Latest on colour blindness testing

[PupCuff]

The Ishihara test is not conducted by a Doctor/physician. Mine were all done by the nurse doing my medicals.

It can be. I don't know the threshold on who is allowed to do railway medicals and who isn't, but the couple I've had have both been done by a doctor rather than a nurse (though I've heard of instances of nurses conducting them too).

 

[ComUtoR]

2) there is a recognition of alternative tests but no mention of when they'd be used or why.

The reasons have been mentioned.

a) Choice. The standards clearly state that all the TOC needs to do is test for colour vision. They may use ANY test they wish. B.2.1 clearly states that some have chosen to use the City Test. For the most part the choice to use one test over the others is down to cost. The other reasons for choosing the Ishihara have also been clearly highlighted. Nothing is preventing them from using a different test. They are making a choice to use the Ishihara.

b) Further investigation needed. Again quite clearly highlighted in the standards document. B.2.5 states that if a defect is suspected; additional test can be used. B.2.5 also highlights that the Ishihara isn't usefull for Blue-yellow so again; an alternative test can be used.

c) Flexibility. B.2.6 allows a TOC to allow for changes in technology and to allow flexibility in the workforce. A TOC could use the City test for all employees at the medical stage but for Driver specific they need to pass the Ishihara.

D) Life events. Unfortunatly life happens to everyone. Different rules exist for those who are already employed and qualified. If a Driver had an accident and lost their colour vision then having to sit the Ishihara may be consider to be unfair. What does happen in all circumstances. The employee undergoes further investigation. B.1.4 allows the use of additional testing and 'specialist assessment'

E) One I'm going to chuck in myslef, which is blindingly obvious. Dispute. If there was a dispute with the result or the way in which it was carried out, I have no doubt that the test will be retaken with a different practitioner and also that further testing would also take place if there was further dispute.

Somewhere there will be a guide for physicians who administer these tests, the one for aviators is available online and it's basically a flow chart of options should someone fail any test. It means no one physician can deviate from the standards and thus it is kept fair and consistent across the board. It is clear cut on it who gets what result.

In the same document I linked there are 2 sets of guidleines.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ms7.pdf

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/WEB03.pdf

I really really hope that help. :/

 

[Llanigraham]

It can be. I don't know the threshold on who is allowed to do railway medicals and who isn't, but the couple I've had have both been done by a doctor rather than a nurse (though I've heard of instances of nurses conducting them too).

My pre-employment medical was done by a nurse at a BUPA centre.
My annual medicals were done by BUPA nurses.
The only medicals done by a Doctor were after my operation to assess my "fitness to return" and one subsequently prior to my "medical dismissal". During the "fitness to return" one of those the Ishihara test and the hearing tests were done by nurses, although overseen by the Dr, at BUPA. The medical dismissal medical was done by the company that replaced BUPA.

 

[Stigy]

It can be. I don't know the threshold on who is allowed to do railway medicals and who isn't, but the couple I've had have both been done by a doctor rather than a nurse (though I've heard of instances of nurses conducting them too).

All the medicals I’ve had have been conducted by nurses, with a doctor present (not necessarily throughout) to undertake a consultation on medication/general fitness etc. I don’t think it matters really, as long as it’s someone who’s trained to do what they do and can at lease loosely read an ECG. I suppose it doesn’t have to be a nurse really either, just someone trained to a set standard. Anyone can carry out the level of eye test the railway undertake, and the most in-depth it gets is the ECG (a HCA or member of occ health could suffice).

 

[PupCuff]

All the medicals I’ve had have been conducted by nurses, with a doctor on hand to delve more deeply in to the medical side of things. I don’t think it matters really, as long as it’s someone who’s trained to do what they do and can at lease loosely read an ECG.

Aye, it could well be down simply to how many doctors vs nurses they have/are on shift at the relevant clinic. I agree it probably isn't material to the topic of the thread.

