The origin of the dispute between Southern Railway and the RMT lies not in whether trains are safer with a guard controlling the doors, but in an industry that has failed to keep pace with a rapidly changing world. While the industry structure has been revamped endlessly since privatisation, rail technology has changed little over the past 30 years.
Rapid employment growth in metropolitan areas, particularly London, has fired up a huge increase in passenger growth - primarily in commuting and business markets, but also leisure travel. And with a shift away from car ownership towards sustainable transport where sharing is hip, rail has a fantastic opportunity to capitalise on further growth. But it must adapt to cope with this opportunity.
Over the past two decades we have enjoyed the proceeds of growth, but failed to adapt quickly enough to cater for it. Punctuality is declining, passenger satisfaction stalling and peak overcrowding rising. The scale of growth we have experienced will stall without significant technological change. Customers want (and rightly expect) better punctuality and reliability, more frequent trains, and a seat on journeys over 20 minutes. Not only must the industry act now to meet current pressures, it has to lay the foundations for a revolutionary change in the future.
The industry has a vision of the future - the Rail Technical Strategy. Published in 2012, little progress has been achieved to date. But that is about to change, with a detailed roadmap due later this year showing how the industry can deliver it.
Driver Only Operation, first introduced for passenger trains in Britain by Sir Peter Parker in 1982, between Bedford and St Pancras, was rolled out extensively by BR up to privatisation. Since then, very few train operators have implemented it for fear of the industrial strife now playing out at Southern. But while the industry is embroiled in this dispute, the automotive industry is successfully testing driverless, battery cars that will be operating in convoys on highways very soon. This type of disruptive technology could supplant the need for trains if we don’t keep pace. We need to prepare not just for trains operated only by a driver, but also for trains that are fully autonomous, enabling closer running with much higher levels of performance so that rail can meet both the demand and passengers’ expectations.
Yet it is people who are at the centre of this dispute. This is a stressful situation taking its toll on those caught in the middle - passengers and staff. Passengers who want to get home to put their children to bed, or who worry about getting to work on time, are suffering real stress and anxiety. So while I have talked about technology, this dispute is actually about people: those who naturally fear for their jobs because of what the future may bring; and passengers who have supported the industry through an enormous period of growth, and who want better and faster services.
Now is the time for management, unions and Government to get behind the vision for rail’s future and start delivering it. The rail system of the future will have plenty of jobs, but they won’t necessarily be the same as today. As I start my fourth decade in the industry it’s clear to me that no one should assume they have a job for life. But the industry provides such a diverse range of opportunities it is possible to develop a lifetime career in rail.
There are always lessons to learn, especially with the benefit of hindsight. More time for communicating the changes on Southern’s network may have helped - introducing the changes after the infrastructure works at London Bridge have bedded in could also have eased the implementation of the new trains, but the scheme is already 16 years behind its original implementation date and the pressure to finish it quickly is enormous.
In the early 19th century stagecoach and canal barge businesses collapsed overnight with the advent of rail. It isn’t scaremongering to say history could repeat itself if we don’t move with the times. As an industry, with unions and management working together, we need to stand back from the micro-detail of the current dispute and think about how we ensure the rail industry develops and survives. If passengers have an alternative, we want and need them to choose rail.
We may currently be behind the curve in embracing technological solutions, but if we use the real strength of the industry - its people - the future is bright. The industry is full of passionate, committed and dedicated people. If we turn our combined energy and effort into delivering the Rail Technical Strategy, we will provide the capacity needed and meet passengers’ expectations, while creating jobs and career opportunities. We can secure the future of the industry for generations to come.
