Proposal to decrease minimum train driver age

[BayPaul]

I think a big reason why some TOCs may have a shortage of DIs is down to the lack of remuneration for said role!

The graph in the consultation shows there's under a 1000 drivers in the UK between 20-30, not entirely sure what changing the minimum age to 18 is expected to achieve?

At the moment you can't leave school at 18 and go straight into train driving. So potential applicants have to go and try another job first, and probably get stuck there, only remembering they want to be a train driver in their 30s. This could make a big difference to that process.
Most people learning to drive merchant ships start their cadetship at 18 - the system works very well.

 

[choochoochoo]

As others have said, the real bottleneck is getting the applicants who are good enough to pass the application process through training quick enough.

Most TOCs have talent pools with candidates eager to get on training courses. Lowering the age just increases the number of potential candidates in that talent pool, and not by that much.

It does seem like a back door to ultimately self funded training. Which will then drive salaries down.

Just look at airline pilots Ts and Cs to see what happened when airlines stopped fully funded cadet schemes and started taking on self funded pilots.

 

[ComUtoR]

How would you know how many are passing each stage?.

Some statistics are known internally

Of course the vast majority of people are sifted out early doors.

Whilst the overall rate that people are "sifted" could be important. Those that actually then go on to pass the ful process is far more significant. Even if 100% of 18yr olds pass the initial sift. What percentage of those 18yr olds will pass their final exam for Driver ?

Whether the sifting and assessment process is getting the right quality of applicants is a different discussion.

At no point is this consultation actually going into anything qualitative. It's purely a numbers game. I had a quick look at the link I was provided; to which I am very grateful. It still doesn't actually show what the consultation is.

As always, there seems to be something, that is not being said and there is something leading the narrative to a conclusion.

"There is a staffing problem > lots of people gonna retire > too many old people > Ooooh RDW... > lets get young people in."

No part of the consultation talks about the glut in recruitment, EJRA's, incident rates, turnover, attrition rates, pension contributions, training wages, pre qualification, apprenticeships, etc. etc.

Sounds like another scam.

 

[choochoochoo]

Some statistics are known internally




Whilst the overall rate that people are "sifted" could be important. Those that actually then go on to pass the ful process is far more significant. Even if 100% of 18yr olds pass the initial sift. What percentage of those 18yr olds will pass their final exam for Driver ?





At no point is this consultation actually going into anything qualitative. It's purely a numbers game. I had a quick look at the link I was provided; to which I am very grateful. It still doesn't actually show what the consultation is.

As always, there seems to be something, that is not being said and there is something leading the narrative to a conclusion.

"There is a staffing problem > lots of people gonna retire > too many old people > Ooooh RDW... > lets get young people in."

No part of the consultation talks about the glut in recruitment, EJRA's, incident rates, turnover, attrition rates, pension contributions, training wages, pre qualification, apprenticeships, etc. etc.

Sounds like another scam.

Call me cynical, but sounds like someone is going to be setting up third party train driver training schools and going to get a lot of money from TOCs/FOCs to do the bulk of the recruiting/assessing/training. And then eventually they'll be charging individual candidates to pay for that training.

I do wonder how well off Merriman and Harper would become from knowing that someone ?

 

[ComUtoR]

Call me cynical, but sounds like someone is going to be setting up third party train driver training schools and going to get a lot of money from TOCs/FOCs to do the bulk of the recruiting/assessing/training. And then eventually they'll be charging individual candidates to pay for that training.

My TOC; and weirdly Network Rail, have been planning this for years.

I do wonder how well off Merriman and Harper would become from knowing that someone ?

My old DM told me to get into training many years ago. This is nothing new and if you have any kind of assessor qualification, I would keep my ears to the ground.

 

[Ianigsy]

At the moment you can't leave school at 18 and go straight into train driving. So potential applicants have to go and try another job first, and probably get stuck there, only remembering they want to be a train driver in their 30s. This could make a big difference to that process.
Most people learning to drive merchant ships start their cadetship at 18 - the system works very well.

