Why does everyone want to be a driver?

[falcon]

It's by far the most oversubscribed railway post and very hard to get into. Your job is to obey speed restrictions, timetables and signals, rules and that's what you must do, there is little or no decision making, which might not suit some people. If you like problem solving and decision making, control/signalling staff is far more involved on the operations side.

The point is, its not hard to get a job on the railways with the right skills, but driver is quite hard to get into because its so oversubscribed. About 3-400 applications for one post. Ironically, preserved railways are crying out for drivers, and there is a much more of an enthusiast atmos..

If you really want to work for the railways go for areas that are under subscribed: especially stuff like engineering. At least it keeps your options open.

We have big shortages in the engineering sector is this county, especially pway, S&T, OHL and so on. We also have shortages of Transport planners/economists and many other professional transport related posts.

So when preserved railways are so short, and the railways are so short in other areas, why go for a drivers post?

It pay's £50,000 for 35hrs for trying to keep awake! Does that answer you question!!!

 

[TDK]

Yep, there's a shortage of ways in, with a lack of courses, and all the management know each other. Really needs to be opened out as it does not apply to any other form of transport.

I have been reading your posts Metroland and have concluded that you do not like drivers or are envious of their pay and condidions, I am not only refering to this thread but the other one on the EMT dispute. Everyone has their opinions but I am sure if someone was insulting your trade (if you have one) and continually having digs at you line of work I am sure you would not be best please, there is constructiveopinions and insultys, could you keep it to the former!!!! I don't suppose you are a guard or signaller are you

 

[ungreat]

I arrive at that conclusion from observing frustrated drivers. Sure, the driver is in charge of the safety of the train, but other than driving that train in a skilful and safe manner, he/she does not have much say over wider performance issues or day-to-day working of the railway, which annoys the hell of out them because they 'did their bit'.


.

Frustrated? In what way? And why would a driver have or even want any say over other day to day working of the railway? I can assure you that I dont feel even mildly annoyed about having no say over other departments of the railway! Why would a driver want any say? We are there to drive,not do anything else that other staff do.And yes,I do agree with you on the point that we are just part of the picture,and most definately not everything.

Although it has been shown that if we dont show up,it DOES come to a standstill.......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It pay's £50,000 for 35hrs for trying to keep awake! Does that answer you question!!!

£50 grand? I'm with the wrong company!

 

[Flyboy]

Just to reflect a little more on my earlier point about the difficulty in getting a foot in the door of the railway industry, I'm actually quite pleased that, unlike aviation, you can't buy your own training. If this were the case I'd have done so by now so it's actually a factor that is effectively getting in the way. However, looking at the wider picture (i.e. not just my own circumstances) self-funding causes no end of problems.

 

[Metroland]

I have been reading your posts Metroland and have concluded that you do not like drivers or are envious of their pay and condidions, I am not only refering to this thread but the other one on the EMT dispute. Everyone has their opinions but I am sure if someone was insulting your trade (if you have one) and continually having digs at you line of work I am sure you would not be best please, there is constructiveopinions and insultys, could you keep it to the former!!!! I don't suppose you are a guard or signaller are you

Well that is pure conjecture on your part, believe me if I wanted to insult drivers I could relate a few tales about them! I don't think I have said anything insulting. Train driving costs the same to train and same time wise as a first officer for airlines and substantially more than bus and truck driving, so I too reject the notion there is 'nothing to it' and have stated as much, it is a worthwhile and well paid job. This thread is purely about why people want to do that job, rather than a myriad of others on the railway like planning timetables and engineering, designing signalling systems, track engineering, working in retail, working in property and so on.

The EMT thread is a separate matter, is about walking out on the job and concerns over the rising costs of the railway. If you really want to know why I brought that up, a good friend of mine has had his weekend buggered up for several weeks in a row by that action. He too wants to be a driver as a matter of interest!

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Frustrated? In what way?

It strikes me, that if someone wanted to get into railways and they wanted to change things for the better, they would find the role frustrating. Having said that there is no role on the railway that doesn't depend on another, but my experience of drivers is they get very worked up (and rightly so) about driving to the best of their abilities only to be let down by crappy regulating, points failures or stupid management ideas.

 

[Spaceflower]

little or no decision making

I think you answered your own question there. That and the boyish appeal. The salary obviously helps.

 

[Metroland]

http://www.aslef.org.uk/information/102222/102225/companies/

well anyway, for those interested in the Pay, T&C they are there. Seems like it ranges from 30k for the T&W metro to 47k for Eurostar and NXEC.

 

[Aictos]

£50 grand? I'm with the wrong company!

Indeed you are, got told there's a job going a while back where with overtime included you might be lucky enough to hit £60K as a driver, only catch is you have to become a tunnel rat and work on the LUL on freight trains.

 

[Flyboy]

Train driving costs the same to train and same time wise as a first officer for airlines.

Not true I'm led to believe.

I have it on good authority from within a respected TOC that training actually costs next to nothing.

Pilot training costs are expensive because airlines themselves don't provide licence training, it is all done by external profit-driven organisations and companies, which obviously over-inflates the actual cost.

