Advice for trainee train driver interview

[Stigy]

The fact that your asking how to answer the question shows it isn’t enough. When you have the relevant experience the answer will come easy, It’s really that simple. The whole recruitment process is designed to weed out candidates that are unsuitable or unready. If you’re the latter then get the experience

You don’t need any specific experience such as this to be successful. It’s just a bonus. People have been successful using what would ordinarily seem as trivial experiences from their home life as examples.

As I said a few posts back, the term “emergency” should be used in its broadest form if you’re lacking experience of life and death emergencies from previous jobs. I believe sometimes it’s worded as “an emergency or unexpected event”. This could be anything from an RTC to breaking down in the car to one of the kids being taken ill at school and having to arrange the logistics of this.

 

[PaulBusDriver]

I see where you’re coming from with this. I’ve never had any sort of medical training, however I know the basics in intial response. Things like; checking airways, keeping pressure on serious bleeds; keeping neck and back straight and still to avoid further injury or worse. At the time all of this was going through my mind and I did ask the injured parties whether they had pain anywhere whilst conveying all this information back to the phone operator.

The point I’m trying to make is that after speaking to the operator on the phone and having followed their instructions, there was no need for my intervention at the scene. I think how I’m wording and explaining this scenario is where I’m struggling, and like you say, contradicting myself. Would you agree that’s the case?

Yeah I mean your not saying something which is totaly contradictory, but you do need to give lots of detail and by saying "I spoke to the operator on the phone and they told me what to do" perhaps you arent giving enough detail and explaining how you methodically reached a conclusion that nobody needed your intervention immediately. You cant give too much detail but you can give too much irrelevant information.

 

[Jimbo66]

The fact that your asking how to answer the question shows it isn’t enough. When you have the relevant experience the answer will come easy, It’s really that simple. The whole recruitment process is designed to weed out candidates that are unsuitable or unready. If you’re the latter then get the experience

So you’re saying that coming across a car accident and stopping to help isn’t an emergency? I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make? Others have said this is a spot on example, but there’s areas I need to explain further and go into better detail.

As Stigy mentioned, people’s interpretation of an emergency can be different. A person with mobility issues having a fall, could be an emergency to them but not appear that way to others. So when you say “When you have the relevant experience the answer will come easy“, that isn’t really a valid statement.

I’ll stick with my example and highlight how I took my safety seriously and didn’t exceed what I was trained to do. That’s really what this question is all about.

 

[ComUtoR]

I’ll stick with my example and highlight how I took my safety seriously and didn’t exceed what I was trained to do. That’s really what this question is all about.

Then you are not really helping yourself. The question is far deeper than what you suspect.

 

[Jimbo66]

Yeah I mean your not saying something which is totaly contradictory, but you do need to give lots of detail and by saying "I spoke to the operator on the phone and they told me what to do" perhaps you arent giving enough detail and explaining how you methodically reached a conclusion that nobody needed your intervention immediately. You cant give too much detail but you can give too much irrelevant information.

Okay. So what I should probably be mentioning is the what the operator was asking me to do and the questions they were asking specifically in order to ensure the patients received the correct level of first response care from myself until the paramedics arrived. Would you agree?

I can see exactly where you’re coming from about making assumptions. Obviously it’s the operator asking the questions, so the answers I give them determine the severity of injuries and the type of intervention required. This then leads them to conclude and determine the correct level of care required. Without medical training, it would be wrong of me to make this assumption.

 

[Jimbo66]

Then you are not really helping yourself. The question is far deeper than what you suspect.

In what way? The TOC will give you the training they believe is required for the job. And should an emergency occur, they will expect you to follow that training and not exceed it as this could make it worse.

I feel that my example shows I have a good understanding of that.

If the question goes far deeper than that, what exactly am I missing? I feel I’m answering the question.

 

[ComUtoR]

In what way?

