Should train driving be a graduate profession?

[Stigy]

Perhaps I should have said "outside London and the South East, and other odd property hotspots like Edinburgh and south Manchester".

I'm on similar to that and definitely consider myself middle class if someone asked. Maybe lower-middle rather than upper-middle if being particular about it, but certainly not the image I would associate with working class of earning a lowish salary, renting, owning an old car and having to pay a lot of attention to what you buy.



But average money *is* middle class! That's kind of the point. It's not footballer type money, but if it's not comfortable, assuming you haven't got 20-odd kids and assuming your household has a second income of some kind or you live alone and assuming you don't live in a property hotspot, then you need to look at what you're spending (or if utilities are eating it all, look at insulating your house better).

The other thing about buying houses is that because of inflation (which is rampant at the moment) and because more equity = cheaper rates, it might feel a stretch now but in 20 years' time your mortgage payment will probably be half the average rents in your area. Which is why there's such a big jump in quality of life between working class renters and middle class owners. By the time you reach the end of your mortage the payment will be a pittance.

I don’t see a person on average money (say £30k a year) as a sole reason to dictate class (or two people in a family of four, both earning £30k a year). I think our views differ somewhat, but I’d say two people on £60k salaries are more like the stereotypical middle classes. Middle class id day isn’t just living comfortably, it’s living comfortably and affording private school for the kids with maybe one or two decent holidays a year. I consider myself to live comfortably in that the bills get paid and I don’t worry about the gas bill, but the kids are staying in state schools.

Upper class is having no money worries and being on Nick Ferrari money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t see a person on average money (say £30k a year) as a sole reason to dictate class (or two people in a family of four, both earning £30k a year). I think our views differ somewhat, but I’d say two people on £60k salaries are more like the stereotypical middle classes. Middle class id day isn’t just living comfortably, it’s living comfortably and affording private school for the kids with maybe one or two decent holidays a year. I consider myself to live comfortably in that the bills get paid and I don’t worry about the gas bill, but the kids are staying in state schools.

Private schools are probably one differentiator between upper-middle and lower-middle, I reckon. Lower-middle are probably more likely to buy into areas in catchments of good state schools. Working class get the bad-quality rough comps.

£30K is working class money, though, yes. £60K isn't. I suppose you can tweak it by one parent not working, but one £60K and one minimum (just short of £20K now I think) is a household income of £80K, that's definitely middle class.

Upper class is having no money worries and being on Nick Ferrari money.

I agree with this, though probably would be heading into "and don't need to work" territory.

 

[XIX7007177]

In a word, no.

What degree would be appropriate?

Just because someone is book smart doesn’t mean they can necessarily drive a train.

 

[Dieseldriver]

I can't see any need for this at all.

What I can see a need for is rigorous testing of customer-facing staff (guards, station staff, RPIs, security etc) to ensure their spoken English is up to scratch, as it very often isn't (see also London bus drivers who *are* customer facing). But drivers aren't customer-facing staff unless they drive DOO (as they would then do announcements etc).

Worth pointing out that a good standard of spoken English is just as important in a Train Driver role considering the high number of safety critical conversations (most of which via radio/telephone).

 

[PushingAButton]

No. Wealth should not be a requirement for railway jobs, including driving.

Current applicants must hold at least a GCSE 4 (C in old grades) in English and Maths, this is what the government current considers the standard pass.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Why would they need to be a graduate.

All they do is push a button to make the train go. They dont even have to steer....

As some would have you believe.

Either way the main consideration is that whether the person has proved they have the aptitude and understand the consequences of what they are doing. I know plenty of people who are completely unsuited to that who have and havent been through University, though some undoubtedly gained maturity during University.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. Wealth should not be a requirement for railway jobs, including driving.

Wealth isn't a requirement for going to university. Fees etc are all paid in retrospect based on earning.

 

[Aviator88]

No - limiting the eligibility pool reduces the likelihood of finding the best talent, and thus negatively affects safety.

Also, I hate to say it, but if you need to turn up for work at a time dictated by somebody else in order to keep a roof over your head, you're working class! Middle class is financial independence from employment and upper class is vast inherited wealth in my opinion.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No - limiting the eligibility pool reduces the likelihood of finding the best talent, and thus negatively affects safety.

Also, I hate to say it, but if you need to turn up for work at a time dictated by somebody else in order to keep a roof over your head, you're working class! Middle class is financial independence from employment and upper class is vast inherited wealth in my opinion.

That's not the conventional interpretation - otherwise "middle class suburbs" wouldn't be a thing.