 

[Metroland]

I read somewhere, some time ago, that driving training costs £70,000-£80,000. But obviously I don't know how they arrived at that figure exactly, its a 9 -14 month course anyway.

 

[GB]

I guess it all depends where and who you work for. Where I work, the figure quoted for training new drivers is around 90-100K, this includes wages (both trainee and trainers), hotels for the 12 week school course (with expenses), track access charges, fuel and a host of other things.

 

[Flyboy]

I'm not convinced that wages should be included as an absolute training expense. If both trainee and trainer work for the Company then they are carrying out their specific roles which are covered by salary. Accommodation can be an added expense if the Company doesn't have its own facilities. Obviously track access charges and fuel can be included if they relate solely to a non revenue-earning training exercise.

 

[Metroland]

Nevertheless I think if you were looking at outside bodies doing it, it would cost as much and maybe more than the Oxford aviation Academy First Officer course, which is £66k (about 2-3 times the cost of a degree) and lasts just over a year.

http://www.oxfordaviation.net/air_appfo.htm

Clearly, this is a huge disadvantage to new entrants to aviation, and the airlines save a lot of money doing it this way. A mate of mine works for Ryanair, and they pay for almost everything on and ongoing basis, including uniforms. Where as the earning potential (for first officer) is greater, is not hugely different if you factor in pension and the various other benefits rail drivers get. Eurostar, NXEC and Virgin have basic wages near 50k, and overtime potential which can lift wages to 60 or 70k.

Rail is almost unique in having full initial training provided for and ongoing training, as you say this is perhaps just as well.

This is also not a luxury either provided to new truck drivers, for example, who pay £1000 plus for the 6 week course to enable them to do their job, and most bus drivers pay for their initial license but it depends on the company. Bus drivers are the worst off, because their wages is nearly 15k-20k per year if that, Truck is £15-35k.

 

[TDK]

I read somewhere, some time ago, that driving training costs £70,000-£80,000. But obviously I don't know how they arrived at that figure exactly, its a 9 -14 month course anyway.

Looking at the cost from the process of recruitment, training, track access costs, uniform and everything else connected to training including the extra assessments for PQ drivers the costs are more in the region of 140K - 200K. I did a cost analysis on the trainee driver program. The actual training is broken down to, Induction, PTS, Front end turns, rules course, traction course, front end turns again, 225 hours with a DI, assessments, 2 years PQ period. But the 9 - 14 months is a good guide to the duration to PQ level. During this period (3 years) drivers will not receive the full drivers pay but only 50% up until pass out and then 80% whilst PQ for 2 years, only after that period will a driver be on the pay advertised.

 

[Flyboy]

Looking at your figures TDK, you're effectively saying that for a period of 3 years a trainee driver will not generate any revenue whatsoever for the Company which will offset training costs. Sorry, but with all due respect to your cost analysis I can't see that being the case. The reduced salary alone would offset a good proportion of the costs, is this factored into the £140k - £200k.

Additionally, some amounts quoted would apply to qualified drivers as well as trainees, recruitment and uniform to name just two.

 

[TDK]

Looking at your figures TDK, you're effectively saying that for a period of 3 years a trainee driver will not generate any revenue whatsoever for the Company which will offset training costs. Sorry, but with all due respect to your cost analysis I can't see that being the case. The reduced salary alone would offset a good proportion of the costs, is this factored into the £140k - £200k.

Additionally, some amounts quoted would apply to qualified drivers as well as trainees, recruitment and uniform to name just two.

You will expect a Trainee driver not to make anything for the company in the first 2 years after being qualified and this is why the TOC's write in a clause that if you go before 2 years the training money needs to be repiad to the company, when you take everthing into account depending on the TOC and the routes and traction they use the figures are reasonably accurate.

 

[Flyboy]

Thanks for your reply TDK but I'm still not convinced.

As an example, let's look at Rail UK Forum member BOSCH, (I hope that's OK BOSCH) who qualified as a driver earlier this year after transferring from a Conductor's position last year. Everytime he operates a Grand Central train from A to B with a fare-paying passenger on board he is generating revenue for the Company. Obviously the amount of revenue he generates per trip is dependant on a wide variety of variables such as passenger numbers, ticket price yield, fuel cost, loco performance and efficiency, path restrictions, signalling, other traffic etc, but he is nonetheless generating revenue. By your calculations he isn't, and is effectively still stacking up training costs, and that's why I'm not grasping your explanation.

 

[TDK]

Thanks for your reply TDK but I'm still not convinced.

As an example, let's look at Rail UK Forum member BOSCH, (I hope that's OK BOSCH) who qualified as a driver earlier this year after transferring from a Conductor's position last year. Everytime he operates a Grand Central train from A to B with a fare-paying passenger on board he is generating revenue for the Company. Obviously the amount of revenue he generates per trip is dependant on a wide variety of variables such as passenger numbers, ticket price yield, fuel cost, loco performance and efficiency, path restrictions, signalling, other traffic etc, but he is nonetheless generating revenue. By your calculations he isn't, and is effectively still stacking up training costs, and that's why I'm not grasping your explanation.

Generating revenue yes, generating profit above the training costs no!