Firstly because you are trying to force your actions into what you, and others think the TOC requires from the answer. You need to expect the Interviewer to take you through your answer. You need to be prepared for anything that comes up. Including, as I mentioned earlier, your answer to be dismissed out of hand. I remember my day and the emergency question came up and I gave what I thought was the perfect example. She stopped me just as I started and stated that I couldn't use that example. If I had put everything into a single answer I would have been screwed.

Secondly, there really is more to it than safety safety safety. They are looking for a multitude of criteria and considering everyone is going safety and rules, your answer is a generic mess.

Thirdly, you aren't being flexible. Others are offering good solid advice but sticking with your example is limiting yourself. Being able to take advice and see how to apply it is crucial. It is well known that the MMI will push you for deeper answers. Those aren't answers that you can pre-script and certainly shouldn't. The Interviewer will be critical of your actions and you need to be prepared for that.

The TOC will give you the training they believe is required for the job. And should an emergency occur, they will expect you to follow that training and not exceed it as this could make it worse.

Following your training is only a small part of what is required. My training states that if the train is on fire and I have no communication, I should walk a mile and a quarter to find communication. Are you prepared to leave people in a burning train?

With your first example did you get feedback as to why the Interviewer 'wasn't impressed' Have you considered why it wasn't sufficient or waYour STAR method example sounds like the same scenario but worded differently ? If it didn't work the first time, why would it work the second ?

I feel that my example shows I have a good understanding of that.

You are forgetting the question is about YOU. It isn't about telling the TOC you will follow the rules, they know that and is part of the expectations. Take it further and think about what other criteria they are looking for and be prepared for your example to be taken apart bit by bit.

 

[Jimbo66]

Firstly because you are trying to force your actions into what you, and others think the TOC requires from the answer. You need to expect the Interviewer to take you through your answer. You need to be prepared for anything that comes up. Including, as I mentioned earlier, your answer to be dismissed out of hand. I remember my day and the emergency question came up and I gave what I thought was the perfect example. She stopped me just as I started and stated that I couldn't use that example. If I had put everything into a single answer I would have been screwed.

Okay, so I've at no point expected my answer to not be dissected and challenged by the interviewer. I am fully prepared for this and it's not the first time someone has mentioned it. I'm not sure why you're acting like I'm oblivious to this? Just because I've mentioned that I'm sticking to my example, it doesn't mean I won't be prepared to talk about anything else.

Secondly, there really is more to it than safety safety safety. They are looking for a multitude of criteria and considering everyone is going safety and rules, your answer is a generic mess.

Please go on to explain this multitude of criteria you're speaking of. Does common sense come under any of that by any chance? Got plenty of that. Rather than just criticising my example, it would be useful to actually give some constructive advice, rather than just your opinion- "your answer is a generic mess". Not very useful.

Thirdly, you aren't being flexible. Others are offering good solid advice but sticking with your example is limiting yourself. Being able to take advice and see how to apply it is crucial. It is well known that the MMI will push you for deeper answers. Those aren't answers that you can pre-script and certainly shouldn't. The Interviewer will be critical of your actions and you need to be prepared for that

I completely disagree. I've been flexible since the start. I've taken on board all the feedback I've had. Read my previous replies, you'll see I've agreed with the feedback others have given. Paul The Bus Driver's feedback is an example. It's not about pre-scripting the answer at all.

Following your training is only a small part of what is required. My training states that if the train is on fire and I have no communication, I should walk a mile and a quarter to find communication. Are you prepared to leave people in a burning train?

As I've already mentioned, I have plenty of common sense. So I know it's not training training training. I'm certain that your training will tell you to evacuate the train first, rather than leaving them in there to burn.

With your first example did you get feedback as to why the Interviewer 'wasn't impressed' Have you considered why it wasn't sufficient or waYour STAR method example sounds like the same scenario but worded differently ? If it didn't work the first time, why would it work the second ?

