How Can Railway Recruitment Be Improved?

[Sorcerer]

Something I've been thinking about recently in light of the reduction in the age of train drivers to 18. What many of us already know on the forums is that, unlike some other labour shortages, the role itself doesn't have a problem attracting candidates. Thousands apply from many different backgrounds, a fair amount get through to the talent banks for the company to dip in to when a vacancy arises, and the cost of training falls entirely on the employer, so aside from having the skills needed for the psychometrics there doesn't seem to be huge barriers to entry. I can't think of many other jobs where you can apply from a working class background and earn 50-70k within five years.

The issue seems to arise when it comes to actually training those who actually pass the assessments. Training courses have very limited placements, and candidates can often be waiting years in a talent bank before they are given a job offer. By that point they might have lost interest in pursuing the career, or in some cases have exceeded the limit of how long they may be placed in a talent bank. Meanwhile there also doesn't seem to be a lot of instructors, trainers or resources to accommodate more courses or bigger classrooms, so what we were left with is an ageing driver workforce with an average age of 48, with up to 30% due to retire within five years.

ASLEF claims to represent approximately 22,000 drivers which means around 6,600 will have retired by 2030. Assuming on a good year the railway can employ 100 new drivers, then over five years you'd get only 500 new recruits, barely a twelfth of those that had left. I don't quite know the full ins and outs of railway recruitment but it seems to me that there is a clear problem on the railway of sustainable recruitment, so with that in mind and with the diverse knowledge on the forums, how can railway recruitment be improved and made more sustainable? Not just with drivers but across the entire industry? I'm very interested to hear some ideas and thoughts below.

 

[pacerpal]

Would be very interested in hearing an instructors opinion on this

 

[Horizon22]

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.

 

[pacerpal]

Could some of the classroom based rules and regs that rely purely on textbook knowledge be taken in some format by those who are sitting on psychometric passes in talent pools ?

 

[greatkingrat]

The total number of trainees over all companies is far more than 100 per year. Some companies will get close to that figure on their own.

 

[whoosh]

Could some of the classroom based rules and regs that rely purely on textbook knowledge be taken in some format by those who are sitting on psychometric passes in talent pools ?

Not really, in my opinion. There needs to be context put around rules. If you aren't allowed near the operational railway yet (because you aren't yet employed) you aren't going to get that.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 May 2025 ==

I think sometimes railway recruitment teams see vacancies at depots and recruit for them, and don't take into account depot transfer lists, meaning the new recruits end up not being based where they thought they would be, or where they'd applied for.
That is something that could be done better.

 

[WAB]

In a general terms for recruitment I would,

• 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.

Although this creates problems at stations as there aren't many progression opportunities within the stations grades, and having teams full of people who are just waiting for their opportunity to become traincrew is not healthy.

 

[43066]

Meanwhile there also doesn't seem to be a lot of instructors, trainers or resources to accommodate more courses or bigger classrooms, so what we were left with is an ageing driver workforce with an average age of 48, with up to 30% due to retire within five years.

Ultimately the only way to improve it will be to spend more money; pay more to incentivise more people to become instructors/mentors, and pay more to expand training schools.

Potentially creating a “training license” so that DIs/mentors don’t end up with an incident their trainee has on their own license - this also puts many people off.

Assuming on a good year the railway can employ 100 new drivers, then over five years you'd get only 500 new recruits, barely a twelfth of those that had left.

These figures are way off - individual TOCs will be turning out more than 100 new drivers per year, so the railway as a whole will be *substantially* more than this.

• 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.

Definitely key to increase the numbers of recruiters, and presumably there is increasingly AI based software that can help with CV sifts?

Another point related to demographics, of course, is that a modest increase in training capacity won’t necessarily be sufficient, as you need to hire new drivers in at least as quickly as people leave or retire in order to just stand still.

 

[Error404]

HR also have to deal with grievances, disciplinary matters, transfers, sickness, etc as well as recruitment. Each company has its own formula for ratio of number of HR reps to employees. Recruiting more HR would not see more vacancies - the driver depot headcounts depend on service pattern / size of depot/ workload / timetables.

Trainees are unproductive, but still need to be paid a living wage. This is of large cost to a business. The time train driver trainees need to be paid for not being productive is down to the size of the course. The theory side of the course is due to the size of the rulebook (~3 Months to learn it). The practical is down to the number of hours the trainee needs to complete. (~250 Hours wheels turning hours which can be 1 year). These are dictated by either company rules, RSSB, ORR or legislation. Previous history dictates if you rush people through they often make mistakes or are under prepared for scenarios.