Or, by the time you’re 20, you’re settled into a career with friends and regular hours, and looking to progress rather than going back to square one.

 

[The Puddock]

weirdly Network Rail, have been planning this for years.

Coul you expand a bit on this please (even by private message)? Why would Network Rail be taking anything at all to do with driver training for the industry? Specifically which department within the company is ‘planning’ this? I know Network Rail directly employs a handful of On Track Machine driver/operators but I know nothing of their training arrangements. In Railtrack days the company took a bit more interest in what the TOCs and FOCs were up to but these days virtually all operational oversight of train operator activities has been divested.

Back on topic - I’d be surprised if an average 18 year old could pass the MMI bit of the driver assessments with only a teenager’s level of life experience.

 

[ComUtoR]

Coul you expand a bit on this please (even by private message)?

Can't PM you. Hit me up

Back on topic - I’d be surprised if an average 18 year old could pass the MMI bit of the driver assessments with only a teenager’s level of life experience.

Happy to provide you with our internal pass rates for the MMI

 

[BayPaul]

Or, by the time you’re 20, you’re settled into a career with friends and regular hours, and looking to progress rather than going back to square one.

Exactly! Getting people when they are actively deciding on their career has got to have the most potential

 

[Grvrdvicdr]

Personally can’t see my 18 year olds being offered it. Only due to lack of experience. Only have to look at who are the most likely to be offered a job, those with safety critical backgrounds and transferable skills. Would be a massive hit to go into something with so much responsibility with no life or work experience

 

[Cherry_Picker]

Aren’t all job posts massively oversubscribed already? How is there a shortage?

They are. It’s a story put out during an industrial dispute to remind the public that train drivers are all overpaid.

 

[BayPaul]

Personally can’t see my 18 year olds being offered it. Only due to lack of experience. Only have to look at who are the most likely to be offered a job, those with safety critical backgrounds and transferable skills. Would be a massive hit to go into something with so much responsibility with no life or work experience

In other similar industries it's common. Merchant Navy deck officers typically start their cadetship at 18, and once qualified they will be officer of the watch.

 

[Horizon22]

"There is a staffing problem > lots of people gonna retire > too many old people > Ooooh RDW... > lets get young people in."

No part of the consultation talks about the glut in recruitment, EJRA's, incident rates, turnover, attrition rates, pension contributions, training wages, pre qualification, apprenticeships, etc. etc.

Sounds like another scam.

It's a specific consultation on a specific issue, it would be odd if it was including those things.

ASLEF are supportive, so not sure how it's "another scam".

 

[Taunton]

The difficulty with not aligning the age limit with school leaving age, or similarly if you said graduate trainees are not taken until two years after they typically graduate, is that a good number of competent candidates will have gone and started careers elsewhere. There may be a large oversubscription for such jobs at the moment, but it seems unlikely once the filtering out happens that many who actually have the complete aptitude required are being turned away.

 

[Aviator88]

In other similar industries it's common. Merchant Navy deck officers typically start their cadetship at 18, and once qualified they will be officer of the watch.

Plenty of 19 year old airline First Officers out there as well!

 

[357]

How would you know how many are passing each stage? Of course the vast majority of people are sifted out early doors.

The point of the process is to get hundreds of applicants down to that 2-4% which equals 100% of the available places, so I don't really understand your point.

Whether the sifting and assessment process is getting the right quality of applicants is a different discussion.

Because I work in the industry.

I know of courses that have run with less people than desired due to lack of suitable candidates, and I also know of people who failed DMI having the decision reversed at a later date.

I also know one TOC I used to work for lowered their pass mark from enhanced to standard.

 

[AverageJoe]

There would have to be a change in the recruitment method.

I have seen a lot of young ones fail at the mmi because quite a few of the questions asked require genuine life experience in different scenarios to be able to give a decent answer.

For me this is why we see so many from age 30+ get recruited because of the life and work experience they could fall back on in the mmi and dmi.

Also I’d say it’s true that an older person is more likely to be more work focused and less likely to be wanting to be out with his/her mates at weekend on the booze.

