Hi Lynsay,


Thanks for the link which I'll explore.


There's also the question of whether the rail industry is doing enough to attract excellent experienced engineers from other industries into the rail industry! Different question of course, and shouldn't detract from this, but I often wonder if we're actually better at (or at least put more effort into) attracting young people than we are at attracting experienced people. After 26 years in the rail industry (following 11 years in the music / broadcast industry) I'm starting to feel a bit less like an imposter ?


Cheers,


Andy

Interesting questions in this survey! I look forward to seeing the results in RTM.


Cheers,


Andy

Hi Roy,


I think I might have posted this before but bother it, I'm going to post it again anyway: it features two of my close colleagues (in fact Carolyn got me my previous and present jobs) and is a great and encouraging story:
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2018/12/11/175-years-of-progress/

This story very much reflects the rail industry I work in, but it's very often not the perception. And of course I wouldn't claim it reflects the whole industry.


Cheers,


Andy

Andy,


A great story and warmest wishes to all four.  As is well-known, in these forums and elsewhere, I take a particularly keen interest in how people get into engineering careers, are developed to a competent standard and in the context of an IET forum, how we as a professional society nurture them.  Perhaps an analogy with railways is useful here, because if you get onto the right track early and have adequate locomotion (talent and motivation) then a smooth journey can normally be expected.  However, large numbers of travellers aren’t offered a useable service and some of those who are complain of being denied boarding to premium services, or being restricted to second or third class coaches .        


Of our four role models, it seems that three found themselves by their early teens comfortable with maths & science, subsequently chose A levels in those subjects and by the age of 18, hadn’t been “derailed” by one of the many issues that affect teenagers. So by that by the age of 18 they were able to choose to study engineering as a full-time undergraduate student.  They also overcame the obviously significant barrier of gender stereotyping and it would be interesting what role models or information helped to overcome that, it is often a parent.  Our experienced role models would also have faced a more benign financial environment, with fees for a degree being a very small fraction of what they are now. Although the lost opportunity to earn and lack of role models, would still have still deterred many from working class backgrounds.  Having got to university the key “rite of passage” so beloved of traditionalists involving a heavy diet of equations has to be survived and hopefully by the end of the course there is still a desire to become an engineer.  I wonder if Civil Engineering is a better choice than Electrical & Electronic in that respect?  Does anybody have any thoughts or evidence?  Following this track, we now face the last major potential derailment (rather than speed restriction), gaining employment as a graduate trainee engineer. I’m not aware of any gender discrimination by (the mostly large) employers who recruit graduate trainees, unless anyone knows differently?  Beyond that point, there are potential blockages and speed restrictions, but the so-called class ceiling is well beyond Chartered Engineer roles.


For me the most interesting story is the person who left school at 16 to become an apprentice.  As Mark Carne quite correctly called, something which has increasingly become stigmatised as suitable only for those of lower class or lower ability, although this path was quite “normal” in the past and has equipped many people with more than enough locomotion to succeed. Perhaps Thomas the Tank Engine, not Gordon the fast one!  For the record I left school at 16 and did an apprenticeship plus HNC, but this isn’t about me.  I have encountered a number of people who having gained career momentum  were influenced to undertake a full-time degree as a “mature student”  which allowed them to transfer onto the main line. As part-time degree options became more available many also followed that track.  For decades this was almost the only practical pathway to Chartered Engineer recognition.  


Over the last decade, I have been quite involved in this area of work, as the IET created a policy which removed “academic requirements” as a barrier to becoming a Chartered Engineer. In doing so the IET still sets arguably one of the highest performance standards for such recognition in the professional engineering institution family.  This hasn’t been done carelessly , but on the basis of evidence. For example, I submitted to Engineering Council  a study comparing the technical competence of approximately 40 experienced engineers in a high technology environment, with their academic qualifications.  On the basis of this and other evidence, I would suggest that having a CEng accredited degree doesn’t correlate particularly reliably with performance in career, relative to other paths.  Traditions have grown up from a combination of, a self-fulfilling social groups perpetuating their own rite of passage, the interests of strongly influential almost hegemonic stakeholders and bureaucratic convenience.  We could and should do better!


I’m not aware of a lack of interest in Rail Careers, although among an older generation this was certainly male dominated. Where hard physical labour in challenging conditions is involved this is always going to suit some types of people better than others and gender will be a factor in that preference. However, the sector offers a huge variety of technical and technically informed management roles, it seems open at different entry points with a meritocratic and unpretentious culture.      


This being an IET thread; Is there something more that we should be doing to help the industry draw from the widest possible talent pool and nurtures the types of technical careers that we value?  Are we careful to respect equally and nurture appropriately, the different types of people who are our members and prospective members in the rail industry?  Understandably as the IEE, our interest would be primarily be in those on the Chartered Electrical  Engineer track , although that could lead anywhere once you passed through that station.  As I see it, our duty now includes the branch lines, many of which in the end can lead to one of the main lines with a Chartered station on it and perhaps even a major terminus at the end (Director)?   


Having mentioned Thomas the Tank Engine, I thought that I might end on a lighter note with something about the sociology that Rev Awdry imbued his stories with, so I googled it. To my surprise there is a whole industry of social science interpretation of the Reverend W Awdry’s stories, Sexist, Fascist, Stalinist , Capitalist, Dystopian , you name it!? There must be few PhDs on the subject. Is this putting some people off a railway career before they have even started school??        

Yes, that's the class 800/801/802 trains. Everything in the railways is expensive, because not very many are made and the consequences of failure (even of a driver's seat!) are considered rather high. So I assume that 40k will be amortising the analysis and design costs across not very many seats. (Not actually our area of course, our particular team is looking at the electrification infrastructure rather than the trains themselves.)


Personally I find the seats in the carriages of these trains much more uncomfortable than the old HSTs, but my wife finds them much more comfortable. So just goes to show what a pain it is trying to please everyone in engineering design. However, since my wife's back is a reasonable shape for a human being and mine...isn't, maybe Hitachi have got it about right.


When I talk to school children about engineering I currently use the example of a rail pedestrian crossing protection system I'm currently involved with - I start by setting the scene of a crossing where at the moment all the crossing user has is a pair of gates and a sign that tells them to look and listen before crossing (which is one of our biggest remaining risk areas on the UK rail network). We then work through solutions, and the first solutions they come up with are always a bridge or a tunnel: very sensible, just separate the people from the trains. It is quite entertaining the answers I get when I ask them to guess how much each of those would cost...no-one has yet got it within a factor of 10 of the actual cost, and typically a factor of 100 out.


Cheers,


Andy