Just wondering for anyone currently working in the industry, how valuable the Safeworking course is to operators in terms of employing trainees? I'm starting to suspect that I have blown $2000 for something that operators don't really value in an applicant. Not one of the compentencies is signed off! It's not until you step into a locomotive and physically carry out an inspection, do a continuity test etc etc. that you actually gain a skill rather than just learning the theory on it. Am I right in thinking this way?

You gain skills that make the training easier, but PN bulk don't recognise safeworking that others have taught.

It's a lot of money to throw towards something that might not land you a job. Personal experience would say don't bother.

You gain skills that make the training easier, but PN bulk don't recognise safeworking that others have taught.

It's a lot of money to throw towards something that might not land you a job. Personal experience would say don't bother.

From what you say Seb my suspicions are correct, and I have just thrown good money out the window as PN Bulk is the one operator I most want to land a job with. For others thinking that a pre-employment course is a "foot in the door" don't waste your money!

i think it is pretty much the same with aurizon. they will give you all the training you need to do the job and it does not matter what sort of training you have done before. basically the only sort of pre employment training that is recognized  are drivers qualifications that are gained with another rail operator and not a training company.

What it has taught me though is to hone in on my life/work experiences and put those that are most relevant to the job into my resume, which can only enhance my prospects of landing a job interview.

I don't understand why PN will not recognise training provider by another entity, when core stuff like safeworking, etc. is now a nationally-recognised competency via the Cert-III and Cert-IV RTO assessing process. For PN to decline to acknowledge/RPL certified training where candidates provide certificates proving they have competency in the relevent TLI's is pretty stupid. For anything that is specific to what the company does, that's understandable, such as company-specific policies/procedures, site inductions, etc.

If a candidate has done a full NSW safeworking course with certificates to prove it, PN will lose a lot of potential candidates if they fail to consider a candidate's prior training relevant to the industry and the job the candidates are going for.

A lot more people are now going to be fronting up to apply for jobs with Cert-IV certificates esp with the rail safety legislation in most states now requiring train crews to hold a nationally-recognised certification as part of the company's own operator accreditation, and if a company declines to recognise those, then the whole idea of nationally-recognised training modules for the rail industry is a complete farce.

Craig.

If a candidate has done a full NSW safeworking course with certificates to prove it, PN will lose a lot of potential candidates if they fail to consider a candidate's prior training relevant to the industry and the job the candidates are going for.

It's not that PN wont consider it, they will, but it isnt the silver bullet many think it is. There's a lot more to consider but if it came down to the fact that the only thing separating two applicants is a NSW SW course, then that will probably swing it.

then the whole idea of nationally-recognised training modules for the rail industry is a complete farce.

Craig.

You got it.

If you do some research on this forum, you'll find opinion is divided on the benefit of private training. I believe that I wouldn't have the job that I have, without the "off the job" training. Employers may not recognize the quals that you earned but they may recognize the commitment that you made.

I don't understand why PN will not recognise training provider by another entity, when core stuff like safeworking, etc. is now a nationally-recognised competency via the Cert-III and Cert-IV RTO assessing process. For PN to decline to acknowledge/RPL certified training where candidates provide certificates proving they have competency in the relevent TLI's is pretty stupid. For anything that is specific to what the company does, that's understandable, such as company-specific policies/procedures, site inductions, etc.

If a candidate has done a full NSW safeworking course with certificates to prove it, PN will lose a lot of potential candidates if they fail to consider a candidate's prior training relevant to the industry and the job the candidates are going for.

A lot more people are now going to be fronting up to apply for jobs with Cert-IV certificates esp with the rail safety legislation in most states now requiring train crews to hold a nationally-recognised certification as part of the company's own operator accreditation, and if a company declines to recognise those, then the whole idea of nationally-recognised training modules for the rail industry is a complete farce.

Craig.

Cert IV? What are these mythical things you speak of? Been qualified for nearly a year and still no sight of mine. I actually believe its a deliberate ploy by the company to not hand them over, to stop you leaving.

Even between divisions here quals are not recognised. When I transferred to intermodal, I had to re-do all my checklists as they "don't recognise R+B assessments".

The NSW rail safety legislation, following the introduction of the ammended Rail Safety Act in 2010, requires all rail operations staff to hold a nationally-recognised qualification relevant to their role. For train crews, the relevant national qualification is the Cert-IV in Transport and Logistics (Rail Operations) TLI40407.

My employer put us through 13 of the 20+ units of competency during 2011 as part of their big RTO assessment process, but has since failed to carry out the process for the remaining units. That means I have a partial Cert-IV but not the full one, however that is still presentable to prospective employers as the units of competency have national recognition under the Australian Qualification Framework.

I don't know if the harmonised national rail safety legislation will or does include the same requirement but I would presume it does as the NSW rail safety act model appears to have been used as the framework for most other state/territory legislatures when they were formulating their own versions, prior to the national legislation being presented.

Most rail companies are going to be very resistant to this as it means train crew then have a 'portable' qualification that can be taken to any other rail company when applying for a job.