I’m not against younger ones getting the job btw but I do think back to when I was a bus driver and there were some young ones there that were around 18/19 (myself included) and we struggled to give up the nights out on the weekend and some would come in and drive the next day worse for wear. That’s why I quit because at 19 I want my weekends and I wanted to be able to drink.

 

[John745]

I assume volunteering before you're 18 at something railway-related (like a miniature railway or perhaps a heritage one) could give you experience that other teenagers wouldn't have. I volunteer at a little local miniature railway and there are plenty of ways to gain some experience that could be used on an MMI.

(I'm under 18 so I could be wrong)

 

[DMckduck97]

I assume volunteering before you're 18 at something railway-related (like a miniature railway or perhaps a heritage one) could give you experience that other teenagers wouldn't have. I volunteer at a little local miniature railway and there are plenty of ways to gain some experience that could be used on an MMI.

(I'm under 18 so I could be wrong)

It's not necessarily looking for railway experience, the questions just don't particularly favour younger people.

I bet you if they actually studied the recruitment data fully, they would probably find the highest fail rate for an MMI be in the 20-30 bracket which also has the lowest pool of qualified drivers.

That's just my opinion though.

 

[ComUtoR]

It's a specific consultation on a specific issue, it would be odd if it was including those things.

It should include those things. Part of the narrative is that there is an ageing workforce. Lowering the age requirement does not address the reasons why the workforce is ageing or why there is a sudden cliff drop of retiree's. It also doesn't address that some are not choosing to retire and are forced to because of EJRA's


From the article :

Ministers have repeatedly said they want operators to become less reliant on rest day working - overtime days - to fulfil schedules.

How does lowering the age requirement resolve reliance on rest day working ? Rest day working isn't because of an ageing workforce and age related or culturally related absence of lack of overtime desire may in fact be exacerbated because of a younger workforce.

ASLEF are supportive, so not sure how it's "another scam".

Just because ASLEF supports something doesn't give it any more credibility. You could easily say that they see it as another opportunity to increase their membership; if you were that cynical.

This consultation is also part of wider reform. Not that this is 'thin edge of the wedge' or 'because of Brexit' I am just mindful when there is change implemented where there is a clear narrative being pushed.

My fear is that lowering the age requirement will be seen as some kind of magic bullet for the industry and I would much prefer to see actual changes that make an impact on the ground rather than any political ideology.

From the consultation proposal questions

Do you think the process for selecting, training and monitoring train drivers should be changed to support the change in minimum age requirements?

It's questions like this that make me believe there is an ulterior motive

 

[E27007]

Personally can’t see my 18 year olds being offered it. Only due to lack of experience. Only have to look at who are the most likely to be offered a job, those with safety critical backgrounds and transferable skills. Would be a massive hit to go into something with so much responsibility with no life or work experience

Psychologists express their opinion that the adolescent mind is not at 18 years of age, fully matured, a maturation which can last until the early twenties, psychologists believe the adolescent mind does not fully think through through the connections between risks and consequences of taking risks, and the adolescent mind is prone to emotion-led decision-making over logic. The driving cab is not a workplace to not connect risks and consequences, nor to emotion-led decision making.

 

[43066]

I think a big reason why some TOCs may have a shortage of DIs is down to the lack of remuneration for said role!

Never a truer word spoken, and the same can be said for DMs.

How does lowering the age requirement resolve reliance on rest day working ? Rest day working isn't because of an ageing workforce and age related or culturally related absence of lack of overtime desire may in fact be exacerbated because of a younger workforce.

It doesn’t, but we know that the government doesn’t actually want to reduce reliance on overtime. If anything they want to entrench it, as per their attempt to get committed Sundays introduced wherever they’re currently outside the working week.

 

[Horizon22]

Because I work in the industry.

I know of courses that have run with less people than desired due to lack of suitable candidates, and I also know of people who failed DMI having the decision reversed at a later date.

I also know one TOC I used to work for lowered their pass mark from enhanced to standard.

As many do, but that does not necessarily mean you know exactly how many candidates there are.