 

[Efini92]

I'm on similar to that and definitely consider myself middle class if someone asked.

Isn’t everyone from Buckinghamshire middle class or higher?

 

[Trackboy]

I hope the day never comes where the railway follows the aviation model of training.
Train driving is a working class job, it should always be available to anyone who can pass the tests regardless of level of education/wealth.
Some of the best drivers I know only have high school education, one doesn’t even have a licence to drive cars.

2nd that.

 

[joseph87]

I hope the day never comes where the railway follows the aviation model of training.
Train driving is a working class job, it should always be available to anyone who can pass the tests regardless of level of education/wealth.
Some of the best drivers I know only have high school education, one doesn’t even have a licence to drive cars.

Why do you hope that day never comes? I’m very intrigued…

 

[bramling]

Indeed promoting someone “through the ranks" because they are stellar at their job can run into problems because they could be clueless on people management.

And this is exactly where the industry runs into problems time and again. There are some management whose people skills are absolutely horrific, and this is a large part of the reason why the industry has very poor industrial relations.

Real example from my place. Employee suspected of having a drink problem with a pattern of declined performance and highly erratic attendance. There’s two ways to deal with that - either pull the person in, show them the attendance, and ask if everything is okay and take it from there, or else have the D&A waiting if there’s a genuine suspicion the person is at work under the influence. What actually happened was the person was pulled in (only after waiting several weeks til it was convenient for the manager) and told “you’re the worst employee I’ve ever known, if you don’t buck your ideas up I’m going to arrange a functional test of your liver, now get out of the office as I have childcare commitments that I need to get to”.

It is easier to train skills than it is behaviour.

Absolutely.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn’t everyone from Buckinghamshire middle class or higher?

The more rural bits probably so. However, MK, Aylesbury, High Wycombe and to an extent Chesham have a pretty wide range of incomes and situations. MK at one point had the estate with the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the country, for instance. My estate has a substantial amount of social housing (most of Bletchley was built for London social housing overspill - it was tiny before that), and I don't think you can really call anyone in social housing middle class.

 

[whoosh]

No. You don't need a degree to drive trains.

You also don't need a degree to do train planning, although there are graduate schemes for this these days - funnily enough the only graduate working in the train planning office I was in years ago, was the most useless with an inability to process basic train planning concepts such as what day of the week was what when it came to overnight trains!

Whilst there are a large number of applicants for Drivers, there is a robust psychometric testing regime in the selection process, that actually uses the psychology of the role and not whether they have money to buy training like the airlines, or have managed to gain a degree in something or other.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Why do you hope that day never comes? I’m very intrigued…

I assume because becoming a commercial pilot is generally frightningly expensive. It can cost £100,000 to become a commercial pilot, with actual paid training positions thin and far between. It very much is easier for those who can afford to pay for the training

 

[bramling]

No. You don't need a degree to drive trains.

You also don't need a degree to do train planning, although there are graduate schemes for this these days - funnily enough the only graduate working in the train planning office I was in years ago, was the most useless with an inability to process basic train planning concepts such as what day of the week was what when it came to overnight trains!

Whilst there are a large number of applicants for Drivers, there is a robust psychometric testing regime in the selection process, that actually uses the psychology of the role and not whether they have money to buy training like the airlines, or have managed to gain a degree in something or other.

I suspect this is probably the right answer. Where being a graduate might prove more useful is if someone wants, in due course, to progress from driver to something else. A lot of people certainly find themselves struggling with written communications, for example.

 

[RJ]

This is what is wrong with this country. One proposing that a working class man can not earn £60k +. Why not?

I know plenty of working class men who earn a lot more than that and I don’t think they care what class other people put them in!

 

[Stigy]

No. Wealth should not be a requirement for railway jobs, including driving.

Current applicants must hold at least a GCSE 4 (C in old grades) in English and Maths, this is what the government current considers the standard pass.

Only for an apprenticeship.

Why are GCSEs deemed necessary for a role whereby applicants have been suitably assessed and interviewed prior to recruitment? Surely experience of work/life and demonstrating a natural ability in proven psychometric tests should trump anything you gained many years ago at school?

 

[Newapplicant]

Without trying to be condescending, reading the grammar of some prospective drivers on this very forum and some of the comments made shows that education maybe hasn't featured highly in their lives. Being able to read and write well would prepare candidates for the classroom, a university education proves that candidates have a track record of immersing themselves in information and can deal with the theory in the training process.

