Was Train Driving always hard to get into ?

[eldomtom2]

Well, in steam days, you had to start as a cleaner and work your way up...

And of course this was sometimes a point of contention, since depending on the circumstances of the drivers above them a fireman could have to wait a very long time for promotion...

 

[whoosh]

And of course this was sometimes a point of contention, since depending on the circumstances of the drivers above them a fireman could have to wait a very long time for promotion...

Another factor was that back in those days there were mileage payments - the Top Link would have the longest mileage turns of duty, so the biggest potential for earnings.
So for a Top Link Fireman, passing out as a Driver could bring take home pay crashing down to Earth upon being placed in the Bottom Link for Drivers - the difference in receiving higher basic pay being eclipsed by losing out on mileage payments.

 

[Jim Jehosofat]

Back in the mid 70s I had the opportunity to join the footplate grades. I turned it down as I could earn far more as a relief clerk than a driver.

 

[DNCharingX]

I’m not sure enthusiasm in the sense of standing on platforms taking numbers/plotting is seen as a good thing. Personally I find having an interest in the railways generally helps me get through the demands of the job and “take the rough with the smooth” but it wasn’t something I mentioned at all during the selection process.

If you talk about being a railway enthusiast during the process you’re less likely to be successful, if anything, as enthusiasts generally have a bad reputation amongst operational railway staff. This is often for good reason as a minority behave badly and let down the rest.

Something to be aware of for DM interviews, etc.!

Wow, I would've figured the opposite, that people who have interest in the rail further than the pay want to do well and enjoy the role, so it would have been something to bring up at interview.

I usually pop down to my local station or a few stations down to watch services if I have an hour to kill. Been approached a few but it's usually fine when they understand i'm not there to misbehave. Makes me feel comfortable as it tells me they take security seriously. That said, any railway enthusiast who brings a notepad and jots things down is pretty brave!

A misbehaving rail enthusiast is like a doctor that disavows vaccines, and the focus should be on how enthusiasts help the railway and possibly make good hires? Out of curiousity, how is it that these enthusiasts "misbehave" so much to gain a bad rep that it overshadows good rep? Regardless, advice from someone who has been there and done that is always appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[4F89]

Wow, I would've figured the opposite, that people who have interest in the rail further than the pay want to do well and enjoy the role, so it would have been something to bring up at interview.

I usually pop down to my local station or a few stations down to watch services if I have an hour to kill. Been approached a few but it's usually fine when they understand i'm not there to misbehave. Makes me feel comfortable as it tells me they take security seriously. That said, any railway enthusiast who brings a notepad and jots things down is pretty brave!

A misbehaving rail enthusiast is like a doctor that disavows vaccines, and the focus should be on how enthusiasts help the railway and possibly make good hires? Out of curiousity, how is it that these enthusiasts "misbehave" so much to gain a bad rep that it overshadows good rep? Regardless, advice from someone who has been there and done that is always appreciated.

Thanks.

One particular spotter/enthusiast I worked with for a few months ended up not paying attention to all the rules they had been taught and threw the job of a lifetime away, because they couldn't help but go back to spotter, rather than railway professional. Not concentrating on the right things at the right time.

 

[ComUtoR]

Wow, I would've figured the opposite, that people who have interest in the rail further than the pay want to do well and enjoy the role, so it would have been something to bring up at interview.

It shouldn't affect an interview as there shouldn't be any bias for or against any candidate. However....

'Enthusiasts' tend to have a very skewed view of the railway. Quite often that view gets in the way of the job. That harsh reality of the day job not matching up to their perception or belief how the railway is run can be very jarring.

The railway just doesn't work like it says on paper. RTT isn't the pancea to locate your train, Quail maps aren't as accurate as you think, and signals do weird and wonderful things. Trying to explain to someone that even though you have a headcode and are sitting on a track circuited signal in the middle of South London... The Signaller still might have no clue who you are or where you are going !!

We have a Trainee at our place who by all accounts is pretty fantastic. He is a huge enthusiast and drives on a heritage line too. He was pretty surprised that throughout his rules course he never once opened the rule book.

 

[John Bishop]

It shouldn't affect an interview as there shouldn't be any bias for or against any candidate. However....

'Enthusiasts' tend to have a very skewed view of the railway. Quite often that view gets in the way of the job. That harsh reality of the day job not matching up to their perception or belief how the railway is run can be very jarring.

The railway just doesn't work like it says on paper. RTT isn't the pancea to locate your train, Quail maps aren't as accurate as you think, and signals do weird and wonderful things. Trying to explain to someone that even though you have a headcode and are sitting on a track circuited signal in the middle of South London... The Signaller still might have no clue who you are or where you are going !!

We have a Trainee at our place who by all accounts is pretty fantastic. He is a huge enthusiast and drives on a heritage line too. He was pretty surprised that throughout his rules course he never once opened the rule book.

