The two strike fail rule

[CyrusWuff]

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons for a bit, I was chatting with a Driver Standards Manager earlier, who shared a couple of thoughts:

• In his experience, newer Drivers who have undertaken the psychometric testing have more incidents than the ex-British Rail Drivers who, in the main, haven't. Of course, this could purely be down to experience, and may well balance out as time goes on.
• If they put the "old hands" through the psychometric tests, a not insignificant number would probably fail. Does that make them any "worse" a Driver?

Of course, as it's got to the point where TOCs and FOCs can pretty much pick and choose who they want, the point is moot as the tests are here to stay, but it's still something to think about.

 

[O L Leigh]

In his experience, newer Drivers who have undertaken the psychometric testing have more incidents than the ex-British Rail Drivers who, in the main, haven't. Of course, this could purely be down to experience, and may well balance out as time goes on.

There are always two sides to every story, sometimes more.

My own view on this is that every intake contains an element who are not suited to the job. These are either weeded out during their training or later because their careers are somewhat more, *ahem*, "interesting" than might otherwise have been hoped. Those who were contemporary with the ex-BR men still in service are now long gone to other jobs inside the industry or elsewhere.

Of course, there is an element of statistical bias at work too. These days any little SoL incident is logged, investigated, dissected and analysed and the driver in the chair will end up with a black mark against their name. I agree that a lot of this is down to greater experience, but I can't believe that they weren't making the same slip-ups as new drivers that the new drivers of today are making. The big difference is that back then quite a lot of these very minor incidents would simply be squared up with the signaller and never recorded. A driver might get a dressing-down from the inspector, but that was often as far as it went.

If they put the "old hands" through the psychometric tests, a not insignificant number would probably fail. Does that make them any "worse" a Driver?

That is unquestionably true, and I'm sure it doesn't apply solely to the "old hands" either. I sat the psychometric tests around ten years ago and I'm not sure I'd pass them again now.


O L Leigh

 

[387star]

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!

Agree nexcept the interview however it is not so much your answers but the way you deliver them that passes you I think ie clarity sincerity confidence trust

 

[red2005]

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons for a bit, I was chatting with a Driver Standards Manager earlier, who shared a couple of thoughts:

• In his experience, newer Drivers who have undertaken the psychometric testing have more incidents than the ex-British Rail Drivers who, in the main, haven't. Of course, this could purely be down to experience, and may well balance out as time goes on.
• If they put the "old hands" through the psychometric tests, a not insignificant number would probably fail. Does that make them any "worse" a Driver?

Of course, as it's got to the point where TOCs and FOCs can pretty much pick and choose who they want, the point is moot as the tests are here to stay, but it's still something to think about.

agree with a lot of that.....but remember that was also a time when drivers waited in pubs for signals to change so hardly a ringing endorsement lol and I think we all agree that won't happen again and that is part of the reason these tests are in place........judgement.........but it is also worth remembering that most ex BR drivers still in service still had to undertake psychometric training.......even if it was probably more relaxed lol.

and in terms of pressure we are now working in a 100mph environment with more people travelling by rail and everyone desperate to get to places no matter who or what gets in the way which brings it's own pressures......from what I am told by my older colleagues it was a lot more relaxed in times gone by!....with added pressures comes added responsibility and not everyone can handle that so there needs to be measures

 

[E&W Lucas]

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons for a bit, I was chatting with a Driver Standards Manager earlier, who shared a couple of thoughts:

• In his experience, newer Drivers who have undertaken the psychometric testing have more incidents than the ex-British Rail Drivers who, in the main, haven't. Of course, this could purely be down to experience, and may well balance out as time goes on.
• If they put the "old hands" through the psychometric tests, a not insignificant number would probably fail. Does that make them any "worse" a Driver?

Of course, as it's got to the point where TOCs and FOCs can pretty much pick and choose who they want, the point is moot as the tests are here to stay, but it's still something to think about.

Sounds like one very prejudiced manager!
I'm awfully glad he's not mine.
Complete BS. Any new starter in any job, is more at risk of making a mistake. That's why the PQ monitoring is in place.
There are some great drivers from the BR era, but some.... well....
Let's be thankful that a more rigorous selection process is now in place!

 

[O L Leigh]

There are some great drivers from the BR era, but some.... well....

