Comment Recognising the signals
John Judge argues that the McNulty report should have provided the UK rail industry with a platform to embrace new signalling technology and innovation
S
ir Roy McNulty’s value-for- money report was right to pick up on the challenge that signalling poses to the UK rail industry in realising its full potential. Signalling
technology may well be expensive, but it has the potential to be the catalyst in making significant cost reductions to the rail industry. However, the McNulty report failed
to be clear enough on signalling. There are factors it should be shouting from the rooftops in order for the industry to move forward and implement proactive and cost- effective change. Capital expenditure can be reduced
by choosing to use newer and smarter signalling technology. Page 276 of the report cites the German rail network in Kassel, which has developed low-cost signalling and train control solutions. On page 153 the report states that in 2009 the Thameslink programme faced a series of difficult technical and scheduling challenges, which included introducing new operational concepts and technology, in the form of in- cab signalling and automatic train operation; but this is somewhat misleading. While those technologies may be a new
concept to the UK, they are not new in other countries. To put this into context, in-cab signalling has been used in the USA for decades, so we are certainly not breaking new ground, and as such the report includes very few examples of our rail network embracing genuinely new technology.
‘In-cab signalling has been used in the USA for decades, so we are certainly not breaking new ground’
AUGUST 2011 PAGE 27 McNulty says that further costs can be
saved by removing up to 500 mechanised signal boxes, and the labour costs they incur, but there’s scope for a far greater improvement in the capacity of the running of trains. Greater flexibility of timetables would result in a smarter network. Smarter maintenance access would also drive costs down, especially if it was done in a controlled manner during the day. Night labour is far more expensive in comparison, not to mention a potential nuisance in terms of noise pollution to nearby residents. The report fails to sufficiently challenge
the conflict between Railway Group Standards and railway service, with only one page amongst its 320 dedicated to the topic. The report should be demanding a
solution to that problem. Group Railway Standards are a key challenge to the rail industry if it is to stand any chance of giving a better value-for-money service. At present, those standards are a substantial barrier to many of the industry’s decision makers, who often cite them as the reason they are unable to enhance the newer and smarter technical innovation that would implement cost efficient change to the network. Group Railway Standards could be made more
responsive to embracing new signalling technology by developing the role of the ORR (Office of Rail Regulation) to undertake the approval of all signalling products. Alternatively, the responsibility of
product approval could be transferred to British Standards. This would free up Network Rail to be able to make informed choices on the best technology to use to improve performance, freeing them from their current role, which involves the setting of standards, as well as being asset owner. However, no possible solutions to this
problem are explored in the report. This lack of challenge to Group Railway Standards, and railway standards in general, is a missed opportunity, one that the industry cannot afford to continue if it is to truly run a better value for money service, particularly as signalling is not the only discipline which would benefit from a challenge to standards. Changing Group Railway Standards to
a performance-based approach will allow more cost-effective signalling systems to be introduced, which in turn will offer greater capacity, flexibility and ultimately a more cost effective rail network. If changes are not made, then much of what Sir Roy McNulty seeks to achieve will not materialise, resulting in the same questions being asked about the efficiency of our rail network in another 10 years.
John Judge is founder and director of commercial management organisation, Judge 3D
www.judge3d.com
Network Rail
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40