OPC Trainee Train Driver testing

[Star62220]

Hi Everyone, great forum with many helpful comments that have guided me well.
I have a bone to pick however, where and who makes the rules around the whole:

• Can only fail assesments twice
• Wait 6 months between assesments
• The 5 year validity rule etc etc.

I ask as I really think its unfair and what to get to the bottom of it.
Is this a legal requirement, who made up these rules? what is its standing in law and who regulates these rules and the OPC?

Im really not having a go you understand, I just cant seem to find out the back ground to these questions so would appreciate any help that can be offered to steer me in the right direction.

Thanks

62220

 

[tlionhart]

The RSSB make up the rules. Even you come to do a MMI test, your document has theirs and any questionnaires regarding the tests are signed on their paperwork.
Whilst those are the rules outlined, the 5yr pass mark is actually dependant on the TOC. Some TOCS/FOC will allow validity for 5yrs, others for 3yrs.
You can sit the tests when requested by the TOC. Unlike the DSA (driving theory test) you sit once. If passed, the certificate lasts 2yrs before having to do a driving test.
The OPC don't govern the tests. They merely conduct them. They are psychologist and work on behalf of a numbers of companies. Not just railways. The test equipment is expensive, plus it requires trained staff. HR won't splash out on administrators for a once in a blue moon recruitment drive. So they use the OPC. Some can conduct the odd test in their HR/training centres. The HR staff are also busy going through other applications, not just for train driving. However a handful of staff are trained in HR to conduct the tests if need be.

 

[Star62220]

Thanks Lionhart, thats very helpful.

So my first port of call is the RSSB, and it seems from an initial glance that they are a company owned by key railway stakeholders, in other words the companies themselves or their parent companies.

Without a full investigation it seems at first glance that the industry looks after itself and is ran for the benefit of the companies and not the general public.

As they are a not for profit I would suspect that it is not regulated although I need to clarify this point.

So, so far I have learnt that the OPC is a 'testing consultant' who sells their training and testing to the required TOC/FOC etc when required, they are governed by..

RSSB who are controled by 'key rail industry stakeholders' so in reality a collaboration of the railway companies.

This doesnt sound right to me (morally). Can anyone expand on this and lionharts comments?

 

[SPADTrap]

You are incorrect. You may only fail it once. Twice would render you unable to try again.

Have you taken the assessments?

Can you expand on what is "unfair" and why? Hasn't "unfair" become a favourite British word recently!

 

[JN114]

Fail something once - perhaps you had a bad day, so they give you some time away to get more practice. Fail it twice and that's indicative of being unable to do it. Harsh/Unfair? Maybe, but when down the line the lives of potentially 1000+ passengers are in the hands of the concentration, focus and vigilance these tests measure, you'll forgive the TOCs if they're a bit picky...

 

[Star62220]

Yes pass the test once (being able to take it twice in total) sorry if you misunderstood my question.

No I havnt taken it but am researching it with a potential move towards it in the future.

With regards to being picky I understand but within the industry I work in (safety critical) there are no such rules around how many times you can apply for this or that as long as you pass the tests and pass them on a regular basis.

Why I say it is unfair is that I belive that as long as you pass the tests you should have as many goes as you want, imagine if that rule was in place for other transport sectors, bus drivers for example or even your car licence!

What im trying to get down to is WHO is responsible for making these rules as the whole process is not very transparent in my view.

 

[bystander]

There's nothing "unfair" about it. The two strikes and you're out rule is to prevent people from learning how to pass tests which are solely designed to assess innate ability. The tests are not like car or PCV tests, in that they assess the candidate's attributes which are necessary to become (possibly) a safe train driver - not the act of driving a train itself, which is indeed improved by learning.

Words like "moral", "unfair" and so on kind of show a lack of understanding of what the whole regulatory structure and testing regime is for. Saying "the industry looks after itself and is ran [sic] for the benefit of the companies and not the general public", at least in this context, is silly.

The Office of Rail Regulation - which is part of government - is the parent of Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate (which may or may not be its current title) and HMRI work with RSSB (industry body) to validate safety cases, rules and so on, which includes the process for assessing and recruiting train drivers. Well that's my understanding anyway. It's not particularly elegant but that's what the flow of governance is.
Regards,
B

 

[Beveridges]

You could end up passing the tests many times over before getting offered a job due to constantly being made to resit them. This is why its unfair - pass them once and that should be it!!