 

[Av80r]

Some people seem to be almost taking it to heart that there are people who work on solid facts, as opposed to anecdotal evidence, which is the only point I've made here... anecdotal evidence seems to be overruling potentially empirical evidence supporting the OP's case in that s/he may be able to seek alternative testing to prove his colour vision isn't defective.

Make no mistake this is fact. Regardless of what other industry practises are or what it says regarding re-testing, if you fail you fail.

We've been here already, just because you say so doesn't mean it's fact unless you can back it up with referenced facts. It clearly states, as most people here acknowledge, that there are situations in which Ishihara may not be suitable and alternative tests can be given. It also mentions that certain operators have chosen to use alternative tests are primary tests, as someone recently also referenced.

It’s about a candidate’s fitness to carry out the job and the risks they pose. The Equality Act isn’t being breached for this very reason. If somebody had a BMI that was classed as too high for the company, they’d be able to use an element of discretion based on the applicant’s overall physical fitness. BMI is a general measurement and if we know that one can have a high BMI but be fitter than a lot of applicants, then the Doctor at the TOC most certainly will. One can also relatively easily bring them self to within the BMI range if it is just lack of exercise/diet that means they’re on the high side. You can’t do that with colour vision generally. Or not acceptably does anyway.

It’s different with eyesight and there are standards too meet, with very limited grey areas.

I'm not really on about fat people, I'm on about the likes of bodybuilders who whilst being totally fit and lean can often have BMIs well into the morbidly obese category despite quite obviously not being so - an example of one test not fitting all applicants. I doubt (if there is BMI restrictions - presumably there is?) someone in this situation would fail a medical outright and would be given an alternative test to prove compliance, I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether or not this is also the case for the Ishihara test, which is referenced as not being suitable for everybody in rail guidelines.

The Ishihara test is not conducted by a Doctor/physician. Mine were all done by the nurse doing my medicals.

I guess so long as the person is trained to issue the test it's not really a problem, one would assume a failure would be presented to a physician to analyse the result.

The reasons have been mentioned.

a) Choice. The standards clearly state that all the TOC needs to do is test for colour vision. They may use ANY test they wish. B.2.1 clearly states that some have chosen to use the City Test. For the most part the choice to use one test over the others is down to cost. The other reasons for choosing the Ishihara have also been clearly highlighted. Nothing is preventing them from using a different test. They are making a choice to use the Ishihara.

b) Further investigation needed. Again quite clearly highlighted in the standards document. B.2.5 states that if a defect is suspected; additional test can be used. B.2.5 also highlights that the Ishihara isn't usefull for Blue-yellow so again; an alternative test can be used.

c) Flexibility. B.2.6 allows a TOC to allow for changes in technology and to allow flexibility in the workforce. A TOC could use the City test for all employees at the medical stage but for Driver specific they need to pass the Ishihara.

D) Life events. Unfortunatly life happens to everyone. Different rules exist for those who are already employed and qualified. If a Driver had an accident and lost their colour vision then having to sit the Ishihara may be consider to be unfair. What does happen in all circumstances. The employee undergoes further investigation. B.1.4 allows the use of additional testing and 'specialist assessment'

E) One I'm going to chuck in myslef, which is blindingly obvious. Dispute. If there was a dispute with the result or the way in which it was carried out, I have no doubt that the test will be retaken with a different practitioner and also that further testing would also take place if there was further dispute.



In the same document I linked there are 2 sets of guidleines.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/ms7.pdf

https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/WEB03.pdf

I really really hope that help. :/

Probably the best summary yet and well written, hopefully people will read this post before they comment. I note in one of your links the HSE says on Ishihara "However, interpretation of results is not always easy if only a few plates are failed", I can't reference the point number as my computer has gone kaput since. This sounds similar to what the OP is suggesting if he gets a result of "mildly colourblind" he presumably fails on a few plates and thus interpretation of the result may be difficult.

 

[Stigy]

I'm not really on about fat people, I'm on about the likes of bodybuilders who whilst being totally fit and lean can often have BMIs well into the morbidly obese category despite quite obviously not being so - an example of one test not fitting all applicants. I doubt (if there is BMI restrictions - presumably there is?) someone in this situation would fail a medical outright and would be given an alternative test to prove compliance, I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether or not this is also the case for the Ishihara test, which is referenced as not being suitable for everybody in rail guidelines.

