Train driving a dead end job?

[ukrob]

I started on 455's, 456's, 319's and slam doors,moved to 158's, 150's,175's, 153's and now drive 67's. If it is worrying you really need to relocate, as for Traction Inspectors and DI's nothing to do whether you face fits, by that comment you made I wouldn't see you suitable for the post anyway and I have interviewed drivers for DI posts, the assessment that is needed and the interviews make sure it's not whose face fits.

Indeed.

In many industries anybody who claims "that job is only for people whos face fits", their attitude ensures they won't get the job.

 

[O L Leigh]

It's often been quoted to me that a lot of the problems stem from heavy Union influence, so I decided to contact ASLEF and asked to be referred to one of the Regional/National bods, he/she could then answer some of the questions I had and offer an opinion on why the Unions were often blamed for making it so damn hard to get into the industry.

The reply I received was "Please refer to our website, thank you for contacting ASLEF"

I was appalled. I wonder what my reaction will be when/if I get into the industry and they want me to join?

Who has told you that?

I have certainly never encountered any policy of ASLEF that would be contrary to further recruitment. In fact, it is a stated aim of the union to do what it can to promote full employment. Depot establishments on the lines I work have been steadily increasing with the majority of entrants coming "off the street" from non-railway backgrounds.

It's certainly operated like a cartel, and I suspect the unions are quiet happy with that as they can push up wage demands - simple demand and supply. Virtually no other industry works like this (bar maybe a couple of public services like the Police or armed forces - neither of which are allowed to strike).

I've said this before but clearly it bears repeating.

There are no bars on people from outside the industry applying for railway jobs. The reason why you may not see many vacancies advertised or those that are advertised are generally not for positions like trainee conductors or drivers is because of each TOC/FOC's recruitment policies.

There's no practical reason why far more training couldn't be carried out by third parties, and like most industries the railway called on ready (or near ready) trained certified/licensed staff.

Yes there is.

For operational posts, training has to meet Railway Group Standards criteria. These are nationally agreed, apply equally to all companies, regularly form part of a depot audit and form the basis of every member of staff's records. For drivers, part of the requirement to pass out as a driver is a certain number of hours assessed driving. While there is at least theoretically no reason why an outside company could not provide the classroom training, it is impossible for them to provide the practical experience required in order to pass out. I expect that something similar applies to other operational posts such as signaller.

Plus the cost to train, say, a driver are pretty horrendous, as is the amount of time it takes. If I knew I had to take upwards of 3 months out just to complete the classroom element, pay the course fees and support myself without any other income, I'd want to be pretty damn sure that there was a handsomely paid job at the end of it.

I am intrigued by what looks like your idea of "agency staff" for operational roles. Unfortunately again it is not massively practical due to the need to meet Railway Group Standards criteria. For drivers, this means that you must be familiar with and "sign" all routes and traction and to remain competent on it. Where a route or class of traction has not been driven for 6 months a driver will need a refresher in order not to lose their competencies. Even though I'm fully qualified, I don't "sign" HST's or the GWML. The time taken to "sign" these is likely to take months, and then I have to retain my competence.

These are the standards set by the industry to ensure safety.

Unfortunately inside the industry, all to often people who don't rock the boat are looked on far more favourably, or those willing to preserve the status quo and most promotion is taken on personal recommendation from managers, often based on whether the face fits, rather than qualifications. It suits the lifers, whole like secure employment, but not those wanting to exist in a flexible labour market.

I have not come across this at all. Recruitment is done on merit and ability, as is promotion. You apply, you are either good enough or you're not, so you get in or not. Simple.

Attitude can have an impact, as it can in any industry. If you take a cavalier attitude to the rules and discipline as a driver you're hardly likely to make a good driver manager. Likewise, if you're sloppy with your standards and safety in a factory you shouldn't be surprised to be passed over for a foreman's position. Sure there are cliques too, such as the golfers, and these people often get to learn about things before the rest of us, but again that's not something unique to the railways. I've seen just this sort of thing happening in other industries too.

There are courses than can be taken, but they are piecemeal, usually engineering based stuff like PICOP, lookout and so on - these tend to be paid by companies and of no use to the general public. As far as I'm aware, there is no route into the majority of positions unless applying directly to employers and getting them to train you (in which case they like to hold onto you) - unless its transferable skills like engineering (even then you have to take conversion courses). The only exception would be the railway engineering course at Sheffield. No outside courses for any operational role, and dedicated role exist to my knowledge, although I'm willing to be corrected.