I'm not going to go over the example I gave in full again. Read my first post on this topic about it and you'll find that this example was dismissed by the interviewer (for a reason that I wasn't told in my feedback), and I was given a scenario instead. I've admitted I struggled and this is where I fell. The only feedback that I received was that it was this topic area that I failed in. No other information was given. I asked for it, and I was told that was all there is to say.

What you should consider is that all of these topic areas are similar in ways. For me to have nailed the other 5 topics, I must be doing something very well. I'm not completely inexperienced for the role.

You are forgetting the question is about YOU. It isn't about telling the TOC you will follow the rules, they know that and is part of the expectations. Take it further and think about what other criteria they are looking for and be prepared for your example to be taken apart bit by bit.

I'm well aware the question is about me, that's the point of an interview. All I've heard from other people is that I need to demonstrate that I will follow the rules, regardless of whether it's expected, they will want to hear it. As an employee in any job, you know you employer has expectations, and you know you should be meeting those expectations.And that's what I've done, but you're saying there's some other criteria? I'm keen to know what this is.

 

[Lou Carpenter]

If this was a DMI you would have failed. Poor example aside, you react badly when challenged. These questions are more than what you think the interviewer wants to hear. They are to showcase your character, resolve and integrity. Just because you really want the job, doesn’t mean you would be good at it. Like I said before, get the experience first hand then you wouldn’t need to ask strangers on the internet if your answer is any good. You only have two shots at this and one is gone so that’s worth considering

 

[Jimbo66]

you react badly when challenged

Please do explain how you’ve come to this conclusion. I’m baffled.

 

[Twotwo]

"I'm not going to go over the example I gave in full again. Read my first post on this topic about it and you'll find that this example was dismissed by the interviewer (for a reason that I wasn't told in my feedback), and I was given a scenario instead. I've admitted I struggled and this is where I fell. The only feedback that I received was that it was this topic area that I failed in. No other information was given. I asked for it, and I was told that was all there is to say"


I don't no how to quote small chunks lol but if your example was dismissed the first time then it could be dismissed the second time round???? I think u should change your example....

 

[ComUtoR]

I'm certain that your training will tell you to evacuate the train first, rather than leaving them in there to burn.

Nope, my training tells me to leave them to burn.

but you're saying there's some other criteria? I'm keen to know what this is.

There is other criteria. You are missing it. I'm sorry, and this may sound cruel but this isn't information I give out. I think you need to re-evaluate your approach. STAR is great at the communication side but is it can often miss on the content side.

Constructive advice was given in my first post. Be prepared, think about what you did and the actions you took, have a backup plan/answer, try not to force answers that you think the TOC wants. Go deeper with your answer instead of skimming the surface and giving a generic response.

I can tell you for a fact that pretty much every candidate states they were 'following the rules' 'did everything safely' 'provided customer service' 'listened to the person with authority' This is generic box ticking.

 

[Jimbo66]

Nope, my training tells me to leave them to burn.

Wow. Either this is a trick question or the people who came up with this rule are heartless. I’m not leaving anyone to burn without giving them some kind of warning. Couldn’t live with myself just doing nothing.

There is other criteria. You are missing it. I'm sorry, and this may sound cruel but this isn't information I give out. I think you need to re-evaluate your approach. STAR is great at the communication side but is it can often miss on the content side.

Constructive advice was given in my first post. Be prepared, think about what you did and the actions you took, have a backup plan/answer, try not to force answers that you think the TOC wants. Go deeper with your answer instead of skimming the surface and giving a generic response.

I can tell you for a fact that pretty much every candidate states they were 'following the rules' 'did everything safely' 'provided customer service' 'listened to the person with authority' This is generic box ticking.

Okay, fair enough. I can’t say you’ve been helpful or given any constructive advice at all. Pretty pointless given this thread was asking for advice. All you’ve done is say it’s terrible and there’s loads missing, and not given any good advice at all.

I’d appreciate it if you just stopped responding to this thread now.

