Proposal to decrease minimum train driver age

[PudseyBearHST]

If that's the case then the industry did well to retain staff for such a long period of time, but even so I do still think the industry should focus on aiming to get younger drivers in order to sustain a reasonable number over the years. I do admittedly doubt that many 18 year olds will meet the grade because it's highly unlikely they will have the experiences needed for the role and also because of the sacrifices to social life. Even for when I first applied at 26 having done courses in DT and engineering which involved following safety rules (such as wearing goggles or steel-toe-capped boots in a bike workshop) and using dangerous machinery that could cause injury (such as sanding machines) I still was not so sure it would be satisfactory for a CBI/MMI. But mid-20s to early 30s doesn't seem too unreasonable to start as a driver since you can still get 30 years out of your career.

MMI is flawed, if you know how to talk well even with little to no experience you can pass it. It’s not what you say but how you say it. This is why sometimes you have people who have almost no to little experience passing it whilst having people who should have no problem such as police officers and pilots failing it (and sometimes complaining on here that they don’t understand how they could fail).
Not to say I think many 18 year olds could blag their way through it but if they removed it like Comutor says, I don’t have an issue.

 

[ComUtoR]

From an internal report :

Finally, the evidence identifies opportunities to enhance the way GB rail manages competence for all drivers. These are focused on how drivers gain the right experience over time in a controlled and meaningful way to develop the technical skills, knowledge
and non-technical skills required for safe train driving. Also the psychometric process should be monitored to understand how younger candidates are performing and if adjustments are needed to maintain the fairness, reliability and validity of the process.
This would include reviewing the applicability of the “two attempts” rule. Implementation of these improvements further enhances the case for reducing the minimum age to 18.

Well worth noting that final line about the two attempt rule. - This is about to come in.

 

[Sorcerer]

From what I’ve seen in the last few years trainee drivers have been getting younger. There’s loads now under 25.
The damage was done when recruiting for the millennium drivers. Most were second career, in their 30’s, which was the same age as the BR drivers from the 70’s and 80’s. Fast forward 20 years and now the percentage that’s ready for retirement is much higher than it would’ve normally been.

That's good progress then, and hopefully it will continue so there will be no shortages of qualified staff in the future. Hopefully any attempts to undercut the wages or working conditions won't make future retention a problem.

They will simply remove the MMI requirement if 18yr olds struggle to pass it

I think given the amount of applications roles currently get without 18-year-olds, and provided they aren't required to fill any quotas for that age group, TOCs might simply keep the MMI and continue as normal. I don't see much of the current process changing really.

MMI is flawed, if you know how to talk well even with little to no experience you can pass it. It’s not what you say but how you say it. This is why sometimes you have people who have almost no to little experience passing it whilst having people who should have no problem such as police officers and pilots failing it (and sometimes complaining on here that they don’t understand how they could fail).
Not to say I think many 18 year olds could blag their way through it but if they removed it like Comutor says, I don’t have an issue.

In my research I definitely believe that the key to passing interviews is just as much about repeating particular keywords as well as meeting the criteria. No doubt the individual's confidence plays a big role as well. As for removing the MMI, that might be worth it's own discussion if the subject proves contentious enough.

 

[irish_rail]

From an internal report :


Well worth noting that final line about the two attempt rule. - This is about to come in.

Very concerning. It seems they are serious about downgrading standards. Let's hope the consequences of this are merely an increase in TPWS interventions etc and not something that leads to loss of life. Mind you, Government may consider some loss of life as acceptable collateral damage if it means it can hire and fire train drivers easily and pay them far far less. If Aslef is supporting this I am genuinely angry. It would smack of looking at increasing the number of members and nothing else no matter the consequences.

 

[greatkingrat]

Very concerning. It seems they are serious about downgrading standards. Let's hope the consequences of this are merely an increase in TPWS interventions etc and not something that leads to loss of life. Mind you, Government may consider some loss of life as acceptable collateral damage if it means it can hire and fire train drivers easily and pay them far far less. If Aslef is supporting this I am genuinely angry. It would smack of looking at increasing the number of members and nothing else no matter the consequences.

Do you actually have any evidence to support this or are you just engaging in hysterical scaremongering?

 

[irish_rail]

Do you actually have any evidence to support this or are you just engaging in hysterical scaremongering?

Eh? How exactly can making it easier to become a train driver by allowing those that have repeatedly failed to just keep going lead to a safer railway? Come on!