 

[Star62220]

Thanks Bystander for you elegant responce, as for words like 'silly' I find very unhelpful, the whole point of my question was asking WHO was in charge of organising the structure and WHO regulates it with regard to assesment and training, I dont really want to go down the road of what I think is fair and unfair as everyone has an opinion to which they are entitled to.

 

[GB]

or that as long as you pass the tests and pass them on a regular basis.

Why I say it is unfair is that I belive that as long as you pass the tests you should have as many goes as you want, imagine if that rule was in place for other transport sectors, bus drivers for example or even your car licence!

Sorry but I don't understand this.

You can sit and pass the test as many times as you like (subject to any time frame restrictions), what you can't do is take the tests again if you have failed twice.

Whether or not the two strike rule is fair is debatable, but it is what it is.

 

[redbutton]

The main document governing the train driver selection process is RIS-3751-TOM (Issue 2).

If you search around, you can find a few of the published studies that went into the drafting of Issue 2 last year, which was a major change from the previous assessment process.

Some of the requirements were changed to align with EU law, others were changed because the train driving role has changed over the years.

Train driving is a career where it's critical to "get it right" the first time, every time. A single mistake could cost thousands of lives and £millions in damage. So, the limits on retakes are there to ensure that the tests are measuring your natural ability, not acquired ability gained from practice.

This is backed by scientific studies on current train drivers with various levels of safety records, to see how the results of each testing attempt correlate with their observed performance on the railway.

Ultimately, the legal basis is for the existence of the selection process is irrelevant- the fact is that the train driver assessment process has been scientifically proven to select the most suitable (i.e. safest) candidates possible. It's unfortunate that not everyone can pass, but the stakes are too high to ignore the science.

 

[Star62220]

Thanks Ian thats exactly what I was looking for.

Cheers

 

[TDK]

Thanks Ian thats exactly what I was looking for.

Cheers

I have a question for you, why are you researching this and what do you intend to do with your research once completed?

 

[SPADTrap]

Yes pass the test once (being able to take it twice in total) sorry if you misunderstood my question.

No I havnt taken it but am researching it with a potential move towards it in the future.

With regards to being picky I understand but within the industry I work in (safety critical) there are no such rules around how many times you can apply for this or that as long as you pass the tests and pass them on a regular basis.

Why I say it is unfair is that I belive that as long as you pass the tests you should have as many goes as you want, imagine if that rule was in place for other transport sectors, bus drivers for example or even your car licence!

What im trying to get down to is WHO is responsible for making these rules as the whole process is not very transparent in my view.

You can pass it as many times as you like, although I don't know why one would want to. Once is enough to get a job. I'm not sure you properly understand the testing process, puzzled as to WHY you want to know WHO in such details.

It is worth noting that the process has recently changed (November 2013) so I HIGHLY doubt it'll be changing again any time soon, radically anyway, tweaking yes possibly but nothing like removing the 2 attempts rule. The fact that this rule survived the change shows that.

'Unfair' doesn't come into it sadly. I guess it separates those who are serious and those who are not, not least those who have the right aptitude.

 

[Latecomer]

Without a full investigation it seems at first glance that the industry looks after itself and is ran for the benefit of the companies and not the general public.

I'm not sure if you mean this in relation to the "two strikes and you're out" rule? If so, how?

It's been demonstrated that people can be taken from "off the street" and show they have the key skills and attributes to make a decent train driver. Other people pass the tests having worked their way through other roles on the railways.

At the moment I'm struggling to find out why you think the process is unfair when there are clear examples whereby people from outside the industry have obtained jobs as drivers by passing the tests and some people from 'inside' have failed their two strikes and lost out on the opportunity to become a driver.

Some people find fault in the testing system and the fact that a bit of research and practice on what is required offers some advantage, but even that one might argue is demonstrating some of the attributes required - to be rigorous and be prepared.

It's whether the testing standards are correctly applied that is the key point surely? Do you have a view on how many times someone should be able to re-take the assessments? How many times would it take for someone to fail (with a fair cost involved) for them to be considered unsuitable? Do you think that someone who failed the tests 5 times is likely to pass the training and more importantly carry out the job safely day in day out, potentially for 30 or 40 years?