But yes running a course with less than expected because only a certain number have met the threshold is the correct way; don’t add people in who haven’t met the mark to just “get the numbers”. Whether the assessment process is sifting out good driver prospects is another discussion.

It should include those things. Part of the narrative is that there is an ageing workforce. Lowering the age requirement does not address the reasons why the workforce is ageing or why there is a sudden cliff drop of retiree's. It also doesn't address that some are not choosing to retire and are forced to because of EJRA's


From the article :



How does lowering the age requirement resolve reliance on rest day working ? Rest day working isn't because of an ageing workforce and age related or culturally related absence of lack of overtime desire may in fact be exacerbated because of a younger workforce.

No of course it doesn’t necessarily. But that doesn’t mean that we can throw the baby out with the bath water; a change from 20 to 18 is a good step even if it may not make a huge practical difference it is at least somewhat symbolic.

I won’t disagree that a wider “workforce planning strategy” is probably required, although I hardly expect this current government to do that.

 

[Gemz91]

Call me cynical, but sounds like someone is going to be setting up third party train driver training schools and going to get a lot of money from TOCs/FOCs to do the bulk of the recruiting/assessing/training. And then eventually they'll be charging individual candidates to pay for that training.

I do wonder how well off Merriman and Harper would become from knowing that someone ?

Hasn’t this been tried by companies in the past? Something with that doesn’t sit right with me, maybe it’s because I would have never been able to afford to pay for my training if I was required to, unless it was through salary sacrifice afterwards.

 

[AverageJoe]

I can’t even imagine how these independent training companies would work.

If it’s all done on the sim then it’s daft because we all know the sim feels nothing like the real thing.

Also all the hours done with the DI, after 250+ hours you will have come across many different faults, disruptions, out of course moves, trespassers, obstacles, signal failures, adverse weather, control messing things up, trains not being where they should be, dealing with passengers and the list goes on.

All this time with the DI you are gaining valuable experience that without doubt helps massively.

You can’t get that on a sim, or some random bit of track that may be built for training and no way can you have hundreds of training trains out on the mainline that are not in service.

 

[DMckduck97]

I can’t even imagine how these independent training companies would work.

If it’s all done on the sim then it’s daft because we all know the sim feels nothing like the real thing.

Also all the hours done with the DI, after 250+ hours you will have come across many different faults, disruptions, out of course moves, trespassers, obstacles, signal failures, adverse weather, control messing things up, trains not being where they should be, dealing with passengers and the list goes on.

All this time with the DI you are gaining valuable experience that without doubt helps massively.

You can’t get that on a sim, or some random bit of track that may be built for training and no way can you have hundreds of training trains out on the mainline that are not in service.

Thinking more along the lines of a new pathway into the grade, but your training is paid for in a salary sacrifice for 5-10 years and you may finally hit the top money after that point.

Unless the people entering this pathway have a permanently lower pay rate, which also reduces costs.

Right now training is paid for exclusively by HMT, lowering that in any way will feel like a win for the DFT/Gov.

 

[Gemz91]

I can’t even imagine how these independent training companies would work.

If it’s all done on the sim then it’s daft because we all know the sim feels nothing like the real thing.

Also all the hours done with the DI, after 250+ hours you will have come across many different faults, disruptions, out of course moves, trespassers, obstacles, signal failures, adverse weather, control messing things up, trains not being where they should be, dealing with passengers and the list goes on.

All this time with the DI you are gaining valuable experience that without doubt helps massively.

You can’t get that on a sim, or some random bit of track that may be built for training and no way can you have hundreds of training trains out on the mainline that are not in service.

Possibly the training school would produce someone competent on rules, and even traction knowledge (courses could be adapted to suite needs) then the handling would still be done when the candidate finds a job at a toc.

However, there would also be the potential for the training schools to produce more drivers then they are vacancies, with no guaranteed jobs at the end and the need to apply for jobs in parts of the country where you don’t live.

 

[whoosh]

The RT3251 pyschometric entry selection test was changed a few years ago, the success rate is higher than with the original test from the 1980s/1990s.
The new test is easier and allows re-tests confined to the modules of which the candidate did not pass on earlier attempts.
Regarding age , you may be suprised by the number of drivers with university degrees, those drivers would be at least 21 years of age having completed a 3-year BSc or BA degree course.