I would also speak up and say that there are some great drivers from the post-BR era too.

O L Leigh

 

[SPADTrap]

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons for a bit, I was chatting with a Driver Standards Manager earlier, who shared a couple of thoughts:

• In his experience, newer Drivers who have undertaken the psychometric testing have more incidents than the ex-British Rail Drivers who, in the main, haven't. Of course, this could purely be down to experience, and may well balance out as time goes on.

Just to throw it back, this would only hold any water if you had a comparison of how many ex-British Rail drivers vs drivers assessed under the assessment process were actually at said company.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm not so sure that I disagree with what this performance manager has said. I used to work at a depot where there were lots of new drivers coming in straight off the street, as I did. My observations there back up the general idea that the lion's share of incidents went down to the newer drivers. However, what I resist strongly is that this points to deficiencies in the selection and recruitment of drivers. With a few exceptions most of these drivers were simply gaining in experience and many already exhibited what I would call "the right stuff". They had good aptitude, good understanding and knowledge and, crucially, the right attitude.

I certainly have no time for any intolerance from the "lifers" who are quick to dismiss new drivers as "management material" or "a SPAD looking for somewhere to happen". Thankfully this view, like the dinosaurs who held it, is dying out.

O L Leigh

 

[Llama]

Looking at the spad statistics since 1985, I would say there is concrete evidence that the spad numbers were an order of magnitude higher 20 years ago (and that doesn't account for those where the incident was 'sorted out locally' should we say), so what does that say about the ex-BR drivers?

On the topic of the psychometrics, I have long held the opinion the appointment for the tests should be at say 4am, or 8pm start, as those are going to be a regular times when you will need to be alert and concentrating for up to five hours at a time as a driver.

I suspect the staff at the test centres might not share my enthusiasm.

 

[youngboy]

wrong thread

 

[ComUtoR]

Looking at the spad statistics since 1985, I would say there is concrete evidence that the spad numbers were an order of magnitude higher 20 years ago (and that doesn't account for those where the incident was 'sorted out locally' should we say), so what does that say about the ex-BR drivers?

Statistics can say pretty much whatever you want them to.

Statistics do not account for changes to the railways such as TPWS and AWS as well as signal sighting committees, increased training, and introduction of recruitment assessments...

 

[red2005]

I think statistics in this specific scenario are not really worth the paper they are written on anyway!......simply because today we are in an age where everything is logged via paper work and black boxes and rules are enforced to the maximum! and the stats are more accurate!

whereas I have heard from many an ex BR driver say that not all spads/incidents where reported and the ones that were where met with "oh ok drive cheers for letting me know just crack on if u like!" so much was brushed under the carpet in those days!

so there may have been less REPORTED incidents back then but it certainly doesn't mean they didn't take place lol

 

[GB]

If a current working qualified driver, who had never taken the assessments before, had to take them and failed I wonder if anyone would consider them to not be competent??

 

[red2005]

If a current working qualified driver, who had never taken the assessments before, had to take them and failed I wonder if anyone would consider them to not be competent??

doubtful as they have already been deemed competent in terms of what the system was at the time!.....for example TPE make qualified transferees undertake testing before offering any positions!....should they fail I am sure they undertake driving duties with their current toc on the mainline the very next day lol

 

[Bluebri]

Statistics can say pretty much whatever you want them to.

Statistics do not account for changes to the railways such as TPWS and AWS as well as signal sighting committees, increased training, and introduction of recruitment assessments...

I think you misread Llama's post and misunderstood his point. He is making the same point as you, that the statistics clearly show SPAD's to be a lot more frequent 20 years ago. When added to your point, makes the comment made earlier, third hand, allegedly said by a manager, pretty futile and empty. It is not unique to the rail industry, that people who have been in and industry / discipline for years, harp on about how it was harder before, the training was better and the old dogs are where it's at. It is usually romantic folly and a desperate grip on days gone by, where they reminisce about how good things were when they remembered the job when they were fresh and keen. It is also a sign of resenting the changes brought about, the increased paperwork, training etc. Sour grapes mostly.

But before anyone misunderstands me, those old dogs should also be well respected, as they HAVE been doing the job for years and you cannot buy experience. They are probably the most important training tool out there and will help new drivers deal with the real world application of their training.

