There’s no national shortage of applicants for be train driving, though. It’s solely because TOCs don’t want to recruit more drivers.
Genuine question out of curiosity, but what if that experience playing on those consoles is from doing speedruns? In a similar vein to train driving it requires following a set of rules and working under a time pressure while also requiring concentration, a good long-term memory to remember strategies and routes, the need to be able to adapt for new strategies and any obstacles you might come across, and in the case of a charity event you might have to deliver some clear messages to the audience about certain things. Obviously the stakes are lower since failure just means resetting, but with that in mind I am genuinely interested to know if you think someone could actually pass the MMI with that example if they deliver it in that way with enough confidence?
If it can fit to an MMI answer then yes, I guess it’s as good as any other experience, however, I’d imagine it would require a lot of explanation to be able to convince interviewers of the transferable skills factor?
Quite so, but if you know the right keywords and speak with enough confidence as well as being well structured enough to not fall apart when the interviewers ask for greater details then I feel like you could pull it off. As I understand it, using the right words has helped a lot of people compared to actual experiences of failed candidates even if at face value the failed candidate was more experienced. I'll let people who've been through the interview correct me on that one though.
Interesting. I guess it does kind of show that the interview is just as much about why your examples relate to the train driver role compared to what you think relates to it.
Precisely that and then you get the old tripe along the lines of "sorry, your management interview has now expired due to the six month threshold"Funny how there is probably thousands of people sat in talent pools who have reached the required standard but haven’t been offered a start date due to lack of training opportunities….But lowering the age will solve this apparently
Your own argument fails. You can drive London Underground at 18, you can be a Signaller at 18, you can be a commercial pilot at 18 as well as a whole host of safety critical ancillary roles. 18 is not the determining factor for suitability.
In the case of being a commercial pilot, the only reason you can do that at 18 is because of £
No my argument is absolutely cast iron. You simply cannot argue with the fact most road fatalities are caused by young male drivers. The male brain is not reckoned to be fully formed until the late 20s. I simply don't see any advantage to taking on untested 18 year olds when we already get countless applications for every position. Just the current Gov want non unionised workers who will work for a pittance, and to hell with all the good that has been achieved in improving rail safety over past 30 years.
I was a signaller at 18 (having started on the railway at 17) and I’ve personally met a handful of others over my career, so it’s not common but also not exceptionally rare either.
Who said anything about taking on untested people? As far as I am aware, the applicant would still need to take and pass the tests, interviews and medical.
Speed running is a way of finding shortcuts and hacks, and in many cases breaking the game. I don’t think it has much relevance to train driving.
But then I wouldn't necessarily agree the MMI has much relevance to train driving either.
We shouldn't have second-men for the same reason they were removed in the first place.
Would that be the same tests they have already stated need to be looked at to ensure the "right" people can pass them?.....
I believe that junior railmen (or railpeople I suppose we should say nowadays!) could start at 16 in BR days or at least up until the 1970s or 80s, but was there a minimum age at which they could progress to Secondmen and to drivers? And what about after the Secondman grade had been abolished?
We’re assessed on an ongoing basis though, not just through rules every few years.
How the hell should i know who the Dft consider the right people are? But it was listed in the article that first reported this idea, that they need to look at the tests and do what needs to be done to ensure the "right" people can pass them. They have already removed parts that certain groups where failing (mechanical comprhension test) but clearly they have decided they dont want to stop there.
