• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The two strike fail rule

Status
Not open for further replies.

E&W Lucas

Established Member
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Messages
1,358
Knowing you may be on your last chance makes it real and serious rather than a university style "resit after resit".

.

Hey, depends on the University!
Mine only gave you one shot at everything, and that mark was final.
Much like train driving. A mistake will stay with you for your career, and in some cases, the first mistake will be the end of it. The testing format is just the first stage of an ongoing performance management process.

If you find that uncomfortable, you're looking at the wrong industry.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,325
Location
Fenny Stratford
Don't see why it wouldn't be seen as legal. You take the selection tests everyone gets the same attempt at them you pass or fail and go from there. No one is being shown any favours.

There seems to be some sort of suggestion sometimes in these threads that having failed the tests the candidate has been unfairly treated. Why? If you don't make the required grade then that's it.

What's the difference to the selection tests for the police service/fire service etc etc...

It's been used for about 25 years, and has served the industry well. As fair and objective a selection process as I've been through anywhere. Carefully researched and designed aptitude tests, specific to the job role. I can't see what basis any challenge could be made on.

I am not saying the tests are in anyway unfair, quite the opposite.

My issue is that it could be suggested that limiting someone to only 2 attempts in their lifetime to pass a test could be unfair and/or discriminatory. With the wages on offer i am surprised someone hasn't tried a challenge!
 

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
You put it better than me.

Like I said, it's a hard discussion to have at any time as some seem to think it's a natural ability that will get you through, so 2 attempts is enough, which is fine but on the other hand a different reason for the same point is that you could effectively 'learn to pass'.

Whereas what I'd always read and I'd love to find again is the documents that gave me the impression it was more viability (you could become of standard but after two attempts its unlikely so not worth the cash) sort of reasoning.

what I have dug up though is in the old tests at least, it did look into both the trainability and operational aspect.
 
Last edited:
Joined
19 Dec 2013
Messages
51
http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...il Industry Standards/RIS-3751-TOM Iss 2.pdf

Appendix A outlines what the tests are for. The tests are fair in that everyone is up against the same standards and most of the measures are judging natural ability and will hopefully allow those candidates who at least have a fighting chance of doing the role safely to proceed.

The fall down could be where as an example, a 20 year old who may not have had the life experience of a 45 year could possibly quickly fail the interview twice and be out of the game. However when you weigh that up against letting possible unsafe candidates learn the tests by resitting, then a limit somewhere is required. It may even be an argument that you get only get one shot, although harsh, it does stick more with the either you've got it or you haven't argument.
 

SPADTrap

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2012
Messages
2,352
as long as you're allowed to attempt it whenever you apply.

That wouldn't work, you miss the point still.

I failed my first assessment because I wasn't ready life experience wise, I was upset but I knew my last chance remained so I made sure I got what was missing (a railway job too!) and reapplied a year and a bit later and got through fine, the pressure was there and I knew what was at stake, it seperates those who are serious about the job for what the job is not just punts at 47k a year.

The new tests are proportionate to the job (opinion only) as is the 2 attempts rule I think.

Out of interest, why do you feel so strongly that they should change?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hey, depends on the University!
Mine only gave you one shot at everything, and that mark was final.
Much like train driving. A mistake will stay with you for your career, and in some cases, the first mistake will be the end of it. The testing format is just the first stage of an ongoing performance management process.

If you find that uncomfortable, you're looking at the wrong industry.

Haha that is true, I had resit after resit chance available and I saw it (and did it too!) so know the mentality that it creates, I've learned from that!
 
Last edited:

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
Out of interest, why do you feel so strongly that they should change?

It's a good question, perhaps it's a little wrongly phrased because I haven't suggested it change, more argued the case for it being unfair -but regardless some attempt at an answer - I live life a bit differently to most, i've a unique perspective in a lot of ways and I give things a lot of thought. And I mean that seriously.