I don't think you realise how condescending this actually is however, I'm willing to bet you are a graduate though with a comment like that..!

Within the last 5 years, we in the policing profession have seen massive numbers of graduates apply, mainly after Theresa May decimated the UK police forces and then tried to tell us that the 20,000 new officers we were getting would fix everything when all they were doing was replacing what had gone. It's fair to say that the graduate recruiting method has been somewhat of a disaster so much so that nearly all forces are looking to scrap graduate entry methods and have people apply the old-fashioned way. Candidates that were coming through had no real-world experience and were unable to do the most basic of things and I also heard of one new recruit quitting on their first day as they 'didn't realise they would have to arrest potentially violent people.' Because of COVID some recruits had never even stepped foot in a pub before, but were expected to run in and break up a pub fight should one get such a call.

In this instance I fail to see how being a graduate can any better prepare you to drive a train than somebody who is not one. Does being a graduate guarantee your success in passing the rigorous paper sift, interview and psychometric testing, no it does not and that is clear by current recruiting at present.

 

[Stigy]

I don't think you realise how condescending this actually is however, I'm willing to bet you are a graduate though with a comment like that..!

Within the last 5 years, we in the policing profession have seen massive numbers of graduates apply, mainly after Theresa May decimated the UK police forces and then tried to tell us that the 20,000 new officers we were getting would fix everything when all they were doing was replacing what had gone. It's fair to say that the graduate recruiting method has been somewhat of a disaster so much so that nearly all forces are looking to scrap graduate entry methods and have people apply the old-fashioned way. Candidates that were coming through had no real-world experience and were unable to do the most basic of things and I also heard of one new recruit quitting on their first day as they 'didn't realise they would have to arrest potentially violent people.' Because of COVID some recruits had never even stepped foot in a pub before, but were expected to run in and break up a pub fight should one get such a call.

In this instance I fail to see how being a graduate can any better prepare you to drive a train than somebody who is not one. Does being a graduate guarantee your success in passing the rigorous paper sift, interview and psychometric testing, no it does and that is clear by current recruiting at present.

I’m overly in agreement with everything you say, however I will add that in policing, graduates generally still have to go through the same training as any other new recruit, so a lot of the experience “should” be trained in to them. However, don’t get me started on direct access graduate schemes….

 

[bramling]

I don't think you realise how condescending this actually is however, I'm willing to bet you are a graduate though with a comment like that..!

Within the last 5 years, we in the policing profession have seen massive numbers of graduates apply, mainly after Theresa May decimated the UK police forces and then tried to tell us that the 20,000 new officers we were getting would fix everything when all they were doing was replacing what had gone. It's fair to say that the graduate recruiting method has been somewhat of a disaster so much so that nearly all forces are looking to scrap graduate entry methods and have people apply the old-fashioned way. Candidates that were coming through had no real-world experience and were unable to do the most basic of things and I also heard of one new recruit quitting on their first day as they 'didn't realise they would have to arrest potentially violent people.' Because of COVID some recruits had never even stepped foot in a pub before, but were expected to run in and break up a pub fight should one get such a call.

In this instance I fail to see how being a graduate can any better prepare you to drive a train than somebody who is not one. Does being a graduate guarantee your success in passing the rigorous paper sift, interview and psychometric testing, no it does and that is clear by current recruiting at present.

It *may* however demonstrate that someone has the capability of sitting through the many weeks and months of classroom training that is required before someone gets to actually drive a train. Some understanding of stuff like physics will certainly help with understanding how trains work (and in particular how to handle defects). Likewise being good with computers will help people navigate the increasingly complex TMS interfaces on modern trains. And it demonstrates being inquisitive and able to pick things up well, which will put people in good stead with understanding how the railway system as a whole works, which will ultimately likely make someone a better driver, especially when there’s stuff going on. One of the absolute biggest problems on the railway is that many staff either won’t or can’t see beyond their own role, and this causes a lot of friction, so people who can appreciate a bigger picture are an asset not a liability.

I’m not saying it’s essential. It isn’t. However by the same token it *does* bring value to the table, though of course you still need someone to be the right temperament. Some graduates are, some aren’t, it’s as simple as that.

Being able to communicate well both verbally and in written form is actually quite important, and is something which some railway staff do lack. It doesn’t of course stop someone moving a train from A to B, but that is only part of the job.

 

[PudseyBearHST]

This is what is wrong with this country. One proposing that a working class man can not earn £60k +. Why not?

Spot on. It’s still a working class job IMO, shame a lot of people have forgotten that. Ridiculous thread.

