Consultation outcome

Lowering the minimum age requirement for train drivers from 20 to 18 – outcome

Updated 7 May 2025

The publication of the response to this consultation was delayed beyond the usual 12-week timeframe due to the 2024 General Election and the subsequent change of government.

These events required a period of transition and review to ensure the policy aligns with the priorities of the new administration.

Foreword from the Rail Minister

The work that train drivers do to keep our network operating is critical. They ensure thousands of passengers and tonnes of freight are transported safely, punctually and efficiently across the network each day. As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Britain’s railways in 2025, the role of train drivers remains as vital as ever in keeping the country moving and the economy growing.

From high speed intercity passenger express routes, to iconic charter trains and shunting locomotives, train drivers perform essential activities in a wide range of environments and settings. With the breadth of roles and opportunities available, it is no surprise that many people aspire to become a train driver from a young age. Today, there are approximately 27,000 train drivers licensed to drive trains in Great Britain by the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) – Britain’s railway safety regulator.

Despite a high demand for new train drivers and interest in the role, the number of train drivers is projected to decrease over the next decade as the workforce continues to age and too few people replace those who retire or leave. This presents acute challenges for operators in the long term if they are to maintain or grow current service levels.

According to the National Skills Academy for Rail (NSAR), the average age of a train driver is now 48, with 40% of drivers over the age of 50. This trend is projected to continue and NSAR predict around 30% of train drivers will reach retirement age by 2029, presenting a critical loss of experience and knowledge to the sector.

In some regions, such as Scotland and the north-east of England, up to 38% of train drivers are projected to retire by 2029, compared to 24% in London. This highlights regional disparities that could compound future driver shortages.

The challenge is clear. If we are to create a more resilient railway and sustainable workforce, we need to bring more talent into the rail sector. This means empowering people and removing barriers that prevent high potential individuals from taking up a career as a train driver. It also means promoting job opportunities to support a regionally balanced workforce that can attract more investment. It is true that whilst many people are interested in becoming train drivers, it is difficult for young people to begin their career in the profession. This is, in part, due to the law requiring train drivers to be at least 20 years of age.

By the time someone has reached the age of 20, they have often committed to alternative career paths, or higher education before they have even recognised the opportunity to become a train driver. For some, a lack of role models has also played its part, leading to a perception that they do not fit the typical image of a train driver and that the lifestyle is not suited to them.

We should be looking to change this attitude. Anyone with the right skills, maturity and sense of responsibility can be a train driver, and we should be embracing people from all walks of life into the profession. This should begin at schools and colleges, where people are considering their future. To this end, we should be building industry capability and capacity by strengthening the pathways between those at this critical stage in their lives and the train driving industry.

Since 2010, there has been a legal requirement to be at least 20 years old before you can become a licensed train driver in the UK. This is not unusual, but several countries have taken a different approach.

The Netherlands, France, Germany and Switzerland have had a lower minimum age requirement of 18 for over a decade and operators in these countries have reported positive results for the sector following a change in law.

The UK rail sector has noticed this and research by the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) in 2019 confirmed that there was no correlation between younger train drivers and poor safety performance, with train drivers under the age of 20 who had the experience of driving trains being as successful as older ones in meeting the rigorous standards in place for train driving. The operators that participated in this research indicated that having a wider pool of potential talent to choose from strengthened their recruitment capabilities and helped to diversify their workforces.

Some operators had advanced this further and made outreach in schools a key part of their workforce strategy. By collaborating with schools and colleges to establish apprenticeship schemes and training programmes for school leavers, they established secure pipelines of potential recruits into their workforces.

For these reasons, the previous government launched a public consultation on a proposal to lower the minimum age to be a train driver in Great Britain from 20 to 18, which ran from 16 May 2024 to 13 June 2024. I am pleased now to publish the full findings of the consultation, together with responses from my department, in full below.

We received a significant number of thoughtful and considered responses from across the industry and wider public, including:

• train drivers
• train driver managers
• signallers
• rail operators
• trade unions
• professionals
• industry bodies
• trade associations

This reflects the breadth of interest in this proposal. It has enabled the Department for Transport (DfT) to explore how this change could help address train driver shortages while ensuring that the high standards of safety, training and competence – the cornerstones of Britain’s railways – are upheld.

Having reviewed the consultation responses and the case for change, I am pleased to announce that my department has decided to progress with changing the law to lower the minimum age requirement to be a licensed train driver on the mainline in Great Britain from 20 to 18. We believe this measure can unlock opportunities for the next generation, create jobs, support economic growth and deliver an improved railway fit for the future. We will now work with the rail sector to prepare for the next steps to set a timetable for changing the law. 

I would like to thank the sector and public for their positive engagement and interest in this area of work to date, which has been invaluable in informing our next steps.

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill CBE, Minister for Rail

Background

The requirements to be a train driver in Great Britain are set out under the Train Driving Licences and Certificates Regulations 2010 (TDLCR), which puts into effect the EU Directive 2007/59/EC (known as the Train Driving Directive).

TDLCR

TDLCR establishes a licensing and certification regime for train drivers to ensure they meet common requirements before they are eligible to drive trains on the mainline railway. These requirements do not apply to driving on:

• heritage railways
• metros
• tramways
• other light rail systems

The ORR, Britain’s railway safety regulator, are responsible for issuing train driver licences. The issuing of certification for train drivers is the responsibility of the train operators.

Under the TDLCR, a train driver must pass mandatory age, psychological, medical, educational and qualification requirements before the ORR can issue them with a train driving licence, which is valid for up to 10 years.

