2 more goes at driver assesment

[paulgreen32]

Hi everyone.

Just reading that from september the assesments are changing and that previous fails before septemer do not count. As i have one fail on my record i hope this means i have 2 lifelines. Any thoughts on this

Paul

 

[Dave1987]

Hi everyone.

Just reading that from september the assesments are changing and that previous fails before septemer do not count. As i have one fail on my record i hope this means i have 2 lifelines. Any thoughts on this

Paul

Sounds like the tests are getting harder though. There was a thread a while back that discussed this in detail.

 

[daddy_badger]

is this confirmed then cos its been said before the tests were changing in the autumn but nothing certain.

 

[Dave1987]

is this confirmed then cos its been said before the tests were changing in the autumn but nothing certain.

I don't know, September is the time being floated around and that would coincide with the autumn time frame.

 

[paulgreen32]

I don't know, September is the time being floated around and that would coincide with the autumn time frame.

Just read it in an rssb article that i requested. Still a 6 month wait between assesments but tge slate is wiped clean.

 

[Dave1987]

Just read it in an rssb article that i requested. Still a 6 month wait between assesments but tge slate is wiped clean.

Are they keeping the two attempts rule?

 

[Wall88]

Hopefully they get rid of mechanical comprehension.

 

[paulgreen32]

Hopefully they get rid of mechanical comprehension.

Yep thats gone but tbf i dont think it was in the last criteria the tests are different except tge group bourdon is still there to a degree. Still 2 chances to have a stab and looks like no cbi !

 

[Wall88]

Yep thats gone but tbf i dont think it was in the last criteria the tests are different except tge group bourdon is still there to a degree. Still 2 chances to have a stab and looks like no cbi !

Im glad its gone, i failed it for northern a few months ago and only the only test i struggled on. Will wait and see what the new ones consist off

 

[Captain Chaos]

Yep thats gone but tbf i dont think it was in the last criteria the tests are different except tge group bourdon is still there to a degree. Still 2 chances to have a stab and looks like no cbi !

CBI = Structured Interview?

I'll be both pleased and dissapointed in a way if it has gone. Pleased because it's what I failed on (my other marks were good or very good and got failed on one point on interview, so a bit gutted), but I think it does serve some purpose in a way. Don't know how I feel about that really if it's true

 

[Dave1987]

Yep thats gone but tbf i dont think it was in the last criteria the tests are different except tge group bourdon is still there to a degree. Still 2 chances to have a stab and looks like no cbi !

Are you sure no CBI?

 

[bystander]

Given that the current tests don't seem to do all that badly at assessing inherent aptitude (although I do wonder how some get through and so do the managers after they've made a hash up or proved too arrogant to be safe), if you've failed the existing assessments twice already I wouldn't go salivating at the prospect of two more attempts unless you've had a brain / personality transplant in the meantime

 

[Geargrinder]

Given that the current tests don't seem to do all that badly at assessing inherent aptitude (although I do wonder how some get through and so do the managers after they've made a hash up or proved too arrogant to be safe), if you've failed the existing assessments twice already I wouldn't go salivating at the prospect of two more attempts unless you've had a brain / personality transplant in the meantime

I agree. Even if they wipe the slate totally clean the new tests will still be examining the same skills and abilities.
The fact is at the moment you can practise the current tests, and know well in advance with minimal research, exactly what to expect at every stage. If you have the necessary skills and personality they are testing for then you will pass whatever the tests are. If you've already failed twice the reality is you probably aren't suitable for that role however much you may want it.
Are the train companies really going to put people who have failed the industry standard test twice through the new test ? Apart from the cost, if they do that and someone who gets through causes a major crash, the press would have a field day....

 

[Captain Chaos]

I agree. Even if they wipe the slate totally clean the new tests will still be examining the same skills and abilities.
The fact is at the moment you can practise the current tests, and know well in advance with minimal research, exactly what to expect at every stage. If you have the necessary skills and personality they are testing for then you will pass whatever the tests are. If you've already failed twice the reality is you probably aren't suitable for that role however much you may want it.
Are the train companies really going to put people who have failed the industry standard test twice through the new test ? Apart from the cost, if they do that and someone who gets through causes a major crash, the press would have a field day....