 

[notadriver]

Most TOCs would take an experienced train driver with a proven safety of the line and attendance record over some know it all who thinks he/she is better because they scored top marks in the psychometric tests.

 

[red2005]

wrong thread

 

[ComUtoR]

I think you misread Llama's post and misunderstood his point. He is making the same point as you, that the statistics clearly show SPAD's to be a lot more frequent 20 years ago.

Not sure that I did. Llama's comment was a snipe at the SPAD statistics of ex BR Drivers rather than a comparison of the stats today. Clearly him/her stating "so what does that say about Ex BR Drivers" shows that.

My point is that those stats cannot be compared due to changes in the standards today. SPADS are on the decline (kinda) because of the introduction of various technology and more specifically to this thread. Psychometric testing.

Another log to chuck on the fire is to say that those ex BR Drivers who came up the ranks rather than "boil in the bag's" had vocational training. A lot can be said of apprenticeship schemes and taking people up from nothing. Working you way up the grades gives you a deeper understanding of your role and better appreciation of others in theirs.

I used to be Management and I worked my way up from a zero hour Christmas temp. When I hit Manger level I ended up training our version of "boil in the bag's"

I honestly couldn't tell you which method is better and I know that path to Driver is a long hard battle and has an element of both modern and old school methodologies. I would hope that any potential applicants understand that the Psychometric testing is the first step on a long path. In the future there may possibly be an alternative although most likely an extension of the pre qualifying tests.

 

[455driver]

Lets not forget that there were a lot more semaphore signals in use back then.

 

[red2005]

let's be honest this is all down to opinion!......and it doesn't matter what era that an individual started driving etc these tests are here now and let's be honest they are here to stay!..........you only get 2 fails.......and people are just going to have to deal with that!


the role has a standard (rightly so) and if an applicant doesn't meet it then that has to be it!.......you wouldn't expect them to lower things like medical standards so why should this be any different!?......it's a shame and I genuinely feel for any applicant who has wanted this all their lives but the system has ruled them out I genuinely do as I can certainly see why anyone would want it.

I can definitely see the arguments for and against having unlimited attempts as I am certain that the 2 strikes rule has ruled out a lot of potentially really good train drivers!.....but I am sure it has also prevented a lot of the wrong people getting in the seat as well!!.........the system may be brutal....it may not be perfect (in some eyes, but what system is?) but it is totally fair because every applicant has the same opportunity!

has anyone on this thread actually found out why this is supposed to be unfair yet!!?????? lol

 

[ComUtoR]

has anyone on this thread actually found out why this is supposed to be unfair yet!!?????? lol

• Its "unfair" because it can cut off potentially good applicants who are suitable for the job but are not studious or academic.
• The test is considered fallible because in the past it wasn't required and that older Drivers wouldn't pass.
• Its considered "unfair" because two attempts seems arbitrary
• Other jobs don't have such measure and their staff are still safe.
• Different TOC's have different standards yet all Drivers drive trains.
• The test is fallible once again because people still go on to fail as a Driver so what did the test achieve
• Testing doesn't reflect actual Driving

Pretty sure all those reasons above were debunked

 

[Llama]

My post wasn't a snipe at ex-BR drivers, it was a snipe at the incident statistics and the way they can be interpreted. Old hands say new hands have more incidents, new hands say old hands have more incidents. One fact is that there were far more spads consistently across the network even just ten or twelve years ago. TPWS fitment to signals is not designed to stop spads, it is designed to mitigate the consequences of a spad by hopefully preventing a train proceeding without authority reaching a conflict point. The introduction of the DRA has had a far bigger impact on spad reduction than TPWS. Better training is debatable - the quality of training reduced markedly immediately post-privatisation, we went from secondmen and MP12 to private companies' ineffective training regimes -some in-house and some outsourced- that led indirectly to incidents such as Ladbroke Grove, and the subsequent inquiries then led to far more robust training and recruitment.

The psychometric tests policy follows supply and demand, if potential candidates weren't throwing themselves at the job in vast numbers like they currently are then the policy of two fails and you're out would quite likely be relaxed. Remember it also costs the TOCs a fair bit of money to send candidates for the tests - perhaps a middle ground in the current situation would be to allow one further attempt at the psychometric tests after two fails but wholly funded by the candidate. Someone who get as far as failing the psychometric tests twice has probably cost their prospective employer in the region of £7-800 when HR's time, driver managers time, interview venue costs, admin etc are all taken into account.

