How Can Railway Recruitment Be Improved?

[redkiterail]

learning the rule book before training does not always work as there is a lot of context that you can not gain or apricate just by reading
Simulators can only teach technical skills not the non technical skills this applies to paper and computer simulators. For example the actions to deal with a one under but not how to deal with the trauma
I have experience of learning jobs passing initial training using simulators and not passing due to a lack of experience and issues with non technical skills

 

[43066]

You are going to need to explain this. Rules are rules, how can they not be learnt by reading a book? Do instructors read through the entire rule book in front of a class?
The contact time can then concentrate on testing, context, and application.

I’ve already explained. You need people to go from zero knowledge to a set standard, with a particular emphasis on the aspects of the rules relevant to that operator’s route network. Hence intensive classroom sessions make sense. Even more so with traction training - it doesn’t really make sense to talk about separating context and application, and it isn’t something that can be learned by reading a book.

No, the instructors wont “read through the entire rule book in front of a class”.
Generally the rule book will be referred to along with specific examples, in an interactive way involving group learning. Much the same as most training sessions in most industries I’ve worked in.

You have already given two big examples of things you could learn on a desktop!
The military do not just rely on full motion simulators. They have tablets and cardboard cockpits for learning, then desktop basic simulators for procedures training. Then the full motion simulators and actual flying can concentrate on the top level training only those can replicate.
Bear in mind high costs mean the military have even more reason to reduce actual flying than the railway does cab time.

As I’ve already pointed out, those things are already taught on desktop simulators. That doesn’t meaningfully reduce the need to complete training hours actually driving hours as you suggested above. The sims used in the airline context can reduce flying hours (albeit even they aren’t a substitute for flying the real aircraft).

It should hopefully be obvious that what’s suitable for military flying training isn’t necessarily going to be suitable for training train drivers, and vice versa. They are two completely different industries and environments.

I was asking whether the IR structure allowed for serious one off bonuses to solve particular training shortages in time and place.

What are these “serious bonuses” ? The issue is generally that TOCs don’t pay enough to make it worth doing, and do their best to do it on the cheap and wonder why they struggle to get volunteers. You also need to ensure that the people who become instructors/mentors are appropriate - it isn’t just about the money.

The “IR structure” (whatever that actually means) has little to do with it.

 

[Meerkat]

learning the rule book before training does not always work as there is a lot of context that you can not gain or apricate just by reading
Simulators can only teach technical skills not the non technical skills this applies to paper and computer simulators. For example the actions to deal with a one under but not how to deal with the trauma
I have experience of learning jobs passing initial training using simulators and not passing due to a lack of experience and issues with non technical skills

I am suggesting textbook (via internet) learning rather than pure “here’s the rule book, learn it”.
The teachers can then concentrate on adding value rather than teaching rules.
Train drivers have a lot of technical and procedural stuff to learn. If they already know that then contact time can concentrate on the non-technical and testing them in practice.

Will GBR be standardising rules, removing a lot of the company specific variability?

Go all the way and you could have railway operations courses that 16-18 year olds can do at college which give credits against training for railway roles - that would offload some of the cost onto the education system!

 

[43066]

I am suggesting textbook (via internet) learning rather than pure “here’s the rule book, learn it”.
The teachers can then concentrate on adding value rather than teaching rules.
Train drivers have a lot of technical and procedural stuff to learn.

Which is largely what already happens. The rules course is presented in the classroom, but trainees need to put some self study in to pass the course. It’s not quite clear exactly what you’re suggesting or, more importantly, how it would improve the current arrangements.

Go all the way and you could have railway operations courses that 16-18 year olds can do at college which give credits against training for railway roles - that would offload some of the cost onto the education system!

Front line railway roles are much too specific for this. A guard who becomes a driver has to go through full driver training, so a college course they may have taken years ago will be of no benefit at all.

What is the benefit of transferring cost into the education system - the cost is still picked up by the taxpayer in the end.

 

[redkiterail]

The rule book is already standard this is not the airline industry GWR drivers are taught the same rules and procedures as LNER or GTR or Scotrail
Teachers need to teach the rule because not everyone can just read and understand them
train drivers are taught over a 2 year period you can not learn to be train driver in 9 months that is not going to happen and the technical and procedural stuff is very very context heavy
if you have no brake release do you A treat as a unit fault or B check to see if a call for aid is pulled two different rule book modules and two different skills needed
rules are taught by textbook but there is no point prereading module t3 without doing a module covering rt3180 form, and communication protocols

 

[Meerkat]

Which is largely what already happens. The rules course is presented in the classroom, but trainees need to put some self study in to pass the course. It’s not quite clear exactly what you’re suggesting or, more importantly, how it would improve the current arrangements.

So why can’t the self study be done before turning up? Apparently some candidates wait ages to get on courses.
Im suggesting ways to reduce training time and reduce reliance on instructors.

The rule book is already standard this is not the airline industry GWR drivers are taught the same rules and procedures as LNER or GTR or Scotrail

The rule book may be standard but the TOCs have different driving standards and procedures don’t they?