 

[ComUtoR]

Wow. Either this is a trick question or the people who came up with this rule are heartless. I’m not leaving anyone to burn without giving them some kind of warning. Couldn’t live with myself just doing nothing.

Which is the point. The rules do not prioritize the people on board. My job is to protect the line and mitigate further incident. It does go against everything but that is how the rules are written. If you apply that to the MMI question you can see that what you expect the TOC to think is very different to what the reality may be. If you are faced with being put in that scenario how are you going to respond ? Do you evacuate the people or carry out the rules and leave them ? That is the kind of reality we face as Drivers and onboard staff. This is the kind of thing they are pushing for during an MMI. Are you the kind of person who would walk away from a train packed with 1k people to carry out your job ?

I know which option the TOC wants you to take. How do you put that across in your responses ? Pushing what you think is the safe answer might not match what the TOC thinks is the safe answer. One of the reasons why people get these kind of questions wrong or when given those silly customer service questions is that they are giving an answer based on the perception of what it right.

Okay, fair enough. I can’t say you’ve been helpful or given any constructive advice at all.

That is a matter of perspective.

I’d appreciate it if you just stopped responding to this thread now.

If you believe I have broken any form rules then feel free to use the report function.

 

[Jimbo66]

Which is the point. The rules do not prioritize the people on board. My job is to protect the line and mitigate further incident. It does go against everything but that is how the rules are written. If you apply that to the MMI question you can see that what you expect the TOC to think is very different to what the reality may be. If you are faced with being put in that scenario how are you going to respond ? Do you evacuate the people or carry out the rules and leave them ? That is the kind of reality we face as Drivers and onboard staff. This is the kind of thing they are pushing for during an MMI. Are you the kind of person who would walk away from a train packed with 1k people to carry out your job ?

I know which option the TOC wants you to take. How do you put that across in your responses ? Pushing what you think is the safe answer might not match what the TOC thinks is the safe answer. One of the reasons why people get these kind of questions wrong or when given those silly customer service questions is that they are giving an answer based on the perception of what it right.

Okay, so have I hit the nail on the head here? Does the common sense approach work in my favour? There’s no way I would leave a burning train with 1k passengers and other train crew on board to protect the line.

Also, isn’t part of the role of a train driver to protect and prioritise the safety of passengers on board? I assume this is designed to catch you out?

If you believe I have broken any form rules then feel free to use the report function.

I’m not saying that at all.

 

[ComUtoR]

Okay, so have I hit the nail on the head here? Does the common sense approach work in my favour?

I've been driving for more than a few years now and the entire rulebook can sometime make little to no common sense. What is important is that I follow those rules, irrespective of if I believe they are right or not. There are times when common sense goes out the window and leaving a burning train full of people is a anathema to everything I believe in. However, the rules are there for a reason. You have no communication and there are potentially trains running on adjacent lines at anywhere between 30 and 100mph. If you evacuate people onto a running line then you are making the situation worse and putting those people in further danger. In third rail land you have a live line with 750v of electric. Can you see the bigger picture building now ?

Get the juice off, protect the line, get help. The first rule in an emergency is to get help. Have a look at some RAIB reports and see how clinical they are and how important following the rules are. This is why people say to emphasise following rules. Even if they are unpalatable. If you look at the RAIB report for the Chilham derailment you can see a prime example of a Driver making a decision of good common sense but then the RAIB deciding that is actions could and maybe should have been different.

There’s no way I would leave a burning train with 1k passengers and other train crew on board to protect the line.

Then this job isn't for you. The mentality of blindly following the rule book is a trait of being a Driver. There is a shift away from it but the overarching mantra is follow your training, follow the rules. Again, this is why people always push this during an MMI/DMI questioning. However, people do not see where that can be a trap. Do you follow the rules but potentially put others in danger or do you break the rules because you prioritize something different. Do you run into a burning building or do you stay back and call the fire brigade ? How you balance that and how you deal with that is what they are looking for. This is the kind of situation that throws a candidate.