Growth in the industry would see more jobs, but areas such as Roads, NHS, Education, defence, etc are also fighting for investment.

Supply and demand do not work in job applicants favour in this sector. Jobs are oversubscribed due to low number of vacancies and a high number of applicants. The UK population and job market is changing.

The phsycometric tests prove to a recruiter that you are willing to learn a new skill and practise it in your own time. It shows devotion, preparedness, discipline and dedication and distraction management (as well as testing inate ability).

All of the above are out of your control.

People who research, practise and think of it as a game, keeping many options open, bide their time and dont put all their eggs in one basket generally get what they want in life.

 

[LokiB]

The total number of trainees over all companies is far more than 100 per year. Some companies will get close to that figure on their own.

Agreed. I believe Northern put on upwards of 20 courses last year between Manchester and Leeds. At 10/12 per class that's 200/240 right there.

 

[nolypops83]

HR also have to deal with grievances, disciplinary matters, transfers, sickness, etc as well as recruitment. Each company has its own formula for ratio of number of HR reps to employees. Recruiting more HR would not see more vacancies - the driver depot headcounts depend on service pattern / size of depot/ workload / timetables.

Trainees are unproductive, but still need to be paid a living wage. This is of large cost to a business. The time train driver trainees need to be paid for not being productive is down to the size of the course. The theory side of the course is due to the size of the rulebook (~3 Months to learn it). The practical is down to the number of hours the trainee needs to complete. (~250 Hours wheels turning hours which can be 1 year). These are dictated by either company rules, RSSB, ORR or legislation. Previous history dictates if you rush people through they often make mistakes or are under prepared for scenarios.

Growth in the industry would see more jobs, but areas such as Roads, NHS, Education, defence, etc are also fighting for investment.

Supply and demand do not work in job applicants favour in this sector. Jobs are oversubscribed due to low number of vacancies and a high number of applicants. The UK population and job market is changing.

The phsycometric tests prove to a recruiter that you are willing to learn a new skill and practise it in your own time. It shows devotion, preparedness, discipline and dedication and distraction management (as well as testing inate ability).

All of the above are out of your control.

People who research, practise and think of it as a game, keeping many options open, bide their time and dont put all their eggs in one basket generally get what they want in life.

I think some companies have separate HR and recruitment teams. At Northern they are called Talent Acquisition Specialists.

 

[DMckduck]

I think some companies have separate HR and recruitment teams. At Northern they are called Talent Acquisition Specialists.

Almost all tocs will have separate teams under the HR umbrella, that job title is just a modern name for a recruiter of some form designed to make the job seem more attractive.

 

[nolypops83]

Almost all tocs will have separate teams under the HR umbrella, that job title is just a modern name for a recruiter of some form designed to make the job seem more attractive.

Yep, so they purely deal with recruitment and don't have to worry about other HR queries like sickness etc. Not saying that they aren't overworked, but adding more recruitment staff might improve communication and keep a better track of talent pool applicants.

 

[43066]

The time train driver trainees need to be paid for not being productive is down to the size of the course.

It’ll have a lot to do with instructor availability, and also availability of managers/assessors (different TOCs do things differently in this respect). It’s not unknown at some operators for people to wait weeks or months for an instructor after completing the rules course.

 

[Sorcerer]

These figures are way off - individual TOCs will be turning out more than 100 new drivers per year, so the railway as a whole will be *substantially* more than this.

I should probably clarify where I got that number from since it's not entirely random. I remember when Avanti were dealing with driver shortages they mentioned in a press release about having already trained 100 new drivers for their shortages over the last year. But also I think that I remember you mentioning in the other thread about your depot managing only 12 which is exceptionally poor even for rail industry standards. That said perhaps there is still more to do in order to address the ageing workface and potential future shortages even if I did initially underestimate the industry-wide recruitment numbers.

 

[43066]

I should probably clarify where I got that number from since it's not entirely random. I remember when Avanti were dealing with driver shortages they mentioned in a press release about having already trained 100 new drivers for their shortages over the last year. But also I think that I remember you mentioning in the other thread about your depot managing only 12 which is exceptionally poor even for rail industry standards. That said perhaps there is still more to do in order to address the ageing workface and potential future shortages even if I did initially underestimate the industry-wide recruitment numbers.

