Railway sector 'not attractive enough' for young engineers
Share
A new report suggests that the British railway engineering industry is not attractive enough for young jobseekers and graduates.
The Lloyds Register survey interviewed 220 members of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) and found that railway engineering is often neglected in favour of other engineering disciplines that offer easier transitions across sectors. The survey findings are as follows:
- More than 58 per cent felt that the rail industry relies too much on internal, self-accredited training and standards, rather than more generic qualifications to measure competence. It is believed that this restricts recruitment of skilled candidates from other fields and as a result railway engineering should be more open to skills brought in from other engineering disciplines;
- Eighty-two per cent felt that training and development within railway engineering encourages specialism too early on and as a result career paths are narrowed, skills transfer is prohibited and new entrants are deterred;
- Sixty per cent of the respondents felt that qualifications within the rail industry are too ‘national’ in their approach and that this will not adequately serve an industry that is likely to become increasingly international, with increases in cross-border operations and operators. The report claims the industry should work towards international qualifications, standards and certificates for staff at all levels; and
- Seventy-one per cent felt that energy efficiency was the discipline that would have the highest demand for skills over the next 10 years.
According to a statement, the news will be of concern as the railway industry in the UK has avoided the government’s infrastructure cuts and looks set to boom.
‘Young people are attracted to professions that do not appear to restrict choice and variety so we need to demonstrate how a career in the railways offers a solid technical grounding with plenty of opportunities to follow specialist interests later as their experience develops,’ said John Stansfeld, transportation director at Lloyd’s Register. ‘We must challenge the perception that engineers are “locked in” to one discipline for life.’
Big infrastructure projects such as Crossrail and high-speed train links from London to Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham are still going ahead. The Northwest Triangle scheme to electrify routes around Liverpool and Manchester adds further to the demand for skilled labour.
At the same time, railway projects across the world are creating enormous demand for skilled staff globally.
The number of countries running high-speed trains is expected to nearly double over the next few years, according to recent research by the Worldwatch Institute for Vital Signs Online. By 2014, high-speed trains will be operating in nearly 24 countries, including China, France, Italy, Japan, Spain and the US, up from only 14 countries today.
The shortage of skilled railway engineers has started to be addressed in the UK with Vince Cable, the business secretary, giving government backing to a new National Skills Academy for Rail Engineering (Nsare), expected to commence operations this year.
Similarly, the UK Tunnelling and Underground Construction Academy (TUCA) has just opened its doors. Crossrail and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills via the Skills Funding Agency have invested up to £12.5m in the academy, which will train at least 3,500 people to work on Crossrail.
Readers' comments (14)
Anonymous | 27 Apr 2012 12:54 pm
Too many industries are now operating as 'closed shops' and seem impossible to move into later in one's career due to the magic requirement of 'previous experience'. They then bemoan the lack of engineers, rather than examine their restrictive recruiting policies!
Aerospace and Oil & Gas are prime examples.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Reeves | 27 Apr 2012 2:03 pm
What is interesting here is the tendency for ‘specialization aversion’. Perhaps this can be seen as a consequence of the introduction of a flexible labour market (including outsourcing/contract work) and portfolio careers over the last decade or so. I guess when businesses and investors take the short term view, then so do employees – who will often be looking towards their next job (hence generic qualifications being sought, rather than knuckling down to a specific organisation’s special skills needs). When employers seem to want to often only employ full rounded and skilled workers ‘off the shelf’ is it a surprise that people will choose generic skills over specialised ones. Employers often are not prepared to actually accept the cost of specialist training.
Related to this maybe this trend is also a consequence of there being too many university graduates who then feel ‘entitled’ to instantly get a well paid and interesting job. A long term commitment by employers to people who are not really suited to a university/academic type engineering education (at least at 18), but who are still technically minded, may result in a growth of specialists who will reciprocate the commitment to their employers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 27 Apr 2012 3:18 pm
The railway sector is stuck in the dark ages, heavy rolling stock etc. they could learn so much from todays automotive sector eg. hybrid technology. Recruitment into old technology will always be difficult.