Second, and third chances are a luxury to me in a lot of ways, though I don't beleive in endings (not just in the dr who sense) but I don't think there should ever be a never. It's closed minded approach in any game.

That said I took my first test like it was my last, did more research than you would beleive, not just in the tests expected but also in what helped form these tests etc and I got through. I always get what I want when I put my mind to it. I knew it wasn't over if I failed but it was insurance I wasn't prepared to use. There were however, no guarantees.

But i've always been mindful that there (and not just for train driving, though I don't give police, fire etc a lot of my attention) are probably people out there who can match me for reactions, life experience etc who can't even APPLY for a role they might even be better suited than me for. Why didn't they pass first or second time? I don't know. Bad day? Wrong time? minor illness or distractions?

It's not my place to speculate. It's a position i'd hate to find myself in.

If I don't get on the footplate in a couple of years I will have 2 chances yet again, as if the last 5 years had been deleted. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. My views are it's a bit rough, even if i find myself taking on (and winning :P) the test again.
 
Last edited:

SPADTrap

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2012
Messages
2,352
It's a good question, perhaps it's a little wrongly phrased because I haven't suggested it change, more argued the case for it being unfair -but regardless some attempt at an answer - I live life a bit differently to most, i've a unique perspective in a lot of ways and I give things a lot of thought. And I mean that seriously.

Second, and third chances are a luxury to me in a lot of ways, though I don't beleive in endings (not just in the dr who sense) but I don't think there should ever be a never. It's closed minded approach in any game.

That said I took my first test like it was my last, did more research than you would beleive, not just in the tests expected but also in what helped form these tests etc and I got through. I always get what I want when I put my mind to it. I knew it wasn't over if I failed but it was insurance I wasn't prepared to use. There were however, no guarantees.

But i've always been mindful that there (and not just for train driving, though I don't give police, fire etc a lot of my attention) are probably people out there who can match me for reactions, life experience etc who can't even APPLY for a role they might even be better suited than me for. Why didn't they pass first or second time? I don't know. Bad day? Wrong time? minor illness or distractions?

It's not my place to speculate. It's a position i'd hate to find myself in.

If I don't get on the footplate in a couple of years I will have 2 chances yet again, as if the last 5 years had been deleted. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. My views are it's a bit rough, even if i find myself taking on (and winning :P) the test again.

Maybe because I am tired but I'll ask in the way you prefer, why is it unfair? I'm still a bit lost, other than view of 'never say never?'

We may have to agree to disagree I feel though! :D

The fact that the job is open to everyone is one of the reasons peoples attempts are limited, I guess the alternative is for some set of 'requirements' akin to that of airline pilot training schemes but I imagine that would yield similar 'unfair' claims?

The fairness is in that anyone can apply I think. But that's my opinion, good luck getting on the footplate, I'll see you out there and discuss it over a cuppa in the mess!

S.
 
Joined
2 Sep 2013
Messages
72
If I don't get on the footplate in a couple of years I will have 2 chances yet again, as if the last 5 years had been deleted. If it doesn't happen, it doesn't happen. My views are it's a bit rough, even if i find myself taking on (and winning :P) the test again.

Just out of interest, I thought if someone failed twice that was it, are the results kept for 5 years then wiped ?
 

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
Nah it was poor phrasing on my part, i took the tests a few years ago so have a current pass, but if I don't actually use it then everything gets reset as if ive never even done it the once - the fact i have been considered capable is not enough to 'ban' me from having to pass it again :(
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Maybe because I am tired but I'll ask in the way you prefer, why is it unfair? I'm still a bit lost, other than view of 'never say never?'

We may have to agree to disagree I feel though! :D

The fact that the job is open to everyone is one of the reasons peoples attempts are limited, I guess the alternative is for some set of 'requirements' akin to that of airline pilot training schemes but I imagine that would yield similar 'unfair' claims?

The fairness is in that anyone can apply I think. But that's my opinion, good luck getting on the footplate, I'll see you out there and discuss it over a cuppa in the mess!

S.

I haven't tackled this debate the way id have liked to, because id prefer to have the testing outline and standards etc in front of me like in the document ive mentioned, that way i could make the case against the industry's own reasoning rather than individuals perspective or opinions of it.

Ultimately we will have to agree to disagree, i like a debate though so its not an issue. My opinion is flexible too, but as nobody has made a strong case against the fact that capable applicants cant get locked out the system, then i cant really say it sounds fair.

Of course, everyone gets treated the same, but that doesn't strike me as the same sort of fairness, for example i could work out a fair tax rate by dividing the population by the money that needs to be raised. Or i could play Russian roullette with a six chambered revolver against six people, someone's gunna be unlucky but everyone is treat equal. Extreme examples but i don't think we see the same thing in 'fair'.

Definitely one for the messroom perhaps haha, but it does make me wonder as its been suggested in the op that attitudes against the 2 attempt rule will be aggrevated by those who have failed the tests, wonder if that works in reverse. So if you get through it becomes a non issue like. For me not a lot changed, its a hurdle i think is a bit unfair, jumped it, cleared it but its the same thing looking at it from either side.
 
Last edited:

ComUtoR

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2013
Messages
9,506
Location
UK
Ok, so two attempts are "unfair" In the interest of debate let's accept that and move to the next logical step. Interview and employment. What happens at that stage ?

If I was sitting behind the desk, and I have in the past. Without a second thought my priority applicants will be those who passed on the first attempt. Clearly they are the better applicant.

If, and a very large if. I saw an applicant have did indeed have qualities that I thought would make a Driver but they struggled with testing should I put them through ? I still need to make allowances for possible rules failure. that comes at a cost the to company and is detrimental to the employee in the long term. Extending that further still. Lets pretend that they pass the interview, make a valiant effort on rules and pass. There is still the matter of traction and manual handling as well as a pressure week for their "part 6" exam. How many attempts at all of those stages are fair ? That's a significant investment.

Soooooo...

Should that cost be passed to each applicant ? Charge £450+ for each attempt then number each pass with your attempts before you get to interview. Any resits on rules can be recouped through a reduction in wages at each stage. I know at least one TOC where First year drivers pay is lower and is stated to be because of recovering training costs. Simply extend that at each level and/or make the trainee salary a pittance right up till their final drivers exam.

There has to be an alternative if we accept that two attempts are "unfair" I would therefore push a solution in that passing the cost on to each applicant will initially drop the huge number of applicants and those wanting resits.
 

W230

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2012
Messages
1,214
I haven't tackled this debate the way id have liked to, because id prefer to have the testing outline and standards etc in front of me like in the document ive mentioned, that way i could make the case against the industry's own reasoning rather than individuals perspective or opinions of it.
Why make a case against the "industry's own reasoning". Why is it you are so sure the industry has it wrong?

Ultimately we will have to agree to disagree, i like a debate though so its not an issue. My opinion is flexible too, but as nobody has made a strong case against the fact that capable applicants cant get locked out the system, then i cant really say it sounds fair.
But it is fair. Because they got just the same chance to pass exactly the same assessments as anyone else. You talk about the job as if it's some special job that everyone should be able to do. They can't! Might I suggest when you're actually doing the in training/doing the job you think again about what the point of the assessments were - try and apply some real life situations to them rather than a hypothetical situation you discuss.

Of course, everyone gets treated the same, but that doesn't strike me as the same sort of fairness, for example i could work out a fair tax rate by dividing the population by the money that needs to be raised. Or i could play Russian roullette with a six chambered revolver against six people, someone's gunna be unlucky but everyone is treat equal. Extreme examples but i don't think we see the same thing in 'fair'.
Total waffle. Beginning to think you're trolling or do you have a higher purpose in life?! :lol:
 

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
The problem is, nothing said has made me really think it's fair.

But if I keep going around in circles it will become like trolling. What I won't say is 'im right you're wrong' but I will say you haven't convinced me.

