Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Why should having three lives 'have been the norm'? Why not four or five? How many chances do people need to pass the testing process?
Yes there are plenty more opportunities to 'sift out' a candidate that isn't suitable prior to qualifying as a driver but the OPC testing is designed to allow only the most suitable candidates through to potential employment. Save for the DMI and medical, the OPC testing is the final barrier to employment as a trainee driver and potential candidates should be grateful that they get any more than one attempt to pass the tests. It's rather less than ideal to employ someone, spend a large amount of time, resources and money training them only for them to fail to qualify, fortunately this is reasonably rare.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I'd suggest that anyone who uses their first attempt at OPC 'just to experience the tests' is much less than ideal. That is not the kind of attitude we should be encouraging - applicants should be aiming to pass the tests on the first attempt, simple as that.
That's irrelevant. Most jobs you apply, go for an interview and either do or don't get the job. There is much more involved in driving trains which requires a fairly unique set of skills, which is why there is such an onerous recruitment process as the industry needs to be as sure as it possibly can be that it has taken on the candidates with the necessary skills and aptitudes to be able to do the job competently. Even after OPC testing has been passed, some candidates fail the subsequent interview due to poor preparation or lack of interview skills. This at least ensures that only the very best candidates are offered a position which is why trainees failing the course is thankfully quite rare.
What has this got to do with anything. Unfortunately some people shouldn’t be train drivers, some may get through the assessments and training, but hopefully majority never get though if not suitable.
The OPC have said in the past that candidates who are successful in their second attempt perform the best during the training course. The ability to learn from mistakes is crucial during any training course.
That's irrelevant. Most jobs you apply, go for an interview and either do or don't get the job. There is much more involved in driving trains which requires a fairly unique set of skills, which is why there is such an onerous recruitment process as the industry needs to be as sure as it possibly can be that it has taken on the candidates with the necessary skills and aptitudes to be able to do the job competently. Even after OPC testing has been passed, some candidates fail the subsequent interview due to poor preparation or lack of interview skills. This at least ensures that only the very best candidates are offered a position which is why trainees failing the course is thankfully quite rare.
It's not irrelevant I just asked a question in which you said people should attempt to pass it first time around because of the learning. I didn't agree nor disagree.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What has this got to do with anything. Unfortunately some people shouldn’t be train drivers, some may get through the assessments and training, but hopefully majority never get though if not suitable.
Excuse me. I don't recall speaking to you. I've already spoken to the OP and asked a question as a general thought. Since I know there's a lot of learning involved and when I hear people come up with asinine statements like oh then you shouldn't be a driver from yourself as in to say no one has ever failed in anything. I'm not discrediting the fact it's a crucial role but some really need to think about what to say and I genuinely hate this culture some display on here
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The OPC have said in the past that candidates who are successful in their second attempt perform the best during the training course. The ability to learn from mistakes is crucial during any training course.
That's fine and I'm fully on board with that. I just hate people coming with asinine statements like oh if you fail it then you shouldn't be a train driver. I understand the job comes with a lot of responsibility but this playground antics of trying to put people who genuinely have an interest off seriously needs to stop.
The OPC have said in the past that candidates who are successful in their second attempt perform the best during the training course. The ability to learn from mistakes is crucial during any training course.
It's not irrelevant I just asked a question in which you said people should attempt to pass it first time around because of the learning. I didn't agree nor disagree.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Excuse me. I don't recall speaking to you. I've already spoken to the OP and asked a question as a general thought. Since I know there's a lot of learning involved and when I hear people come up with asinine statements like oh then you shouldn't be a driver from yourself as in to say no one has ever failed in anything. I'm not discrediting the fact it's a crucial role but some really need to think about what to say and I genuinely hate this culture some display on here
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That's fine and I'm fully on board with that. I just hate people coming with asinine statements like oh if you fail it then you shouldn't be a train driver. I understand the job comes with a lot of responsibility but this playground antics of trying to put people who genuinely have an interest off seriously needs to stop.
It's not irrelevant I just asked a question in which you said people should attempt to pass it first time around because of the learning. I didn't agree nor disagree.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The recruitment process for other jobs is irrelevant, for the reason I stated. Other jobs are not train driving jobs and they do not feature the same in-depth testing process.