 

[greatkingrat]

Eh? How exactly can making it easier to become a train driver by allowing those that have repeatedly failed to just keep going lead to a safer railway? Come on!

So you don't have any evidence.

Particularly with the MMI, just because someone fails it in their 20s because they don't have sufficient examples to give, doesn't mean they won't be a good driver if they retake in their 30s, with more life experience to draw on.

 

[66701GBRF]

Eh? How exactly can making it easier to become a train driver by allowing those that have repeatedly failed to just keep going lead to a safer railway? Come on!

As the tests changed some years ago, have you got any evidence that someone who took and passed it on their 3rd or 4th attempt is less safe than someone that took and past it first time? It's repeatedly said on here that the psychometrics are more for gauging whether someone can cope with the training, not the actual job.

 

[irish_rail]

As the tests changed some years ago, have you got any evidence that someone who took and passed it on their 3rd or 4th attempt is less safe than someone that took and past it first time? It's repeatedly said on here that the psychometrics are more for gauging whether someone can cope with the training, not the actual job.

Well I actually do the job and so am in a fairly good position to see whether the tests are relevant or not. I obviously have no evidence, how could I, it has always been 2 strikes and your out. This will lead to people trying again and again, potentially throwing money at it for coaching or whatever.
If we are letting people take multiple tests then we frankly may as well get rid of the testing altogether and find another way of sifting potential applicants.

 

[43066]

To be fair I can see exactly where @irish_rail is coming from here. This suggestion (in conjunction with removing the two strikes rule) seems to be about lowering standards, dumming down the job, and ASLEF are in favour of it because it’ll increase member subs .

As the tests changed some years ago, have you got any evidence that someone who took and passed it on their 3rd or 4th attempt is less safe than someone that took and past it first time? It's repeatedly said on here that the psychometrics are more for gauging whether someone can cope with the training, not the actual job.

There is already a surplus of applicants for the role, so why not make the tests harder/stricter?

 

[66701GBRF]

The suggestion (in conjunction with removing the two strikes rule) seems to be about lowering standards, dumming down the job, and ASLEF are in favour of it because it’ll increase member subs .

Having 200 people apply for a role vice 100 doesn't increase subs beyond the vacancy that is already available.

 

[43066]

Having 200 people apply for a role vice 100 doesn't increase subs beyond the vacancy that is already available.

We all know ASLEF want zero rest day work, and to maximise their numbers of subscribers. Are they in favour of this change? Of course they are! In the same way a bear does the proverbial in the woods.

Let’s not be naive about it.

 

[greatkingrat]

We all know ASLEF want zero rest day work, and to maximise their numbers of subscribers. Are they in favour of this change? Of course they are! In the same way a bear does the proverbial in the woods.

Let’s not be naive about it.

The issue is companies don't want to recruit enough staff to eliminate RDW. That isn't going to change, regardless of whether new recruits are 18 or 40, or whether they passed first time or tenth time.

 

[SeanW90]

As long as it’s not an excuse to drive down wages I’m for it. Having said that, I certainly couldn’t have done the job at 18. I feel it would be best if those put on apprenticeships were made to be a guard for a year before moving into the driving grade.

 

[66701GBRF]

We all know ASLEF want zero rest day work, and to maximise their numbers of subscribers. Are they in favour of this change? Of course they are! In the same way a bear does the proverbial in the woods.

Let’s not be naive about it.

Naive? There has never been a problem filling vacancies and having more people apply for vacancies doesn't increase the number of vacancies. You can argue lowering the age and introducing a graduate scheme on less money could allow TOCS to potentially increase vacancies, but that has nothing to do with the two strikes rule.

 

[skyhigh]

I feel it would be best if those put on apprenticeships were made to be a guard for a year before moving into the driving grade.

Problem with that is you'd end up with a very unmotivated guard (as they know it's not a long term role) and divide between those waiting their year to be a driver and those permanently in the role.

 

[ComUtoR]

Problem with that is you'd end up with a very unmotivated guard (as they know it's not a long term role) and divide between those waiting their year to be a driver and those permanently in the role.

What would you say if there was a potential for under 18s to be supervised and the old school method of 'progression' being reintroduced ?

Guard, Shunter, Second man, Driver ?

 

[Sorcerer]

What would you say if there was a potential for under 18s to be supervised and the old school method of 'progression' being reintroduced ?

Guard, Shunter, Second man, Driver ?

Is this how train drivers were historically recruited or have there always been opportunities for outsiders as well as current railway workers?

