Minimum Age for Engineers

Apparently they want to lower the age to 18 in the United Kingdom: RailBusinessDaily.com

What do you think? Too young? How does this compare to the US or elsewhere?

Proposals to lowering the minimum age requirement for train drivers

New proposals have been announced by the Government to lower the minimum age for train drivers from 20 to 18. If passed it could be in place as early as the summer.

The Government says the proposal would build resilience across the railway by creating a new pathway for school leavers to take up apprenticeships and train to join the profession. With many train drivers set to retire in the next five years, and the average age of a train driver being 48 years old, the workforce is projected to shrink without opening up more opportunities for new recruits.

The Government says attracting more drivers would help the industry deliver better for customers by providing a more reliable service when staff are off sick or on annual leave. Opening up the sector to young people could therefore be a positive step and benefit passengers directly through the better reliability of services.
...

I am 18, and I think this is too young

As long as they had a non-train (passenger car on roads) drivers license for 18 months.

You can get a Commercial Drivers License with an intrastate restriction at 18.

We let 18 year olds serve in the military with far more responsibility.

For flight crews in the late 1960s the Captains had to be 23 years old with an Air Transport Rating (ATP). The co-pilot only had to be 18 years with just a commercial & instrument rating ( 200 hours). Did not even have to have a multi engine rating. The flight engineer had to be at least 21 years old with some aircraft experience usually as mechanic. However, in the late 1960s airlines hired pilots to be engineers on jets or reciprocating engines with only their flight time. Engineers were required on any aircraft with max gross weight of 80k or more. FEs never have had any mandatory retirement age.

when the DC-9 and B-737 were proposed the FAA approved no engineer with max weight 105k -110k.

In early 1980s FAA required all co-pilot to have at least a multi-engine rating, But they built their time towards the 1500 hour requirement to get an ATP. Sometime after 2000 FAA now requires ATPs for co-pilots. All the above is only for FAR121 operations.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 7:45 pm We let 18 year olds serve in the military with far more responsibility.

We don't let them drink anymore, either. I joined when I was 17, and entered active duty at 18 (1979), and was glad to be able to drink. We're so inconsistent with how we apply age standards...

I think maturity can be accounted for in a screening for engineers, whether it's a test, or face-to-face interview.

Also, an 18-yo in the military is under close, continuous supervision; very different from operating a present-day freight train all by himself. There are no 18-yo sergeants in the army. Anyway, how many engineers today qualified before they were 20? Is this a solution in search of a problem?

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 10:11 pmAnyway, how many engineers today qualified before they were 20?

If people under 21 cannot be engineers then how could anyone under 21 qualify as an engineer?

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Fri May 17, 2024 10:11 pm Anyway, how many engineers today qualified before they were 20? Is this a solution in search of a problem?

The problem was described in the quoted article--there is no path for someone to leave secondary school and decide that train driving is a career option to pursue (you have to apprenticeship for something else or go to university), so train drivers are only people who choose to leave another career, and that is putting employment pressures on hiring train drivers that don't exist for other positions (such as bus drivers). A solution to this problem is to provide a direct path from the end of compulsory schooling (i.e., completing the secondary school education) to train driving.

In the case of bus driving (this is UK law I am referring to), there are limits on operating a bus carrying passengers at age 18 that are gradually lifted by age 24 (such as an 18 year old cannot operate a bus carrying passengers on a route over 31 miles), so I can well imagine that limits might be put in place on 18 year old train drivers that don't exist on 20 year old train drivers.

RandallW wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 5:57 amIn the case of bus driving (this is UK law I am referring to), there are limits on operating a bus carrying passengers at age 18 that are gradually lifted by age 24 (such as an 18 year old cannot operate a bus carrying passengers on a route over 31 miles), so I can well imagine that limits might be put in place on 18 year old train drivers that don't exist on 20 year old train drivers.

Some of those limits could be considered natural to the industry. Your first job working for your first railroad won't be the best job on any railroad - seniority will put the new recruit at the bottom of a call list or in a yard position where they won't be making long distance runs.

The historical career path in the US was from conductor to engineer to dispatcher with the level of responsibility increasing as the career progressed. (Brakeman and fireman jobs long since eliminated.) That path has been disrupted with dispatchers being hired off of the street with no railroad experience.

If the UK is having trouble getting people of the right age to change careers and enter railroading perhaps they could "lower the standard" and allow younger people go straight into the industry instead of through a gateway career.

I overlooked that the OP was talking about the UK. I know that the traditional path in the US involved starting as a fireman working with the engineer and gaining valuable experience while waiting more than a few years before being promoted to engineer, and I'm wondering what's taking the place of that. I've read that NJ Transit is looking to hire off the street and the training program takes 21 months, during which time it should be possible to determine whether an individual has the maturity to be entrusted with a train. Under those circumstances I would be OK with having new hires begin training at 18.

I understand that many conductors are also qualified engineers. Is this now a requirement?

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 6:23 pmseniority will put the new recruit at the bottom of a call list or in a yard position where they won't be making long distance runs.

Unless things have changed from decades ago, holding a yard job would require seniority - having a regular start time and always going home to your own bed are premium perks. In addition, all the switching moves and frequent blind shoves make yards much more dangerous than running on the main line, so you want someone who knows exactly what they're doing.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 8:06 pmI understand that many conductors are also qualified engineers. Is this now a requirement?

The last time I considered hiring out, I noted that the listings for conductor jobs usually said that hirees would be expected to train and qualify as engineers within just a few years of hiring. Given the regular (often self-inflicted) crew shortages the industry suffers from, it wouldn't surprise me if qualified engineers swapped from one job to the other on a day by day basis.

MBTA3247 wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 8:54 pm

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 6:23 pmseniority will put the new recruit at the bottom of a call list or in a yard position where they won't be making long distance runs.

Unless things have changed from decades ago, holding a yard job would require seniority - having a regular start time and always going home to your own bed are premium perks. In addition, all the switching moves and frequent blind shoves make yards much more dangerous than running on the main line, so you want someone who knows exactly what they're doing.

I was thinking along the line of hostlers with limited responsibility.

MBTA3247 wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 8:54 pm

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 8:06 pmI understand that many conductors are also qualified engineers. Is this now a requirement?

The last time I considered hiring out, I noted that the listings for conductor jobs usually said that hirees would be expected to train and qualify as engineers within just a few years of hiring. Given the regular (often self-inflicted) crew shortages the industry suffers from, it wouldn't surprise me if qualified engineers swapped from one job to the other on a day by day basis.

It is a strange relationship with the conductor in charge of the train and the engineer actually operating the controls (all under the dispatcher's ultimate control). Conductor being the entry level position that requires more walking and physical labor (throwing manual switches and derails where they exist, setting and unsetting brakes, etc.) hoping to be promoted to a "desk job" where they can sit at the controls.

I have heard of engineers who were called to work as conductors as needed. Having people qualified at both levels gives the railroad more flexibility.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 7:45 pm We let 18 year olds serve in the military with far more responsibility.

And we probably shouldn't. The part of the human brain that handles risk-taking isn't fully developed until 25.

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Sat May 18, 2024 6:23 pm The historical career path in the US was from conductor to engineer to dispatcher with the level of responsibility increasing as the career progressed. (Brakeman and fireman jobs long since eliminated.) That path has been disrupted with dispatchers being hired off of the street with no railroad experience.

True. A friend of mine got his first railroad job at the age of 20 as a dispatcher. Did that for four years, then moved to train service as a conductor, and hopes to move up to engineer someday.