 

[A-driver]

I think it important to consider that these tests we are talking about are nothing at all to do with driving trains so it's not comparable to getting a car driving licence. The tests are purely to see if people have the required attributes to pass the training and get on with the job. People may think they would make a great train driver but the tests are designed to measure candidates ability in various specific areas such as concentration etc.

The tests are not designed to be practiced like a car driving test is, they are simply to see what kind of person you are. Therefore if you could take them every day for 2 weeks until you passed you would get pretty good at doing them and probably pass despite missing the whole point of the tests.

I feel the OPs comparison with other areas in incorrect and shows a misunderstanding of what these tests actually are.

As I say, these tests have nothing whatsoever to do with driving trains. They are a psychometric assessment, not an ability or knowledge based assessment.

 

[Journeyman]

I think it important to consider that these tests we are talking about are nothing at all to do with driving trains so it's not comparable to getting a car driving licence. The tests are purely to see if people have the required attributes to pass the training and get on with the job. People may think they would make a great train driver but the tests are designed to measure candidates ability in various specific areas such as concentration etc.

The tests are not designed to be practiced like a car driving test is, they are simply to see what kind of person you are. Therefore if you could take them every day for 2 weeks until you passed you would get pretty good at doing them and probably pass despite missing the whole point of the tests.

I feel the OPs comparison with other areas in incorrect and shows a misunderstanding of what these tests actually are.

As I say, these tests have nothing whatsoever to do with driving trains. They are a psychometric assessment, not an ability or knowledge based assessment.

There's been a lot of interesting debate about this elsewhere. I've just sat stage 1 for an application with DRS, and I'm taking stage 2 next week in Watford. I'm thrilled to have got this far but still bricking it - it's a big, big deal, especially because I have an application in with ScotRail as well, and if I fail I can't take that any further either because I'll have to wait 6 months to resit.

They're hard. Very hard. But there's a reason why - there's so many people applying for these roles that the industry can afford to be very fussy. They can't afford to take any risks either, when you look at what they're doing and the potential for disaster when mistakes are made. I agree with what others have said - it might seem "unfair", but the stakes are high and they can't afford the risks of recruiting the wrong people.

Whilst you can practice some of them to some extent - things like Group Bourdon in particular - a lot of them you can't, so it's a pretty good measure of whether you're the right kind of person. If it turns out I'm not, I have to confess I'll be extremely depressed for a long time, but the right of rail users to be transported safely is greater than my right to drive trains, if I'm not considered suitable for it.

 

[Star62220]

I have a question for you, why are you researching this and what do you intend to do with your research once completed?

Thanks for all your input, there is clearly enough people with different views and arguments, some very negative, it's clear that some people do not like questions!

To answer your question TDK, it will be published.

Thanks for everyone's input.

 

[SPADTrap]

Thanks for all your input, there is clearly enough people with different views and arguments, some very negative, it's clear that some people do not like questions!

To answer your question TDK, it will be published.

Thanks for everyone's input.

Perhaps as a forum full of people serious about the assessments we have a different attitude to them. Nothing to do with disliking questions.

 

[A-driver]

Thanks for all your input, there is clearly enough people with different views and arguments, some very negative, it's clear that some people do not like questions!

No, not the no one likes questions. And I don't think there are negative views.

In your original post you claim that you believe the 2 assessments is "unfair". You then go on in another post to compare psychometric assessments to taking a car driving test or tests to work in other industries.

I strongly suspect that you are confused or don't actually understand what these tests really are. They are to assess ones ability to be trained up in a role. They have nothing to do with driving a train. The test to allow you to drive a train comes later after training (same as a car test or pilots test etc) and you get as many goes as you need to pass that within reason and as agreed by your employer. But that is very different to the tests designed to reveal ones natural abilities.

I don't know if it's still the case but certainly a number of years back you only had 2 stabs at the fitness test for the police force. 2 fails and you can never apply again. Similar thing. That isn't the test which makes you a policeman though.

These tests are not something that they want you to practice. You are supposed to walk in and follow instructions so they can judge you by the results. Practicing them through constant retakes completely defeats the point in them and is not unfair in the slightest. If they allowed constant retakes then they may aswell just scrap them altogether.