Before they are deployed, a licensed train driver must also obtain a separate train driving certificate from their employer that specifies the route and trains that they have been trained and are qualified to operate on, which includes understanding relevant safety, operational and language requirements.

Together, these requirements have helped to establish a professionalised framework for entering the train driving profession.

Under the TDLCR, the minimum age that a person must be before they are eligible to become a licensed train driver is currently 20 years old. Once they have obtained a train driving licence and train driving certificate, their employer can deploy them to drive the routes and types of trains their certificate covers.

Minimum entry age

The decision to set a minimum entry age of 20 in the TDLCR for the mainline railway reflected the consensus of the UK rail sector at the time the law was implemented.

When the Train Driving Directive was negotiated within the EU, there was an initial lack of agreement across member states on what the minimum age requirement should be. Some member states already allow 18-year-olds to be train drivers, such as Germany. Other countries had a higher requirement, such as in Britain, where a minimum age limit of 21 was long-established in railway group standards.

As a compromise, the EU gave member states the discretion to decide whether to set a lower minimum age requirement of 18 on the condition that licences issued to 18 to 20-year-olds would only be valid for domestic services in the state in which they were issued – for example, on the mainline in Germany.

In contrast, train driving licences issued to 20-year-olds and above would be valid for operating services in any member state, including cross-border and international services. This meant that some countries had a lower minimum age requirement to be a train driver for domestic services compared to others.

In Britain, DfT consulted the rail sector on which requirements to adopt, noting that the minimum age in railway group standards had been 21 for many years.

The Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), which represented various passenger train operators in Britain following the privatisation of Britian’s railways from 1993 until 2011, formed the view that the minimum age requirement should be set at 20 years, because there was insufficient evidence at the time to support the case for the safe lowering of the minimum age requirements in Britain.

ATOC’s position stemmed from the perception that younger people would not be able to reach the standards of required for train driving. Due to the lack of research at the time, this assumption was based on contemporary studies of the likelihood of accidents and risks associated with young motorists.

ATOC’s assessment did not acknowledge that train drivers, regardless of age, are required to meet all the same requirements to be qualified. This includes a significantly more rigorous training regime, reflecting the unique responsibilities of driving a train as opposed to driving a car.

Without significant research and comparative evidence to make a compelling case for change at the time, the ORR accepted ATOC’s view that the minimum age requirement should be set at 20 years and this was subsequently adopted in law.

Since the regulations came into force, there has been a growing body of evidence suggesting that these assumptions were weak and should be re-examined.

The RSSB were commissioned in 2019 to explore the relationship between age and train driving performance by looking at countries such as the Netherlands, France, Germany and Switzerland where the minimum age requirement has been 18 for some time.

The RSSB study was published in February 2024 and found that:

• Age is not a reliable predictor of road or train driving performance. The development of experience is more important in determining how drivers perform, regardless of whether their age is 18 or 20.
• Over a 10-year period, amongst 18- to 20-year-old train drivers, there was no correlation with age and poor decision making, lapses of judgement or intentional rule breaking. They share the same characteristics as the wider train driving population.
• Younger train drivers can acquire this experience through exposure to train driving under supervision and existing training processes. These enable train drivers to develop the technical skills, knowledge and non-technical skills required for safe train driving.
• The risk control measures currently in place on the network can be used to select, train and manage train drivers aged 18.
• there has been a significant improvement in how train operators manage train driver competence in recent years
• There are opportunities to improve on existing competence management for drivers, including greater use of augmented reality, hazard perception testing, and exposure to riskier scenarios under controlled and degraded conditions.

The report, therefore, concluded that there was no definitive safety reason for maintaining the current minimum age requirement of 20 in Britain.

Train and freight operating companies

Since the publication of RSSB’s report, several train and freight operating companies have called on the government to change the law. The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF), which is the UK’s largest train drivers’ union, also support lowering the minimum age requirement from 20 to 18. As RSSB have stated, this would make the mainline requirements consistent with the London Underground, where the minimum entry age is already 18.

Train and freight operating companies and ASLEF have all highlighted the broader benefits of what a change in law could enable. By creating new job opportunities for young people, this measure could improve productivity, support economic growth and enhance the diversity and resilience of the workforce.

They also contend that it could facilitate closer collaboration between schools and train operators to create a pipeline of future train drivers. For example, expanding existing train driving apprenticeship programmes to reach younger cohorts, thereby building the industry’s capability to train and recruit new drivers. In doing this, this could be part of the solution to address projected skills gaps in the future.

The strength of opinion in support of this proposal was expressed during DfT’s second post implementation review (PIR) of the TDLCR published on 19 May 2023. This confirmed strong cross-industry support for exploring the proposal further.

About the consultation

On 16 May 2024, DfT launched a public consultation seeking views on the proposal to lower the minimum age requirement to be a licensed train driver in Great Britain from 20 to 18.

The consultation ran for 4 weeks. Responses could be submitted online, by email or post.

We were seeking views from:

• organisations in the rail sector
• people employed in the rail sector
• any other interested party

The consultation invited people to submit their views on whether they agree with or support the policy and on how the policy should be implemented if it were progressed. This included whether there should be a period of enhanced supervision of younger train drivers or if the selection, monitoring and training processes for younger train drivers should change.

The consultation proposed to amend the TDLCR by changing the minimum age requirement that a person must meet before applying to obtain a train driving licence from 20 to 18.

The consultation set out a case for changing the law, incorporating feedback and evidence submitted by the rail sector, including published research.