I failed because an example question that I chose for my CBI/Structured Interview wasn't strong enough. My original fail was my own fault for failing to prepare properly. Does this mean that I am unsuitable for the role despite passing all the other tests well because at the time I didn't have a suitable example? Because I have plenty of them now!

 

[455driver]

(although I do wonder how some get through and so do the managers after they've made a hash up or proved too arrogant to be safe),

Because they have practiced the on-line cheats to death, the whole point of the tests is to see if you can quickly grasp the concepts of what is being asked of you and learn quickly, the fact that people have learned how to do it all beforehand has rendered the tests useless because what they should learn in 5 minutes has taken them a fortnight so when they actually start training they cannot keep up with everyone else (just look how many people are struggling to assimilate all the rules stuff in the required timeframe).

 

[Geargrinder]

I failed because an example question that I chose for my CBI/Structured Interview wasn't strong enough. My original fail was my own fault for failing to prepare properly. Does this mean that I am unsuitable for the role despite passing all the other tests well because at the time I didn't have a suitable example? Because I have plenty of them now!

That's not more for me to judge, but on your second go you knew what was coming and had at least 6 months to prepare for it. As 455 driver says people are practising for the tests - passing - then apparently not being up to scratch for the reality.

 

[bystander]

Yep totally agree with both of you 455 and geargrinder. Hopefully at least some of the new tests will remain fluid and broad enough to actually test innate ability. From what I've seen of them that could be the case (some look not dissimilar to the online examples given for the Security Service entry process and what was up on the Met recruitment site for much of the 2000s)

 

[Dave1987]

I think one problem is the fact that some people no matter how much they want to be a driver do not have the skills to be one. So people practice the material available online to death. I know when I did mine I had the attitude that if I get through I get through, if i don't I don't. The thing is people will be found out when they start learning the rules if they are not up to it. Having to take in that much info very very quickly is not easy. The drop out rate has obviously increased which probably why they are changing the tests. There seems no other logical explanation for it.

 

[paulgreen32]

That's not more for me to judge, but on your second go you knew what was coming and had at least 6 months to prepare for it. As 455 driver says people are practising for the tests - passing - then apparently not being up to scratch for the reality.

Yeah i agree when u are dealing with set tests to judge actual characteristics they can be used to make you look better that you should have been, but my only concern is when you have somebody forming a judgement of you during the cbi, then the test is only as good as the adimistrator who performs them, plus should people realy be denied the chance to progress to the next stage if there examples didnt match a set criteria which favoures pilots, guards, army or paramedics ?

or do i hold a unbalanced view ?

 

[Geargrinder]

I don't even do the job (yet!) but I can see that the tests aren't about actually driving - its about what you can and can't do, when you can do it, remembering it all whilst under pressure, and being able to go from nothing happening to dealing with a full on emergency - which could be on your first solo journey or in 20 years time, or never.
I drive HGV tankers and my granny could sit at 56mph on the A1 with the cruise control on, and could probably even learn to reverse, use the gearbox etc its what happens when the wheel comes off, and being alert to danger to prevent incidents which is what the moneys paid for.

 

[Quickthorn]

should people realy be denied the chance to progress to the next stage if there examples didnt match a set criteria which favoures pilots, guards, army or paramedics ?

If those are the criteria they think will make a good train driver, then yes.

 

[bystander]

should people realy be denied the chance to progress to the next stage if there examples didnt match a set criteria which favoures pilots, guards, army or paramedics ?

or do i hold a unbalanced view ?

Christ. The criteria favour the sort of person who is also good at those jobs, and additionally, by being in jobs like that, a candidate has proved, often, that they are able to deal with the requirements of the driving role. Note "are able", not "like to think they would be able". Of course people should be denied the chance to progress if they don't meet personality or experience criteria that are not only not very uncommon, but also are easily measured. Otherwise why not let anyone through who thinks they could do the job?

Wheat, chaff etc.