Those that can be taken are usually standard skills applicable in a wide range of situations. For example, look-outs are a general skill commonly used where tamper operators are not. A lot of the skills necessary for the railways are extremely specialised.

I expect that a lot of the reason behind this is so that standards can be tightly controlled to ensure consistency across the network. This may be frustrating for someone attempting to break into the industry or move off to something else within the industry, but there is the general culture and expectation that training specific to the job will be provided so there would be little expectation that applicants come with the necessary skills already. Provided you have at least some broadly relevant or comparable skills and experience, a willingness to learn new skills and a "can do" attitude there should be no reason why your path is barred.

I'm certainly not as cynical as you appear to be. I certainly don't believe that the OP's position is as black as it seems.

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

Nevertheless the point still stands the railway do not have the luxury unlike say airlines or haulage companies of having a ready pool of staff to take over, that's why entry is so difficult. It is because the system is so [currently) inflexible and it is relatively easy to secure pay rises. From that point of view, it is a cartel. I actually don't think technically it would be impossible to train people from a third party point of view, given an overhaul to signalling systems and a certain amount of automation much of the barriers are likely to be removed and indeed needs to be if the railway is to be successful.

 

[O L Leigh]

No, indeed not. But that is a consequence of the degree of specialism required.

Not sure that it makes it easy to secure pay-rises though. It is no easier for the rail industry to get rid of staff than it is for any other industry. TOC's can't just sweep away it's existing staff and replace them with cheaper, more amenable replacements. Like every employer, the railways have to follow policy, procedure and law.

I'm also not sure that entry is difficult. As I said above, posts are advertised and the training necessary for the skills required to meet the job is provided. No-one expects someone applying for an OHL engineers job to necessarily have those skills already. If anything this democratises the market by opening it up to non-specialist staff.

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

No, the railway can't just sweep people aside outside the law. We could go off on all sorts of tangents here, but the key point is competition among the workforce and TOCs is limited. On the roads, if the staff of sraggit haulage company are not up to the mark, its easy to get another lot in to do the job. As you say, much of the work is highly specialised. In other words, railway work and perhaps even the railways are naturally monopolistic and with lack of paper qualifications in some areas, is relatively hard to move about. For example from the Driving to the signalling grade, or even signal technicians or train planning. This is quite a special position these days, insomuch as you can't pick up a 3rd party course for many of these jobs. I can't suddenly decide I want to be a train driver and find a course, like I can a pilot, truck driver, film editor, 3d modeller, vet and so on. Yes there is an application process for these things, yes, some things are limited by ability, but few are limited by the say so of a narrow band of managers.

I'm just thinking outside the box, I'm not sure it actually needs to be like this, I think its a cultural/technical problem notwithstanding the points you have made.

You point out that if you was going to lay out money you would want a job. Again, this applies elsewhere. A friend of mine paid over £80k to become a pilot, with zero guarantee of a job at the end of it, although he was thankfully successful. As you know, many people take on specialised degrees with quite little chance of getting into their field of choice. There are many other examples.

I'm may sound cynical, because you can have a railway role for years. And it actually means little to outsiders, because there is no comparable paper qualifications and most of these jobs mean little or nothing to them in reality. Even enthusiasts don't fully understand different roles of staff.

Promotion is complex internally, but much does depend on the opinions of mangers. While the railway isn't alone in cliques - for from it, we all know stories or where blind eyes have been turned, and there are some surprising appointments and so on. Its not universal, its not incredibly common, but it does happen. Because work is so specialised you have to 'watch your back' and mistakes aren't hard to make. That said, I have no complaints about the way I was treated and promotion is quite possible. I was never interested in management, which is another reason I left. I'm a back room boy, not a man manger. My main complaint is what I was left with at the end and had to completely retrain for something else and ten years of experience means nothing to the outside world.

 

[Flyboy]

Who has told you that?

I have certainly never encountered any policy of ASLEF that would be contrary to further recruitment. In fact, it is a stated aim of the union to do what it can to promote full employment. Depot establishments on the lines I work have been steadily increasing with the majority of entrants coming "off the street" from non-railway backgrounds.