The consultation was publicised to the rail sector and wider public via media, newsletters, email and a press notice.

About the respondents

We received a total of 178 responses to the consultation. There were responses from a broad range of organisations and people from different professional backgrounds, alongside members of the public. Each organisation’s response to the consultation is counted as one, regardless of how many individuals it represents.

The consultation asked stakeholders for their views on 3 proposals:

1. Lowering the minimum age to be a train driver.
2. Putting in place enhanced supervision of younger drivers, should the minimum age be lowered.
3. Revising the selection, training and monitoring processes should the minimum age be lowered.

Responses from the consultation were assessed and put into 2 groups. These were:

• those who supported the proposals
• those who were against the proposals

The feedback received on each significant question is summarised below, followed by a response from the government.

Questions 1 to 5 covered personal details and questions 6 to 8 covered organisation details. We have provided a detailed response to questions 9, 10, 14, 15, 18 and 19. These questions were open-ended.

The responses received are broken down as follows.

Table 1: Respondents to the consultation

Respondent type	Number of responses	Percentage of total responses (%)
Infrastructure manager	1	0.5%
Train operators	2	1.1%
Railway industry bodies	5	2.7%
Trade and logistic associations	1	0.5%
Postal and courier company	1	0.5%
Construction	1	0.5%
Trade unions	1	0.5%
Parliamentary advisory groups	1	0.5%
Train drivers (mainline)	35	19.2%
Signallers	3	1.6%
Guards	2	1.1%
Shunter drivers	2	1.1%
Rail operations managers	4	2.2%
Gate assistants	1	0.5%
Train driving trainers	9	4.9%
Train driving examiners	1	0.5%
Train driving instructors	2	1.1%
Train driving manager	3	1.6%
Customer service representatives	2	1.1%
Engineers	1	0.5%
Recruiters	1	0.5%
Journalists	1	0.5%
Unspecified rail worker	19	10.4%
Members of the public	83	45.6%
Total	182	100.0%

The top 3 groups that submitted responses to the consultation were:

• members of the public
• train drivers (mainline)
• rail worker (unspecified)

Figure 1: Size of organisations that responded

Size of organisation	Percentage of responses
1 to 25 employees	18%
26 to 50 employees	18%
51 to 100 employees	0%
101 to 250 employees	0%
251 to 1,000 employees	18%
Above 1,000 employees	45%
Total	100%

Figure 1 shows that just over half of the responses came from organisations that have between 1 and 1,000 employees. The rest of the responses came from organisations above 1,000 employees.

52% of respondents identified that they were employed in the rail industry. 48% indicated that they were not.

Minimum age requirements

Summary of responses to question 9

Question 9: Do you agree or disagree with lowering the minimum age requirement for train drivers from 20 to 18?

48% of respondents agreed with question 9. 52% of respondents disagreed with question 9.

Slightly more respondents opposed the proposal than supported it, but amongst organisations that responded, many of which represent larger constituencies and professional industry opinion, there was overwhelming support.

There was consensus amongst large organisations (those employing or representing more than 250 people) in favour of lowering the minimum age requirement from 20 to 18. This includes train operators, trade unions and rail industry bodies.

In summary, the majority of supportive responses came from organisations and representative bodies, whereas most of the responses opposing came from individuals.

Summary of responses to question 10

Question 10: What are your reasons for opposing the proposal to lower the minimum age for train drivers from 20 to 18?

Summary of responses that opposed question 10

A common theme among the responses for those who oppose were surrounding concerns about the safety of having train drivers under the age of 20, with several respondents stating that they are not cognitively mature or responsible enough at this age to perform the duties of a train driver.

One employee within the rail industry said:

I believe an individual needs to gain a level of life experience of adulthood before committing to the kind of lifestyle required to be a train driver (unsociable shifts, alcohol restrictions, level of responsibility).

There were also concerns expressed that the ‘lifestyle’ of younger people is not compatible with the responsibilities and demands of being a train driver and even a suggestion that the minimum age requirement should be higher than it is, such as that of pilots operating commercial air transport, which is set at 21.

Two respondents stated that there are more important factors that could explain why there are shortages in train drivers and that reducing the minimum age requirement will have a minimal impact on mitigating or reversing the driver supply issues, potentially adding costs to train operating companies (TOCs) if implemented. There were also comments expanding on the issue of applicants, with some stating that there is no shortage of applicants in these roles.

Some respondents referred to statistics on motorists, with opinions expressed that young motorists are at a much higher risk of crashing than older motorists, therefore, reducing the minimum age requirement for train drivers means putting the health, safety and lives of people at greater risk.

Other concerns were also raised surrounding technology and that it potentially cannot safeguard all aspects of train driving behaviour and performance.

Government response

We recognise that some respondents expressed concerns about the safety of having younger train drivers. However, there are several considerations that lead us to the view that this risk could be managed effectively under the current framework and existing procedures. Before applicants can be accepted into a trainee driver course by a train operator, they will need to pass several interviews and aptitude tests to determine their ability, character and potential. This process is challenging, but it does serve to ensure that candidates with the skills and qualities operators recognise are needed to be a train driver are chosen for trainee positions.

Once a prospective train driver has been selected, train operators are required to train them in the technical, operational, practical and professional aspects of train driving. This includes completing a course on the theoretical understanding of train driving, including:

• comprehending traction and braking systems
• recognising signalling and signage
• working under degraded conditions (for example, extreme weather)
• identifying hazards, speed limits and risks
• operating on different rolling stock (for example, freight locomotives and high speed passenger trains)
• dispatching passengers safely in accordance with station protocols
• responding to emergency situations

It also involves professional training on:

• shift work
• stress management
• maintaining concentration
• being familiar with new technologies and operational procedures

This is maintained through a system of continuous learning.