Also, isn’t part of the role of a train driver to protect and prioritize the safety of passengers on board? I assume this is designed to catch you out?

There is no trick question here and nothing is designed to catch you out. I know my job to the letter. I have to follow rules, procedures, policies etc. What I also need to do is understand what is going on. Look at the Peckham Rye incident. Passengers were evacuated onto a live running line. It was barely significant but it was enough to trigger an RAIB report and the Drivers actions were considered to be very wrong. From an outside perspective the Driver acted in the best interest of the passengers. Internally he failed to protect the passengers he was trying to help.

They truly are looking for so much more. They are looking for people who have certain personality traits, they want people who are mentally prepared to make crappy decisions, they want people who are prepared to challenge everything they believe in. The reasons why they keep poking at you during the questions is that they are delving deeper into how you are thinking and what you are doing. They want to know why you did something and how you felt about it.

As I say, look deeper at your answer and think more about what you did, how you felt, what you might have done different, why you did something, what mistakes you made etc.

My first answer was dismissed, my second was reporting a fire on a country lane, that was also dismissed. I had to come up with a 3rd answer on the fly. It wasn't something that I considered to be an 'emergency' but it was filled with examples of what I did, and every tangent she took me on pushed me further. I had to justify everything I did, regardless of if it was right or wrong.

 

[Jimbo66]

If you evacuate people onto a running line then you are making the situation worse and putting those people in further danger. In third rail land you have a live line with 750v of electric. Can you see the bigger picture building now ?

Yes I can, it’s a very valid point indeed. The closest example I’ve experienced to this is when a police car came screaming up behind me in a set of roadworks on a dual carriageway where only one lane was open to traffic. I was in a speed restricted vehicle travelling at 56mph and going no faster. I wasn’t sure whether they were pulling me (no reason to, honest!) or on their way to an emergency. Regardless, there was no where safe for me to pull over and find out. Pulling into the closed lane wasn’t going to be safe. What if there were road workers that I couldn’t see? Severe damage to the road? Obstacles that could cause me to lose control? So I made the decision that I was going to continue until the roadworks had ended and it was safe to pull over. So I carried on. There were vehicles in front of me pulling into the roadworks. I just continued until the lane closure ended, where I then pulled over. The police car then continued up the road to wherever he was going. I felt bad that I’d held them up, I could have made the difference between them catching a criminal or saving a life. But I could have also saved myself from killing several road workers in the lane closure too.

Now this isn’t an example I’ll use, because it isn’t really an emergency is it?

 

[Val3ntine]

Yes I can, it’s a very valid point indeed. The closest example I’ve experienced to this is when a police car came screaming up behind me in a set of roadworks on a dual carriageway where only one lane was open to traffic. I was in a speed restricted vehicle travelling at 56mph and going no faster. I wasn’t sure whether they were pulling me (no reason to, honest!) or on their way to an emergency. Regardless, there was no where safe for me to pull over and find out. Pulling into the closed lane wasn’t going to be safe. What if there were road workers that I couldn’t see? Severe damage to the road? Obstacles that could cause me to lose control? So I made the decision that I was going to continue until the roadworks had ended and it was safe to pull over. So I carried on. There were vehicles in front of me pulling into the roadworks. I just continued until the lane closure ended, where I then pulled over. The police car then continued up the road to wherever he was going. I felt bad that I’d held them up, I could have made the difference between them catching a criminal or saving a life. But I could have also saved myself from killing several road workers in the lane closure too.

Now this isn’t an example I’ll use, because it isn’t really an emergency is it?

No, not an emergency situation but it is the type of level of thinking that’s needed. Why did you do what you did, what were your thought processes in doing what you did, how did it make you feel, is there anything you could have done differently, were there any challenges, what was the final outcome of doing what you did the way you did, were there any possible alternative outcomes if you had acted differently?

