Passenger guidance systems, solar power, and remote monitoring technologies are emerging as practical solutions for stations
ASSET MANAGEMENT
Rethinking Train
Recognising and tackling complacency to help maintain safety vigilance
With over three decades of safety-critical expertise, the OPC delivers bespoke solutions that strive to improve people performance, identify talent and nurture a safer culture.
Our expert psychologists help to:
Discover top talent through specialised recruitment support and role profiling.
Improve performance using Non-Technical Skills and safety initiatives.
Develop best practices, stand-out safety leaders, and deliver post-incident support for a safer culture.
Partnering with the OPC means collaborating with a dedicated team focused on safety and people performance. Trust us for tailor-made solutions from pre-selection to employment. We prioritise safety and strive to enhance your processes to go beyond industry standards.
EDITORIAL
EDITOR
Sam Sherwood-Hale editor@railpro.co.uk
DISPLAY
Jamie Tregarthen sales@railpro.co.uk
RECRUITMENT ADVERTISING recruitment@railpro.co.uk
SUBSCRIPTIONS subscriptions@railpro.co.uk
ADMINISTRATION
Cherie Nugent info@railpro.co.uk
Lisa Etherington admin@railpro.co.uk
DESIGN &
Lukasz Saczek production@railpro.co.uk
Welcome back from the summer break. What did we miss over the holidays? In early July the Government’s decided to ‘pause’ the Midland Main Line electrification, upgrade, Hitachi Rail and SYMCA signed a 15-year framework to deliver the future of South Yorkshire Supertram, Network Rail announced Jeremy Westlake as new Chief Executive and recently Alstom signed an eight-year services contract to support GWR with Class 175 fleet reintroduction.
Coming to this September issue, I spoke to Jon Elphick, Director of Rail Digital Advisory at WSP and Professor of Railway Systems Integration at University of Birmingham about how the industry is moving from being ‘data-rich and information-poor’ to delivering integrated solutions that improve design, maintenance, and passenger experience. I spoke to Derel Wust about how networkcentric train control systems demonstrate how Australia's vast distances have driven revolutionary approaches to rail safety that could transform operations globally. I also spoke to Huw Kane, Service Group Manager for Rail at GHD about their wholesystem approach to climate resilience.
This month’s focus is on station refurbishment, which we cover in my conversation with David Woodcock about DW Windsor's trials with passenger guidance systems and energy-efficient technologies.
We also have Jamie Borgeat of Hygiene Pro Clean who argues that the rail industry's approach to cleaning is fundamentally flawed, creating a cycle of diminishing returns that can cost some operators millions whilst degrading passenger experience.
Our other featured topic this month is safety and security which we cover with Paul Davison's compassionate approach to safety culture and Laura Hedley's insights on recognising complacency, the industry is demonstrating that sustainable progress requires not just technical solutions but genuine commitment to the wellbeing and development of its people.
SAM SHERWOOD-HALE EDITOR
All the latest developments from across the rail industry
11 THE CHEEK OF IT
Recent rises in inflation point to a hefty rise in rail fares in 2026, much to the horror of campaign groups. Chris looks at the arguments
14 LAYING DOWN THE LAW
Managing the use of legal workers alongside a skills shortage in the rail sector
16 Jon Elphick on digital twins in railways, the challenges of legacy data and siloed systems, and how the industry can move from being ‘data-rich and information-poor’ to delivering integrated solutions that improve design, maintenance, operations, and passenger experience
20 Derel Wust explains how how network-centric train control is revolutionising railway safety, the evolution from traditional signalling to digital authority systems, and why Australia's vast distances demanded a fundamentally different approach to rail management
26 Stephen Bramall of DGA Group describes his experience with rail privatisation, the failings of British transport policy, the future of Great British Railways, and the challenges of delivering major infrastructure projects like HS2
32 STATION REFURBISHMENT
David Woodcock describes DW Windsor's rail lighting solutions, the challenges of innovation in a risk-averse industry, and the company's trials with passenger guidance systems and energyefficient technologies
38 Huw Kane discusses GHD's expanded role supporting the Department for Transport's rail infrastructure investments across Western, Wales and Wessex regions, and how the company's whole-system approach addresses the growing challenges of climate resilience and digital transformation in Britain's ageing railway network
41 STRATEGIC ASSET MANAGEMENT
Jamie Borgeat of Hygiene Pro Clean argues that the rail industry's approach to cleaning is fundamentally flawed, creating a cycle of diminishing returns that can cost some operators millions whilst degrading passenger experience