Depending on the size and nature of train operations at a given depot, driver training typically takes 9 to 24 months, although there is no set time limit, with the average driver taking well over a year to become fully qualified and productive. During this process, trainees will undertake practical live train driving with an instructor under supervision to develop their ability to handle train driving tasks, including responding to stimuli in different scenarios, such as emergency situations. At this point, if they meet the required standard, they are permitted to drive without supervision on tracks that are closed off for training purposes.

If a trainee meets these proficiency requirements, they will then need to pass:

• a mandatory occupational psychological assessment set by the British Psychological Society (BPS)
• a medical assessment undertaken by a recognised doctor in line with General Medical Council (GMC) best practice

These examination requirements are prescribed in schedule 1 of TDLCR. The specific medical and psychological assessment requirements a candidate must meet to comply with schedule 1 are set out in Rail Industry Standards (RIS) RIS-3789-TOM and RIS-3751-TOM.

RIS-3789-TOM specifies the optical, hearing, physical fitness and psycho-motor requirements, which cover reaction time, balance and coordination skills.

RIS-3751-TOM establishes the psychological requirements for train drivers. This ensures applicants do not have occupational psychological deficiencies that are likely to interfere with the safe exercise of duties. If a trainee meets all these conditions, the ORR may issue a train driving licence to a train driver.

All licensed train drivers are subject to ongoing and robust training, assessment and monitoring requirements by their employer as part of the TDLCR. Much of this is obtained through the On-Train Data Recorder (OTDR) present in all cabins, which records data about the operation of train controls and can be used to assess performance and safety compliance and diagnose issues with train systems so they can be rectified.

These help operators detect any serious safety issues and identify areas for improvement, which can be used by train driver managers to adapt their competence management and individual development of train drivers that report to them. Train drivers must also pass the more fundamental conditions for maintaining their licence, including passing tests for the presence of drugs and alcohol.

With respect to newly qualified drivers, they will enter a post-qualification period of one to 2 years (depending on the organisation) where train drivers are monitored more closely than more experienced drivers, which provides a further level of safety assurance to the regime.

Previous experiences in other European countries, including Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands, have proven these procedures and safeguards to be effective in bringing 18 and 19-year-olds into the profession.

Furthermore, over a 10-year period, the RSSB found that experience, not age, is a stronger predictor of performance and that there was no correlation between younger drivers and rates of signals passed at danger, which is when a train passes a stop signal without proper authorisation.

We agree with the majority of respondents who conveyed their strong support for keeping these robust requirements in place. We think this is a necessary condition before younger train drivers are considered eligible for train driver roles.

We are satisfied that with these requirements in place, the risks flagged in some of the consultation responses will be more than sufficiently controlled and that 18 and 19-year-olds meeting these strict requirements can safely drive trains. We do not think age should be a barrier to being eligible to enter the profession. This should be based on ability to pass the same criteria that apply to all train drivers, as already established practice in some other European countries.

We note that some stakeholders are concerned that 18 and 19-year-olds would not have the non-technical skills (NTSs) and life experience that are required to successfully apply for train driving positions. These skills cover behaviours such as:

• situational awareness
• communication
• quick decision making
• problem solving and adaptability

These are important to be a successful train driver.

However, as demonstrated in other European countries, we believe young people can acquire experience and NTSs by other means and that age is not the sole determining factor in attaining these skills. For example, a train guard or station assistant (where the minimum entry age is 18) could develop their NTSs as a precursor or in conjunction with a trainee driver programme, or as part of a train driving apprenticeship.

Fundamentally, if a prospective candidate can pass the criteria that apply to all train drivers, which include NTSs, there should be no reason why they should not have the opportunity to do so.

We note that some respondents feel that younger people would not be suited to the lifestyle of a train driver. We acknowledge that train driving is not a profession that appeals to everyone and the nature of the work can be demanding due to the shift patterns, unconventional hours of some train driving activities and nature of solitary working for long periods. But we do not believe this necessarily applies to all young people. There should be a choice for young people to choose the lifestyle of a train driver, if they are mature and competent enough and meet the ongoing monitoring requirements.

We note that one respondent made the comparison between aviation and rail in respect of entry requirements. The respondent highlighted that you cannot obtain an Airline Transport Pilot Licence required to fly commercial air transport with passengers until you are 21.

However, we would highlight that, unlike rail, you can nonetheless begin pilot training from the age of 18 and obtain a Commercial Pilot Licence, enabling you to fly smaller aircraft, so lowering the minimum age requirement from 20 to 18 would make the entry requirements consistent with aviation.

Despite the obvious differences in roles, we will expect train operators to initially expose younger trainee drivers to less complicated routes and tasks, before developing their skills to prepare them for more complicated operations. This was expressed by several train operators in the consultation, who noted that exposure to train driving and building experience is a necessary step in becoming a more skilled train driver. This should remain within the discretion of train operators to determine, based on their needs and demands and the capabilities of their train driving workforce.

We agree with the respondents who highlighted that technological safeguards in place to support train drivers cannot safeguard against all aspects of behaviour and performance. We acknowledge that systems such as the Train Protection Warning System (TPWS) and OTDR cannot safeguard against all scenarios, but they do offer an additional level of protection and assurance to support the duties of all train drivers – and that combined with the rigorous monitoring, assessment and training requirements, we are satisfied that younger drivers would be equipped with the support mechanisms in place to perform effectively.