However there are also other relevant Cert-IV's such as those pertaining to Training and Assessing, Frontline Management, etc. which some people have before coming into the rail industry. I have neither of those at present.

Craig.

If you do some research on this forum, you'll find opinion is divided on the benefit of private training. I believe that I wouldn't have the job that I have, without the "off the job" training. Employers may not recognize the quals that you earned but they may recognize the commitment that you made.

Agree. As with most RTO's they don't have a loco sitting out back for u to complete say TLIB3021A "Conduct train roll by inspection" so the "commitment" is the value u get for your money by doing the "off the job training"....it's quite an expensive commitment though!

Agree. As with most RTO's they don't have a loco sitting out back for u to complete say TLIB3021A "Conduct train roll by inspection" so the "commitment" is the value u get for your money by doing the "off the job training"....it's quite an expensive commitment though!

And companies like Aurizon, which pretend to be willing to upskill everyone to having a nationally-recognised cert-IV as per the new rail safety legislation, keep stalling on fulfilling that obligation because of 'other priorities'.

An external training package is definitely a good starting point for someone new to the industry as it presents a valid case for employment showing some initial dedication, and it reduces the training burden on a potential employer too.

Craig.

An external training package is definitely a good starting point for someone new to the industry as it presents a valid case for employment showing some initial dedication, and it reduces the training burden on a potential employer too.

Debatable as most of the advice I've received on this forum (from drivers and recruiting consultants) is that most operators will put you through the off the job training again.

Very debatable. As I've said, if everything else was equal between two applicants it might prove to be a deciding factor, but real world mentality and employment history should, and will, always take priority.

Debatable as most of the advice I've received on this forum (from drivers and recruiting consultants) is that most operators will put you through the off the job training again.

For PN, correct.

So the course you have done might be a waste of time for PN, but it may be useful for other operators. Have you considered doing volunteer work for a tourist/heritage railway who might have trainers and whatnot who can sign you off for rollby inspections, shunting and all that? Of course, instead of paying money for the training, you might have to do some restoration work and things like that...

You might discover a good hobby!

M

What it has taught me though is to hone in on my life/work experiences and put those that are most relevant to the job into my resume, which can only enhance my prospects of landing a job interview.

DO NOT mention you like trains.

DO NOT mention you like trains.

Thanks for tip, but an interest in trains doesn't really belong in a professional document such as a CV.

Thanks for tip, but an interest in trains doesn't really belong in a professional document such as a CV.

I mentioned that I was a train buff at a PN interview and still got employed, so that doesn't count *all* the time.

M

Ill second that Mick.

I made mention that I had operational experience with a Tourist railway in the same way that I mentioned I have a Senior First aid certificate. Not an essential pre-requisite but certainly helpful.

I think if you mention it in a professional manner and place no more importance on the subject than any others then you'll go a long way.

So the course you have done might be a waste of time for PN, but it may be useful for other operators. Have you considered doing volunteer work for a tourist/heritage railway who might have trainers and whatnot who can sign you off for rollby inspections, shunting and all that? Of course, instead of paying money for the training, you might have to do some restoration work and things like that...

You might discover a good hobby!


M

Have made approaches to a heritage railway nearby where I live and would love to get my hands dirty in restoration work, I have made some contacts through their operations manager and they have promised me that I will be invited to future working bees, so I'm hopeful that I will be able to, as you say get some of those competencies "singed off". Plus I think it would be a rewarding hobby to see some old diesel or steamer get back to work!
Since posting I received an email 2 days ago inviting me to attend saturdays from June, as separate coincidence the report into NSW rail heritage released recently recommended recruiting "younger" volunteers.

DO NOT mention you like trains.

You can probably mention it in a face to face interview as a passing comment (they want to see that you have at least some interest in the job!) but don't come off as a foaming gunzel. Probably wouldnt have it on a CV.

You can probably mention it in a face to face interview as a passing comment (they want to see that you have at least some interest in the job!) but don't come off as a foaming gunzel. Probably wouldnt have it on a CV.

Agree, a passing comment if it comes up in the preamble of an interview or if asked directly and personally IMO it does not belong in a CV. There are better skills and experiences that you can highlight, my top 6 are:

1. Mechanical aptitude-either in your line of work or some hobby.

2. Good communication skills


3. Team player

4. Demonstrated adherence to safe working practice

5. Demonstrated experience to follow rules and procedures

6. A willingness to work shift-work

Have I missed anything?

Agree, a passing comment if it comes up in the preamble of an interview or if asked directly and personally IMO it does not belong in a CV. There are better skills and experiences that you can highlight, my top 6 are:

1. Mechanical aptitude-either in your line of work or some hobby.

2. Good communication skills


3. Team player

4. Demonstrated adherence to safe working practice

5. Demonstrated experience to follow rules and procedures

6. A willingness to work shift-work

Have I missed anything?

This is what you need to demstrate. There is a selection criteria and the closer you match it, the better. How is your cover letter going? A well prepared, well set out cover letter will do wonders as it makes the hiring people read your CV. Remember you are competing against hundreds if not thousands. Sell yourself on the points you list in the cover letter and your well on the way for eating to the next step.