 

[Rylievie]

May I suggest possibly using something more personal to you? I used a scenario not work related but was more personal regarding my wife collapsing at home, which I had to deal with whilst organising, sorting and prioritising around the fact that I had 2 young children in the house also. So mine was not really at all safety related but to do around the fact that I had to control my emotions under pressure, remember first aid training that I had taken, again highlighting the communication with paramedics and family members to arrange looking after my children all whilst making sure my wife was ok. Not saying that your example is not correct at all just saying that it doesn't have to be as linear as an accident and it doesn't have to be work related. I would suggest that the question maybe looks at more of the mental side of you and I would say that is easier to explain when more personal.

 

[PaulBusDriver]

Okay. So what I should probably be mentioning is the what the operator was asking me to do and the questions they were asking specifically in order to ensure the patients received the correct level of first response care from myself until the paramedics arrived. Would you agree?

I can see exactly where you’re coming from about making assumptions. Obviously it’s the operator asking the questions, so the answers I give them determine the severity of injuries and the type of intervention required. This then leads them to conclude and determine the correct level of care required. Without medical training, it would be wrong of me to make this assumption.

Yes, you have to try and be explicit and demonstrate your critical thinking processes.

 

[Jimbo66]

No, not an emergency situation but it is the type of level of thinking that’s needed. Why did you do what you did, what were your thought processes in doing what you did, how did it make you feel, is there anything you could have done differently, were there any challenges, what was the final outcome of doing what you did the way you did, were there any possible alternative outcomes if you had acted differently?

Thank you for your advice! I will make sure I cover this!

May I suggest possibly using something more personal to you? I used a scenario not work related but was more personal regarding my wife collapsing at home, which I had to deal with whilst organising, sorting and prioritising around the fact that I had 2 young children in the house also. So mine was not really at all safety related but to do around the fact that I had to control my emotions under pressure, remember first aid training that I had taken, again highlighting the communication with paramedics and family members to arrange looking after my children all whilst making sure my wife was ok. Not saying that your example is not correct at all just saying that it doesn't have to be as linear as an accident and it doesn't have to be work related. I would suggest that the question maybe looks at more of the mental side of you and I would say that is easier to explain when more personal.

I am going to use a more personal situation I think. Although, the situation I'm thinking of won't go into following rules or procedures in depth, other than some basic medical stuff (checking breathing, keeping person still, keeping them responsive and communicating with the ambulance service). It will focus more on my mentality and decision making leading up to my intervention. I wasn't going to use this situation as my example before because it didn't really demonstrate me following rules and procedures, but from what others are saying, this element isn't just what they're wanting to hear about. @ComUtoR, would you agree?

Yes, you have to try and be explicit and demonstrate your critical thinking processes.

Sure, I will do my best to demonstrate this. Thank you!

 

[ComUtoR]

I am going to use a more personal situation I think.

The benefit of using a more personal situation, is that any question that is asked allows you to make a quick and personal response. You still need to highlight certain areas or highlight skills they are looking for but it will allow for a more fluid interview. This is where I'd use STAR. Good communication will be essential.

Although, the situation I'm thinking of won't go into following rules or procedures in depth, other than some basic medical stuff (checking breathing, keeping person still, keeping them responsive and communicating with the ambulance service).

If they ask for a rules or procedure based scenario, you still need to answer with that in mind. I was discussing my assessment day today as a Driver passing up with me today was on my assessment day. We had a Trainee in the cab with us and she was also talking about her day. Each of us all gave very different answers but each of us gave something relevant, and personal.

It will focus more on my mentality and decision making leading up to my intervention. I wasn't going to use this situation as my example before because it didn't really demonstrate me following rules and procedures, but from what others are saying, this element isn't just what they're wanting to hear about. @ComUtoR, would you agree?

It is difficult to balance what you say and that is one of the hardest things about the MMI and the DMI. If the question was 'tell me a time where you had to strictly adhere to a set of rules' then you need to give a specific response with a specific answer they will push and pull your answer apart where they need.