Sounds as though the Avanti figure will relate only to Avanti - they are actually one of smaller operators, GTR, SE, Northern will employ (and train) far more, simply because they run far more trains and have much larger driver establishments.

Hard to find exact figures but Avanti appear to employ approx. 600 drivers, while Thameslink employ approx. 2000. So if Avanti train one hundred drivers Thameslink would need to train well over three hundred to achieve the same ratio to existing headcount.

My depot took on twelve qualified drivers and a year to pass them out, which is indeed very poor!. The TOC (which isn’t Avanti nor Thameslink) as a whole trains up considerably more than this, many in a pathway from depot drivers to mainline.

I don’t have figures for total railway annual training capacity (does anyone else?), but it must be into low four figures overall industry wide. However, as alluded to above, the other side of the equation is that you need to know how many are leaving: in any given year if the industry trains up 1500, but 1750 leave/retire, you end up down 250.

 

[DMckduck]

I should probably clarify where I got that number from since it's not entirely random. I remember when Avanti were dealing with driver shortages they mentioned in a press release about having already trained 100 new drivers for their shortages over the last year. But also I think that I remember you mentioning in the other thread about your depot managing only 12 which is exceptionally poor even for rail industry standards. That said perhaps there is still more to do in order to address the ageing workface and potential future shortages even if I did initially underestimate the industry-wide recruitment numbers.

100 new drivers is a minimum of 9 courses a year, most TOCS would do well to manage that many new trainees without bottlenecks at some point without a further increase in, trainer, assessor and DI numbers.

 

[Sorcerer]

I appreciate people giving me more insight into how many drivers are passed out on the network, and I also appreciate the suggestions as to how the industry can be improved with it's recruitment. It helps to be more informed on the subject, and while I've vastly underestimating the capacity for training across the industry it does still seem like there needs to be room for improvement beyond just reducing the age of entry.

 

[43066]

It helps to be more informed on the subject, and while I've vastly underestimating the capacity for training across the industry it does still seem like there needs to be room for improvement beyond just reducing the age of entry.

Indeed. I doubt anyone who is remotely familiar with the way the training system works thinks lowering the age will make any difference to the issues discussed above.

 

[pacerpal]

Indeed. I doubt anyone who is remotely familiar with the way the training system works thinks lowering the age will make any difference to the issues discussed above.

Age reduction may also serve to help decrease the average age of train driver in the longer term. Have TOCs been surreptitiously asked their recruiters to give younger applicants more of a chance?

 

[Sorcerer]

Age reduction may also serve to help decrease the average age of train driver in the longer term. Have TOCs been surreptitiously asked their recruiters to give younger applicants more of a chance?

I can't see whether that's the case definitively, but if the railway can score a younger candidate then it will definitely be more beneficial for them to have someone who will be able to be productive in the cab for forty years compared to someone in their mid-forties or fifties who may have the life experience to inspire confidence in offering them the role at the cost of them working for only half the time a younger candidate would be able to.

The train driver role is a well paid job-for-life, so I don't think there's much danger of losing a younger candidate to another well-paid career. Conversely someone young might not choose to become a driver because by the time they have the experience they have already set themselves on a different career path, especially one that doesn't require antisocial work hours and lifestyle choices in exchange for the high salary.

 

[whoosh]

Ultimately the only way to improve it will be to spend more money; pay more to incentivise more people to become instructors/mentors, and pay more to expand training schools.

Potentially creating a “training license” so that DIs/mentors don’t end up with an incident their trainee has on their own license - this also puts many people off.

A separate DI licence was planned, or maybe even actually introduced, at Elizabeth Line, but ultimately quashed by RSSB who insisted on 'one person, one license'. So the project was abandoned.

 

[kevconnor]

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.

I would agree with a small increase, but a better option can sometimes be to 100% devolve the role to a local/regional level. This depends on the numbers, but in my experience (I work now in employment law but many moons ago worked in recruitment), devolving and making the recruiter locally based and accountable to the hiring manager gets better results.

I'd also suggest that rather than a flat increase in pay, take a leaf out of recruitment consultant roles and include an element of performance-related pay. The danger is that quality can go down when they are target driven (hence whey make them accountable to the hiring manager).

I think some companies have separate HR and recruitment teams. At Northern they are called Talent Acquisition Specialists.

They are, and most are, based centrally. I am sure that the Network Rail recruitment team has a significant presence in Manchester.

 

[scotraildriver]

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.