Teachers need to teach the rule because not everyone can just read and understand them

That’s what good course material is for. Then the teachers can concentrate on anything that candidates don’t understand.

if you have no brake release do you A treat as a unit fault or B check to see if a call for aid is pulled two different rule book modules and two different skills needed

Computer based training can do that, and can do it more intensely and with fewer trainers.
Modern AI and voice recognition could even do communication protocols for passenger assist being pulled or dealing with a signaller after an incident.

I am not suggesting replacing proper one on one training and cab time, just reducing it by doing everything that can be outside the cab and classroom.

 

[greatkingrat]

Why have universities? Just give the students the relevant textbooks and they can just learn it by themselves?

 

[redkiterail]

The driving standards and procedures are the same as they would be chaos especially for cross country.

I can learn to operate Dungeness B power station by computer but computer learning can not teach you the non technical parts secondly classroom is one scenario at a time incidents on the railway can happen when dealing with something else

Driving instructors are in short supply you can not just teach everything in the classroom not can ai and the other issue is AI is at risk of getting in wrong

The course for train driving is quite intense the classroom part is 1 year of three you are you not going reduce cab time because simulator and videos are under ideal conditions not normal

Have you applied to be a train driver because how the assessment are done will indicate how learning is done

 

[43066]

So why can’t the self study be done before turning up? Apparently some candidates wait ages to get on courses.
Im suggesting ways to reduce training time and reduce reliance on instructors.

Because those people aren’t actually guaranteed to be called forward for job, and may be waiting for months and years. Asking them to “self study” (who going to do that for a job they may not even be called up for?) is going to lead a mixed bag of abilities that have to be standardised - it also creates a risk of misunderstandings that have to be unlearned. How is that better than the current course where everyone learns together, in a structured environment, with assistance from instructors?

Another advantage of the rules course is that it gives the TOC a chance to observe behaviours, professionalism and weed out problem candidates before they’re in an environment where they could kill people.

The rule book may be standard but the TOCs have different driving standards and procedures don’t they?

The rule book is standard but emphasis is put on different parts by different operators. TOCs have different driving standards, and different traction, all of these really need to be taught in the context of practical training, not just book learning.

That’s what good course material is for. Then the teachers can concentrate on anything that candidates don’t understand.

Which is essentially what already happens.

I am not suggesting replacing proper one on one training and cab time, just reducing it by doing everything that can be outside the cab and classroom.

And what makes you think that isn’t already the case? Why do you think TOCs (private companies for the last few decades) would spend more time and money than they really to?

 

[scotraildriver]

How would a prospective candidate with no railway knowledge know which parts of the rule book are relevant to them? Some depots only require knowledge of 1 signalling system. Others would need to learn all about a multitude of different systems. Same with traction types. There's no point in someone learning the whole rule book when large parts are irrelevant. There are some parts which refer to as only for shunters or guards, but in some areas would apply to drivers. Others it wouldn't. There are too many variables to try to learn it all. And the rule book isn't taught in the order it's presented, it's taught in the order that is relevant to the candidates present. Also the rules part of the course isn't what takes time, it's gaining 300hours practical experience that takes longest, not helped by a shortage of driving instructors.

 

[Meerkat]

How would a prospective candidate with no railway knowledge know which parts of the rule book are relevant to them? Some depots only require knowledge of 1 signalling system. Others would need to learn all about a multitude of different systems. Same with traction types. There's no point in someone learning the whole rule book when large parts are irrelevant. There are some parts which refer to as only for shunters or guards, but in some areas would apply to drivers. Others it wouldn't. There are too many variables to try to learn it all. And the rule book isn't taught in the order it's presented, it's taught in the order that is relevant to the candidates present. Also the rules part of the course isn't what takes time, it's gaining 300hours practical experience that takes longest, not helped by a shortage of driving instructors.

What drives the 300 hours?
the military have cut down flying time with the use of simulators etc, and they have pretty extreme safety considerations too.

 

[Terry844]

I understand what you are saying but within the railway everything from rules to training has pretty much come about because of past incidents, so you could say the railway has been reactionary and not preventative because it only reacted to incidents and didn’t think ahead of what could happen. The minimum hours required is because it was deemed as part of the causes after an incident that the newly trained driver involved hadn’t had enough training so a minimum amount of hours was set of actual wheels turning time under instruction

 

[43066]

It’s 225 minimum (40 night) but the total to pass out will vary according to route network/complexity, and of course the individual candidate. Certainly where I trained most candidates were well in excess of the 225 by the time they passed out, due to complexity of the network they were required to sign.

The training requirements are ultimately determined and laid down by the ORR. It has already been clearly explained by people with relevant experience why simulators aren’t really a cost effective solution to reducing this.

I don’t understand the continuing comparison with the military. Having trainees driving trains which would be running anyway is very different to specific training sorties by military aircraft.

 

[pacerpal]

I used to be a driving instructor. It's just not worth it for 2.5k extra per year. One arrogant, know it all ex copper too many putting my licence at risk did it for me.

Sad to hear. Should people with these attitudes be getting train licences ?

 

[scotraildriver]

What drives the 300 hours?
the military have cut down flying time with the use of simulators etc, and they have pretty extreme safety considerations too.