45 Michael Rustell on transforming infrastructure engineering through AI, the challenge of making unstructured data searchable, and why the next two years will separate the industry leaders from the laggards
50 Martin Howell, Transport Markets Director at Worldline, on the future of Britain's railways, the urgent need for data sharing across the industry, and how lessons from his military background could help transform passenger experience
54 STATION REFURBISHMENT
Shortlands Station becomes the latest station in South East London to benefit from accessibility upgrades with the installation of three new passenger lifts from Stannah
& SECURITY
Laura Hedley, Head of Consultancy and Talent Services at the OPC, shares insights from recent South Eastern Railway workshops on recognising and tackling complacency to help maintain safety vigilance
Paul Davison explores how a compassionate approach to safety, grounded in empathy, systems thinking, and trauma awareness, can help the rail sector navigate the complex realities faced by its staff
&
ExMesh Engineering supplied its latest fencing system, Fastrack Trio, for a security upgrade on the ECN5 rail boundary at Stonehaven in Aberdeen
67 IN CONVERSATION
Jonathan Smith, Head of Sales and Marketing at Kilfrost Ltd
IN CONVERSATION
James Saxelby, Commercial Manager at Joseph Ash Galvanizing
73 PASSENGER INFORMATION SYSTEMS
As rail networks evolve, Passenger Information Systems must deliver more than timetables – they must offer realtime clarity, reliability, and confidence across totems, platforms, onboard and wayfinding screens
76 LIGHT RAIL
Pre Metro's proposed Dudley Dasher proves Very Light Rail offers a cheaper, more flexible future
Niall Rooney, Steve Staley, Jeremy Westlake, Andrew Campuzano, Helen Simmons, Kate Hunt, Vernon Everitt
Network Rail has completed a £43 million investment programme on the West Coast Main Line, reopening a 50-mile stretch through Staffordshire, Cheshire and Greater Manchester following a strategic 21-day closure. The comprehensive infrastructure modernisation centred on a £20 million project to replace a 67-yearold railway bridge at Stockport, with the extended closure enabling Network Rail to execute multiple improvement schemes simultaneously across the corridor.
The investment programme encompassed track and points renewal at several locations including Macclesfield and Stone station, platform reconstruction at Poynton station, and upgrades to level crossings at three Stone-area locations. Additional works included footbridge renovations at Longport station, waterproofing of the River Trent Viaduct, and track improvements near Trentham.
Schneider Electric has introduced the Modicon Edge I/O NTS, a future-ready distributed input/output system designed specifically for the challenging railway environment. The new modular I/O solution delivers enhanced robustness, flexibility, scalability and cybersecurity features tailored to meet the demanding requirements of rail operations. The system has received railway certification due to its mechanical durability and extended operating temperature
range of -40°C to +70°C, making it suitable for both onboard and trackside applications across diverse weather conditions.
The new platform connects to a wide variety of smart devices, meters, sensors and edge devices distributed across railway networks. This connectivity enables operators, system integrators and original equipment manufacturers to integrate critical data for continuous optimization of efficiency, agility and sustainability.
FAIRTIQ, the Swiss-based specialist digital pay-as-you-go (DPAYG) ticketing supplier, has been selected to deliver a trial launching in the coming weeks under the UK government’s Plan for Rail reform. The nine-month trial aims to simplify ticketing, enhance the passenger experience, and encourage more people to travel by public transport. If successful, FAIRTIQ technology could be considered for broader deployment – across cities, regions or even nationwide – not only on the rail network, but also on buses, trams, subways, and ferries, mirroring similar rollouts in Denmark, Switzerland, France, and Germany. Working in partnership with the Rail Delivery Group (RDG) and Northern Trains supported by TransPennine Express and Arriva CrossCountry, FAIRTIQ technology will be tested on the Sheffield – Doncaster route in South
Yorkshire to explore how smart, mobile-first ticketing can make rail travel more accessible, transparent and simple.
FAIRTIQ’s award-winning system, already used by millions of passengers in Europe, allows travellers to start and end their journey with one simple swipe, with the best available fare calculated automatically. This trial will gather valuable passenger feedback and journey data to help shape the future of UK ticketing.
Running for nine months, the trial will allow up to 1,000 passengers to experience FAIRTIQ’s award-winning mobile app, which uses GPS to detect journeys and ensure that travellers automatically pay the best-value fare. Interested users can apply on Northern’s website: https://www.northernrailway.co.uk/tickets/payas-you-go.
