for 4 months before you need to move onto TOC specific learning, and the companies would loose their ability to claim 20k plus per trainee from the apprenticeship levy as it requires a proportion of off the job training to claim. It therefore makes sense for the companies to continue to deliver training themselves.
There are some TOC's that still move Drivers onto full pay in year 1, and these could make savings by adopting a multi year salary reduction model, but they account for a minority of new drivers across the industry.
In total, my pay was reduced by over 50k across my first three years, which is effectively the cost I have paid towards training. Once trained I was driving the same services, with the same responsibility as other drivers whilst earning less, but understood that was due to the cost of my training.
You could change the system to pay some of this cost upfront for the classroom learning, but that is only for 4 months before you need to move onto TOC specific learning, and the companies would loose their ability to claim 20k plus per trainee from the apprenticeship levy as it requires a proportion of off the job training to claim. It therefore makes sense for the companies to continue to deliver training themselves.
There are some TOC's that still move Drivers onto full pay in year 1, and these could make savings by adopting a multi year salary reduction model, but they account for a minority of new drivers across the industry.
O L Leigh
Established Member
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.
computerSaysNo
Member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 1,157
Ah, apologies then, I thought it was far more advanced than that.
O L Leigh
Established Member
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 apprenticeship 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.
Last edited:
O L Leigh
Established Member
Yes of course. I offered the details simply as information for those who may not be aware, and without any criticism attached.
Cheers for the reply, the forum has separated yours but I will probably reply on a haphazard way as my brain fills in the information as it processes it
I think the most you could ask from a Training School is PTS/Rules. Those are classroom based and you could easily outsource that. I'm not sure that it would resolve any issues and may actually cause more. What may happen is that you start to flood the market.
Money-go-round
Money-go-round
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.
This is where your entire idea falls down. The TOC doing an interview is because they have a potential employee. A TOC paying money to carry out an interview for suitability purposes for someone who could walk away to another TOC; just isn't going to happen. Also your potentially asking a TOC to accept a candidate who was interviewed by a different TOC.
Getting TOCs to pay for anything will be a gamebreaker.
This is something where the Training School needs to be better defined. Are they there purely to take on candidates and rules train them ?
Money-go-round
HUGE money-go-round
I think the money-go-round is too complicated. The first question needs to be "who pays". If you just have the school open for all, do the psychometrics, PTS, and rules. Then you could indeed charge the candidate. That resolves most of the money go round. TOCs will be happy as they have reduced costs and the school will be happy because they have their costs covered with course fees. There isn't a need to charge a TOC anything and your candidates can go into the open market. This would be a win/win.
If there was some form of TOC sponsorship or fee then you will need those golden handcuffs. What will happen is that you would get candidates getting the sucker TOC to pay, then still leave for the higher paying TOC who "poach"
I think there are a lot of people who fail the recruitment process and blame the TOC, as well as those who believe they would make a decent Driver if they were given the chance. I think that there is a market for those who would pay their way. I don't believe the industry should go that direction but I do support it as an option. You could even do rules as an online course. I don't see any issue with that either.
- Status