I clearly stated that candidates should attempt to pass the tests first time round, in response to another poster who suggested that someone should take the tests 'just to experience them', as if the tests are trivial and not worth putting too much effort into, at least until the second attempt when it's literally 'pass this time or you don't get another chance' or at least this has been the case in the past. Make the effort to pass on the first attempt and then if unsuccessful at least you've got another chance (or two now, apparently.)
It's odd that candidates are now going to get three opportunities to pass the OPC testing when each apprentice train driver's job vacancy is already hugely oversubscribed.
I think two attempts is the right amount. The only reason for the second attempt is to give the benefit of the doubt in case the candidate was stressed or didn’t know what to expect.
The recruitment process for other jobs is irrelevant, for the reason I stated. Other jobs are not train driving jobs and they do not feature the same in-depth testing process.
I clearly stated that candidates should attempt to pass the tests first time round, in response to another poster who suggested that someone should take the tests 'just to experience them', as if the tests are trivial and not worth putting too much effort into, at least until the second attempt when it's literally 'pass this time or you don't get another chance' or at least this has been the case in the past. Make the effort to pass on the first attempt and then if unsuccessful at least you've got another chance (or two now, apparently.)
It's odd that candidates are now going to get three opportunities to pass the OPC testing when each apprentice train driver's job vacancy is already hugely oversubscribed.
See the second paragraph I may have initially missed that in regards to people taking it just to have a feeling factor when that shouldn't be the approach. But yes there are some jobs out there that are very intense to get into (that's a conversation for another day). The reason why I asked if you had failed in anything previously was because I was of the assumption by reading the other post that you made it seem as though you should pass it first time round end of but now you've explained the context behind it based on previous posts now I get where you're coming from.
Slightly different as the psychometric testing isn't supposed to be a teaching moment or something you learn from. They are tests for basically reactions and co-ordination. They are for finding candidates that have these attributes naturally as opposed to someone that has to practice to pass them and that's also why you don't get the actual tests as practice material.
See the second paragraph I may have initially missed that in regards to people taking it just to have a feeling factor when that shouldn't be the approach. But yes there are some jobs out there that are very intense to get into (that's a conversation for another day). The reason why I asked if you had failed in anything previously was because I was of the assumption by reading the other post that you made it seem as though you should pass it first time round end of but now you've explained the context behind it based on previous posts now I get where you're coming from.
Slightly different as the psychometric testing isn't supposed to be a teaching moment or something you learn from. They are tests for basically reactions and co-ordination. They are for finding candidates that have these attributes naturally as opposed to someone that has to practice to pass them and that's also why you don't get the actual tests as practice material.
That I know as it makes sense to go with that approach and I've done a few assessments before in the past as I have mentioned in some of the threads on here. I do know that when one does get their key that it's imperative that they keep up to date with their rules and procedures and go for their refresher testing to keep themselves competent
Slightly different as the psychometric testing isn't supposed to be a teaching moment or something you learn from. They are tests for basically reactions and co-ordination. They are for finding candidates that have these attributes naturally as opposed to someone that has to practice to pass them and that's also why you don't get the actual tests as practice material.
Exactly this. The Railway is not trying to recruit people who can learn to pass a test. It is aiming to recruit people who have these natural attributes which will indicate strongly that they have the necessary behavioural competencies to perform well both during the training and as a qualified driver.
If that was on the radar I would of thought it would have been done in this most recent review. Considering they have written in 5 years until the 3rd attempt I would imagine they won't change within the next 10 years.
There is also not a guarantee that if they change the tests you would get another attempt, they could easily change the tests and say any previous candidates who have failed and lost all their lives can still not apply.
If that was on the radar I would of thought it would have been done in this most recent review. Considering they have written in 5 years until the 3rd attempt I would imagine they won't change within the next 10 years.
There is also not a guarantee that if they change the tests you would get another attempt, they could easily change the tests and say any previous candidates who have failed and lost all their lives can still not apply.