Transport for Greater Manchester has secured £6 million in funding to advance planning for significant expansion of the Metrolink tram network, with projects targeting key economic corridors including Manchester Airport and multiple borough connections. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority approved the investment programme Friday, following endorsement by the Bee Network Committee earlier this week. The funding supports the region's 2030 transport strategy goal of ensuring 90 per cent of residents live within a five-minute walk of frequent public transport services.
Priority development work will focus on completing the Strategic Outline Case for the Metrolink extension to Stockport from East Didsbury, with construction scheduled to begin in 2030. This project will explore additional tram-train connections to Hazel Grove, Tameside via Denton and Reddish, and critically, Manchester Airport.
Parallel planning will commence on the Metrolink Airport Line 'Western Leg', serving key growth areas at Manchester Airport, Wythenshawe Hospital and Davenport Green. This route will examine tram-train connectivity options to Stockport, Altrincham and the Mid-Cheshire Line, potentially creating integrated rail-tram services across multiple corridors.
The investment programme includes preparation for northwest expansion, with Strategic Outline Case development beginning in summer 2026 for Metrolink connections to Salford Crescent and Salford Quays, extending to potential links serving Leigh, Wigan and Bolton. Additional funding supports business case development for the Middleton & Northern Gateway and Trafford Waters, Port Salford & Western Gateway projects, while protecting corridors for longer-term schemes to Glossop, Hadfield, Marple and Warrington.
The programme includes early development work on underground system plans, complementing proposed east-west underground connections linked to the Liverpool-Manchester Railway project.
Construction of the Oldham-Rochdale-Heywood-Bury tram-train route remains targeted for 2028.
Transport leaders are also advancing procurement of nextgeneration double-length, walk-through trams to increase network capacity and support projected passenger growth across the expanded Bee Network infrastructure.
The comprehensive planning approach reflects Greater Manchester's strategy to integrate all boroughs into the Metrolink network, supporting economic development and population growth through enhanced regional connectivity.
When time, terrain and security matter, Fastrack Trio delivers. This fencing system was engineered specifically for rail environments, keeping your projects on track without compromise.
• Small panels for quick install
• Handles sloping ground with ease
• Made from heavy-duty, anti-climb mesh
Disruptions and delays have a significant impact on passenger journeys, freight delivery, and the overall efficiency of the rail network. To build a more resilient railway, we must understand how systems fail and how to prepare for future issues.
We’re committed to reducing disruptions, preventing collisions, and combating fatigue through a comprehensive approach.
By connecting systems, empowering experts, and managing risk with smarter tools and research, we’re building a railway ready to meet the climate, passenger, and freight demands of the future.
Find out more www.rssb.co.uk/resilience
by Chris Cheek
Recent rises in inflation point to a hefty rise in rail fares in 2026, much to the horror of campaign groups. Chris looks at the arguments
The recent resurgence of inflation in our economy has caused more than a little concern in railway circles. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported that the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) rose to 3.8 per cent in July, whilst, at the same time, the old Retail Prices Index (RPI) hit 4.8 per cent. This matters to the rail industry because the July figure for RPI has traditionally been the benchmark for the following January’s rail fare increase. The even worse news for travellers is that a maintenance of the RPI +1 per cent policy adopted by the Government for fares in 2025 would therefore push regulated rail fares up by 5.8 per cent.
This news comes on top of the recently published figures from the Office of Rail and Road (ORR), which showed that rail fares increased on average by 5.1 per cent during 2024/25, compared with an RPI increase of 3.2 per cent, suggesting a 1.9 per cent real increase.
The increases varied by sector, with the long distance InterCity sector rising the most, 5.4 per cent, compared with London and the South East (5.2 per cent) and the regional sector (4.0 per cent). Looking at different ticket types, largest increases came in the super off-peak category, 5.9 per cent, followed by advance on 5.7 per cent, offpeak 5.0 per cent, anytime on 4.6 per cent and season tickets on 4.3 per cent.
Overall, the regulated fares rose by 4.5 per cent, very slightly below the government’s 4.6 per cent cap. Unregulated standard class fares rose by 5.5 per cent, whilst the first class went up by a smaller 3.7 per cent.
‘The 5.1 per cent headline increase only delivered a 3.3 per cent yield, with InterCity delivering just 2.9 per cent (0.8 per cent real) from a fare rise of 5.4 per cent, whilst London & SE achieved 3.1 per cent (1.1 per cent real) from a 5.2 per cent rise.’