 

[Efini92]

What would you say if there was a potential for under 18s to be supervised and the old school method of 'progression' being reintroduced ?

Guard, Shunter, Second man, Driver ?

I’d say that’s the best way, but the companies won’t pay for it.

 

[Roger1973]

Problem with that is you'd end up with a very unmotivated guard (as they know it's not a long term role) and divide between those waiting their year to be a driver and those permanently in the role.

Not sure really. Historically on the buses, you could be a conductor at 18 but not be a driver until you were 21 (prior to the 1960s think it may have been 21 and 25 respectively) - some conductors saw the job as a stepping stone to becoming a driver as soon as they were old enough, others were quite content being a conductor.

And think it was similar on the London Underground when they had guards (open to comment from people who know more) - I don't think they took on trainee drivers, so people started as guards and might then go to driving. I can't say what proportion of long term guards were still there by choice or had not made it to driving.

I'm not quite sure I get the point of this idea - there doesn't seem to be a shortage of candidates for train driver jobs. I can't say how many of those candidates are suitable.

There is some discussion about bus driver licensing at the moment - you can get a PCV driving licence at 18, but you're restricted in what you can do (small coaches or local bus services) until you're 21 / 25. An argument is that by the time someone's 21 or 25, they will have got established in some other line of work (although in today's labour market, I'm not sure that's entirely true) but if you can get people in to the business as a choice when they leave school, rather than coming in to it when another job / career path ends, it is better.

I understand that historically, there were roles for 16 year old school leavers on the railways (traditionally I think the starting role was 'engine cleaner' in the line of work that led to driving, but there was some sort of scheme that led in to train driving still going when I left school in the late 80s) - the 'entry level' roles have increasingly been abolished, outsourced or casualised, so maybe there is something to be said for a way of getting people in to railway work straight from school.

Maybe it's a sign of ageing that I feel slightly uneasy about the idea of 18 year old train drivers, but I presume they aren't going to get the job and get passed out on lower standards than anybody else...

 

[PudseyBearHST]

What would you say if there was a potential for under 18s to be supervised and the old school method of 'progression' being reintroduced ?

Guard, Shunter, Second man, Driver ?

What would happen to the existing guards? Second man, what on earth for?!

Don’t agree with the progression idea but I think it would be good if the training was extended to say 18-24 months where trainees/trainmen experience much more than what they do today. E.g. spend a few months doing passenger, freight, loco experience, diesel, ac/dc, absolute block, variety of units, high speed work, commuter work, ETCE, etc… before they finally go to the chosen or allocated depot that they will be assigned to. This is much more productive and in some ways more closer to what the second man grade was achieving than if you made someone a driver’s assistant today on one particular TOC where they’re only going to see potentially only one traction on one route. Unfortunately, this will be too difficult because of trying to get companies to work with each other which will be an operational and logistical nightmare.

 

[ComUtoR]

I’d say that’s the best way, but the companies won’t pay for it.

What would happen to the existing guards? Second man, what on earth for?!

I've gone back through a fair few research papers and RSSB documents and there is a potential suggestion that under 18s would go through the old way. Get them in as Shunters/Second man with some general supervision and then progress them to the full Driver grade over time. Chuck in a link to schooling with Apprenticeship and vocational training and you now have a long/short term entry to train driving from 18yrs old.

When I started 20+ yrs ago; Drivers used to work as Guards. It was on my licence to cover and work as a Guard. TBH it was good times as you generally sat as cover...

I'm a 'boil in the bag' so I never experienced the old school way of moving up through each grade before becoming a Driver but I do kinda understand the benefits. However, as a 'boil in the bag' I see the benefits of getting people in to the job and getting them out there :/

 

[PudseyBearHST]

I've gone back through a fair few research papers and RSSB documents and there is a potential suggestion that under 18s would go through the old way. Get them in as Shunters/Second man with some general supervision and then progress them to the full Driver grade over time. Chuck in a link to schooling with Apprenticeship and vocational training and you now have a long/short term entry to train driving from 18yrs old.

When I started 20+ yrs ago; Drivers used to work as Guards. It was on my licence to cover and work as a Guard. TBH it was good times as you generally sat as cover...