I know you’re not on about fat people, which was why I mentioned the example I did. I understand what you were saying.

My BMI is borderline what the TOC would ordinarily accept (not because I’m a body builder......It’s fat), but I’m of acceptable fitness and can move freely etc, my BP and heart rate etc are okay too. I was told to lose half a stone and they’d call me back in, however the doc still passed me as fit to drive trains there and then. I lost the weight anyway, but was under no illusion that he would be calling me back in three months as he said, but least because I’d be starting rules training by then. A year on and I’ve not been called back in. Just as well as I’ve put all the weight back on since lol.

So yes, there are limits, and yes there is discretion with items like BMI, where there isn’t with things such as colour vision.

 

[irish_rail]

All of this has reminded me of a driver at Plymouth who a few years ago failed ishihara. He had been driving many years and it is potentially related to diabetes. However he was given another chance and passed it second time, so there are definitely cases where drivers have failed it and been allowed another stab.
However they MAY not allow that for a trainee.

 

[Av80r]

So yes, there are limits, and yes there is discretion with items like BMI, where there isn’t with things such as colour vision.

Glad you haven't been pulled back in, looks like you're beyond the point of return now so it doesn't matter, let yourself go and enjoy life! Aviators are given a 3 month restricted medical if their BMI is out of range and there isn't a good reason why, if they haven't lost weight in 3 months they fail, if they have lost weight they're set a new target every 3 or 6 months until they're in the right range. Probably the reason you don't see big pilots!


Sorry for the late reply 43066, I had problems formatting it!

It’s pretty clear from what’s been posted above that the requirement in question is for “normal colour vision”. The Isharia test is widely regarded as the best indicator of that, being highly accurate, and cheaply and easily administered. Hence it is incorporated in the pre employment medical, all elements of which must be passed.

I haven't dispute the "normal colour vision" part and I think we're all in agreement that this is a clear standard that colour vision defects are not accepted at all for train drivers. The Ishihara may well be considered cheap, easy and accurate but it factually cannot determine various forms of colourblindness and it is clearly referenced in maritime, aviation and rail medical rules/guidelines that the test isn't always suitable when certain defects are suspect.

There’s absolutely no reason to think the Equality Act is being “flirted with”, or that the TOC hasn’t discharged its responsibility, both to the regulator and under equalities legislation, by insisting on this test - which the industry regulator itself regards as the gold standard!

If you are entitled to alternative testing, you should get alternative testing. If it's in the guidelines/rules then all medical examiners conducting this are presumably prepared for this situation and know when/why/how alternative testing is to be conducted. The regulator itself (assuming the regulator is the RSSB?) are the ones who mention, albeit a bit vaguely, about these alternative tests and situations where Ishihara isn't to be the one and only test administered on colour vision.

The simple fact is the same medical is given to all applicants. If you fail any aspect of it there’s no obligation on the TOC to spend money trying to get applicants through using non standard tests. Where would that end!? Would someone failing on hearing, but able to pass another non standard test, been able to challenge the toc under the equalities act? Of course they wouldn’t.

I'm not sure if it would always cost extra money, I've sat medicals before where two colour vision tests were administered routinely (Ishihara and a similar one for yellow-blue) in the same room with the same person. Interestingly I've failed a medical on hearing (sitting in the booth clicking the button when I hear a sound) and disputed it, I was offered an alternative test (at the employers expense) and passed it, I've had the booth test since and passed so presumably it was an error in the administration of the test or an error on my behalf. This was for a rail job working on live railways which required me to leave a shunting loco (driven by someone else) whilst we were sandwiched inbetween 2 mainlines either side of us and couple trains ready to drag into our non-electrified maintenance facility - presumably I was held to some sort of standard by the RSSB here, unbeknownst to me at the time. The employer was a TOC in the northwest.