In terms of how this kind of thing relates to our job : Today I was a 4-Car during the peak, it was kinda mad because it got packed pretty quickly. At each station there were passengers down by the 8/10 car marks but as I have no choice to stop at the 4 this meant I was losing time at each stop and needed to prompt the passengers down the end of the platforms somehow.

A very quick example and shows I was sticking to the rules, considering passengers and customer service, knew the consequences of any actions taken. and allows the interviewer to take me off on a tangent anywhere they need. It is possible to have something personal, emotive and still have relevance. You can also start to apply STAR because it includes elements from each part.

 

[Jimbo66]

The benefit of using a more personal situation, is that any question that is asked allows you to make a quick and personal response. You still need to highlight certain areas or highlight skills they are looking for but it will allow for a more fluid interview. This is where I'd use STAR. Good communication will be essential.



If they ask for a rules or procedure based scenario, you still need to answer with that in mind. I was discussing my assessment day today as a Driver passing up with me today was on my assessment day. We had a Trainee in the cab with us and she was also talking about her day. Each of us all gave very different answers but each of us gave something relevant, and personal.



It is difficult to balance what you say and that is one of the hardest things about the MMI and the DMI. If the question was 'tell me a time where you had to strictly adhere to a set of rules' then you need to give a specific response with a specific answer they will push and pull your answer apart where they need.

In terms of how this kind of thing relates to our job : Today I was a 4-Car during the peak, it was kinda mad because it got packed pretty quickly. At each station there were passengers down by the 8/10 car marks but as I have no choice to stop at the 4 this meant I was losing time at each stop and needed to prompt the passengers down the end of the platforms somehow.

A very quick example and shows I was sticking to the rules, considering passengers and customer service, knew the consequences of any actions taken. and allows the interviewer to take me off on a tangent anywhere they need. It is possible to have something personal, emotive and still have relevance. You can also start to apply STAR because it includes elements from each part.

The problem with my personal scenario is there were no rules or procedures to follow really, other than what I mentioned about the medical basics. This is why I didn’t think it would be suitable.

I’ve taken your advice and thought long and hard about some other scenarios I’ve experienced, should my first be dismissed. I will of course adopt the STAR method as well. You mentioned it is a good method to use for communication, but can sometimes lack on the content side of things. What exactly do you mean by that?

 

[Stigy]

Nope, my training tells me to leave them to burn.

Blimey, who trained you?

You’d only need to walk a mile and a quarter to lay emergency protection, and that’s on a really bad day (one would assume you’d have a mobile phone on you?). I’d like to think you could stop the train in a suitable place and evacuate before having to leave people to burn.

 

[Stigy]

The problem with my personal scenario is there were no rules or procedures to follow really, other than what I mentioned about the medical basics. This is why I didn’t think it would be suitable.

I’ve taken your advice and thought long and hard about some other scenarios I’ve experienced, should my first be dismissed. I will of course adopt the STAR method as well. You mentioned it is a good method to use for communication, but can sometimes lack on the content side of things. What exactly do you mean by that?

In terms of emergency or unexpected occurrences, you don’t need rules to adhere to necessarily as there’s usually an “emergency” based question and a rules based one. It’s about how you prioritised and what you did. I don’t think your original example was a bad one. But it’s right that you should have a couple in the bag to use just in case the interviewer doesn’t want you to use that for whatever reason (the question could be worded in such a way that it wouldn’t fit for example....like if they do mention about adhering to rules in the same question).

 

[ComUtoR]

You’d only need to walk a mile and a quarter to lay emergency protection, and that’s on a really bad day (one would assume you’d have a mobile phone on you?).