I sat them years ago circa 2009. Failed one section, never went back to it. Then they changed the tests around 2012/13 (I think), so I reckon I've still got 2 maybe 3 lives left now under the new guidlines but driving is not something on my radar in the near future although I'm not ruling it out long term.
If you've failed the tests twice, that should give a fairly strong indication that you don't have the skills and qualities necessary to become a successful train driver. Having the opportunity to take them a third time will just attract candidates who have learnt, through failure, how to pass the tests which is not necessarily the kind of people the industry should be employing to drive trains.
It potentially makes things harder for people earlier in the process who might have wanted to have a second go sooner. Then, as you say in another post, there are far, far more candidates than there are jobs available, so drumming up more interest is entirely unnecessary and may make the process even more unwieldy, as more are eligible to apply for each opening.
If it’s motivated by wanting to increase diversity in the role, as I suspect it is, surely a better way to do that would be to target job adverts better and put people through the existing process.
I hate to say it but the industry doesn’t always to a good job of selecting people from amongst those who pass under the current testing regime, so anything that might dilute the standard of people eligible to be offered jobs is a bad thing IMO.
It potentially makes things harder for people earlier in the process who might have wanted to have a second go sooner. Then, as you say in another post, there are far, far more candidates than there are jobs available, so drumming up more interest is entirely unnecessary and may make the process even more unwieldy, as more are eligible to apply for each opening.
If it’s motivated by wanting to increase diversity in the role, as I suspect it is, surely a better way to do that would be to target job adverts better and put people through the existing process.
I hate to say it but the industry doesn’t always to a good job of selecting people from amongst those who pass under the current testing regime, so anything that might dilute the standard of people eligible to be offered jobs is a bad thing IMO.
The document explains the rationale behind the decision. It's good for younger candidates who haven't finished maturing. If they fail the first two attempts as say 21 and 22, it allows them to mature and take another test in their late 20's or 30's once their brains haven finished maturing and they gained some life experience.
I don't see how allowing people another attempt after 5 years would be diluting the process? The tests are still the same, and they would have to redo them all again. If the current process allows candidates through that aren't suited to the role, then there could be people out there who have failed twice who would have been great for the role.
With regards to diversity, there has been a big push to recognise neurodiverse candidates. Not everyone's brains work in the same way and it can be incredibly difficult to get a diagnosis (especially for women) so this gives some flexibility for those who have been diagnosed as adults. Say you fail the first 2 attempts, get diagnosed after and have access to treatment, and are then able to pass the psychometric tests and the medical.
The document explains the rationale behind the decision. It's good for younger candidates who haven't finished maturing. If they fail the first two attempts as say 21 and 22, it allows them to mature and take another test in their late 20's or 30's once their brains haven finished maturing and they gained some life experience.
I don't see how allowing people another attempt after 5 years would be diluting the process? The tests are still the same, and they would have to redo them all again. If the current process allows candidates through that aren't suited to the role, then there could be people out there who have failed twice who would have been great for the role.
With regards to diversity, there has been a big push to recognise neurodiverse candidates. Not everyone's brains work in the same way and it can be incredibly difficult to get a diagnosis (especially for women) so this gives some flexibility for those who have been diagnosed as adults. Say you fail the first 2 attempts, get diagnosed after and have access to treatment, and are then able to pass the psychometric tests and the medical.
The point is that the current testing process is designed to reduce the risk of unsuitable candidates getting through, as much as is practicably possible. If people have failed twice then that suggests that they don't have the necessary personality traits, skills and aptitudes required to make a good train driver. You don't need 'life experience' to pass the tests, you just need to have the ability to concentrate, focus, assess and retain information, prioritise and multi-task. Offering them a third opportunity to pass the tests isn't going to change that.
The point is that the current testing process is designed to reduce the risk of unsuitable candidates getting through, as much as is practicably possible. If people have failed twice then that suggests that they don't have the necessary personality traits, skills and aptitudes required to make a good train driver. You don't need 'life experience' to pass the tests, you just need to have the ability to concentrate, focus, assess and retain information, prioritise and multi-task. Offering them a third opportunity to pass the tests isn't going to change that.
This is why I think the MMI should not be part of the two-strikes system, because that does require "life experience", and someone who doesn't have the necessary experiences now may well have them at some point in the future.