And obviously the thread has to end somewhere, I wouldn't want it to end on an open question, but we're never going to agree (and I don't want to be pushed into answering points I haven't made, like what a better system would be). I do have ideas on this but it would take PAGES in the subsequent debate it would cause. By which we'd be well and truly off topic.

They havent even answered why they think it is unfair yet man

Yes they have, if you haven't spotted it, maybe you never will. Thankfully you get more than two attempts at reading!

Why make a case against the "industry's own reasoning". Why is it you are so sure the industry has it wrong?

For the first question - Because a lot of the reasons put here for the 2 test limit is by speculation. No problem in it's own right - information on the testing is hard to come by. Nonetheless, it it helps to know the official reasoning behind these things if you're going to scrutinise it. *sigh* For the second question, like with everything in life, improvements can be made. It isn't a case of 'the industry has it wrong'. But it's definitely worth having a look at, even if it's just in a social discussion sort of way. Is it perfect? Hell no.

I'm not going to argue with anyone, i've made a case several times so if you're not digging it...um...fine? I'm not here to sway anyone but I will explain myself, which I've done.

Bottom line is, it's not fair in my eyes, i've given reasons which if you can pick them out you may or may not agree with, which is immaterial really unless they're based on something that's factually wrong, in which case point me and I'll correct it.
 
Last edited:

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
Bottom line is, it's not fair in my eyes, i've given reasons which if you can pick them out you may or may not agree with, which is immaterial really unless they're based on something that's factually wrong.
So what do you propose as an alternative then?
Come on, we are waiting! ;)
 

Fred Dinenage

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2013
Messages
347
This is like one of those tedious James Burke BBC shows from the 70's / 80's.

Just an observation. :D
 

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
Why are you waiting?

Whilst I'm sure its a good question (should go in a thread of its own really), what would the answer do to validate or strengthen (or weaken?) my opinion on the fairness of a 2 strike rule?
 
Last edited:

russmcp

Member
Joined
22 May 2011
Messages
58
As your tests were of the old variety Dakta, does that not mean you now have to resit the tests?
 

dakta

Member
Joined
18 Jun 2008
Messages
577
As I understand it, which might be wrong but from what i've read and what i've been told at interviews etc, it's still valid unless I don't get the job in the (max?) 5 years that toc allows a test to be valid for.

Therfore for some TOC's I may have to resit the test if they only consider it valid for say, 3 years - however some have accepted it, most so far consider it valid for the full 5 years. In approx 2 years time I will have to resit it regardless of TOC policy regarding assessment validity period.

Does that make sense?
 

Doobyjangler

Member
Joined
2 May 2014
Messages
32
Why are you waiting?

Whilst I'm sure its a good question (should go in a thread of its own really), what would the answer do to validate or strengthen (or weaken?) my opinion on the fairness of a 2 strike rule?

Nothing to see here, nothing to see . . . . . .

Move along folks
 

red2005

Member
Joined
9 May 2009
Messages
844
Location
north ish
I passed the old tests in September, they changed in October and I still had to resit them Dakta so I would say in all likelihood you will have to resit!......in fairness they are VERY different with the exception of the dots and 2 parts trainability so can see why they'd want to!

these tests have every element of the qualities needed to do the job in terms of memory...pressure...and logical reasoning etc so if you fail those TWICE! I can't see how they can be classed as unfair for not letting you try again!

everyone gets the same shot and it is very brutal of me to say and I kinda apologise and I kinda don't for saying this but after 2 attempts at dealing with pressure and the aspects required to do the job!......if people haven't passed shouldn't they be asking themselves if they have the required skills to do the job???

I think some people are still of the opinion that a driver just sits there on his backside pulling levers and it's something anyone can do!.......well to a certain extent the physical workings of the train are certainly not rocket science so yes.........but these tests are designed to assess more than that!.....they are there to see if you can take the knowledge that MUST go hand in hand with that!!......unfortunately that is something that can be put across but it's not something that will stay in everyone's brain!.....which is then when it becomes dangerous!

it's a place full of hazards already would you really want to put a driver who hasn't got the full set of skills into that mix???....I know I wouldn't!
 