And yes, the psychometric tests aren't infallible and allow one or two dubious characters to slip through the net, or some who struggle and either end up failing the driver training course or having numerous SOL incidents, just as the psychometrics have undoubtedly prevented some good people with the right aptitudes from progressing to a trainee driver role, but they are devised for a reason and to a cost, and it would be impossible to make such a test perfect. That is why the tests are backed up by the driver manager interview, whatever other tests or interviews different TOCs decide during recruitment and then constant monitoring during the actual training - justification has to be made at periodic intervals by driver managers during the driver training course that individuals are permitted to continue with the course.

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm sorry, but most of your "debunks" are themselves easily debunked. Have you sat the tests yourself or are you inferring these points based on what you've read so far?

Its "unfair" because it can cut off potentially good applicants who are suitable for the job but are not studious or academic.

Given that it is a technical position, there are actually very few aspects of the assessment where an academic background or demeanour would actually be of any help. As I said before, it's a test of aptitude. Even the structured interviews are more about eliciting the necessary information than they are about assessing a person's ability to present themselves.

The test is considered fallible because in the past it wasn't required and that older Drivers wouldn't pass.

That's a misunderstanding of what happened in the past.

The career path was very different in those days. You didn't simply start as a driver but as a secondman and it could be several years before you got your driver's ticket. All during that time you were being assessed by the inspectors and drivers to see if you had the "right stuff" to become a driver yourself. Now that the career path is different there has to be some other means of assessing a candidate's suitability.

Its considered "unfair" because two attempts seems arbitrary

I debunked this before. The job requires the right aptitudes and if you don't have them now you're likely never to have them. Given the number of non-safety critical jobs out there that only give candidates one chance, being given two seems quite generous.

Other jobs don't have such measure and their staff are still safe.

What other jobs?

Different TOC's have different standards yet all Drivers drive trains.

No they don't. All drivers have to meet Railway Group Standards in terms of ability and physical condition. These are standard across the entire industry which is why you can pass the tests with one TOC and have the results accepted by a second TOC.

Besides, most TOCs don't actually administer the tests themselves but contract an outside company to administer them.

The test is fallible once again because people still go on to fail as a Driver so what did the test achieve

The proportion is very small. Given that the proportion who would fail if the tests did not exist would be far higher, I would argue that the test have achieved quite a lot. It is expensive for TOCs to recruit and train drivers, therefore it is important that they identify the most promising candidates.

Testing doesn't reflect actual Driving

It isn't meant to. It's meant to identify those candidates who have the qualities that the industry is looking for in it's drivers.

The psychometric tests policy follows supply and demand, if potential candidates weren't throwing themselves at the job in vast numbers like they currently are then the policy of two fails and you're out would quite likely be relaxed.

I sincerely hope not.

I disagree that it's due to supply and demand. The number of applicants for a trainee driver position simply means that there is big pool of candidates to select from and that a TOC is likely to have no problems filling any vacancies that arise without having to re-advertise. Even if the number of applicants was reduced to a tenth of the present numbers a TOC would still have to select those candidates most suitable for the position. It's not a case of simply taking the best ten.

Remember it also costs the TOCs a fair bit of money to send candidates for the tests - perhaps a middle ground in the current situation would be to allow one further attempt at the psychometric tests after two fails but wholly funded by the candidate. Someone who get as far as failing the psychometric tests twice has probably cost their prospective employer in the region of £7-800 when HR's time, driver managers time, interview venue costs, admin etc are all taken into account.

It costs the TOCs an awful lot more to train a driver. Consequently they are seen as an investment and therefore no TOC wants to waste many thousands of pounds training someone who later turns out to be a turkey.

O L Leigh

 

[MichaelAMW]

Thanks for your interesting post, OLL. One thing to add, maybe of interest, relates to your comment:

"Given that it is a technical position, there are actually very few aspects of the assessment where an academic background or demeanour would actually be of any help. "

The RSSB published a research document in 2006 called, "Psychometric Testing – A review of the Train Driver selection Process," which includes the remark:

"However, the validation study has indicated that academic achievements are an important predictor of train driver performance and trainability, with some reservations. Better qualified recruits tend to perform better on average in most aspects of train handling and safety performance but seem to be less dependable as employees because they have poorer time-keeping and absenteeism records."