The "problems" I referred to above are in regard to those outside the industry trying to find a way in, and Union agreements have been quoted to me several times by different people within the railway as being an outsider's major hurdle. As an example, one operator would have gladly taken me on many months ago but couldn't, their hands were tied by Union agreements which meant that they would first have to advertise internally, and ONLY IF a suitable candidate wasn't found via a lengthy internal interview process they would then have to advertise externally and go through the whole interview process again. The truth of the matter is that there wasn't actually a vacancy, the operator just wanted me on board but they couldn't as the Union would have kicked off. Union influence was therefore a problem, would you not agree?

I've also seen it stated on RailUK (apologies but I can't find the relevant thread despite trying) that Trainee Driver vacancies are only listed on some TOC websites to satisfy Union requirements, and that there aren't actually any vacancies - now that's just bloomin' stupid!

 

[Domeyhead]

As a humble commuter I can appreciate how mundane the job must be sometimes, but boarding a train At Fareham for Waterloo that arrived 20 minutes late made me wonder whether drivers enjoy this situation and whether there is any challenge or incentive to make up time (without breaking any line speed restrictions of course!). In our case the "challenge" would have been to get to Basingstoke before the Basingstoke stopper left and occupied the line ahead of us thereby ruling out any chance of ariving in Waterloo on time.
Had we been a bit smarter with some of our station stops we could have achieved this but there was no sense of urgency and we just drifted along slipping an extra minute here and there.
I'm also interested in how much dialogue there is between signalmen and drivers and whether the signallers also try an help a late train to regain time or just work on a first come first served basis?

 

[O L Leigh]

As a humble commuter I can appreciate how mundane the job must be sometimes, but boarding a train At Fareham for Waterloo that arrived 20 minutes late made me wonder whether drivers enjoy this situation and whether there is any challenge or incentive to make up time (without breaking any line speed restrictions of course!).

That can be fun, but success actually depends on you, the humble commuter. There is nothing more frustrating than having punters leisurely boarding and alighting through just one of the sixteen doors on the side of a train. Keeping station dwell times short is the primary means of making back time, so we need your assistance in achieving this.

I'm also interested in how much dialogue there is between signalmen and drivers and whether the signallers also try an help a late train to regain time or just work on a first come first served basis?

None at all. It's down to the signaller to regulate the trains and the driver to obey the signals. Whether or not you get any assistance seems to depend on the mood of the signaller and what else is going on around you. I've been shafted a few times and ended up much, much later as a result of the signaller.

O L Leigh

 

[poshbakerloo]

I guess its dead end if you do the same thing for ever...

 

[Domeyhead]

Thanks OL. As an observer I think freight train drivers frequently seem to get held up unnecessarily by overcautious signallers. When I commuted between Basingstoke and Southampton we would frequently see down intermodal trains to/from the container port held up to allow a succession of stopping passenger trains through when the freights could run non stop at relatively high speeds at least as far as Eastleigh yard (or down to Laverstoke). There are also passing loops south of Micheldever which never seem to be used at all, yet they are probably there for the very purpose of allowing freights to advance before being overtaken. From my office block overlooking Basingstoke station we'd see 75mph up intermodal freights held for over 15 minutes for a northbound Virgin Cross Country to overtake by which time the freight could have cleared Reading anyway and been well on its way to Didcot while the VCC sorted out its reverse at Reading.
I guess freight train driving might offer more variety than passenger work but it must be mighty frustrating when you are on the home run but being held for a passenger train to fly past which then stops at the next station anyway!

 

[Metroland]

I'd agree with that. Freightliners can easily run ahead of passenger trains if they are non-stop running at full speed, IF you can keep them going. You can certainly run them ahead of stopping passenger trains, who wouldn't see them for dust. They can usually run ahead of something like a voyager on a 5-10 minute margin, again, IF you can keep them going.

There are quite a few freightliners which run overnight, and they tend to run about on continuous greens and as a consequence make very rapid progress, possibly quicker than most passenger trains, especially on cross country routes.

 

[TDK]

I'd agree with that. Freightliners can easily run ahead of passenger trains if they are non-stop running at full speed, IF you can keep them going. You can certainly run them ahead of stopping passenger trains, who wouldn't see them for dust. They can usually run ahead of something like a voyager on a 5-10 minute margin, again, IF you can keep them going.

There are quite a few freightliners which run overnight, and they tend to run about on continuous greens and as a consequence make very rapid progress, possibly quicker than most passenger trains, especially on cross country routes.

Top speed of a freight 75mph, top speed of a voyager 125mph, won't take long for the voyager to get caution signals

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Top speed of a freight 75mph, top speed of a voyager 125mph, won't take long for the voyager to get caution signals

Anyone heard of speed limits? Or station stops?