You seem unable to accept this, so presumably you have some evidence to suggest that something is amiss? Comparisons to other industries aren’t particularly relevant.

If I was only talking about other industries without context it would of course be irrelevant, but I'm using them to compare medical standards written by the RSSB, ONR, MCA and CAA/EASA who all write about colour vision in similar ways (albeit with different pass standards) and potentially the RSSB/TOCS/FOCS are the only one who doesn't seem to uphold their standard on alternative testing... which seems hard to believe as I doubt they're any less professional than other industries!

I notice you have applied for trainee driver roles in the past, so I assume this is something you are personally concerned about, given your keen interest in this topic. I would suggest you’re not going to get any confirmation either way on here. The best approach is just apply, go for the medical, and see how you get on.

Luckily my colour vision is fine. I'm a keen advocate for assisting people into employment and obviously have no experience to make me useful for those going into the train driving industry, I am however quite keen on not letting mistruths (whether intentional or not on behalf of those saying it) holding anyone back from pursuing a career.

 

[moggie]

Because all employers have a responsibility to approach medicals and disabilities with fairness as to not disadvantage someone for reasons beyond their control, and there are very strict rules on how to do this. I don't know of any company that willingly flirts with the 2010 Equality Act during the employment process. The links posted all mention the equality act and the implications around conducting medicals whilst abiding by the act.

Having a vast supply of candidates absolutely won't be the reason they don't offer alternative testing, IF is it the case (we're still to factually determine). If companies or doctors are changing medical standards to suit themselves they'll be taking a fine line on discrimination as where does it stop? Should they also tell those with unacceptably high BMI's who happen to be bodybuilders that they refuse to use waist circumference rather than BMI so they fail, as there are suitable numbers of skinny or fat-but-not-too-fat people waiting outside? This is the reason medicals, as far as I know, are always strict in the UK and if person X has the same condition as person Y, they will be generally treated the same without influence from the employer.

Somewhere there will be a guide for physicians who administer these tests, the one for aviators is available online and it's basically a flow chart of options should someone fail any test. It means no one physician can deviate from the standards and thus it is kept fair and consistent across the board. It is clear cut on it who gets what result.






Just to reiterate, we're not talking about doing this. We're talking about being offered, BY the medical practitioner, an alternative test if they believe your result on the Ishihara test isn't representative of your actual colour vision.

Nonsense. Leave out the straw man argument of discrimination where there isn't one - ALL candidates invited to take the vision assessment test would be taking identical tests and being measured consistently against their results to ascertain whether their vision meets the required standard - i.e. no discrimination. Focus of the RGS requirement which specifically states the required standard (i.e. the Ishihara test) which must be met and even described why alternative tests are unnecessary. Then tell us why a medical practitioner would seek not to comply with the RGS requirements (and seek a derogation to do so which then has to be approved in the process)? Then while you're at it explain why another candidate who has passed the vision (and all other medical requirements) wouldn't be discriminated against if a candidate who had failed the standard vision test was pushed through to the next round?

 

[Av80r]

Nonsense. Leave out the straw man argument of discrimination where there isn't one - ALL candidates invited to take the vision assessment test would be taking identical tests and being measured consistently against their results to ascertain whether their vision meets the required standard - i.e. no discrimination. Focus of the RGS requirement which specifically states the required standard (i.e. the Ishihara test) which must be met and even described why alternative tests are unnecessary. Then tell us why a medical practitioner would seek not to comply with the RGS requirements (and seek a derogation to do so which then has to be approved in the process)? Then while you're at it explain why another candidate who has passed the vision (and all other medical requirements) wouldn't be discriminated against if a candidate who had failed the standard vision test was pushed through to the next round?

I'm not accusing anyone of discrimination, quite the opposite, I'm saying it's unlikely they'll bother ignoring their own guidelines on alternative testing on the grounds of "it's not easy" and "we've got plenty of other people" as some are suggesting here. Quite simply your entire comment doesn't lead us any further into evidence for the OP as the simple matter still stands that the guidelines state alternative testing may be used if the Ishihara test isn't suitable, and you're ignoring that part. As for your final question, they'll never be put against someone who has failed the vision test? If I fail Ishihara and am given the opportunity to pass the more comprehensive CUT (which the guidelines mention has been used by some rail companies) then I haven't failed the vision test and my vision is as good as, or even better than, someone who passed Ishihara.

