Travelling distances from depots for train drivers

[PML518]

Does anyone know how strict TOC are when it comes to travel distance and time to the designated depot. Most state you must be within 45 mins. For example if you was an hour and a half away would this mean an instance refusal?

 

[Bourlea]

I personally think they can be strict, as they will have a lot of applicants to choose from.
I was asked again at interview about how I would get to work and how long it would take.
Good luck

 

[Claudius]

Does anyone know how strict TOC are when it comes to travel distance and time to the designated depot. Most state you must be within 45 mins. For example if you was an hour and a half away would this mean an instance refusal?

It gives them a reason to refuse you at the application stage if you do not indicate that you’d be willing to relocate.

At my recent interview with Arriva I was asked about travel time. Arriva indicated I had to be within an hours travel of the depot. Told them that according to google, travel time varied from 55 mins to 1hr 15 when I looked at different times over a couple of days.

The HR person was very much of the opinion that you had to be within that 1hrs commute and needed proof of address prior to training commencing.

The driver manager’s view was that you should ‘ideally’ be within 1hrs commute, which made me think that if I was successful and offered a position then a bit of discretion would be applied.

That was only Arriva and that may differ between TOCs but to be on the safe side I’d suggest making it clear you are willing to relocate.

If you aren’t willing to relocate then you may find yourself not getting passed the application stage

 

[387star]

Many people based in london or pricey commuter towns live a fair way
Many at three bridges live in barnham/bognor etc and several at London depots live in Peterborough for example

 

[Stevec101]

It's 1 hr everywhere I've seen. But like already mentioned this rule doesn't seem to apply in London. Clearly because being based at Paddington for example 1 hrs reasonable travel time still leaves you well within the inner London area. Rules out far too many people so they move the goal posts to suit themselves. I'd say anything to get through the door then fight from within if they insisted you move. I personally think 1hr 15min is reasonable. Can't imagine wanting to be any further anyway. I've commuted 50 minutes for 18yrs

 

[Scouse_scott]

The 1 hour rule has nothing to do with cutting the number of applicants down. It's all to do with fatigue, if you take 2 hours to commute to work then you have a 9 hour shift you are more likely to make a mistake. If you do this for 6 shifts straight you are at greater risk again.

All tocs have to follow these fatigue rules and limit the amount of time a driver is allowed to work before they must take time off. Tocs will ask you how long your commute to work is and work out individual fatigue scores for all there drivers and keep a score for them, when it gets too high and they become a risk then you will be unable to do overtime.

If your toc's rosters found out you lied about your commute time your job would seriosuly be at risk. You'd be putting passanger saftey at risk by possibly being fatigued and driving.

 

[387star]

Many drivers live nearer a depot they are not based at than the drivers at that depot due to seniority taking precedence or lack of vacancies!

 

[CC 72100]

It's 1 hr everywhere I've seen. But like already mentioned this rule doesn't seem to apply in London. Clearly because being based at Paddington for example 1 hrs reasonable travel time still leaves you well within the inner London area. Rules out far too many people so they move the goal posts to suit themselves. I'd say anything to get through the door then fight from within if they insisted you move. I personally think 1hr 15min is reasonable. Can't imagine wanting to be any further anyway. I've commuted 50 minutes for 18yrs

As alluded to above, the ruling isn't done to be difficult, it's to ensure that people arrive at work fit for duty and as fresh as they can be. People outside of the railway may happily do longer commutes with no issues but they're not turning up to do a job that requires high concentration levels balanced against a low amount of visual stimulus at times.

Your attitude to 'blag it and then fight' will not get you very far and may even be in breach of T&Cs which stipulate maximum travel time from depot.

 

[Stevec101]

If a toc with a depot up north is insisting it's staff are within an hour's commute but not applying that same rule to their London depots then people up north have a clear argument don't they? That's what I'm saying..

 

[Eccles1983]

The depot fatigue index is set by the TOC.

It's a simple set of rules. There is no arguement, either comply or find another TOC.

 

[Highlandspring]

When it comes to recruitment, as long as they're not discriminating between candidates based on protected characteristics then companies can be as 'unfair' as they like.

 

[Scouse_scott]

When it comes to recruitment, as long as they're not discriminating between candidates based on protected characteristics then companies can be as 'unfair' as they like.

Really not too sure what you mean by that ?

 

[Highlandspring]

I mean that companies are free to use whatever criteria they wish to choose between candidates. If they want to consider only people who live within a particular distance from a work location, only people who have a 1.1 degree or only people who live at odd numbered houses there is nothing to prevent them doing so. It's a very good way of reducing the number of applications that need to be looked at. Whether or not this is morally unfair to people who live outside the required distance (or live at number 22) is irrelevant. There has to be some degree of discrimination allowed between different candidates otherwise a company would be forced to employ anyone who chose to apply for a job.

What a company can't do is bin an application because, for example, the candidate has a traditionally Asian surname. That would be discrimination based on a protected characteristic - race in this example.

 

[TheEdge]

What a company can't do is bin an application because, for example, the candidate has a traditionally Asian surname. That would be discrimination based on a protected characteristic - race in this example.

Drifting slightly I'd be interested to know how this sort of thing can be proven. Lets say I was refused a job because the interviewer doesn't like "Daves" but I was told some other reason. However I believed that it was because it was because I was a Dave. Who do you complain to and how can it even be proven one way or the other?