We also agree with the point made by several stakeholders that there is already a high demand for train driver vacancies and that lowering the minimum age requirement would not necessarily result in an increase in successful applicants, unless the infrastructure was in place to accommodate existing applicants as well as new ones.

We agree that further work needs to be done by the rail sector to attract, retain and expand trainee programmes to ensure candidates can obtain the training they are eligible for and do not have to wait for a significant period. We believe the industry should collaborate and collectively invest in measures to increase the number of training positions to support recruitment and retention of trainees.

We disagree with the comparison made by some respondents between negative road safety statistics and that this would carry over to equivalent train drivers of the same age. While we fully accept the statistics highlighted in respect of car driving, the research carried out by the RSSB has found that interpreting young road drivers research with train driving is not a like for like comparison and cannot be accurately depended on in terms of extrapolating the real-life performance of train drivers of the equivalent age.

There are many reasons for this, but chief among them is the controlled nature of train driving and the professional context in which it sits compared to car driving. Again, we believe the differences in support mechanisms, oversight and rigour in selecting train drivers mean young people can drive trains safely if given the opportunity, as they are in other countries.

Overall, in response to this question, we are satisfied that the systems and procedures in place for train drivers can enable us to lower the minimum age requirement from 20 to 18. We accept that these requirements must remain in place and be implemented as a condition for changing the law, which we are committed to doing.

Summary of responses that supported question 10

To note that the responses below for those in favour were not contained within an open-ended question that was presented for those who oppose the policy (question 10).

Instead, this section provides a summary of the responses received in favour of the policy from any final comments on question 19 and comments from within industry letters responding to the policy proposal.

There were supportive comments from various organisations and members of the public. There were several themes within the responses in favour, ranging from improving the diversity in the workforce to streamlining the overall consistency in requirements.

One organisation in favour said:

Ensuring a larger pool of talent is key to increasing employability of young people and improving diversity in the workforce.

Among those in favour, a consistent theme was that the measure could improve recruitment potential by providing a clear pathway for employment. This could create a steady supply of train driver recruits, assisting with forward planning, while increasing job prospects for younger people and increasing the diversity of the train driving pool.

Additionally, some respondents noted that all prospective train drivers, regardless of age, must meet stringent requirements to be deployed and argued that, if someone can pass these rigorous requirements, why should they be excluded from entering the profession.

Other respondents noted that other countries, such as the Netherlands, France, Germany and Switzerland, have successfully demonstrated that a minimum age of 18 can work without any impact on safety performance.

Respondents also argued that this change would also make the requirements on Britain’s mainline consistent with the London Underground, where the minimum age requirement to become a train driver is 18 and with other modes of transport, such as aviation, where you can train to be a commercial pilot from the age of 18.

Lastly, some respondents said that the industry has modern methods and technology in place to support training younger drivers, such as a greater use of immersive training methods, such as augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR).

Government response

The responses in favour of lowering the age requirement were overwhelmingly from rail industry bodies and organisations that represent large constituencies and professional industry opinions. While we have acknowledged and taken into account the views of those who object to the policy, we have assigned weight to these different points of view based on their size and drawn upon this in forming our view.

Having also considered the evidence from Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands, the government agrees that lowering the minimum age requirement from 20 to 18 could enable the rail sector to more effectively engage school leavers to attract them into the profession (for example, via the train driving apprenticeship scheme) and that this could increase the pool of talent and diversity of future cohorts of train drivers.

The 2024 NSAR Skills Survey highlights that there is untapped potential in terms of who we are attracting to the profession. Only 14% of train drivers are women, 14% come from ethnic minority backgrounds and only 13.5% are under the age of 30.

Currently, many young people do not see train driving as a viable career choice, as the minimum entry age prohibits them from applying until they are 20, at which point many people will have chosen alternative careers. We recognise that having the option to apply for a trainee position or apprenticeship from the age of 18 is an attractive prospect for many, given there would be a clear pathway for full time employment and future professional development.

We recognise that other countries have been more effective in promoting train driving as a viable career pathway by bringing potential employers into schools and colleges to discuss early career opportunities. By partnering with train operators to establish comprehensive training and apprenticeship programmes for school and college leavers, these countries have effectively sought out potential candidates and secured a clear pipeline of future drivers. We believe this type of best practice could be replicated in the UK to a similar effect and would encourage operators to do this.

We believe increasing the intake of younger train drivers will help to resolve the anticipated skills gap NSAR has identified across the country, while reversing the ageing trend in the profession as a whole. With an average age of 48 and 24% of present train drivers expected to reach retirement age in the next 5 years, there is a strong incentive to increase recruitment across the country. There should also be a drive to create a more balanced workforce across the country, which will be vital to support economic growth locally.

The percentage of train drivers projected to retire by 2029 is:

• 38% in Scotland
• 37% in the north east of England
• 34% in the south east of England
• 33% in the south west of England
• 24% in London
• 29% in Yorkshire and the Humber

While there is a need to increase the number of train drivers on a national scale, we should also look to particularly engage the young people in these regions where the skill deficits are more acute to redress these disparities. This can begin at schools and colleges where young people are considering their future and we need to present clear options and pathways to enter the profession.

By securing younger applicants onto training programmes from the age of 18, train operators could mitigate the risk of talent shortages by developing a steadier pipeline of train drivers, which could simultaneously address the ageing workforce in the rail industry.