Sorry can you clarify that sentence, for me it doesn’t make sense. He really never opened his rule book once? I find that extremely hard to believe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2022 ==

Wow, I would've figured the opposite, that people who have interest in the rail further than the pay want to do well and enjoy the role, so it would have been something to bring up at interview.

I usually pop down to my local station or a few stations down to watch services if I have an hour to kill. Been approached a few but it's usually fine when they understand i'm not there to misbehave. Makes me feel comfortable as it tells me they take security seriously. That said, any railway enthusiast who brings a notepad and jots things down is pretty brave!

A misbehaving rail enthusiast is like a doctor that disavows vaccines, and the focus should be on how enthusiasts help the railway and possibly make good hires? Out of curiousity, how is it that these enthusiasts "misbehave" so much to gain a bad rep that it overshadows good rep? Regardless, advice from someone who has been there and done that is always appreciated.

Thanks.

One of the main concerns is that if a spotter (now a Driver) passes a yard or station with various traction types or an unusual traction that they instinctively became distracted and are drawn towards looking at that rather than the road and signals ahead.

I was certainly asked extensively during my DMI as to my enthusiasm towards the railway and to what extent that was. I get the feeling that if I told them I was a spotter (I’m not) or very keenly interested in the railway then I wouldn’t have got the job. Having an interest in the railway is one thing but being a mad spotter standing on platforms is quite another.

 

[a340egkk]

Sorry can you clarify that sentence, for me it doesn’t make sense. He really never opened his rule book once? I find that extremely hard to believe.

At SE we're taught the material from the RB via presentations, handouts etc. rather than through reading through the physical RB. Same material / wording, just via a different medium. I did open the RB during training still personally, but that was outside of the teaching.

 

[4F89]

I think their point was that it's not an actual book.

 

[Diedinium]

Wasn't it previously harder to join as a Driver based on certain medical standards? As an example, I seem to recall that there used to be more stringent standards for eyesight and you had to have a certain level of vision without glasses, whereas I believe (although happy to be corrected) this is now no longer the case as long as you wear glasses if you are prescribed them

Complete side note: but I hope this is true lol, I have terrible eyesight without glasses - so would never pass a medical under the old criteria. So yeah, if true, the recruitment process is open to more people than ever these days.

I did email a few ToC HR departments to ask, and generally got back statements along the lines that eyesight (and the other medical criteria) is tested on an individual case by case basis. One of the responses mentioned specific eyesight requirements, but didn't make it clear if this needs to be without or with correction.

 

[ComUtoR]

Sorry can you clarify that sentence, for me it doesn’t make sense. He really never opened his rule book once? I find that extremely hard to believe.

As a340egkk states. You don't really learn directly from the 'rule book'. It would be like learning to read just from a Dictionary. You learn from going through scenarios and being presented with easily digestible information in such a way to give context to what you are learning. Another thing that crops up from time to time is stressing to people not to read ahead and not to read the rule book. Context is very important. Application of rules is important. Quoting SS1 3.1a doesn't mean you know or understand the rule(s)

You also highlight my point perfectly. It shouldn't be extremely hard to believe. That perception that we learn from the rulebook doesn't match the reality on the ground. Training has moved on from the past, and very antiquated, ways.

At SE we're taught the material from the RB via presentations, handouts etc. rather than through reading through the physical RB. Same material / wording, just via a different medium. I did open the RB during training still personally, but that was outside of the teaching.

And yet you know the rules instinctively

I think their point was that it's not an actual book.egkk

When I learned my rules, we pretty much copied out the rule book verbatim. Again, we have moved on from rote learning. I don't think they even open the app on the rules course either. Maybe just to introduce where it is and that its required equipment.

 

[niggill617@gma]

I think Ladbroke Grove was a significant wake-up for the industry. Not only in having taken straight in to substantial main line work someone not up to it, but also the whole management of the recruitment process. The accident driver for Thames Trains was among the first external recruitment, outside the traditional process, which they had done, and in turn it happened within days of him being passed out. The HR selection team, in turn, were from outside the traditional industry background. They were ripped apart by the enquiry at all levels for poor process.

The training process is what was severely criticised, i.e the TOC standard of route learning inter alia. Take a look at the list of U.K. train accidents, nothing new about a train disaster. Spads during the 80s are recorded at 900 per year, now they are about 300 per year. ATP and TPWS will have had some influence. Occupational Psychology is credited for this vast improvement in safety.

I know with aircrew selection, psychometric / aptitude / I.Q. testing, significantly reduced both failure during training, and post qualifying accidents.

 

[Surreytraveller]

The training process is what was severely criticised, i.e the TOC standard of route learning inter alia. Take a look at the list of U.K. train accidents, nothing new about a train disaster. Spads during the 80s are recorded at 900 per year, now they are about 300 per year. ATP and TPWS will have had some influence. Occupational Psychology is credited to this vast improvement in safety.

I know with aircrew selection psychrometric/aptitude / I.Q. testing significantly reduced failure during training/ accidents.

Of course, during the 80s, there were far more SPADs, as back then many were brushed under the carpet.
Fewer trains too, so the reduction will have been even more significant