 

[Geargrinder]

plus should people realy be denied the chance to progress to the next stage if there examples didnt match a set criteria which favoures pilots, guards, army or paramedics ?

or do i hold a unbalanced view ?

If you think you're up against unfair competition for jobs now, (when there are relatively few from the professions you quote going for train driver jobs), have a look at what the current government is doing to Public Service pay, conditions & pensions. There will be people bailing out of the forces, police, ambulance, teaching etc like there is no tomorrow

 

[Latecomer]

The assessments provide a benchmark and it is a reasonable enough means of sifting. I don't however agree that someone who had a borderline fail might not necessarily have made a good train driver. There are loads of factors involved. I wasn't brought up in the computer game generation so I only obtained a borderline pass on the reactions test (probably pausing too long when I needed to restart rather than hit the wrong buttons). Does that make much difference now I'm in the job? No.

There are quite a few people who get through the tests who by reason of attitude (arrogance?) and lifestyle are screwing up as drivers. I dare say that there are some who got borderline fails who would have made much better drivers. I do see the point of the tests but they are by no means the be-all and end-all of becoming a good driver.

By the way my previous career was a long way removed from those perceived as giving people the edge when it comes to applying to be a train driver. It seems to be the arrogant ones who think they are better than everyone else who suffer the biggest falls when the job starts for real.

 

[paulgreen32]

I think my point is the system is there to find people with a certain skills set, and works well to do that.
I think it works well because its set tests in a very structured environment with a outcome that can be quantified against a benchmark without bias. The system which is in place now requires somebody to take notes and later mark their notes on what they recorded and then judge you, there is room for error in this system.

I do agree with the point that everyone thinks they can be a driver and that when they fail a test its the tests fault. But 99% of the drivers i talk to think they would fail the assesment process if they had to take it now.

 

[JCLeeds]

I failed because an example question that I chose for my CBI/Structured Interview wasn't strong enough. My original fail was my own fault for failing to prepare properly. Does this mean that I am unsuitable for the role despite passing all the other tests well because at the time I didn't have a suitable example? Because I have plenty of them now!

Do you mind telling us what the question and answer were that failed? I'm cramming like crazy for the CBI at the minute, am worried about some of my examples, not sure if they are adequate?

 

[rob12]

This is an interesting one I agree with York's to a certain extent however, I have run my own business here and abroad in a non English speaking country employing many people over a 17 yr period, The pressure I have been under at times being solely responsible for everything many people just cannot cope with some people's idea of stress and pressure honestly pails into insignificance, the financial pressure, the amount of work and the many plates you have to keep in the air all at one time I think stands me in good stead for being a train driver but I failed the DFF (personal problem might have added to this) I should never of taken it at the time but I failed and I am now waiting for results from my second go, I consider my self to be intelligent, sharp, responsible, and can cope with almost anything that comes my way but I am dyslexic (this doesn't mean I thick) But do I think I could drive a train safely efficiently and remember everything I need too... absolutely. I don't think the current tests are the greatest way of finding the best candidates which has been stated when some who past the tests prove to be poor students and drivers, some people are just great at academia and taking tests but are craap in real world scenarios however I understand the need for the tests

 

[Dave1987]

The problem is is when people practice the tests like mad they negate the point of the tests so poor candidates do get through the selection process. I think if no one pre trained themselves then the tests would serve their purpose and only the best candidates would get through. With competition for trainee vacancies so high that will never happen. The result the test need to change and by the looks of it change for the harder.

 

[GB]

Perhaps if there wasnt a two strikes rule candidates wouldn't feel the need to practice as much as they do?

Personally I don't think practising is a big deal and if the testing centres thought it was they wouldn't send out practice material two weeks beforehand and advise you not to sit the tests if you have not received them.

 

[455driver]

Perhaps if there wasnt a two strikes rule candidates wouldn't feel the need to practice as much as they do?

Personally I don't think practising is a big deal and if the testing centres thought it was they wouldn't send out practice material two weeks beforehand and advise you not to sit the tests if you have not received them.

People would still practise for months though, if you cant "get it" in 2 weeks then you wont keep up in the class room, its as simple as that.