Additionally, lowering the minimum age requirement could act as a catalyst for improving the diversity of the workforce. The scale and scope of diversifying the workforce will, however, depend on the effectiveness of industry’s outreach to underrepresented groups.

As highlighted in the government response to question 10, we recognise the need to improve recruitment potential, which could be maximised by creating a workforce strategy to expand apprenticeships and widen outreach.

We agree with stakeholders that the rigorous selection, training, assessment and supervision processes in place can ensure that younger applicants can develop into competent and qualified train drivers.

Lastly, regarding modern methods and technology, we agree with the observation made by operators that they can review and modify their internal selection, training, assessment and supervision processes to adapt to the responsibilities and duties a train driver may be required to fulfil, including younger drivers.

Period of enhanced supervision

Question 12: If implemented, do you agree or disagree that there should be a period of enhanced supervision for drivers aged between 18 and 20?

When asked whether there should be enhanced supervision to support lowering the minimum age from 20 to 18, there were stronger differences in view across these groups, but the overall majority supported enhanced supervision.

Below are responses to question 12 split into 3 different groups:

• organisations in the rail industry
• those that identify as working in the rail industry
• members of the public

Organisations in the rail industry

A small majority of respondents were against enhanced supervision, including one major union and 2 rail industry bodies representing train and freight operators.

A smaller proportion were in favour of enhanced supervision, including one industry body representing freight operators and a parliamentary safety advisory group.

Those that identify as working in the rail industry

The majority of respondents were in favour of enhanced supervision, while a minority were against or did not answer the question.

Members of the public

The majority of respondents were in favour of enhanced supervision. 25% were against enhanced supervision and 4% did not know or did not answer.

Question 13: How long do you think this enhanced supervision of younger drivers should be for?

Figure 2: Responses on the length of enhanced supervision of younger drivers

Time period of enhanced supervision	Percentage of responses that selected this option
Up to 3 months	4%
Up to 6 months	21%
Up to 9 months	6%
Up to 12 months	20%
Above 12 months	49%

Summary of responses to question 14

Question 14: What activities do you think should be supervised during this period?

Most individual respondents supported enhanced supervision for younger drivers, preferably for over 12 months. Most industry bodies opposed this, citing the stringent and robust requirements that are already in place and have proven effective in other countries.

Freight operators highlighted that freight rail is different from passenger rail. For example, freight driving requires:

• overnight and infrequent stops
• solitary working
• additional responsibilities to ensure locomotive and wagon safety

Respondents commented that the training for freight driving may need to be reviewed to account for these differences.

Some respondents stated that a period of enhanced supervision would allow new trainees to build experience and exposure to train driving responsibilities and tasks on the railway under supervision. This includes training under degraded conditions and situations (for example, signal failure or extreme weather) that they may not have experienced during practical handling or when using a simulator.

This supervision would need to be focused on building exposure and experience in a wide variety of rail scenarios and conditions, whilst looking to continually build technical and non-technical skills, as this underpins competent train driving.

Regular check-ins and extra support to manage well-being and stress were cited within the responses, as well as broader aspects such as driving the train, driving competency and development, and building the confidence of the younger drivers. Several comments on physical wellbeing, such as health and fitness, alongside random and frequent drug and alcohol testing, were also received.

Support of monitoring an individual’s competency as a post qualified driver was also mentioned, which includes:

• formal driving assessments
• OTDR download analysis
• off-the-job workshops with peers
• enhanced non-technical skills and understanding of operational risk
• personal protection strategies
• a revisit/assessment from their instructor

Other consultation responses suggested the notion of increasing hours under instruction for younger train drivers, such as implementing an increase to the current period of practical training under instruction by 25%.

Finally, just under half of the respondents commented that any decision making and every safety critical aspect of the job should come into scope within the supervision period.

Summary of responses to question 15

Question 15: why do you disagree with a period of enhanced supervision?

The main theme of arguments from those who opposed a period of enhanced supervision for younger train drivers is that it would be unfair. These respondents argued that as long as the training and assessment processes are implemented effectively and are updated over time, there should be no need to introduce an extended period of supervision.

Several stakeholders argued that the measures would dilute the benefits of the proposal by incurring additional costs as part of this assurance, including increasing demand for instructors, supervisors, and examiners to take time away from front line services. This could have a knock-on effect of creating additional strain to the recruitment pipeline, reducing the attractiveness of the profession to younger people, and demoralising younger train drivers.

Finally, some stakeholders highlighted that putting in additional measures, such as enhanced supervision to make younger train drivers more competent, would be counter to the body of evidence on this subject and would have a negligible impact on safety outcomes.

This was made in reference to the study carried out by RSSB looking at younger drivers subject to the same requirements as older drivers in several European countries where the minimum age is 18.

The RSSB concluded that there was no significant difference between human performance categories (such as lapse, intentional rule breaking and decision error) and the age of a train driver.

Government response to questions 14 and 15

As several stakeholders have conveyed, all train drivers must pass through the same rigorous selection and assessment process, regardless of age. This includes passing a thorough and challenging training programme where they will develop their knowledge, technical, non-technical skills and practical skills to drive trains. This is then followed by standard ongoing post-qualification assessment, inspection and monitoring requirement, including checking physical fitness and drugs and alcohol. These checks ensure employers can identify areas for improvement and make interventions, where necessary.