This was the case when I did mine 20+ years ago!

Personally can’t see my 18 year olds being offered it. Only due to lack of experience. Only have to look at who are the most likely to be offered a job, those with safety critical backgrounds and transferable skills. Would be a massive hit to go into something with so much responsibility with no life or work experience

Whilst the youngest train driver in the country some years ago, was 18 (on London Underground), I bet there aren't, and haven't been, many 18-20 year olds driving tube trains.

Also, young people who want to join the railway can do so in other roles, and then can get used to (and demonstrate!) working shifts and following instructions and rules. When I started my driver training, the youngest person had been a Shunter previously.

It should include those things. Part of the narrative is that there is an ageing workforce. Lowering the age requirement does not address the reasons why the workforce is ageing or why there is a sudden cliff drop of retiree's. It also doesn't address that some are not choosing to retire and are forced to because of EJRA's


Just because ASLEF supports something doesn't give it any more credibility. You could easily say that they see it as another opportunity to increase their membership; if you were that cynical.

ASLEF's higher-ups joined the railway at 16 as Traction Trainees, then progressed to Secondmen, then Drivers. They believe in Employer Justified Retirement Age (EJRA) whereby whatever is going on in your personal life with regard to finances, however good your medical fitness, or however much you love your job and would like to carry on, you MUST retire so as to give a young person your job.
Even though that's not how it works. Plenty of drivers have had other jobs previously and joined the railway later on in life, and sometimes could do with a couple of extra years of good wages and pension contributions.
ASLEF agreeing to drivers being 18 is the leadership harking back to the 'good old days' and is part of their idealism fantasy in my opinion.

"Do you think the process for selecting, training and monitoring train drivers should be changed to support the change in minimum age requirements?"

It's questions like this that make me believe there is an ulterior motive

Indeed!

Psychologists express their opinion that the adolescent mind is not at 18 years of age, fully matured, a maturation which can last until the early twenties, psychologists believe the adolescent mind does not fully think through through the connections between risks and consequences of taking risks, and the adolescent mind is prone to emotion-led decision-making over logic. The driving cab is not a workplace to not connect risks and consequences, nor to emotion-led decision making.

I wasn't mature enough at 21 and am glad I was 25 by the time I landed the job.

 

[skyhigh]

I can’t even imagine how these independent training companies would work.

If it’s all done on the sim then it’s daft because we all know the sim feels nothing like the real thing.

Also all the hours done with the DI, after 250+ hours you will have come across many different faults, disruptions, out of course moves, trespassers, obstacles, signal failures, adverse weather, control messing things up, trains not being where they should be, dealing with passengers and the list goes on.

All this time with the DI you are gaining valuable experience that without doubt helps massively.

You can’t get that on a sim, or some random bit of track that may be built for training and no way can you have hundreds of training trains out on the mainline that are not in service.

The plan was, from what I have heard from our TOC, is that there will be one training school for all TOCs - which will replace the individual initial classroom training done at each TOC. This will cover rules.

Trainees would then go to their own TOC for company specific training such as traction and then handling hours as currently done.

 

[AverageJoe]

The plan was, from what I have heard from our TOC, is that there will be one training school for all TOCs - which will replace the individual initial classroom training done at each TOC. This will cover rules.

Trainees would then go to their own TOC for company specific training such as traction and then handling hours as currently done.

That’s already happening tho isn’t it. Companies like CCL are being used for rules.

The problem is if this new method comes in and people can then pay for their own rules course does that mean that candidates that aren’t cut out for it will get through?

For example someone with terrible multitasking and concentration pays for their own rules, after multiple fails they eventually pass because of the money spent.

They then go to a toc and are a nightmare for the DI but by this point the toc is already somewhat committed.

They eventually get binned off because they can’t reach the driving standard or the do pass out and quickly start having incidents because they just don’t have the functional and non functional skills needed.

That’s my concern with it but it’s not my money so no problem for me I guess.