Perhaps before publishing your research it's worth looking into what these tests are actually for as you seem very confused by their purpose in your posts here. As I say, your comparisons show a lack of understanding on the topic you claim to be researching.

 

[SPADTrap]

Totally agree with A-Driver, the fact that you're 'publishing them' but fail to take into account any posts that do not work to your 'agenda' says a lot really. But then again I'm not really surprised.

Can't get my head around what you're publishing though, as far as I can see you've conducted no research beyond getting other people to find the information for you?

I'd love a copy posted here.

 

[W230]

...it's clear that some people do not like questions!

I think you were the only one who didn't actually answer the questions put to them!

 

[455driver]

Yes pass the test once (being able to take it twice in total) sorry if you misunderstood my question.

You can pass the tests as many times as you like, you can only fail them twice.

No I haven't taken it but am researching it with a potential move towards it in the future.

If you have the natural abilities required then you will be fine, if you havent then you should fail.

With regards to being picky I understand but within the industry I work in (safety critical) there are no such rules around how many times you can apply for this or that as long as you pass the tests and pass them on a regular basis.

Some people were learning how to pass the tests and then holding everyone else on the course up, the whole point of the tests is to ensure you have the natural abilities required.

Why I say it is unfair is that I believe that as long as you pass the tests you should have as many goes as you want, imagine if that rule was in place for other transport sectors, bus drivers for example or even your car licence!

I wish they would bring it in for car drivers, it would get some of the idiots off the roads and make them safer for everyone else.

What im trying to get down to is WHO is responsible for making these rules as the whole process is not very transparent in my view.

I havent a clue but the rules are there for good reasons.

 

[GB]

I think the only argument for the two strikes rule being unfair is possibly if its directed towards the CBI/MMI. Its my understanding that the interview is meant to assess not only your experience in certain areas but also how you conduct yourself.

As experience and confidence can all be gained and improved over the course of your life and career it seems strange that a 20 something old for example can fail the interview twice (for what ever reason) and thus be locked out when XX years down the line they may well possess the required tools and know-how for the job.

 

[ER158715]

Without wanting to make this a me-too reply, I agree totally that these tests shouldn't be practiced with the sole purpose of passing. I've done them twice and passed both times ( first set had time lapsed) and agree they are not easy. As others have said, the railway can afford to be fussy, not only because of the numbers of people applying but also because of the cost to train someone only to find out they are only capable of learning how to pass tests.
I'm also not sure what will be achieved by publishing anything as there is no way that the tests will be dropped. With the current high level of recruitment, the biggest problem is finding enough time to process all the applications!
ER

 

[WCMLaddict]

Don't want to add fuel to fire, I personally think OP's belief about rules being unfair is ridiculous, but certain parts of new assessment are open to some abuse/cheating.
My understanding is that there is a suggestion to change the way one of the modules is administered.

 

[youngboy]

Don't want to add fuel to fire, I personally think OP's belief about rules being unfair is ridiculous, but certain parts of new assessment are open to some abuse/cheating.
My understanding is that there is a suggestion to change the way one of the modules is administered.

Can I ask which one mate, I've took them recently and didn't see any opportunity to cheat anywhere, mind you I wasn't really looking tbh.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Yes pass the test once (being able to take it twice in total) sorry if you misunderstood my question.

No I havnt taken it but am researching it with a potential move towards it in the future.

With regards to being picky I understand but within the industry I work in (safety critical) there are no such rules around how many times you can apply for this or that as long as you pass the tests and pass them on a regular basis.

I work in a safety critical workplace too. (I'm not going to name the company) A mistake by me result in death or serious injury to colleagues and/or the general public and I would be liable.

There are very strict tests that are done, that are again nothing to do with the job I do. They're to see if a candidate has the right aptitude for the job, and are used to determine whether the company spends a lot of time training that candidate up.

In our industry you have one go at that test, you fail, then that's it.

 

[Louby]

Can I ask which one mate, I've took them recently and didn't see any opportunity to cheat anywhere, mind you I wasn't really looking tbh.

The bourdon is on here, prob means that

 

[WCMLaddict]

It's not the bourdon test, it's one that usually forms part of the second stage.
And it isn't really about the test itself, just about the way it's administered.