 

[Stigy]

It *may* however demonstrate that someone has the capability of sitting through the many weeks and months of classroom training that is required before someone gets to actually drive a train. Some understanding of stuff like physics will certainly help with understanding how trains work (and in particular how to handle defects). Likewise being good with computers will help people navigate the increasingly complex TMS interfaces on modern trains. And it demonstrates being inquisitive and able to pick things up well, which will put people in good stead with understanding how the railway system as a whole works, which will ultimately likely make someone a better driver, especially when there’s stuff going on. One of the absolute biggest problems on the railway is that many staff either won’t or can’t see beyond their own role, and this causes a lot of friction, so people who can appreciate a bigger picture are an asset not a liability.

I’m not saying it’s essential. It isn’t. However by the same token it *does* bring value to the table, though of course you still need someone to be the right temperament. Some graduates are, some aren’t, it’s as simple as that.

Being able to communicate well both verbally and in written form is actually quite important, and is something which some railway staff do lack. It doesn’t of course stop someone moving a train from A to B, but that is only part of the job.

All of what you’ve mentioned can be trained in to people, and that’s the whole idea of stringent psychometric assessments which you only get two attempts at.

Obviously having a degree in addition to all other essential attributes to make a successful train driver can only be a good thing, but in my opinion it’s not at all necessary.

 

[Aviator88]

I assume because becoming a commercial pilot is generally frightningly expensive. It can cost £100,000 to become a commercial pilot, with actual paid training positions thin and far between. It very much is easier for those who can afford to pay for the training

Absolutely. If only 10% of prospective pilots can foot the training bill and 30% (all anecdotal, I know) will ever have the means to save enough before the unspoken cut-off age of ~ 40, the majority of the population (statistically speaking, where you'll find the best talent) will be excluded. Brutally put, the people flying you on your holidays are not the most suitable people for the job, despite being more than just suitable.

 

[bramling]

All of what you’ve mentioned can be trained in to people, and that’s the whole idea of stringent psychometric assessments which you only get two attempts at.

You’re right it *can* be trained into people, however a lot of time and effort (which of course equals money and non-productivity) can be wasted in the process on people who simply aren’t cut out right.

It also opens the door for ER-related issues when someone finds a reason why they think the goalposts should be moved to allow them to get through.

In theory someone who has a record of achievement is providing *evidence* that they should stand a better chance of getting through the training and ultimately meeting the standard.

 

[Stigy]

You’re right it *can* be trained into people, however a lot of time and effort (which of course equals money and non-productivity) can be wasted in the process on people who simply aren’t cut out right.

It also opens the door for ER-related issues when someone finds a reason why they think the goalposts should be moved to allow them to get through.

In theory someone who has a record of achievement is providing *evidence* that they should stand a better chance of getting through the training and ultimately meeting the standard.

That to me, just comes across as arrogant. A decent CV does the same.

 

[bramling]

That to me, just comes across as arrogant. A decent CV does the same.

Two points.

Firstly a younger person won’t have had the opportunity to build up a long CV. Part of the point of university is to identify people quickly, to avoid them having to go through the lengthy process of building up a CV, which is ultimately to the benefit of employers as they get access to a larger pool of talent, with less risk.

But secondly, a CV can certainly be doctored and massaged, to the point of being worthless. Just because someone has done so many years in a job absolutely *doesn’t* mean they’re any good at it, and the whole system of references is nothing more than a farce IMO.

 

[dk1]

Good job nobody had any ideas like this when I joined the railway. I didn’t even finish school or take a single exam let alone go on to any sort of further education. I couldn’t wait to get away from it yet have been in continuous railway employment for over 38 years the last 24 of them up front

 

[Stigy]

Two points.

Firstly a younger person won’t have had the opportunity to build up a long CV. Part of the point of university is to identify people quickly, to avoid them having to go through the lengthy process of building up a CV, which is ultimately to the benefit of employers as they get access to a larger pool of talent, with less risk.

But secondly, a CV can certainly be doctored and massaged, to the point of being worthless. Just because someone has done so many years in a job absolutely *doesn’t* mean they’re any good at it, and the whole system of references is nothing more than a farce IMO.

How young is “younger”? To be a train driver one has to be 21 anyway, and plenty of 21 year olds have built up hands on experience in many transferable industries. But equally, 21 is still very young for a train diver.

As I said, university isn’t going to necessarily be a bad thing (why would it?), but in a disciplined role where you’re working unsociable hours, all year round, I think life experience and an element of maturity should be required as more advantageous than qualifications.