I'm a 'boil in the bag' so I never experienced the old school way of moving up through each grade before becoming a Driver but I do kinda understand the benefits. However, as a 'boil in the bag' I see the benefits of getting people in to the job and getting them out there :/

If it’s all renationalised and British rail again, it’s not a bad idea as you can have the second man do a variety of work like I previously suggested and would be great especially if they’re able to officially/unofficially drive. Whereas if it’s going to be you can sit in the second man’s seat for 2 years on a Class 387 up and down the Heathrow branch - Extreme example but you get the point - what a complete waste of time.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be happy with a secondman, they can carry my bag if they want to drive

 

[Horizon22]

We all know ASLEF want zero rest day work, and to maximise their numbers of subscribers. Are they in favour of this change? Of course they are! In the same way a bear does the proverbial in the woods.

Let’s not be naive about it.

Good for ASLEF, but I doubt there will be ever be a time where there’s no RDW. The industry continues to rely on overtime and will do for the future, regardless of whether a few 18 and 19 year olds can now apply for the job.

ASLEF are not the ones determining establishments.

What would you say if there was a potential for under 18s to be supervised and the old school method of 'progression' being reintroduced ?

Guard, Shunter, Second man, Driver ?

Good guards don’t necessarily make good drivers. Especially not how the roles work today.

 

[ComUtoR]

ASLEF are not the ones determining establishments.

Depends on the TOC

 

[Efini92]

I've gone back through a fair few research papers and RSSB documents and there is a potential suggestion that under 18s would go through the old way. Get them in as Shunters/Second man with some general supervision and then progress them to the full Driver grade over time. Chuck in a link to schooling with Apprenticeship and vocational training and you now have a long/short term entry to train driving from 18yrs old.

When I started 20+ yrs ago; Drivers used to work as Guards. It was on my licence to cover and work as a Guard. TBH it was good times as you generally sat as cover...

I'm a 'boil in the bag' so I never experienced the old school way of moving up through each grade before becoming a Driver but I do kinda understand the benefits. However, as a 'boil in the bag' I see the benefits of getting people in to the job and getting them out there :/

I think that’s a great idea, they could even lower it to school leaving age. Give kids a solid footing into a railway apprenticeship for driving.

 

[DNCharingX]

It's nice to see the winds of change blowing for this medieval train driver recruitment. This will most definitely turn into a rant about recruitment but I think the reduction in minimum age is long overdue. You have many potential responsibilties at that age, including for a car. I wanted to go after school, but I was 18, not 21.

Although...I'm not sure what the point is, as the MMI requires life experience that probably wouldn't exist straight out of sixth form. In response upthread, I would be happy to see the MMI scrapped. Not only do you not know whether you have the life experience until the questions are infront of you, but I also find it comical that someone decided it was a good idea to chuck an interview into a role that attracts introverts and neurodiverse folk!

If it were a "communication test" as suggested by the standard, it would be just that. It could be a roleplay as a driver who's just hit a tree, for example. I don't see the MMI lasting personally and I strongly disapprove of the notion that those with relevant life experience make better drivers.

There are a lot of issues with train driver recruitment. For example, timeframes are usually "how long is a piece of string". That would be great - if you were not dealing with 5+ pieces of strings of unknown length (TOC assessments, psychometric assessment, assessment results, DM interview, talent pool + any other things I missed). It's a complete disrespect of the candidates, who would become your drivers, that you'd not even be in business without.

Ideally, the assessment process would fall to one "company/body", i.e there would be a building in every major city where you'd be able to take the assessments. Maybe a hundred or so staffers in each one. Then you could take those results to the TOC. Enhanced would be scrapped to have results that are accepted everywhere.

Also, in terms of this being a ploy to pay drivers less, I think that if someone sees something in the job beyond the pay, then that should be supported. I wouldn't be at all qualified to comment on whether people attracted by passion vs salary affect driving performance, so I'll leave that to others.

I also really dislike the stereotype touted that people in that age group just drink and party and have no responsibility. There is no one size fits all to "teenagers". Certainly not all of us at that age were being obnoxious on the buses back home!

 

[irish_rail]

Your argument falls down right at the start I'm afraid. By far the biggest percentage of road fatalities are caused by young male car drivers. That isn't a coincidence I'm afraid, and is probably actually a good argument against lowering the legal age for train driving, not one for it.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Your argument falls down right at the start I'm afraid. By far the biggest percentage of road fatalities are caused by young male car drivers. That isn't a coincidence I'm afraid, and is probably actually a good argument against lowering the legal age for train driving, not one for it.

The solution there is to lower the age limit for women only.

:P

 

[whoosh]

I don't think there will be that many 18-20 year olds actually recruited, but...


Does anyone else think the timing of this is just to get across some propaganda in the press (during an industrial dispute), that driving a train is so easy that even a teenager can do it, and by the way they are on £60k?