This is why I think the MMI should not be part of the two-strikes system, because that does require "life experience", and someone who doesn't have the necessary experiences now may well have them at some point in the future.
There may be an argument for that to be the case although I would assume that the interviewer takes the candidate's age and experience into account during questioning and uses appropriate techniques to elicit relevant answers as much as possible.
The point is that the current testing process is designed to reduce the risk of unsuitable candidates getting through, as much as is practicably possible. If people have failed twice then that suggests that they don't have the necessary personality traits, skills and aptitudes required to make a good train driver. You don't need 'life experience' to pass the tests, you just need to have the ability to concentrate, focus, assess and retain information, prioritise and multi-task. Offering them a third opportunity to pass the tests isn't going to change that.
The brain keeps developing until your 25 so your cognitive abilities can definitely develop and improve, hence why they've made the changes and stated that they are considering the needs of younger candidates and the reason for the 5 year gap. You need life experiences for the MMI otherwise it's going to be a very short interview! It's all situational based questions. I've way more to talk about at 41 than I had a 21, I've had several interview experiences by now so I know how to do well in a competency based interview, something I would have had little knowledge of at 21.
This is why I think the MMI should not be part of the two-strikes system, because that does require "life experience", and someone who doesn't have the necessary experiences now may well have them at some point in the future.
As someone who sat the psychometrics age 20 last year, passed everything except the MMI (which I felt was due to a distinct lack of life experience, especially as COVID took away my late teens), not being allowed a third attempt but anyone from now is, it’s a bit disheartening
I have one attempt left for my whole life and I am now having to tactically think about when I want my second attempt to be.
I suspect you would be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn’t significantly changed at say 28 vs 20, and I think there’s merit to saying you get 3 attempts, if your first attempt is when you’re under 25 and you only fail on ‘one’ thing, even if your first attempt was before this change
As someone who sat the psychometrics age 20 last year, passed everything except the MMI (which I felt was due to a distinct lack of life experience, especially as COVID took away my late teens), not being allowed a third attempt but anyone from now is, it’s a bit disheartening
I have one attempt left for my whole life and I am now having to tactically think about when I want my second attempt to be.
I suspect you would be hard pressed to find anyone who hasn’t significantly changed at say 28 vs 20, and I think there’s merit to saying you get 3 attempts, if your first attempt is when you’re under 25 and you only fail on ‘one’ thing, even if your first attempt was before this change
I'm not sure of your situation, but maybe getting a job on the railway in another role might be good for this? Conductor, dispatcher? That would give you plenty of experience. Safety, communication, rules and regulations, customer service. At any rate you passed everything else which is a massive achievement, and you've got a few years to work on your answers. You never know they might change the tests in the next few years anyway.
I don't see how allowing people another attempt after 5 years would be diluting the process? The tests are still the same, and they would have to redo them all again.
If the current process allows candidates through that aren't suited to the role, then there could be people out there who have failed twice who would have been great for the role.
The first sentence is an argument for reviewing the existing process and making it tougher. The second surely applies to any recruitment process? There might still be candidates who have failed three times who would be great for the role, but ultimately there needs to be a cut off somewhere.
The brain keeps developing until your 25 so your cognitive abilities can definitely develop and improve, hence why they've made the changes and stated that they are considering the needs of younger candidates and the reason for the 5 year gap. You need life experiences for the MMI otherwise it's going to be a very short interview! It's all situational based questions. I've way more to talk about at 41 than I had a 21, I've had several interview experiences by now so I know how to do well in a competency based interview, something I would have had little knowledge of at 21.
This is a generalisation, but it’s true that younger people will often lack the necessary life experience. However there’s nothing to stop those candidates researching the process, realising that they need life experience, and deferring their application until they feel they meet the criteria.
The brain keeps developing until your 25 so your cognitive abilities can definitely develop and improve, hence why they've made the changes and stated that they are considering the needs of younger candidates and the reason for the 5 year gap. You need life experiences for the MMI otherwise it's going to be a very short interview! It's all situational based questions. I've way more to talk about at 41 than I had a 21, I've had several interview experiences by now so I know how to do well in a competency based interview, something I would have had little knowledge of at 21.