Source: ORR statistics – Table-1211-passenger-revenue-by-sector (2025 and 2024) and Table1231-passenger-kilometres-by-sector.
Source: ORR statistics – Table-1212-passenger-revenue-by-ticket-type (2025 and 2024) and Table-1232-passenger-kilometres-by-ticket-type.
The increases recorded here are, of course, based on the fares charged. What the public actually pays can vary quite widely – they can save money by switching to advance tickets or shifting travel times to take advantage of off-peak discounts, for instance. This is something we keep an eye on at Passenger Transport Monitor by looking at the income the railway gets for each passenger kilometre travelled, which we call the yield. We think that this is the best measure, since it eliminates the changes in average journey lengths (which were steady in 2024/25 but have been falling over time) and other factors which can affect the average fare paid. The figures, taken from the ORR’s quarterly rail statistics, are shown in Table A.
This suggests that the 5.1 per cent headline increase only delivered a 3.3 per cent yield, with two sectors showing significant shortfalls – InterCity delivering a yield increase of 2.9 per cent (0.8 per cent real) from a fare rise of 5.4 per cent, whilst the London & SE achieved 3.1 per cent (1.1 per cent real) from a fare rise of 5.2 per cent. Only the regional sector achieved a growth in yield higher than the headline fare increase, this time a twelve per cent growth (4.2 per cent real) from a four per cent fare increase.
The same pattern is repeated when we look at the yields for each ticket, as can be seen in Table B.
Quite why the industry and the government are still using the now widely disregarded Retail Prices Index as their benchmark, when most other measures use the Consumer Prices Index these days, has yet to be explained. Interestingly, alongside the ORR’s figures for national rail fares and the RPI, the ONS also publishes a CPI index for rail travel – including other networks such as the London Underground and the regional tram and metro systems.
Ben Plowden, chief executive of Campaign for Better Transport commented on the prospects for an increase: ‘With the
‘Total
passenger revenue increased by just 4.8 per cent in real terms despite passenger kilometres rising by 7.5 per cent in 2024/25, and remains 16.4 per cent below pre-pandemic levels, with yields 10 per cent lower in real terms than before Covid.’
railways now moving under public control, the question is how fares policy will make rail more affordable and attractive to use.’
However, the question arises from that statement is this: ‘To whom does rail need to be more affordable – the passenger or the Government?’ Clearly to Ben and his fellow pro-rail campaigners, the answer is existing and potential future customers. However, one suspects that things look rather different from the inside Great Minster House or H M Treasury, looking to save money on the total spending on revenue support in the industry.
This amounted to £12.5 billion in 2023/24 – £4.1 billion to the train operators and £8.4 billion to Network Rail.
Then there’s another £10 billion or so on enhancements and projects such as HS2 – there’s a need to save money here too –witness the pausing of projects announced by the Chancellor after the spending review, but this is slightly less urgent, since it counts as investment and does not therefore affect the fiscal rules set by the incoming government last year. These require the current expenditure by the government to be equal to or less than income from taxation and other sources by 2029/30.
So, what should we expect the government to do about rail fares? There are several reasons, it seems to me, why the government may well stick to the RPI+1 per cent formula set last year. With the bond markets worrying constantly about the Chancellor’s ability to deliver her
economic forecasts, and charging higher interest rates on Government borrowing as a result, there is a need to raise revenue not cut it. This becomes even more important when considering the pressure placed on the Treasury by that fiscal rule – slower economic growth, higher interest payments and higher inflation all mean that there is now expected to be a funding gap of upwards of £20 billion by the end of this Parliament. That will have to be bridged either by spending cuts or increased taxes – hence all the speculation about which revenue-raising wheeze the Treasury will adopt next.
Then there’s the political angle: to be blunt (and possibly a bit cynical), there are precious few votes for Labour in keeping rail fares low. We know from the National Travel Survey that more than 70 per cent of rail journeys are made by people in the top three income brackets, and 54 per cent by the top two. These people are hardly likely to be part of the party’s core vote, or to live in constituencies on the party’s target list. Many of the seats in outer London and the Home Counties were once solidly Tory (hence seven years of real-term freezes on regulated fares until Covid) and the moves last year were to the Liberal Democrats or the Greens. Local government results in May showed some strong swings to Reform, but seats in the commuter belt will not determine the result of the next General Election.
