“The main line railway will have to decide what its operating rule set is when it comes to train detection and mixed fleets. Or do you start getting some more predictable configurations on lines? These are all the options to look at. These are all the process things that we need to discuss with franchisees, the DfT and train companies.
“But as I said, your migration will give you a lot of benefit, but if you want to get to truly ‘no signals’ with all trains fitted then that’s another step to take. And, beyond that, there’s another step to full Level 3. Thameslink shows that you can indeed do this and have a very strong business case for the fitted trains.
“So I think back to my strategy about targeted deployment. We need to look at where this makes sense to do early, as opposed to the very difficult routes that are very messy. Perhaps you would think a bit harder and longer about how you would convert them.”
Waboso’s compelling thinking certainly is ‘bottom-up’. It dove-
tails neatly with what Chief Executive Mark Carne said, when he told MPs in May 2016: “On ETCS level 2, I would argue that we should get on with it now in the areas where we are already capacity-constrained, because it will unlock capacity and enable us to deliver capacity without having to make very expensive physical interventions.
“Yes, of course it would be nice if we had Level 3, but we do not have it. That does not mean to say that we should not get on with Level 2, because it is certainly better than what we have. Level 2 is still better than creating capacity through the kind of physical interventions that one would otherwise have to make.”
It’s clear from Carne’s words and Waboso’s comments that there would still need to be physical interventions to install extra track circuits or axle counters, but this should be less disruptive and certainly cheaper than building new tracks, junctions and platforms to create the capacity required for non-fitted trains.
So much for the technology. The other aspect of Digital Railway concerns people. They will have to use that technology. They will have to become used to new working practices.
Waboso says: “That’s the stuff you have to address up front. If you don’t have your people with you then no new technology will work. You’ve got to engage with your workforce and engage with your unions, which - if I’m honest - I’m not sure we’ve done enough of in the past. I’ve had one very general presentation to the unions, and I plan to engage them far more as we go down the road. But, again, you have to be respectful of the way the industry is organised because a lot of the unions and the workforce are associated with train companies, so we have to work together on this.
“It’s not a centralised ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution. That’s a very important point. There are local differences of geography, of train layout, of infrastructure layout, of the way the railway works. You have to be respectful of that. That’s the other big difference. LU was fairly monolithic, this is a variable railway, so the devolved routes with the TOCs will be the ones with most of the workforce and most of the negotiation because they respect and reflect the way those railways work.
“We’ve started working very closely with the train companies and the freight companies and the supply chain, because the supply chain has a very big role in this as well. We’ve started that engagement, but it needs to step up to another level as we move towards the next phase of delivery. You also have to respect the local differences - you can’t impose a Welsh solution in the middle of London because they are very different railways.”
A further area into which Waboso is putting considerable thought and time is the supply chain - the companies that will be producing the kit he plans to install - the big multi-national railway engineering companies such as Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier.
He’s started work with an initiative called ‘early contractor involvement’ (ECI). He says: “They welcome this. They’re up for DR because they think it can provide benefits for everybody. It can create jobs, reskilling the workforce, but they’re also saying they want to work in a different way and take on a greater role with an output ‘spec’ that allows them to innovate. This is not just like buying a load of relays where you can say ‘I want a relay XYZ’. This is buying software-based solutions. We’re moving firmly into the real digital world.
“The way we all innovate in our personal lives is where this is heading to. They want much more space to innovate around our requirements, so we need to be much better at writing our requirements in an output-based way and them then delivering solutions.
“You know, around the world these guys are providing solutions, they provide services, they provide outputs and contracts. They’re saying that’s the different way they want to work, and I welcome that. The second thing they say - and I’m encouraging this - is that they want to have a whole-life supplier relationship. Again, when you’re just buying relays you could, arguably, buy them and stick them in the ground and maintain them. This stuff is like an iPhone - the minute you leave the shop it’s obsolescent. You’ve got to recognise that if you don’t have a whole-life supplier relationship then it’s not going to work.
“I tell the story of visiting a supplier a couple of years ago and I said: ‘Do you know the whatever it was is hopeless. It’s not working very well.’ And he said: ‘What? I had no idea.’ What other industry would have such a disconnect between the people who made something and its performance? So they said: ‘We must find out more.’ And I said: ‘Here’s the report.’ And they were interested in that.
“It’s really strange. I compare that with the airline industry, where airlines buy power by the hour. I want to have a relationship with them that takes them not just through first cost but through performance, reliability, availability, upgrades, obsolescent manage-ment, because that’s where this is going.
“It’s a really exciting game-changer for how we work in the digital space, which I include signalling because signalling is changing the digital space, so it’s quite good. And it talks about if we work in this different way we think there are efficiencies to be had, which I think is inarguable because you won’t have man-marking - you have a much different relationship where you give them a job and they take technology risk and deliver outputs. And they have some incentive for whole-life performance.”
So which is harder? The tech or the people?
“That’s a difficult one. They are both hard. Very hard. But ultimately you can resolve the technology. But people management, and the change and the training and the familiarisation and the competence management and the hearts and minds and all that stuff, that needs a huge amount of effort.
“You can’t just view this as a technology project. It’s like you’re asking me to choose between my children. They’re all important. They’re all loved. Equally. If you prioritise on one you’re going to stuff up on the other, aren’t you?! They are all absolutely critical.”
So you worry about both?
“I love both,” Waboso says with a smile.
