Embsay P-Way - congratulations!

I think the cynics show clearly that they don't want to compromise their prejudices with facts and have no idea what was involved at Embsay. Their PW department has always been well supported simply because its very well run and performs as a unit in a professional manner.
I have spent 40 years at the sharp end of heritage railways and tramways and know very well how much I can still learn. The I know it all attitude is not welcome on my railway so please go somewhere else if thats what you think. Strangely we do not have a problem with recruiting volunteers indeed we have a waiting list of young persons.

 

I would love to be involved at embasy however other commitments prevent me so i support them in other ways the P way lads getting there nvq is a superb thing it sets them apart from other people

 

In case anyone misinterpreted my post, I was not knocking the achievement of the Embsay lads, merely the paperwork culture which it highlights. If anyone ever asks me about my competency on driving the steam crane, or, indeed, steam engines, I will happily get on one and demonstrate it to them. A certificate means I performed on the day. I have performed for 34 years on the steam crane and with hammer, spanner and shovel and 27 years on steam engines. Which qualification would you think is more valid?

 

Someone who comes to me with both experience and an NVQ is far more welcome than someone who merely asserts that they know it all because they say they have been doing it for 30 years.

 

And show me please, where I have indicated that one is ever too old to learn, or unwelcoming to improving proficiency.

What I have said, and stand by, is that the imposition of paperwork, and unnecessary procedures, into the world of volunteering is becoming a clear hindrance to volunteer involvement - perhaps not in the world of shovel wielding, but in the world of charity administration and trusteeship,most certainly.

I'm happy for you if you have surfeit of volunteer applicants - you are a very fortunate exception.

As to who approves the applicant - the person authorised by the company to do so - qualified by experience and responsibility, and possibly a "ticket" if one exists in that field, that's who.

 

A heritage railway Safety Management System has a requirement to show how competence is achieved, examined, monitored and maintained.

The NVQ in Railway Engineering provides a simple, easily achieved (if you have any competence in P'Way work) answer to what the SMS is looking for, as far as P'Way work goes anyway - also available for S&T and Rail Vehicle Maintenance.

To be fair, the NVQ portfolio was easy enough to create, the guys wanted to go for the NVQ, it was beneficial in lots of unexpected ways, it helped team working within the gang, we had a pleasant presentation day and we ticked a box in the SMS. Win win.

And, in the present culture in which we operate, just saying you can do a job even with XX number of years experience is not enough. You may not like that, I may not like that, but that is where we are.

We recently had an insurance claim from a passenger who 'allegedly' broke a leg descending from a train on a busy event day. The break was only discovered later in the week! The claim duly followed and we challenged it. Our insurers required chapter and verse on platform procedures, procedures for event days, staff training and competence, sufficiency of rostered staff, etc. This was answerable mainly through the SMS but only because we had it in place.

It is something we will have to live with because I can't see things changing back to 'the good old days'.

 

'perhaps not in the world of shovel wielding'

Can I just correct an apparent belief here. Permanent Way work is not 'shovel wielding' and to glibly describe it as such illustrates a sad lack of knowledge of this important aspect of railways. I know that for the trainspotters, photographers and, unfortunately, many heritage railway volunteers, track is just something trains run on. But, to construct and maintain that track correctly requires considerable technical and practical knowledge and ability.


As to who approves the applicant - the person authorised by the company to do so - qualified by experience and responsibility, and possibly a "ticket" if one exists in that field, that's who

Well that is the argument back round full circle. Why not achieve an NVQ and use an external verifier rather than go to the expense and trouble of training an 'in house' one for every discipline on the railway.

 

You obviously didn't appreciate my tongue-in-cheek comment on NQV's. However, you yourself have made the comment:

so you obviously think that it is not a difficult exam to pass!

I've followed the argument about paper qualifications and experience with interest. In the one court case I was professionally involved in, the Barrister was questioning the guy in the box, who told the court of all his qualifications. the Barrister responded with words along the lines of 'that's an impressive list of qualifications but would you now tell the court what experience you have actually had.....'

The argument cuts both ways.

 

Absolutely!

I have recently had the house re-wired

We never, ever, had power outages with the old fusebox - but now with all the protection of Part P etc, etc, observed, it can go out several times a day, or not for many months.

A good old electrician would pop in a more powerful trip as the cause is obviously external - the present regulations don't permit altering the RCD!

At the end of the day - there is no substitute for experience as that alone gives reliability.

All the paper in the world proves nothing if the employee is a boffin, bereft of commonsense - and I have seen and continue to see many.

 

You clearly don't understand how the NVQ is achieved.

There is no exam to pass.

It is based on practical assessment by an experienced discipline-specific assessor. There is no question of studying the subject and thereby obtaining a qualification.

If you didn't have practical experience in P'Way work then you would not achieve the NVQ.

So that answers all your concerns - a qualification and practical experience all in one lovely package.

Get out there and get one today - if you've got the experience, that is.

 

I would have thought that any S&T bods wanting a bit of paper to demonstrate their competence in role would be much better served by working towards an IRSE licence.

Flip

 

Sure but not everyone wants/needs to go as far as that and achieving the NVQ demontrates a level of competence and experience..

 

The S&T one did look interesting... I will find out mroe about it, although I expect quite a bit of its focus will be on things we don't have, and may not cover some of the things we do have. I would certainly be keen, but doubt I could currently put the time in that is required at the times the examiners are about.

 

So what sort of numbers are we talking about here that have passed the NVQ? Is it the whole gang or just a representative few?

 

Eight of the dozen or so regular P'Way volunteers.

 

With Train to Gain funding available i am surprised that other Heritage lines haven't taken this opportunity or if they have they are not selling the benefits. As long as a Heritage Line is a registered company it is relatively easy to access TtG funding. Another thing to consider is apprenticeship for 16 - 18 year old - there is a lot of money floating around, with the probable change in government in May / June there will be greater emphasis placed on developing apprentice provision.

Did Embsay access Train to Gain?

 

Yes. The NVQ was provided free of charge to the participants

 

A misinterpretation of my post. If I come to you and say I have been doing it for 30 years, the first thing I would expect you to say would be, "Prove it." By that, I mean, get on the machine and show me, not produce a piece of paper. I have one, from KDTC, which, as I said, means I performed on the day. It tells you nothing else.

 

It sounds as if some people are confusing an exam (how someone has performed on a single occassion) with continuous assessment (recording the full range of tasks done over a period of time). An NVQ (at whatever level), or similar qualification proves both that a set standard can be attained at a particular time and records that this is not a fluke, because the person concerned has managed to do the specificed task accross a longer period of time. If done properly (i.e. not by people creating work for the sake of it) it can be a very simple way of proving competence and an efficient way of passing on the scope and scale of this to other people. As I said before an NVQ-type qualification can be invaluable - its far more comprehensive than a single occassion test and saves a lot of work at trying to work out whether a new employee (or volunteer) has a set range of skills/experiences - though it doesn't tell you whether you'll get on with them!