That's the thing with rules though. No communication = Lay Emergency Protection. You must exhaust all forms of communication first. Look at Chileham and the aftermath. We have now been instructed to flip back the MCB, wait, check all other GSMRs on the train, then SPT, then if no communication is found, you can use your mobile. In reality, your mobile is going on within a few minutes. But again, how many people have every single box/panel in their phones ? What if your in a tunnel and there is no reception ? The rule to seek communication/lay protection is there because it's the most robust strategy. Did you read the recent report about the LO detrainment ? Have you seen the 'Red' video where passengers detrained onto a live line and a train went past ?

I’d like to think you could stop the train in a suitable place and evacuate before having to leave people to burn.

I drive Metro style and there are signals, stations, TP huts, buildings, residential property, sub stations, everywhere. I'd get comms pretty quick but my 4Ts and a Sugar are just as important because there are trains everywhere. When I do drive more mainline services, there are miles of open land with nothing to the left, nothing to the right and my next signal is aver a mile in front of me on a 100mph line. Any evacuation becomes the least desirable option. Hence the RAIB and the ORR doing everything they can to prevent passengers getting out onto the line where there is no protection or the lines are live.


One of those problems with 'rules' Do you follow them to the letter or know when to bend/break them ? IF you do break them, are you prepared to accept the consequences. An MMI/DMI Interviewer can push that kind of situation and just responding in terms of 'safety' or 'rules' just isn't enough anymore. They are looking for other skills. As you say...

It’s about how you prioritised and what you did.

Which is the correct answer. An ability to prioritise is a key skill they are looking for. Hence my statement about going beyond the generic response and that they are looking for many (at least 7....) other skills.

But it’s right that you should have a couple in the bag to use just in case the interviewer doesn’t want you to use that for whatever reason

Which is what happened to me. Having a backup plan, thinking more about the entire scenario, pushing other skillsets, being mentally prepared, keeping calm, and expecting curveballs etc. are so much more important when preparing for an interview than rehearsing questions and answers.

 

[Stigy]

That's the thing with rules though. No communication = Lay Emergency Protection. You must exhaust all forms of communication first. Look at Chileham and the aftermath. We have now been instructed to flip back the MCB, wait, check all other GSMRs on the train, then SPT, then if no communication is found, you can use your mobile. In reality, your mobile is going on within a few minutes. But again, how many people have every single box/panel in their phones ? What if your in a tunnel and there is no reception ? The rule to seek communication/lay protection is there because it's the most robust strategy. Did you read the recent report about the LO detrainment ? Have you seen the 'Red' video where passengers detrained onto a live line and a train went past ?



I drive Metro style and there are signals, stations, TP huts, buildings, residential property, sub stations, everywhere. I'd get comms pretty quick but my 4Ts and a Sugar are just as important because there are trains everywhere.

I see what you’re saying, however, it doesn’t actually say anywhere that the driver should leave his inferno and lay emergency protection. For starters you’re protected by the track circuit unless, as I said, it’s a really bad day! We are off on a tangent here admittedly. The rules do indeed take the worst case scenario in to account which is what rules are all about, as you rightly said. If you’ve derailed and the train is on fire, that’s a different matter. If you left people on a burning train they’d self-evacuate before long. This is a tangent though, as I said. I will **** up now .

 

[Dieseldriver]

I see what you’re saying, however, it doesn’t actually say anywhere that the driver should leave his inferno and lay emergency protection. For starters you’re protected by the track circuit unless, as I said, it’s a really bad day! We are off on a tangent here admittedly. The rules do indeed take the worst case scenario in to account which is what rules are all about, as you rightly said. If you’ve derailed and the train is on fire, that’s a different matter. If you left people on a burning train they’d self-evacuate before long. This is a tangent though, as I said. I will **** up now .

The emergency protection isn't to protect the line your train is stood on. You would be laying it to protect other lines in case people started self evacuating. In 99% of cases this would be irrelevant as you should have been able to contact the controlling signaller immediately and get the other lines blocked. However, if my train was on fire and the Signaller wasn't immediately contactable (GSMR fault) then my next actions are to carry out full emergency protection. If I am a Driver of a DOO train then yes, I will have to leave my train to go and carry this out.