Lastly, there is the market point: we are back to post-1923 highs for rail passenger journeys and within two per cent of once again exceeding that year’s total of 1.8 billion. That does not suggest that price is a currently a barrier to market growth.
So, to answer the question I posed earlier – what matters at the moment to the Government is that the railways become more affordable to them. Don’t expect this to change any time soon, either. Meanwhile, the best that the new GBR can hope for is to hire some really clever yield managers to lever in more income from existing fare structures.
FOR SPANS OF UP TO 30mFROM FOOTBRIDGES TO HEAVY LOAD SUPPORT GIRDERS
by Martin Fleetwood
Both the National Skills Academy for Rail in its 2024 Annual Rail Workforce Survey and the Rail Delivery Group highlight the skills shortage in the rail sector and note that competition for talent is creating a lack of suitably skilled people available to work to support Britain’s railways
These challenges facing rail are not unique and the rail sector is one of a number of sectors that are looking towards overseas markets to recruit people with relevant skills into their workforces. In particular, this route can provide a shorter-term fix while training and apprenticeships deliver a new generation of home-grown employees into the sector.
However, such action is not without its own risks. Previous articles in this column have considered the requirements for recruiting overseas workers including those who have limited rights to work in the UK. There is also the risk of unintentionally recruiting people who have no rights to work in the UK and those who may have entered the UK illegally.
Recently the Home Office began to intensify its efforts to prevent illegal working, focussing particularly on regulated industries and high-risk sectors such as the gig economy. Sectors which use employees on zero-hours contracts and those where the workforce is often transient, decentralised and diverse have been particularly high on the list for investigation, but this does not mean that other sectors are being ignored.
The Home Office has indicated that businesses are strongly encouraged to check that their contractors and labour providers carry out all relevant right-to-work checks in accordance with the Home Office Right to Work Guidance on people that they employ, engage or supply.
This includes anyone in the business’ supply chain providing a person to perform work on the business’ behalf. This follows the trend which is seen in other workforce legislation such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015 where an employer has a level of responsibility for the practices being undertaken throughout their supply chain rather than just within the business itself.
In order to mitigate its risks, a business should implement a robust compliance system which includes:
• Conducting ‘Right to Work’ checks –verifying an individual’s right to work before they start employment or work for the business.
• Training and awareness – providing regular training to HR and recruitment teams to ensure that they fully understand their obligations relating to right to work requirements.
• Ongoing monitoring – taking note of those individuals with time-limited permission to work in the UK and conducting follow-up checks to ensure that they are no longer working at the point that their permission to work expires.
• Reviewing arrangements at third party providers – reviewing the commercial arrangements with any third parties, such as agencies, to ensure that they are complying with all relevant immigration requirements for all individuals being sent to the business and ensuring that there is relevant indemnity cover in place to provide a full indemnity to the
Martin Fleetwood is a Consultant at Addleshaw Goddard’s Transport practice. The Rail Team has over 30 lawyers who advise clients in both the private and public sectors across a wide range of legal areas. As well as contractual issues, the team advises on operational matters, franchises, concessions, finance, regulatory, property, employment, environmental and procurement issues.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It is recommended that specific professional advice is sought before acting on any of the information given.
business in the event of any breaches of the right to work requirements by the third party.
It should be noted that the Home Office has stepped up its enforcement activities, including unannounced compliance visits and audits. Anyone found to be employing or using individuals who do not have a right to work in the UK can face significant penalties, including civil penalties, criminal prosecutions, reputational damage and, if the sponsor, a risk of losing their sponsor licence.
The other area which is under scrutiny from the Home Office is the compliance by sponsors with the terms of their sponsor licence, particularly for those sponsors who operate in a regulated industry. These terms impose a number of responsibilities and duties on the sponsor which include:
• Reporting duties – certain changes in the circumstances of a sponsored employee must be reported by the sponsoring employer to the Home Office within specified timescales. For example, if a sponsored employee resigns, changes roles or is absent without permission for ten or more consecutive days, the employer must notify the Home Office via the Home Office’s Sponsor Management System.
• Record keeping duties – the sponsoring employer must retain accurate records of
all sponsored workers, including evidence of carrying out the relevant right-to-work checks. These records must be readily available for inspection by the Home Office (which may be unannounced).
• Compliance with immigration rules – sponsors must ensure that each sponsored worker meets the requirements of their visa category and are performing the job described in their Certificate of Sponsorship. Any deviation from this could result in an allegation of non-compliance by the Home Office.