JC
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mark Thomas | 27 Apr 2012 9:02 pm
I was about to embark in Network Rails conversion programme in 2008 coming from a military avionics background. The economy hit a rough patch and the training evaporated. All industries just not rail seems to want an experienced "off the shelf" person. They all cry at the lack of people yet where is the training to either bridge the gap or allow cross over. It's annoying reading the same biased articles over and over.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 29 Apr 2012 11:19 am
JC, re "dark ages"; no, advanced and brilliant Brit rolling stock is on the way to being fully developed
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andy H | 29 Apr 2012 7:14 pm
@anon, Diesel electric drivetrains have been in trains a lot longer than cars.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 May 2012 12:52 pm
I recruit into the rail sector and my clients all complain there's no talent available. But they have many new orders and are growing. However, they won't compromise and need the perfect fit. When I ask - 'How many of these people exist?' I get a blank look. I suspect a handful. That's why you see the same adverts year after year. They don't / won't recruit.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 1 May 2012 2:41 pm
I am just about to graduate with a first class MEng in Civil Engineering. When I contacted Network Rail to tell them that their online application system wouldn't process my application I was told it wouldn't accept me because I don't have an A level or a Higher in Maths, which are seen as necessary qualifications. I'm a mature student and did an access course to get into university, where I have been top of my class for five years. I have completed three summer placements and hold a scholarship from the Institution of Civil Engineers. I have even completed a stand-alone Railway Engineering module, which I don't think many universities offer, but I don't have a maths A level. According to recruitment at Network Rail their HR department's statisticians have decided that will make me a poor engineer... Goodbye, Network Rail.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dinos Kynigos | 3 May 2012 1:03 pm
Reading the above about the A-level requirement indicates that the railway management is like an old train. WELL BUILD, HEAVY, SLOW, NON EFFICIENT AND NON PRODUCTIVE. STRONG AND PROUD BUT SINCE LONG TIME RESTING IN THE RIALWAY MUSIUM.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3 May 2012 1:39 pm
There have been two noticeable changes affecting my journeys in the forty years I've been using trains.
1/ The move from corridoor trains to the current cramped, high background noise unpleasant mess.
2/ Since privatisation, I no longer feel that some jumped up little commissar feels he's doing me a favour by letting me on his train.
I could add a (3) that time tabled journey times have often increased to artificially improve punctuality statistics.
The failing is not in the availability of Engineers-which is a problem for all of us, but the lack of willingness to move our railway system into the latter half of the 20th Century, caused/ demonstrated by the closed shop attitude and the mistaking of grossly wasteful spending for investment.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nigel | 3 May 2012 1:41 pm
Come on guys, let’s cut through the rubbish here…
“‘Not attractive enough”
If you can’t get the staff or are losing yours – it’s for 3 reasons and no more
1. Dismal pay
2. Dismal work
3. Dismal management
All the rail industry has to do is choose its category.
You reap what you sow
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JB | 3 May 2012 1:46 pm
HR want an easy life. They work out what is ideal and sit there waiting for Mr or Ms Perfect to turn up. What worries me is that they don't seem to understand that after 6 of rejecting all applications they won't or can't check to see how reasonable their criteria are.
Too often good people who need a little training to be perfect are overlooked because of a lack of will, knowledge or an aversion to any form of risk.
Do their shareholders know they are stopping them expanding to meet the market demand?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 3 May 2012 5:28 pm
If HR are rejecting Engineering candidates, then either they have too much power over recruitment and are setting the technical acceptance criteria- which I have never experienced to this level- or the Engineering Department can't write a specification for the people they need.
I would rarely defend HR, but sometimes.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Sol Campbell | 4 May 2012 5:33 pm
I agree with the everyone here and would like to add that it's not just the rail sector, it's the engineering sector in general!
I graduated in '09 with an engineering degree, and I'm still stacking shelves part-time in a supermarket!
The requirements are un-realistic in my opinion, even for entry-level jobs: must have 'x' years exp in 'x' industry using niche cad packages that only said industry uses! So the agencies and HR firms won't forward your application unless you meet the criteria exactly.
There are so many jobs out there that I could do, draughting etc, but no-one's interested. It's incredibly frustrating not being able to reach ones potential, I would do another degree but the course fees are just too high and I don't see the point.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment