Christian Wolmar
The need for the industry to adapt to keep pace with a rapidly changing society is over-exaggerated, with the claims of innovations such as driverless cars still unconvincing, argues CHRISTIAN WOLMAR
Rail’s maturity is an asset.
CHRIS Burchell’s theme for his lecture at the annual George Bradshaw Address, the most prestigious railway speech of the year, was that as we live in a rapidly changing society, accordingly railways have to adapt constantly.
Burchell, Rail Delivery Group Chairman and Managing Director of UK Trains at Arriva, argued that we are in the midst of a technological revolution as earth-shattering as the first Industrial Revolution.
“Railways have no right to exist in perpetuity,” he stressed. Therefore: “We must continue to justify our existence amidst this maelstrom of economic, technological and societal change.”
Well, no actually! The railway is a mature industry which, invented in the 19th century, has found an important role in the 21st century, after a blip in the 20th when its very existence seemed to be threatened by technology and societal changes, notably the growth of motor transport.
Indeed, it was the short-sightedness of both politicians and railway managers, who failed to view the spread of motor transport in a proper context, which proved so damaging to the railways. They failed to realise that the railway was a viable form of transport which in some contexts, such as suburban commuting and travel between major cities, had a huge advantage over other ways of making these journeys.
“The world is changing,” they said, suggesting that railways, good for the Victorians but not for today’s sophisticated public who want to travel in their Ford Cortinas, had had their day.
Burchell is in danger of repeating the same error. In his speech, he referred to the fact that: “New technology is changing every area of our society. Cars without drivers on our streets. Drones in our skies delivering our parcels and even taxiing people.”
He has been taken in by the hype. I have written already about the exaggerated claims surrounding driverless cars ( RAIL 808 and several other articles on my website), but the key point is worth reiterating, as stories about the imminence of this technology keep on being put about by an automobile industry in total panic over the concept.
We are nowhere near driverless cars being allowed on the streets. And there remain quite possibly insuperable obstacles to their introduction, notably their inability to deal with bad weather, pedestrians and cyclists (they are programmed to stop forever if there is a person in front of them), and the haphazard nature of our streets compared with those in the US.
In an experiment last month, journalists were given a ride in a Nissan car which the ‘driver’ set into automatic mode. A French reporter happened to be filming when the car passed far too close to a cyclist, and his film of the near miss quickly went viral.
Nissan’s response to such incidents has been that cyclists should be banned from streets because, according to its Chief Executive Carlos Ghosn, they “don’t respect any rules usually”. He is concerned that one of the biggest obstacles to introducing driverless cars is “people with bicycles. The car is confused by [cyclists] because from time to time they behave like pedestrians and from time to time they behave like cars.”
Amazon’s drones suffer from similar constraints which are never given sufficient emphasis in the over-excited coverage that they receive. Firstly, they are very unlikely to be allowed to travel in towns without being individually controlled, so that they do not wipe out pedestrians who stray onto their paths. And if that were the case, why not simply keep them driving vans?
Remember that cinemas have survived the introduction of TV, that books have survived the invention of Kindle (which has become a niche product), and that vinyl is making a comeback despite the dominance of digital music. Railways have thrived because they offer a better experience than the alternative. Sure, they have adapted and improved - with air-conditioning, WiFi and higher speeds - but in many ways they are unchanged.
If the Brunel statue in Paddington suddenly came to life, the old man would stare around him shocked by the sight of diesel and electric trains, but would soon find much that was familiar. The trains still run on two rails (although they are only 4ft 8 ½ ins apart), they are pinned onto sleepers, stations still have enormous roofs, and passengers carry tickets that must be checked.
I am not a Luddite, nor a Neanderthal. Much change is good and has led to improvements - I am delighted we are no longer being hauled by steam engines. But by no means all the changes are so good - the loss of dining cars, of Red Star, of Motorail, of many Sleeper services, of cosy
“Remember that cinemas have survived the introduction of TV, that books have survived the invention of Kindle (which has become a niche product), and that vinyl is making a comeback despite the dominance of digital music. Railways have thrived because they offer a better experience than the alternative.”
compartments, of porters at stations and many more facilities can all be mourned. Of course, many of these services were simply unsustainable, but possibly not as many as railway managers thought.
For example, was it really sensible for Transport for London (under Boris Johnson) to close all the ticket offices on the Underground? I can understand that Totteridge & Whetstone or Roding Valley do not need a ticket office, but the queues of bemused passengers (not all of them tourists) at King’s Cross St Pancras or Piccadilly Circus suggest that the change went too far.
Railways do not need to justify their existence. They are environmentally beneficial, they serve an important market, and they are irreplaceable in many circumstances - try commuting from Guildford to the City by car. They are not about to be supplanted by taxidrones or driverless cars, as implied by Burchell, nor by Maglev or hyperloops.
Therefore, to some extent, the railways can actually rest on their laurels. Indeed, it is the search for constant change, such as seeking technological solutions which may not be appropriate, that possibly poses a bigger risk.
It was astonishing that Burchell did not mention one of the most important changes that the industry is considering - the possible introduction of the in-cab signalling system ERTMS (European Rail Traffic Management System) Level 3, which requires no outside visual signalling.
There is a parallel with driverless cars here, as the lower levels of ERTMS will increase safety but not deliver huge capacity benefits - 10% rather than the hoped for 40% of Level 3. It is only when trains become fully controlled externally that the ‘moving block’ concept comes fully into play, allowing them to run more closely together and therefore boosting capacity.
Similarly, with driverless cars, it is only when they become fully autonomous (in other words, requiring no driver involvement at all) that they deliver the huge promised benefits, such as obviating the need for parking and enabling people to send their kids to school without adult supervision.
ERTMS Level 3, which was promised as part of improvements to the West Coast Main Line as far back as the turn of the century, is in fact nowhere near being ready for introduction on such complex railway routes two decades later. And Network Rail’s head of Digital Railway, David Waboso, has effectively ruled out any attempt to introduce Level 3 for years if not decades ahead. I will be interviewing Waboso this month for a future column, as this is a key issue for the industry. Of course, it must change and adapt, but to have ‘Change’ as the overriding strategy is a mistake.