This was written as part of a UK Public enquiry into the rail system (which I’ve long since given up trying to use)…
As someone who’s lived in several countries and travelled extensively internationally, I feel qualified in my opinion that the traveller experience on the British railway system is appalling for a country of the UK’s prestige and wealth.
Aside from the poor state of many of the stations, the frequent lack of easy step-free access and the confusing, extortionate prices and complex rules of the ticketing system, it’s the rolling stock that is of the greatest concern to me as a passenger.
Then there’s the timeliness and reliability.
“We’re sorry that the service to/from ______ is late, it was delayed as a result of a signalling failure.”
How often is this message played out every day in the British rail system? As a qualified telecommunications engineer, I can tell you that signalling in a serial network is so simple that a trained monkey with a few flags could do it. There’s rarely any cross traffic. Scheduling alone should mean that signalling is not even required. To quote from Wikipedia’s [1]article on serial communications:
“Although a serial link may seem inferior to a parallel one, since it can transmit less data per clock cycle, it is often the case that serial links can be clocked considerably faster than parallel links in order to achieve a higher data rate.”
This seems to be the issue at the root of many of the problems of British Rail’s operations. The claims that the network is at capacity fall flat when you understand that we don’t need more tracks or larger trains; we need a higher clock rate! (a greater frequency of trains).
So in a country with a world-leading telecommunications industry, why is it that the signalling system of the railway is in such a decrepit state of repair? For that matter, why are humans still the primary drivers of our trains? I’m certainly not an advocate of removing human control from the system; however, a human-supervised automated system can run at a significantly higher frequency, with greater safety than a human-controlled system simply by eliminating the vagaries of when trains leave the platform, at what rate they accelerate, and at what point they begin to decelerate in order to park at the next platform.
I find it remarkable that we’re leading the world in allowing the testing and operation of autonomous cars on the road network, a network which is most decidedly parallel and filled with infinitely greater complexity and danger than the rail network; yet while computer driven trains have been common place in other parts for over 25 years we are no-closer to achieving this than a country without any existing rail infrastructure (if anything we are further away than countries with no experience in rail).
My first suggestion therefore for improving the passenger experience on the British rail system is to remove the driver from the moment-to-moment control of all the trains in the network and move to a modern, digital and computer-integrated train control system which would by its very nature eliminate the need for signalling. To solve this problem, look not at rail engineers; simply engage with the telecoms industry! Network engineers have far more experience designing fast & efficient serial networks than any rail engineer!
This could be accomplished quickly with a minimum amount of investment, as the control network could be deployed wirelessly (simultaneously offering train passengers towers on which to place cellular service radios for flawless mobile coverage on the rail); and in-trains retrofitted control systems could be applied, giving the computer system access to the throttle and brakes, leaving the doors to be operated by the conductors. Override controls would remain for safety, of course.
So then back to the first of the problems, the rolling stock. Obviously, retrofitting new computer controls onto the trains is less preferable to the deployment of new, smaller, faster-accelerating and faster-stopping rolling stock with better passenger comfort and convenience. In a country seemingly obsessed with commuting, this daily experience suffered by the vast majority of the British public should be made as comfortable and efficient as possible. The simple fact that it’s impossible to carry on a phone call or use the Internet due to the shoddy network coverage, and even if fixed, would still be impossible due to the noisy, hot and cramped confines of the overcrowded, decades-old trains means that we are losing a truly massive amount of worker productivity every day. When accounting for the additional benefit delivered to GDP of a commuting public able to work on the phone and online during their entire rail journey, the true cost of replacing the rolling stock will be minor.
So the challenge of why the rolling stock is in such a state; this should be so easy to understand that any business school student would be immediately thrown out for missing the point. The government has created a rail industry in which private companies have monopolies! Private enterprise is driven by one thing, profit. That’s a good thing when used appropriately; however, the bizarre and (to my knowledge globally unique) nature of the rail franchise system eliminates any real competitive pressure, thus encouraging these private operators to profit-take and run existing systems with as little investment as possible.
Looking at other markets where a semi or fully deregulated rail industry has flourished, it is precisely because the rail operators bid on and “win” slots in the rail network timetable (very similar to how airlines bid for gates and take-off/landing slots) and then are competing with each other for passenger numbers. If I arrive at the station and I have the choice between an old, smelly, uncomfortable train now and a shiny new luxurious train in 20-minutes, many will take the later train if only because they won’t arrive sweaty and dishevelled at their work first thing in the morning. Under the current system, this cannot happen, which eliminates the benefit of a competitive environment.
To the solution then; the network itself, as an asset of national interest, should be nationalised to the point of ownership, with carefully selected private entities contracted to perform any necessary upgrades and maintenance. The rail operator franchises as they exist today should be totally eliminated; and all rail operators “licensed” to operate anywhere on the British rail network they so choose. The price charged to the operators for various routes and arrival/departure times can then be tuned according to the ever-changing passenger demand so as to encourage an operator to take up the slot, or to increase the revenue returned into the rail network for those busy/profitable routes and slots.
Conclusions
When combined together, what would be achieved herein is a network which performs on a timely basis, is totally free of restrictions due to “signalling” and instead relies on computer-accurate scheduling. Human error would be largely eliminated, and competition to deliver the best possible on-board experience would be encouraged to the largest extent possible.
The improved communications network covering the entirety of the British rail network would return millions of hours of productivity to the economy.
The proven and demonstrable model of multi-operator competition would be adopted largely unchanged from the air travel industry, meaning a minimum amount of risk.
The amount of money injected into the underlying rail network would be greatly increased with a demand formula guiding the charges rolling stock operators are required to pay to operate routes & schedules; thereby evening out the profitability of different parts of the country and different times of day and ensuring that the level of service is more consistent across the entire country and around the clock.
The existing on-board staff could be redirected to a large extent towards customer-facing work, and fatigue would be a far less of a problem as the attentiveness of the computer control never wavers.
The computer-controlled timing would permit a far more frequent number of services, lessening the need for longer platforms and longer trains.
The push to newer rolling stock could be combined with a constantly rising standard as to performance requirements for acceleration and deceleration, allowing further increases in frequency.
The competitive drives of private enterprise would be properly directed towards customer experience, and the careful administration of a critical public infrastructure would ensure standardisation and reliability.
In a very short time, with very little public money, you would realise an entirely different British rail experience.