Just to clarify here, alternative testing doesn't mean going for eye surgery in a private hospital. Things like the City University Test are very similar to Ishihara, but can test more and put an exact number on your colour vision rather than a pass/fail. This is most likely the alternative we are talking about here, if Ishihara is failed "slimly" or it is suspected there may be a defect immeasurable by Ishihara - remember if you get 3 plates wrong on Ishihara you've still managed to do 17, so it isn't exactly clear if you're colour blind or something else is happening.

 

[Class2ldn]

Not sure how this has got to 4 pages but it's quite simple.
The railway has certain tests you need to pass.
You pass them then great.
If you don't your out.
Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.
There are 1000s of people behind you that can pass it so 1 person is not going to change the way they assess peoples sight and colour.
Its a shame but it is what it is.

 

[RBSN]

Some people seem to be almost taking it to heart that there are people who work on solid facts, as opposed to anecdotal evidence, which is the only point I've made here... anecdotal evidence seems to be overruling potentially empirical evidence supporting the OP's case in that s/he may be able to seek alternative testing to prove his colour vision isn't defective.


We've been here already, just because you say so doesn't mean it's fact unless you can back it up with referenced facts. It clearly states, as most people here acknowledge, that there are situations in which Ishihara may not be suitable and alternative tests can be given. It also mentions that certain operators have chosen to use alternative tests are primary tests, as someone recently also referenced.

Because it is fact. An operator doesn’t HAVE to do anything. They don’t have to retest you because you fail a section of the recruitment process and I think you need to let that sink in.

 

[Stigy]

Glad you haven't been pulled back in, looks like you're beyond the point of return now so it doesn't matter, let yourself go and enjoy life! Aviators are given a 3 month restricted medical if their BMI is out of range and there isn't a good reason why, if they haven't lost weight in 3 months they fail, if they have lost weight they're set a new target every 3 or 6 months until they're in the right range. Probably the reason you don't see big pilots!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not massive, just 5’6” and 15 stone nearly so my BMI is 32.9 and I think the discretionary limit is 33.7 where I work? If I was 6’ I’d be fine but as it stands I’m obese

What can I say? I like beer.

 

[Av80r]

Because it is fact. An operator doesn’t HAVE to do anything. They don’t have to retest you because you fail a section of the recruitment process and I think you need to let that sink in.

Yet their guidelines say they can and do use alternate tests...

Seems to be the people vs the literature here.

 

[221129]

Yet their guidelines say they can and do use alternate tests...

Seems to be the people vs the literature here.

Just because they CAN doesnt mean they WILL.

 

[Av80r]

Just because they CAN doesnt mean they WILL.

Just because you say, doesn't mean you're right... is the summary of the entire thread. At least one person here has offered a counter argument saying they were offered additional testing during their train driving medical, anecdotal still, but seems to offer nothing other than confusion for the OP as nobody can agree on what is the norm.

It is clear that nobody here, myself included, truly knows what those who fail Ishihara but pass other tests are finding when they try to become a train driver. Hopefully the OP will update us when/if s/he finds out.

 

[PupCuff]

Yet their guidelines say they can and do use alternate tests...

Seems to be the people vs the literature here.

I'm not sure if you realise how what you are saying is coming across, but it's reading as though:

Fail the Ishihara test >> Get sent for other test >> Pass other test >> Fine to drive trains

It feels like what you are saying is focusing on whether you can pass a test and not whether you have defective colour vision. This may be because you have experience in other industries where colourblindness is permitted so long as it is mild/of a certain type/you can still see the colours you need to do your job. What you are saying is making the inference that by passing the second test it will invalidate the failure of the first. This is not necessarily the case.

