NR Chief Executive Mark Carne told TSC MPs on May 23 2016: “We are at the forefront of pushing to get a standard version of Level 3, because it is not available off the shelf at the moment. However, we also believe that Level 2 as it stands is a compelling case. So we should not wait for Level 3, we should get on with Level 2 and then upgrade it when Level 3 comes.
“Basically, the technology is interchangeable. You do not have to bin it and then start again - you can just upgrade to Level 3. We need to push ahead with it as quickly as we can, but simultaneously we want to go to Level 3 as quickly as possible because it is much cheaper to install. There is no trackside equipment as such, and it is more reliable, safer and so on.”
Carne is understandably slightly simplifying matters. He’s right that there’s no trackside train detection equipment with Level 3, but there is kit to detect points. So the need for clarity on exactly where we’re heading is clear. Jerry England was aiming for Level 3 immediately. Carne seems to want Level 3 (and the benefits promised certainly seem to require it) - but only as an upgrade after a Level 2 installation, to get the digital system in and running. So I went to see David Waboso, who is as passionate as he is expert on this subject.
Today, right now, Waboso is not aiming for Level 3. He’s clear and upfront about this. This represents a considerable shift from Network Rail’s 2014 position, as explained back then by Jerry England. It is much less of a shift from more recent NR positions as explained and nuanced by Carne. Not least to the TSC. It’s also very similar to Waboso’s position when he was at the Strategic Rail Authority - he was well ahead of the game and advocating Level 2, way back in 2003, which was then reckoned to produce a capacity improvement of around 10%.
Waboso is - maybe understandably - sensitive about this changing (or rather evolving) position. When RailReview talked with him on December 1 2016, he was… prickly …when asked about previous NR positions and statements.
On England’s erstwhile Level 3 ambition for CP6, he replied: “What I would say about Level 3 is simply this: ‘I am not building my plans on Level 3.’ Remember that I said I build bottom-up, not top-down. So let’s be very clear: we are supporting the delivery of the first phase schemes - Thameslink and Crossrail. They have to be successful and I will do absolutely everything I can do to help them be successful. When they are successful, they’ll be seen as (frankly) schemes that any city around the world would be proud to have.
“We mustn’t talk ourselves down. These are fantastic schemes. People are coming from around the world to look at how we do this stuff, and yet we berate ourselves and say how terrible we are. That’s not true. We are a truly world-leading brand in railways and these schemes will be seen as absolute markers, along with the stuff that Transport for London has done, of how to do fantastic, mega-city transport schemes. We mustn’t ignore what they have done and pretend there’s some magic dust somewhere else. Why don’t we just take what they have done and build on it?”
If Waboso has developed NR’s position since England’s interview in 2014, then it mirrors a decision that England was forced to take back in 2014. He’d inherited an ERTMS plan that extended as far as producing a UK map that highlighted lines and their conversion dates to ERTMS. It had, for example, the Blyth & Tyne line switching in 2021 and routes from Aberdeen in 2024. When RailReview interviewed England, he said of that plan: “We haven’t stopped it at the moment, but one of the first jobs we have over the next few weeks (we’ve not got much longer) is to revisit that plan.”
It was ditched.
Waboso is now busily developing business cases for Digital Railway. He’s sensibly clear that he doesn’t “want to get trapped into giving false accuracy of lines and dates”.
So… no map like the one England inherited? I seem to have struck a nerve.
“Look, I’ve been here five months. I’ve come here to build a constructive job, OK? I’m not going to criticise what went before. I’ve come here to do a job, apply my experience, build a team and move forward. That’s what I’m going to do. So I’m not going to answer any more questions on what happened 14 years ago. It’s of no value whatsoever.”
Ouch. All I’m trying to do is track NR’s understandably changing position and its roots in his own experience - not least at the SRA, where he was way ahead of the game. Given that Railtrack promised moving block in the PUG2 upgrade for the West Coast Route Modernisation at the turn of the century, and had to embarrassingly drop the scheme because it simply wasn’t deliverable, I think it’s important to set all this in historical and practical context. It’s also right that we should at least question and test deliverability. The simple truth is that in pursuing Level 2, Waboso in his new role at NR is taking a very different line to that pursued by England two years ago. It’s a much more realistic line and it chimes with what Carne told MPs in May 2016. I seek clarity, however, and context. I think we’ve done that, if a bit vigorously. I like Waboso’s passion, to be honest. We move on.
Digital Railway
What is Digital Railway to Network Rail? Simplistically, it could be seen as resignalling, but it’s much, much more than that.
Waboso explains: “Digital Railway is probably three things, of which the digital railway programme is focusing on the first - but it leads on to the other areas. I think you’d start by saying it’s the command and control systems – and that’s a combination of ETCS , ATO , CDAS , traffic management, telecoms and then all the industry processes, people and plans around that. That’s what we’re really focusing on.
