Reapplying to become a guard after the 6 month wait

[387star]

Hi

I am reapplying to become a guard after failing the assessment (concentration) test a year ago. I have some questions:

Is there anyone on this forum who failed the first time but was still selected for a second assessment and got through that?

Do they hire the same people for the assessment on a regular basis and does this affect the chances of getting through?

When applying to other TOCs do they have access to my information/photo?

Is there less chance of being accepted a second time as one of the questions asks about previous attempts

Is it an idea to change the application instead of keeping a saved copy and sending the same application every time the position arises? Will this be picked up on?

Are they less likely to accept you a second time if you fail on certain tests ie concentration?

Thanks!

 

[185]

My successful one was technically the third attempt, after one company admitted in 1999 they had mucked up on the second attempt.

Things have changed nowadays, and I believe there's a lot more nasty 'human resources professionals' about who have little or no railway industry experience at all, making life much more difficult for candidates.

If it was me I would, after the six months has passed, keep flooding several companies with applications - you do have to declare you failed once more than six months ago - most people fail on the concentration tests, I did - so it's probably worth mentioning it was just that you failed on.

 

[Sammy h]

May I ask why people keep mentioning this six month period? Is it only for certain train companies?

 

[387star]

My successful one was technically the third attempt, after one company admitted in 1999 they had mucked up on the second attempt.

Things have changed nowadays, and I believe there's a lot more nasty 'human resources professionals' about who have little or no railway industry experience at all, making life much more difficult for candidates.

If it was me I would, after the six months has passed, keep flooding several companies with applications - you do have to declare you failed once more than six months ago - most people fail on the concentration tests, I did - so it's probably worth mentioning it was just that you failed on.

Yes I failed on the concentration. I worry if I put I failed on this it might look bad when obviously concentration is extremely important. That said I did not prepare myself enough for the test and misunderstood how the test worked. I have been practising ever since. Am I right the ticket selling test is like the practise one with the percentage reductions already worked out for you meaning it is more a case of simple addition etc

 

[185]

May I ask why people keep mentioning this six month period? Is it only for certain train companies?

All train companies (should) use the standard railway OPC (Occupational Psychology Centre) tests. For each grade of job, a combination of these tests are used. For example for Conductor, there are three paper tests - Maths, Comprehension (-ish), and Concentration. For Gateline - Ticket Selling Verbal Test and Station Ticket Gateline Test. For despatch, Train Despatch Concentration Test & Ticket & Station Verbal Test ...and so on.

Up until end of last year Virgin had used these since BR days, but I hear they are now trying to abandon them, which sets a stupid precedent. They were in bother some time ago for not submitting results, when another TOC later tried to view them.

The six month rule applies to all companies for each exam, as all results you score, regardless of company, are held centrally on the OPC's register.

Yes I failed on the concentration. I worry if I put I failed on this it might look bad when obviously concentration is extremely important. That said I did not prepare myself enough for the test and misunderstood how the test worked. I have been practising ever since. Am I right the ticket selling test is like the practise one with the percentage reductions already worked out for you meaning it is more a case of simple addition etc

Shouldn't look bad to be honest, so many people fail on it, it is quite an unfair test, you certainly aren't the first to reapply. Main hint for the concetration test is to follow the instructions to the letter, work only from left to right, don't miss any out, and don't try to take short cuts. The maths test takes a little practice, but if you work with cash at the moment, it would be pretty hard to fail on it.

 

[Sammy h]

I passed those tests at a Virgin recruitment event last month so I am presuming I am ok to still apply for new jobs as I failed at the group stage.

 

[schwa]

If the website isn't stopping you, go ahead and apply for them. You might find that the test already counts for something, given that you passed it so you may not have to sit it again- but that depends on the specific role you're applying for.

 

[9K43]

I started as a guard in 1981, as there was 3 vacancies where I lived.
The interview was around having to work weekends and sign on's of 0500hrs and finishing at 0100hrs.
Then a 5 week guards school at Leeds, rules exams with the local inspector and that was it up and running.
Then 4/5 weeks road learning your link jobs, and then a 2 week ticket course at York.
After that you were on the road.
The pay after deductions was £75 per week, a bit more with a Sunday time and 3/4's
At this time under BR life was easy, no one bothering you, just come to work do your job and that was it.
All this testing came in with the Train Crew Concept in October 1988.
I agree with your comments about Human Resources, these people are just plain nasty, and do not really have a job.

 

[ACE1888]

I applied for a Conductors job with FGW around 2005, made it to the last 10, but 'failed' on the aptitude test (spotting differences or something like that), shame really as i passed the other 2 parts of the 3 part test, therefore a Railway career wasn't to be, shame an' all that...