The requirement to be a train driver on the mainline railway is that you must have no defective colour vision. It's broadly immaterial how one goes about finding that out and the decision on whether you have a defect with your colour vision will be made by someone who is trained and experienced in assessing colour vision tests. Legally they can not pass you if they have any doubts that you have anything other than normal colour vision.

 

[43066]

Just because you say, doesn't mean you're right... is the summary of the entire thread. At least one person here has offered a counter argument saying they were offered additional testing during their train driving medical, anecdotal still, but seems to offer nothing other than confusion for the OP as nobody can agree on what is the norm.

It is clear that nobody here, myself included, truly knows what those who fail Ishihara but pass other tests are finding when they try to become a train driver. Hopefully the OP will update us when/if s/he finds out.

The confusion on this thread has mostly been sowed by you. What will happen is as follows:

1. The OP will go for their medical (a medical which will include an Ishihara test).

2. If he or she fails any aspect of the medical, they won’t get the job.

What else are you expecting to be told? We can argue on here until we are blue in the face, it won’t make any difference. Mark my words.

 

[Av80r]

To summarise, as many are missing the point:

- OP has sat and passed a much stricter RAF medical (presumed from the typo of "fighter fighter") which has a requirement for 100% perfect colour vision, they failed Isihara but passed the MORE comprehensive and as easily administered CUT - this test was developed on the flaws of Ishihara.
- OP is confident they're not colour blind as they work with colours.
- Railway literature quoted seems to suggest, like the aforementioned RAF medical, that provisions may be made for those who fail Ishihara but are believed to have perfect colour vision.
- Railway literature suggests Ishihara isn't always used, and the only drawback is interoperability issues if someone passes the more comprehensive CUT and then in the future fails Ishihara at a subsequent medical at a different company.
- Some posters on this thread have failed Ishihara and now drive trains.
- Nobody has put forward an in context quotation from the guidelines that suggest failure of Ishihara means you can't drive trains. Quotations given are all preludes to the mention of alternative tests when Ishihara is deemed unsuitable.

My summary? If the OP can prove he's passed a more comprehensive colour vision test than Ishihara at the medical, preparing for the worst, then a medical practitioner would be acting extremely out of sorts to go against 1) the prior result of an approved test, and 2) the guidelines which suggest and infer the above situation exists and can be catered for in certain circumstances.

I'd also be extremely surprised if a TOC is willing to push someone all the way through selection, a presumably expensive ordeal, to fail someone that meets the medical standards by the very definition outlined.

 

[irish_rail]

To summarise, as many are missing the point:

- OP has sat and passed a much stricter RAF medical (presumed from the typo of "fighter fighter") which has a requirement for 100% perfect colour vision, they failed Isihara but passed the MORE comprehensive and as easily administered CUT - this test was developed on the flaws of Ishihara.
- OP is confident they're not colour blind as they work with colours.
- Railway literature quoted seems to suggest, like the aforementioned RAF medical, that provisions may be made for those who fail Ishihara but are believed to have perfect colour vision.
- Railway literature suggests Ishihara isn't always used, and the only drawback is interoperability issues if someone passes the more comprehensive CUT and then in the future fails Ishihara at a subsequent medical at a different company.
- Some posters on this thread have failed Ishihara and now drive trains.
- Nobody has put forward an in context quotation from the guidelines that suggest failure of Ishihara means you can't drive trains. Quotations given are all preludes to the mention of alternative tests when Ishihara is deemed unsuitable.

My summary? If the OP can prove he's passed a more comprehensive colour vision test than Ishihara at the medical, preparing for the worst, then a medical practitioner would be acting extremely out of sorts to go against 1) the prior result of an approved test, and 2) the guidelines which suggest and infer the above situation exists and can be catered for in certain circumstances.

I'd also be extremely surprised if a TOC is willing to push someone all the way through selection, a presumably expensive ordeal, to fail someone that meets the medical standards by the very definition outlined.