Recognising that these requirements are in place and are mirrored by those employed in other countries in which the minimum age requirement to be a train driver is 18, we are satisfied that these arrangements can prepare and equip younger train drivers with the skills and level of oversight needed to perform as a train driver, as has been demonstrated in other European countries. This includes the checks and safeguards that apply as a matter of course with integrating new train drivers into a fleet.

For this reason, we see no pressing need to change the arrangements that already exist for supervising, selecting, monitoring and training new drivers, which we consider robust and consistent with practice abroad.

At the same time, we appreciate that there are differences in some train driving activities that may call for a different approach when onboarding younger train drivers.

As one stakeholder highlighted, freight operations involve more night shifts and infrequent stops than passenger services. Therefore, some freight operators may take a different approach to onboarding younger train drivers from passenger operators, accounting for the difference in work-life and how this interacts with a younger person’s lifestyle.

We also recognise that operators may want to put in additional mentoring support and check-ins with younger train drivers to manage well-being and stress.

In turn, the feedback we have received suggests that there would be value in the sector undertaking an exercise to review their procedures to address any concerns they may have and implement changes as they see fit. This may also include administrative updates and the allocation of resources to account for a potential intake of younger train drivers.

For this reason, we believe there is sense in commissioning industry to develop a coordinated implementation plan setting out how they intend to review their arrangements to support a reduction in the minimum age requirement as an initial step before determining a timeline for changing the law. This presents an opportunity for the industry to address any outstanding concerns around the current suitability of supervision requirements.

In reaching this position, we have also taken on board the argument that imposing additional requirements on younger train drivers would create a tiered system for train driver licensing and certification. As some stakeholders have highlighted, this could demoralise younger train drivers and could be interpreted as unfair. This could make the prospect of train driving unattractive to many potential applicants owing to the additional pressures put on the role, detracting from the benefits of a change in law.

Moreover, we acknowledge that adding mandatory requirements to those that are already in place would add burdens and costs to the process for recruiting, assessing, training, supervising and monitoring train drivers. This could disincentivise operators from employing younger train drivers due to the additional costs.

Processes

Summary of responses to question 16

Question 16: Do you agree or disagree that the processes for:

• selecting train drivers should be changed to support the age change
• training train drivers should be changed to support the age change
• monitoring train drivers should be changed to support the age change

A small majority of respondents were in favour of changing the selection and monitoring processes for younger train drivers, whereas there was a neutral split for and against changing the training process.

Most large organisations (those employing or representing more than 250 people) provided no clear view on whether they support or oppose changing the selection, training and monitoring processes, in the event the minimum age was reduced from 20 to 18.

Summary of responses to question 16 part 2

Question 16 part 2: if ‘yes’ what, in your view, needs to be altered to support the changes?

A common theme among individual respondents who agree that the processes for selecting, training and monitoring younger train drivers was the suggestion that younger drivers should have an extended monitoring period to accommodate any issues that may arise post-qualification. Some respondents stated that younger drivers should be subject to more stringent monitoring to ensure the safety of passengers.

Other individual respondents approached the question differently, proposing adjustments to the processes to better accommodate school leavers, enabling recruitment directly from colleges and schools. One respondent suggested making the selection process more accessible to younger people and incorporating modern teaching techniques to enhance learning for younger trainees.

Additionally, some respondents said that the selection process should be fair regardless of age, emphasising that age does not define capabilities, with experience being a more reliable factor.

When considering the training process as a whole, several respondents commented that a number of different changes should be made to various areas within the training. However, these changes, they noted, should apply to all train drivers regardless of age and should be based on the competence of the individual.

Industry response

Comments taken from industry letters responding to the policy proposal.

Arguments supporting changing selection, training and monitoring processes

One respondent stated that while lowering the minimum age requirement could expand the pool of potential train drivers, it is essential to ensure that younger drivers receive enhanced training and supervision. This change should come with measures to provide proper training, adequate monitoring and regular reviews to maintain safety and efficiency.

During the enhanced supervision period, activities such as real-time driving, response to emergency situations and adherence to safety protocols should be closely monitored to ensure comprehensive training and safety standards.

They argued that to support these changes, the selection process should include stringent psychological and aptitude tests tailored to younger candidates. Training programs should be extended to cover a broader range of scenarios and technologies and the monitoring process should involve more frequent evaluations and feedback loops.

As the median age of train drivers decreases and new technologies emerge, moving towards a fully automated system could enhance safety and reduce disruptions. It was outlined that young drivers should be trained to adopt and effectively use these technologies, ensuring they are well-prepared for future advancements in the rail industry.

Arguments against changing selection, training and monitoring processes

One respondent argued that whilst they do not disagree in principle with the proposal to change the processes for selecting, training and monitoring drivers, they do not believe it should be solely linked to the lowering of the train driving age.

The processes should be under regular review, taking into account developments on the railways and new technologies, for example, areas for improvement identified from operational incidents and Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) investigations, or driver assistance systems and simulators with realistic virtual environments. This could then be incorporated into future training and monitoring systems.

The same respondent stated that if there were to be changes to the selection process, training or monitoring, they would expect the training and monitoring changes to apply across the board and not be focused just on those aged 18 to 20. They also recognised there could be merit in monitoring younger candidates’ performance on certain aspects of the assessment process, namely the psychological assessment and whether changes are required to ensure fairness.

Another respondent argued that changes to the selection, training and monitoring processes are unnecessary since train drivers already undergo robust selection and recruitment processes using psychological assessments that test the skills required to be a train driver, along with the need to meet the required industry medical standards.

They cited that the training is currently a mixture of theoretical and practical training, followed by a period of building up experience with an instructor. The training would be suitable for younger drivers aged 18 years old and above, although the industry is keen to evolve the training to suit modern educational approaches.