 

[BestWestern]

There is a lot of confusion, unfairness and lack of clarity in the way that some TOC's test their job applicants. Different companies seem to favour doing things in different ways, some with excessive reliance on the afore mentioned 'Human Resources' people, who sadly often have little or no idea what the job actually entails, as most of them have never trained, qualified and been deemed competent to do it themselves. They are simply office types with big reserves of artificial cheeriness and a name badge, who have been given a set of criteria and embellished with a misguided belief that they are experts in their 'field'. Some of the processes used when whittling down groups of applicants are just plain stupid, and seem to be more along the lines of an X Factor audition than a job interview, with certain outfits appearing more concerned with people's abilities to show off than their actual suitability to do a serious job.

My advice to anybody who doesn't make it through, regardless of the tests you fail on, would be to give it the mandatory 6 month wait where applicable, and then get reapplying. I'm not sure that I would risk 'circumventing' any additional stipulated time limits, such as First's 6 month rule, since there is a good chance that they will pick up on your name and details somewhere along the line, and that probably really would scupper your chances for the future. I'd favour waiting a few months and keeping it all 'above board'.

Remember that not every firm will dismiss your second application because of a test failure, in fact some may see it as an advantage that you have already passed through some of the system, and don't forget there is a reasonable assumption that if you fail first time you will likely fair better second time around, since you know what to expect. So keep trying, and don't lose your confidence!

 

[ee el oh]

There is a lot of confusion, unfairness and lack of clarity in the way that some TOC's test their job applicants. Different companies seem to favour doing things in different ways, some with excessive reliance on the afore mentioned 'Human Resources' people, who sadly often have little or no idea what the job actually entails, as most of them have never trained, qualified and been deemed competent to do it themselves. They are simply office types with big reserves of artificial cheeriness and a name badge, who have been given a set of criteria and embellished with a misguided belief that they are experts in their 'field'. Some of the processes used when whittling down groups of applicants are just plain stupid, and seem to be more along the lines of an X Factor audition than a job interview, with certain outfits appearing more concerned with people's abilities to show off than their actual suitability to do a serious job.

My advice to anybody who doesn't make it through, regardless of the tests you fail on, would be to give it the mandatory 6 month wait where applicable, and then get reapplying. I'm not sure that I would risk 'circumventing' any additional stipulated time limits, such as First's 6 month rule, since there is a good chance that they will pick up on your name and details somewhere along the line, and that probably really would scupper your chances for the future. I'd favour waiting a few months and keeping it all 'above board'.

Remember that not every firm will dismiss your second application because of a test failure, in fact some may see it as an advantage that you have already passed through some of the system, and don't forget there is a reasonable assumption that if you fail first time you will likely fair better second time around, since you know what to expect. So keep trying, and don't lose your confidence!

Here Here!

 

[WelshBluebird]

and seem to be more along the lines of an X Factor audition than a job interview

That sounds like most job interviews nowadays to be honest!!

 

[185]

How it's evolved - an example.

In 1999, the guards assessment 'group discussion' was take a card, and you and another person have to both either criticise the statement on it or speak in support of the statement, for about a minute. My card was "primary school kids should be allowed to smoke"

In 2011, the guards assessment now requires you to interview a person and find out favourite colour, football team, pets etc, then stand up and talk for two minutes solid about what you found out.

The original test in 1999 was to see if you could face being put on the spot by a passenger and defend the companies policies or regulations - very relevent to the job.

Whilst both these are to see how somebody would fair speaking publicly, the latter is sadly more to do with X factor type-rubbish, than actually being good at the job.

 

[GB]

How it's evolved - an example.

In 1999, the guards assessment 'group discussion' was take a card, and you and another person have to both either criticise the statement on it or speak in support of the statement, for about a minute. My card was "primary school kids should be allowed to smoke"

In 2011, the guards assessment now requires you to interview a person and find out favourite colour, football team, pets etc, then stand up and talk for two minutes solid about what you found out.

The original test in 1999 was to see if you could face being put on the spot by a passenger and defend the companies policies or regulations - very relevent to the job.

Whilst both these are to see how somebody would fair speaking publicly, the latter is sadly more to do with X factor type-rubbish, than actually being good at the job.

...and that is where I would most likly fall down. I get nevous with that sort of public speaking (standing up infront of a group) yet put me infront of a passenger or two and I'm fine!

 

[mac]

Me to,but i no i could do the job if given the chance.The tests don't seem to have anything to do with the job.

 

[387star]

Southern don't have those tests

 

[Turbocharger]

Me to,but i no i could do the job if given the chance.The tests don't seem to have anything to do with the job.

I know it seems like it but the tests do rate you even if you don't know what they are rating you for.

A friend of mine is a pilot and some of the stuff they are tested on is a million miles away from the ability to fly an aircraft. But that is not the point.

Doing the job and assessing someone's mental aptitude can be chalk and cheese.