Spot on . Things have changed. ToCs will bend over backwards nowadays to get you through the medical . Medicals nowadays are far more tailored to the individual's ability to do the job and a very slight fail on ishihara should not preclude the ability to drive trains. Indeed for many years type one diabetics where precluded from driving trains , but latterly common sense has taken over and individual assessments based on the candidates needs are carried out. The railway medical is not as black and white as it used to be for sure.

 

[Class2ldn]

I dont think they will give a rats backside if they've passed an RAF medical, if they can't pass the companies medical then they won't get the job.
Simple.
If the test the RAF used was relevant the tocs would use it wouldn't they?
As it is they see the current tests as suitable and they are the ones you need to pass.

 

[Stigy]

To summarise, as many are missing the point:

- OP has sat and passed a much stricter RAF medical (presumed from the typo of "fighter fighter").

I thought he meant to say ‘Firefighter’ myself?

 

[Av80r]

I dont think they will give a rats backside if they've passed an RAF medical, if they can't pass the companies medical then they won't get the job.
Simple.
If the test the RAF used was relevant the tocs would use it wouldn't they?
As it is they see the current tests as suitable and they are the ones you need to pass.

Reread the summary, you're a bit off topic...

I thought he meant to say ‘Firefighter’ myself?

Now I have to go read firefighter regs... damn you!

 

[Stigy]

Reread the summary, you're a bit off topic...



Now I have to go read firefighter regs... damn you!

They’re on a par with train driving, although they fit BA sets with corrective lenses so may do something for colourblindness?....

 

[Class2ldn]

Reread the summary, you're a bit off topic...



Now I have to go read firefighter regs... damn you!

Its not off topic at all, you say about if the OP can show hes passed a stricter test yet its irrelevant, the railway uses one test and thats it.
If they can pass that great, any other testing is irrelevant.
The railway wont change because someone has passed a medical for another job which involves testing colour blindness.

 

[Av80r]

Its not off topic at all, you say about if the OP can show hes passed a stricter test yet its irrelevant, the railway uses one test and thats it.
If they can pass that great, any other testing is irrelevant.
The railway wont change because someone has passed a medical for another job which involves testing colour blindness.

Please read back, we are all in agreement that the railway do use the test he's done already - it is literally in writing by the RSSB on guidance for train drivers vision. We just don't know what situations they allow people to do these alternate tests, so far, nobody knows with proof.

 

[Class2ldn]

Yeah well what I'm saying is the chances of them allowing alternative tests is slim to non existent.
There's no point having a test if someone comes along and gives reason to get another test done.
The ishara test is a proven level for testing colour blindness, I dont see what reasons they would have to try another test.
Different companies and industries have different tests for the same outcome.

 

[45107]

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not massive, just 5’6” and 15 stone nearly so my BMI is 32.9 and I think the discretionary limit is 33.7 where I work? If I was 6’ I’d be fine but as it stands I’m obese

What can I say? I like beer.

As a colleague of mine once said “I am not over weight, I am under height”.

 

[Av80r]

Yeah well what I'm saying is the chances of them allowing alternative tests is slim to non existent.
There's no point having a test if someone comes along and gives reason to get another test done.
The ishara test is a proven level for testing colour blindness, I dont see what reasons they would have to try another test.
Different companies and industries have different tests for the same outcome.

What evidence/experience do you have to say the alternative testing is slim to non-existent when a candidate already has proof of their colour vision? People here have been in this situation and are now driving trains.

Common sense would potentially show that this could be one of those situations where alternative testing may be offered to prove colour vision, as stated by the RSSB. I struggle to think of any other situation that would warrant additional testing. Nobody here has actually been able to offer an example of people with vision peculiarities failing a medical, but some have offered examples of the same passing the medical. The reason for offering another test if someone gives a good reason is that the person is potentially fit and has probably completed all other parts of selection, which from reading the forums is quite a rare event with thousands failing for every job. From what others have said on here it is clear the railway medical isn't as strict as other industries and offers leeway on issues that are a flat out no-no elsewhere.

Ishihara is a proven test for red-green colour blindness, it cannot detect any other common defect. It seems odd that train driver candidates can presumably meet medical standards with yellow-blue colour blindness, but that's another story!