What advantage would there be to using a simulator? Trains run anyway so you might as well use them. It also means trainees are earning revenue for the company as they learn, simulators are a cost to the business .Trainees drive service trains it's not as if it's anything special. It's the instructor shortage that is the issue. Working as an instructor can be very rewarding but equally spending weeks in a cab with someone with no chat or personality can be absolutely awful. I'm glad I'm out of it.

 

[Economist]

I'd like to see driver instructors and possibly even regular drivers involved in the initial sift and the driver manager interview for driving roles, it would have to be carefully managed to avoid nepotism etc. however I've seen a few trainees who've managed to get through over the years and genuinely wondered how on earth they got through the interview.

 

[Horizon22]

I'd like to see driver instructors and possibly even regular drivers involved in the initial sift and the driver manager interview for driving roles, it would have to be carefully managed to avoid nepotism etc. however I've seen a few trainees who've managed to get through over the years and genuinely wondered how on earth they got through the interview.

People can ace interviews and be terrible employees. This might be behavioural fit or technical ability. This is not unique to the railway industry.

It is sometimes hard to gauge someone’s ability to do what is a broadly solo job in an interview. Being able to get on with your colleagues is often not a factor - even if questions such as teamwork and collaboration can be worked into the process. Indeed there are many questions in the SJT regarding this although you can “game” these if you know what answers are being looked for, even if you wouldn’t actually display those behaviours.

 

[Cestrian21]

The rule book is already standard this is not the airline industry GWR drivers are taught the same rules and procedures as LNER or GTR or Scotrail
Teachers need to teach the rule because not everyone can just read and understand them
train drivers are taught over a 2 year period you can not learn to be train driver in 9 months that is not going to happen and the technical and procedural stuff is very very context heavy
if you have no brake release do you A treat as a unit fault or B check to see if a call for aid is pulled two different rule book modules and two different skills needed
rules are taught by textbook but there is no point prereading module t3 without doing a module covering rt3180 form, and communication protocols

Whilst I agree with the general point being made here, I do think 2 years is a bit excessive. 9 months is perfectly possible under the status quo and something TOCs should really be aiming for.

 

[43066]

Whilst I agree with the general point being made here, I do think 2 years is a bit excessive. 9 months is perfectly possible under the status quo and something TOCs should really be aiming for.

Not sure that’s true as a general statement. 9 months is doable at operators with small route knowledge such as London Overground. Others will generally take longer - a year being about average.

 

[Ellwill]

In a general terms for recruitment I would,

• Double recruitment teams - there simply aren't enough people at most TOCs to process things in a quick and orderly manner. Comms are glacial or non-existent to many applicants. What's worse, is that we've accepted this to be the norm.
• As above, a moderate increase to the salary of recruiters. Ultimately the extra cost would be saved by not so much reliance on overtime of the roles they are recruiting down the line.
• In line with the above, formalise and properly track talent pools. I can't tell you how many times new adverts are put up whilst there are still people mid-way through the process. It's inefficient at best.
• Internal recruitment flows could be maybe better, especially if you want to lower the train driving age. Increasingly what would once be internal adverts are external.
  • External adverts are more competitive and people with more experience (generally older) are more likely to be able to pass a CV sift even if they have no specific rail experience.
  • Internal recruits from roles like platform / gateline / guard are likely to be younger. That being said being internal does not guarantee a good candidate.

In terms of driver roles specifically:

• There's a lot of pressure for instructors and many drivers don't feel like the extra hassle is worth (maybe 1% extra salary) it. So up the rate for instructions; money does talk sometimes!
• A review as to whether all the assessments that train driver applicants go through are actually beneficial to being able to select the best drivers who can perform in the role. Most stuff is good, but doesn't mean it can't be bettered.

Agree with points raised here re; talent pools. I've been fermenting in SE's station staff pool since January now and I haven't had any updates beyond a rather glacial "we'll be in touch once you're next in line and there's a vacancy available" when I requested one.

It doesn't bother me as much as it would if I didn't already have a job. But I can imagine how frustrating it must be if someone on the dole is having to get an earful from the Jokecentre about not applying for jobs while in the talent pool, for example.

 

[Pintman]

Tbf being in a talent pool isn't a job offer, so if someone is waiting and out of work it is in their interest to seek employment elsewhere in the meantime

 

[baz962]

What drives the 300 hours?
the military have cut down flying time with the use of simulators etc, and they have pretty extreme safety considerations too.

But it must be totally different. Some Aircraft can fly themselves and even land themselves , while trains on the Mainline cannot and having to know where signals are and stations and many other things that aren't actually barrier in the sky.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jun 2025 ==

Whilst I agree with the general point being made here, I do think 2 years is a bit excessive. 9 months is perfectly possible under the status quo and something TOCs should really be aiming for.

I passed out in 8 months at London Overground , but the route is only about 25 miles across London. Not many places you can get wrong routed plus not nearly as many signals , no fast and slow lines to learn and no diversionary routes. When I moved over to inter city I needed another several months for traction and route learning and you probably need not as a pilot in the military. As for the rule book , I personally wanted to read ahead and glad i didn't as it would of made no sense.