Whilst you are talking about the assessments and this is talking about the situation once people have gone through, it is perhaps interesting to see that this might be one area of a person's experience that is being at least noted more than once it was.

 

[O L Leigh]

Have you a link to this research paper? I'd like to know a little more about how that conclusion was reached.

O L Leigh

 

[red2005]

I may be thick for asking and I do apologise but can somebody tell me what "Debunked" means!!???? lol


also would it be possible for someone to find me a safety critical role anywhere that doesn't require some form of psychometric testing or assessments!!???........quite simply so I can avoid it like the plague!

 

[MichaelAMW]

Have you a link to this research paper? I'd like to know a little more about how that conclusion was reached.

O L Leigh

Beg pardon - I intended to include the link but I have discovered that they (the RSSB) don't seem to have their documents quite so openly available as was previously the case. However, it has survived in my browser cache for a while, so I've uploaded it here. It doesn't actually say a lot about this point.

 

[O L Leigh]

Thank you. An interesting read and certainly seems to validate the use of psychometric testing of train driver candidates.

You're right though, it doesn't expand on this point at all or give any reference to further reading. It's almost as though it's been dropped in as an aside rather than as a finding. However, it does recognise that as academic achievement is a good indicator of performance in the role of train driver it should be used in the selection process.

More use should be made of academic achievements in selecting drivers. However, unlike many other countries, it is not recommended that minimum academic requirements are set. In Great Britain this would probably be counterproductive since there is no tradition of setting such requirements and it might result in adverse impact on older applicants. Instead, academic attainments should be combined with other types of selection evidence for making final decisions, particularly where performance on other measures is borderline.

It is interesting to read what it says on the matter of resits which, for the ease of location, I shall reproduce here in full.

Applicants who pass the assessment centres after their second attempt appear to perform as train drivers as well as applicants who pass first time. They are also significantly more committed to both training and the job. This finding is consistent with research in other sectors. For example, Hausknecht et al argue that this is an example of how persistence and commitment can be recognised in applicants. This suggests that applicants ought to be allowed to resit the assessment centre tests more than once. However, they should be allowed no more than three attempts in total since inability to reach the required standard by the third attempt may indicate weaknesses which will be difficult to overcome. Applicants do have a slightly higher pass rate on resit. However, performance on resits only improves on some of the application methods (the TRP and the interviews) but not on the Group Bourdon, DTG or MT4.1.

It seems to suggest that there may be some merit in allowing candidates three attempts but no more. In the eight years since this report was written it would seem that no change has been made, so it would seem that the industry has decided that two attempts are sufficient to demonstrate whether or not a candidate can meet the expected standards and that the additional costs of providing a candidate with a third chance is unlikely to yield any different outcome.

I may be thick for asking and I do apologise but can somebody tell me what "Debunked" means!!???? lol

Click.

also would it be possible for someone to find me a safety critical role anywhere that doesn't require some form of psychometric testing or assessments!!???........quite simply so I can avoid it like the plague!

Forgive me, but why?

O L Leigh

 

[red2005]

Thank you. An interesting read and certainly seems to validate the use of psychometric testing of train driver candidates.

You're right though, it doesn't expand on this point at all or give any reference to further reading. It's almost as though it's been dropped in as an aside rather than as a finding. However, it is interesting to read what it says on the matter of resits which, for the ease of location, I shall reproduce here in full.



It seems to suggest that there may be some merit in allowing candidates three attempts but no more. In the eight years since this report was written it would seem that no change has been made, so it would seem that the industry has decided that two attempts are sufficient to demonstrate whether or not a candidate can meet the expected standards and that the additional costs of providing a candidate with a third chance is unlikely to yield any different outcome.



Click.



Forgive me, but why?

O L Leigh

because according to one of the previous post above there are many safety critical posts you can perform without any form of testing or aptitude?.....can't think of any off top of my head

 

[O L Leigh]

Really? Well maybe someone can give you a list, although I doubt it.

I can't think of many jobs that don't have at least some sort of entry requirements, even if it's just to turn up on time and sober, and the more safety critical a job is the higher those entry requirements become. How they test for suitability against these entry requirements may vary depending on the precise nature of the requirements, but candidates will always need to be able to demonstrate their suitability somehow.

O L Leigh