SPADTrap

Established Member
Joined
15 Oct 2012
Messages
2,352
Fairness like that doesn't come into it really. The nature of the job sees to that.
 
Last edited:

455driver

Veteran Member
Joined
10 May 2010
Messages
11,332
I will now read through all the posted alternatives and see which one would be best!
Oh hang on there arent any! :roll:
 

O L Leigh

Established Member
Joined
20 Jan 2006
Messages
5,611
Location
In the cab with the paper
The kind of people that the rail industry are looking for to become drivers meet a certain profile. They should be calm under pressure, able to work alone for long periods doing a repetitive task without losing concentration, capable of remembering the rules and knowing how and when to apply them, and so on. In short, these things are down to aptitude. Unfortunately aptitude is not something that you can learn nor acquire. You're either cut from the right cloth or you're not, and if you're not cut out for the job now then it's unlikely that you will be in five, ten or twenty years time.

So why not just allow for just one shot only? Well, the rail industry recognises that people might have the occasional "off day" or that a candidate might be suitable but a little too young to have the required life experience, and so it allows for a second chance for candidates who want one. But there has to be an ending. It can't just roll on and on forever. Distractions, bad days and all the other things that can affect your performance on an assessment are just as much part of the driver's daily routine, but you cannot allow that to affect your performance. If you can't handle these pressures in the assessment it's likely that you can't handle them when out on the road at the controls of a train.

Is it fair? Frankly it seems like an argument over semantics. Just as in many other areas of work, the railways are seeking the most capable people to fill what is a very responsible position. As with any job anywhere there are entry requirements, person specifications and so on that the employer is looking to meet. Many jobs, even those shuffling paper from one side of desk to another, don't allow second chances and will include the phrase "Previous applicants should not apply" in their job adverts. You may not like this from a philosophical point of view, but unfortunately that is not the fault of the railways. There has to be an entry system that sifts the suitable candidates from the unsuitable and, like it or loathe it, this is it.

O L Leigh
 

red2005

Member
Joined
9 May 2009
Messages
844
Location
north ish
well said!

from a company point of view the only fairness that you are owed at the assessment stage is that you are treated the same way as every other applicant which is exactly what happens! you are applying to them remember not vice versa! you can't see fit to take tests you say you are ready for (hence the application) then complain about the system just because you failed! I'm not having that!

if you don't think you are capable of passing the assessments and you only have 2 shots don't undertake them until you are properly prepared is my advice!.......and yes anyone can fail on the day from pressure etc but that is also part of the test!!...and if they fail that proves they simply are not ready!.it certainly doesn't get any easier once you are out there so if applicants cannot cope under test conditions what makes people think they will cope once they are out there with pressure like that and the added responsibility of 100 plus people on their train??

these companies have certain standards in mind and it is the applicants job to meet those standards! it certainly isn't the companies job to lower their standards to meet the applicant!.

giving people umpteen attempts at passing the tests and actually learning the answers rather than knowing them is just another form of lowering the high standards that are required in my eyes.
 
Last edited:

Bluebri

Member
Joined
27 Nov 2013
Messages
180
Location
Wallasey
As has already been intimated, the tests are not meant to be fair. It can seem harsh, god knows I know, as I've been there with the tests this year, but you have to stop looking at this as a barrier to stop you getting the job you desire. The tests are simply not an unfair barrier to getting that coveted position, but a necessary safety protocol to ensure people with the right skills, aptitude and temperament are then allowed to embark on training. Even then, there are those that will not make the grade.

This will come across as hard faced, but I do not mean it that way, but if you fail the tests you are simply not right for the job. It is irrelevant how ideal you think you would be our how easily you could do the job. Truth is, only drivers really know what the job entails and it is not as straight forward as people 'off the street' might think. The tests measure your aptitude, skills and temperament, not your ability to persevere and eventually learn your way through.