Government response

We agree with respondents that there is merit in the industry refreshing its processes for training, selecting and monitoring train drivers. As previously discussed, we consider that commissioning the industry to develop a coordinated implementation plan would enable the industry to collectively consider whether processes or procedures could be enhanced to account for younger drivers, but also existing drivers of all ages.

Such a plan should outline how current arrangements will be adapted to support lowering the minimum age requirement for train drivers from 20 to 18. This approach would help address any uncertainties surrounding the different processes and their implementation and then be used to set a timetable for changing the law.

Timeframe for implementation

Question 17: With regards to making, if implemented, the driver age change by summer 2024 do you:

Figure 3: Responses to question 17

Implementation timescale	Percentage of respondents who selected this option
Completed before summer 2024	8.11%
Completed after summer 2024	8.11%
Think summer 2024 is correct	31.76%
No preference on implementation timescale	12.16%
Do not want it implemented at all	39.86%

Summary of responses to question 18

Question 18: why and what alternative time frame would you prefer?

Of the respondents who answered this question, just over half said that the policy should be implemented as soon as possible or in early 2025, with some reasons being that this would enable changes or training courses to be created over the summer and in place for September when new students start training.

Two respondents mentioned that all risk assessments and processes should be fully verified before any changes are implemented, and not to rush this policy, so that the industry has sufficient resources in place to deliver the new training programme.

Government response

We recognise the strong support across a cross-section of the industry for changing the law quickly. However, we believe that the sector should first ensure that it is prepared for the change.

Based on the feedback we have received, we think it is important for the industry to review its current arrangements and determine whether modifications would be helpful to support a change in law.

This is why we believe it is prudent to commission the industry to develop a coordinated plan. This plan will help inform a timeline for changing the law, ensuring that the sector is fully prepared.

Other comments

Question 19: Any other comments?

Just over half of the respondents left a final comment, which provided a range of qualitative feedback. The responses to this question were varied.

Some respondents expressed broad support for lowering the minimum age requirement for train drivers to 18, with an emphasis on fairness, existing precedents, and the potential for modernising the industry to better align with current practices. Some respondents highlighted that individuals could become pilots at 18 or qualify as signallers, who manage safety-critical roles with substantial responsibilities. They argued that it is logical to extend the same opportunity to train drivers, especially given the rigorous training involved. It was also highlighted that younger individuals already have the opportunities to gain industry experience through roles such as ticket examiners, train managers, guards, or station and maintenance depot positions.

Some respondents raised concerns around the current recruitment and selection processes being overly cumbersome and restrictive. Respondents suggested that simplifying these barriers could help attract younger talent. Some proposed that as technologies advance, moving towards automated systems could enhance safety and efficiency, supporting the case for younger individuals to begin training in the continuously evolving rail industry.

Respondents highlighted several concerns with the policy, which focus on issues of preparedness, responsibility and lifestyle compatibility. Several respondents emphasised the importance of baseline rail experience before applying for a role within train driving. It was suggested that younger individuals should first gain experience in other rail positions to build the necessary skills and understanding of the industry.

Concerns were also raised about whether 18-year-olds could manage the workload and responsibilities of a train driver role. Train driving was described as a highly responsible job, so some respondents felt the role was incompatible with a young person’s lifestyle, given the demands on time, focus and social sacrifice required.

One respondent suggested that all new operational staff, especially those who are new to the industry, should begin with foundational roles before advancing to driving positions to ensure they are fully prepared for the responsibilities involved.

Below are a few anonymised quotes illustrating the range of feedback received:

Signallers are allowed to train, qualify and signal trains at 18 years old. They have much more to deal with in their safety critical role than drivers. Ironically, an 18-year-old signaller trains for 3 months before having to be responsible on their own for a signalbox and a section of track and infrastructure. It is only right that the age for drivers is lowered to reflect this.

Additional leadership/resilience training must be considered.

People need some baseline rail experience before they consider applying to be a train driver.

Government response

We recognise the valuable feedback provided through this consultation, including both the support for lowering the minimum age requirement to be a train driver and the concerns raised regarding readiness, experience and the importance of preparedness for both the industry and younger drivers.

We agree with representations made by the sector that the strong requirements in place for train drivers should remain in place and apply to all prospective train drivers, regardless of age, as this is the best way of ensuring that train drivers who serve on our network are competent, qualified and fit to do so.

We accept that there are safety concerns surrounding this policy, but we consider these risks to be manageable and effectively mitigated using the controls, systems and processes that are rigorous and well established by the industry.

We also recognise that the sector should have time to review current processes and procedures to check whether any useful modifications could be made to support a potential intake of younger drivers. This can then be used to inform a timetable for change that is sensitive to these concerns and ensures that safety remains top priority.

Next steps

The department will progress with plans to reduce the minimum age requirement to be a train driver from 20 to 18.

In preparation for a change in law and to inform a timetable for reform, we have asked the rail industry to develop a coordinated implementation plan for integrating younger applicants effectively into the train driving profession and to ensure that a consistent approach is being taken across all operators.

The industry’s plan will need to pay due consideration to the procedures, standards and guidance used for training, assessing, managing, supervising and onboarding younger applicants. The details of this commission are published with this consultation response. We have asked the industry to submit a coordinated implementation plan to DfT by 7 August 2025.

We will review the implementation plan with the ORR, with a view to establishing a timeline for changing the law. The department will publish a statement setting out our position once these steps are completed.