 

[Meerkat]

As an outsider I would start with how much rule book learning can be done before they turn up, you could even run night schools for it. Most professional jobs offering these kind of salaries would have had people put in a lot of personal study time to get there.
Then how much can be done at each level of simulator - a bit on normal PC/tablet at home, then in a classroom with bigger screens and crude control panels, then full simulators. Even a crude simulator can teach a lot by sheer volume of situations and unusual events (which also test rule book knowledge by requiring procedures to be followed), and can be set up with traps for know it alls before they get out and annoy trainers.
Look at military flying training, where they want to reduce real flying as much as possible for cost reasons so use all levels of simulators (right down to cardboard fold out cockpit familiarity aids). The more you get done before getting in a cab the more cab-time can be used to concentrate on the experience only cab time can provide.
Does industrial relations prevent short term DI deals - need a blip of training at a particular depot to solve a problem so offer one off bonuses?

 

[43066]

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.

This is a fairly common issue. I’ve thankfully been lucky with my trainees. Others haven’t and have given up as a result.

As an outsider I would start with how much rule book learning can be done before they turn up, you could even run night schools for it. Most professional jobs offering these kind of salaries would have had people put in a lot of personal study time to get there.
Then how much can be done at each level of simulator - a bit on normal PC/tablet at home, then in a classroom with bigger screens and crude control panels, then full simulators. Even a crude simulator can teach a lot by sheer volume of situations and unusual events (which also test rule book knowledge by requiring procedures to be followed), and can be set up with traps for know it alls before they get out and annoy trainers.
Look at military flying training, where they want to reduce real flying as much as possible for cost reasons so use all levels of simulators (right down to cardboard fold out cockpit familiarity aids). The more you get done before getting in a cab the more cab-time can be used to concentrate on the experience only cab time can provide.

Rule book learning “before they turn up” makes very little sense - you need to ensure people are trained in the same way and have a consistent level of knowledge. Hence selecting strong candidates and putting them through a structured course makes sense.

There’s relatively little simulators can teach about train driving in the practical sense (they can teach signalling concepts and can be used to simulate fault finding). Airlines and the military use full motion sims costing multimillion pounds each, simply not comparable to what’s available on the railway.

Does industrial relations prevent short term DI deals - need a blip of training at a particular depot to solve a problem so offer one off bonuses?

No - however a lot of staff wouldn’t consider doing it for the short term. It’s not as if DI uplifts are particularly significant for the risk taken.

 

[DMckduck]

As an outsider I would start with how much rule book learning can be done before they turn up, you could even run night schools for it. Most professional jobs offering these kind of salaries would have had people put in a lot of personal study time to get there.
Then how much can be done at each level of simulator - a bit on normal PC/tablet at home, then in a classroom with bigger screens and crude control panels, then full simulators. Even a crude simulator can teach a lot by sheer volume of situations and unusual events (which also test rule book knowledge by requiring procedures to be followed), and can be set up with traps for know it alls before they get out and annoy trainers.
Look at military flying training, where they want to reduce real flying as much as possible for cost reasons so use all levels of simulators (right down to cardboard fold out cockpit familiarity aids). The more you get done before getting in a cab the more cab-time can be used to concentrate on the experience only cab time can provide.
Does industrial relations prevent short term DI deals - need a blip of training at a particular depot to solve a problem so offer one off bonuses?

The main problem with simulators and trains is they usually don't do a good job at mirroring and creating life like conditions. The biggest thing missing is the inertia of the train or the feel of what it's doing.

 

[Kay_M]

I feel like from the recruitment side when you have people waiting for start dates and there's no definite date set in stone it can be frustrating for both the candidates and recruitment staff dealing with this as many people like to know specific certain things not to mention the abuse some recruitment staff get whilst they're working around the clock to ensure things are put in place. It then gets even more trickier when dates that do come up candidates won't be able to take it either due to the long time it took or for it to be short notice.

 

[Ddaggs]

Anyone know if it’s possible to apply to other TOC if you’ve passed the assessment and mmi?

 

[Meerkat]

Rule book learning “before they turn up” makes very little sense - you need to ensure people are trained in the same way and have a consistent level of knowledge.

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.

There’s relatively little simulators can teach about train driving in the practical sense (they can teach signalling concepts and can be used to simulate fault finding). Airlines and the military use full motion sims costing multimillion pounds each, simply not comparable to what’s available on the railway.

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.

It’s not as if DI uplifts are particularly significant for the risk taken.

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