I am certain that passengers, insurance companies and anyone else with a vested interest with safety on the railway would be disconcerted, possibly even horrified, if the process for selecting drivers was made 'fair' rather than considered and rigidly measured.

To answer the original question of whether the tests are fair. On a general level yes, anyone can apply, they are all tested to the same standard with the same tests and test conditions etc. and are all subject to the same 2 strike rule. Everyone had the same opportunity to prepare, access to the same information etc. The only variables are an individual's ability or willingness to prepare for the tests etc fully.

So technically are they fair. Well again, yes. What had to be taken into account here is the position and responsibility of the driver. Although there are many other jobs that carry a similar responsibility or such a requirement to abide by numerous and complex regulations, as well as the technical ability to operate such machinery correctly and safely. But the clincher for me is that there aren't many other jobs where 1 individual is burdened with such singular and total responsibility with all that the role also brings. The environment dictates that the driver and his decisions cannot be mitigated in error by anyone else and that these errors can be catastrophic to human life as well as significant financial implications.

So if you were to fail the test once, it is then up to you as an individual when and if you are ready to take it again. Is fair for the companies as putting people through the process costs them a significant amount of time and money. Most importantly it is fair to the industry as a whole, as the people selected are those most likely to complete the training and carry out the job as required, safely.
 
Last edited:

red2005

Member
Joined
9 May 2009
Messages
844
Location
north ish
As has already been intimated, the tests are not meant to be fair. It can seem harsh, god knows I know, as I've been there with the tests this year, but you have to stop looking at this as a barrier to stop you getting the job you desire. The tests are simply not an unfair barrier to getting that coveted position, but a necessary safety protocol to ensure people with the right skills, aptitude and temperament are then allowed to embark on training. Even then, there are those that will not make the grade.

This will come across as hard faced, but I do not mean it that way, but if you fail the tests you are simply not right for the job. It is irrelevant how ideal you think you would be our how easily you could do the job. Truth is, only drivers really know what the job entails and it is not as straight forward as people 'off the street' might think. The tests measure your aptitude, skills and temperament, not your ability to persevere and eventually learn your way through.

I am certain that passengers, insurance companies and anyone else with a vested interest with safety on the railway would be disconcerted, possibly even horrified, if the process for selecting drivers was made 'fair' rather than considered and rigidly measured.

To answer the original question of whether the tests are fair. On a general level yes, anyone can apply, they are all tested to the same standard with the same tests and test conditions etc. and are all subject to the same 2 strike rule. Everyone had the same opportunity to prepare, access to the same information etc. The only variables are an individual's ability or willingness to prepare for the tests etc fully.

So technically are they fair. Well again, yes. What had to be taken into account here is the position and responsibility of the driver. Although there are many other jobs that carry a similar responsibility or such a requirement to abide by numerous and complex regulations, as well as the technical ability to operate such machinery correctly and safely. But the clincher for me is that there aren't many other jobs where 1 individual is burdened with such singular and total responsibility with all that the role also brings. The environment dictates that the driver and his decisions cannot be mitigated in error by anyone else and that these errors can be catastrophic to human life as well as significant financial implications.

So if you were to fail the test once, it is then up to you as an individual when and if you are ready to take it again. Is fair for the companies as putting people through the process costs them a significant amount of time and money. Most importantly it is fair to the industry as a whole, as the people selected are those most likely to complete the training and carry out the job as required, safely.

fantastically put
 

W230

Established Member
Joined
6 Jan 2012
Messages
1,214
Is fair for the companies as putting people through the process costs them a significant amount of time and money. Most importantly it is fair to the industry as a whole, as the people selected are those most likely to complete the training and carry out the job as required, safely.
And it's also fair to the travelling public who want suitably skilled drivers not someone who didn't have the skills but passed the tests at the 15th attempt because they'd done them so many times before they knew what to say and do. :lol:

Dakta, please propose an alternative to the current tests which everyone seems to think are fair but you! ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top