I'm not sure of your situation, but maybe getting a job on the railway in another role might be good for this? Conductor, dispatcher? That would give you plenty of experience. Safety, communication, rules and regulations, customer service. At any rate you passed everything else which is a massive achievement, and you've got a few years to work on your answers. You never know they might change the tests in the next few years anyway.
Right, but if they pass at the 3rd attempt how is that diluting things? Who's to say they are a better or worse driver than someone who passes on the second go?
The first sentence is an argument for reviewing the existing process and making it tougher. The second surely applies to any recruitment process? There might still be candidates who have failed three times who would be great for the role, but ultimately there needs to be a cut off somewhere.
It's an argument to say the recruitment process needs to be reviewed which I believe happens regularly. Perhaps the tests need reviewing? Maybe they are too easy, maybe they don't measure peoples skills accurately enough?
This is a generalisation, but it’s true that younger people will often lack the necessary life experience. However there’s nothing to stop those candidates researching the process, realising that they need life experience, and deferring their application until they feel they meet the criteria.
It's not a generalisation, its a well known fact, but it's not the same for everyone hence why some people could sail through at 21 and some would take a little longer. For these type of tests, you don't know how well you'll do until you try. Even with the practice material, you don't know what level of accuracy or speed you are aiming for. For the MMI you don't know what questions you'll be asked until the day.
Depends on how the tests are done, but first time you might fail on one of the paper tests, second time it might be the MMI but you've not been able to do that one before as you didn't get passed the paper tests last time. 3rd time you get it all. There's also a difference between failing badly and missing out by one or two points.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Ah I see! Well don't let it bother you. I'm in the same boat if it helps. No 3rd attempt for me, 1 life left, only need to repeat 1 computer test and pass an MMI then I'm in the pool. Did they give you any feedback on your interview?
It's you who said that "The brain keeps developing until your (you're) 25" so by your logic, waiting for everyone to reach that stage would surely be fairer, as encouraging applicants who are younger will potentially increase their risk of failure due to their cognitive abilities not being fully developed so increasing the minimum age then gives everyone an equal chance of passing.
Right, but if they pass at the 3rd attempt how is that diluting things? Who's to say they are a better or worse driver than someone who passes on the second go?
Because the tests are meant to test innate aptitude, which is the whole reason for having a cut off in the first place.
Some people will absolutely slip through the net (as with any recruitment process), but why does that matter when there are plenty of applicants capable of doing the job?
It's an argument to say the recruitment process needs to be reviewed which I believe happens regularly. Perhaps the tests need reviewing? Maybe they are too easy, maybe they don't measure peoples skills accurately enough?
I agree. It should be made tougher. As someone involved in training I want to know the quality of the person driving my train on my license is as high as possible. I don’t see how this change better ensures that.
It's not a generalisation, its a well known fact, but it's not the same for everyone hence why some people could sail through at 21 and some would take a little longer.
I’m confused: here you seem to claim it isn’t a generalisation, but then acknowledge it isn’t the same for everyone, hence why it is a generalisation, by definition!
Even with the practice material, you don't know what level of accuracy or speed you are aiming for. For the MMI you don't know what questions you'll be asked until the day.
Depends on how the tests are done, but first time you might fail on one of the paper tests, second time it might be the MMI but you've not been able to do that one before as you didn't get passed the paper tests last time. 3rd time you get it all. There's also a difference between failing badly and missing out by one or two points.
Yes, you aren’t supposed to have totally clear idea of the tests until you sit them - again, that’s done by design, and is the why the practice material is as it is.
I don’t really see why it matters whether someone fails a few points or a large margin; a fail is a fail, and there has to be a cut off somewhere. That will remain the case even under the new system. It feels more like your objection is to any possibility of failing.
We have had a number of issues with members trying to set up duplicate accounts in this forum.
Please note that we only allow one account per person, but if you find yourself in a situation in which you'd like a separate identity for this section then please contact us directly and explain your reasoning or concerns rather than setting up a separate new account.
It’s more just knowing I only have one attempt left which is a bit depressing