• Prevention of illegal working – sponsors are required to conduct right-to-work checks for all of their employees, not just their sponsored workers, to ensure that no-one at the business is being employed unlawfully.
The Home Office have described the holding of a sponsor licence as a ‘privilege and not a right’ and businesses that fail to meet their obligations risk severe consequences. These can include financial penalties, reputational damage and disruption to the business operations. If the sponsor licence is suspended or revoked the business will be unable to retain or recruit the skilled workers from overseas that it requires to
Businesses are starting to use more provocative compliance measures such as running a mock audit and sponsor licence health checks in order to ensure that they are best placed to respond effectively in the event of a Home Office inspection. Mock audits help a business to identify gaps in its compliance arrangements and allow it to rectify any relevant issues before a genuine inspection occurs.
While a mock audit will be inconvenient for a business it may uncover inconsistencies in record-keeping or highlight areas in reporting duties which have been overlooked. Discovering and addressing such issues before a genuine inspection occurs can protect the business from Home Office penalties and any potential negative publicity if errors are discovered by the Home Office inspectors.
Businesses need to remain vigilant, proactive and informed to manage their risks in this area. Compliance manuals should not be consigned to dusty drawers or the little viewed sections of a company’s intranet. Instead, they need to be regularly revisited, with regular audits and, if required, updated to reflect changes in
‘Compliance manuals should not be consigned to dusty drawers or
the business to protect itself from penalties for failed compliance, but also positions the
Jon Elphick is Director of Rail Digital Advisory at WSP and Professor of Railway Systems Integration at the University of Birmingham. Previously Senior Director of Global Rolling Stock Testing at Hitachi, he led testing and validation of new trains including the Class 800s, 385s for ScotRail, and 803s for Lumo.
Sam Sherwood-Hale spoke to Jon Elphick about digital twins in railways, the challenges of legacy data and siloed systems, and how the industry can move from being "data-rich and information-poor" to delivering integrated solutions that improve design, maintenance, operations, and passenger experience
SSH: What is a digital twin?
JE: Digital twins are in a bit of a hype cycle at the moment. There's lots of talk about digital twins, with many different perspectives, which is often quite confusing for people in our industry and beyond. There's a helpful Indian parable about blind men who come across an elephant in the jungle. Each encounters a different part. One touches the tail, another the side, one its leg, another the trunk. They all think they found something different. The tail feels like a rope, the trunk like a snake, the leg like a tree trunk. This reflects how people experience digital twins differently. It's a broadly used term, and you need to stand back to understand the whole picture. At WSP we focus on the outcomes; that helps customers think holistically.
People talk about digital twins as Internet of Things and smart sensors, or as being all about data, or all about AI. I would point your readers to the ISO definition. ISO 30173:2023 defines a digital twin as ‘a digital representation of a target entity with connections that allow convergence between the physical and the digital states at an appropriate rate’.
What differentiates a digital twin from a simple model is that we're linking the virtual digital representation with the real world and synchronising at a sensible rate. A model is just a model. It could be a 3D BIM model or a finite element analysis. A digital twin connects that model to real-world data.
At WSP, we look for three perspectives. First, the spatial domain, which typically exists in 3D BIM (Building Information Modelling) tools. Second, the system breakdown structure. In railways that's track, traction power, signalling, rolling stock, telecommunications, passenger information, etc. Third, the functional element, which defines what you're trying to deliver to the customer. We need a schema that overlays all three domains so you can start asking integrated questions.
For example, consider a light switch. It has a physical representation in a room, it's part of an electrical system connected to specific circuits and lights, and it has functions like providing control and potentially security features. Traditionally, you'd have separate drawings, schematics, and requirements documents. You begin to move toward a digital twin when you bring all that data together so you can answer integrated questions: Which fuses
do I need to isolate for safe maintenance and where are they? How does the power usage compare to the design? Is there any correlation between maintenance visits and performance? Once you can connect all that data, you can employ computation to give you hindsight, insight, or foresight. You're analysing what's happened, understanding what's happening now, or predicting what will happen.
SSH: That's a nice triangulation: hindsight, insight, and foresight overlaying with physical, data, and systems perspectives. When was this overlay first achieved?
JE: Most commentators recognise that the first digital twin was born in the 1970s with the Apollo missions. In 1970, when Apollo 13 had its oxygen tank explosion, NASA used models they called ‘living models’. The term digital twin didn't exist then, but they had models that they fed data from Apollo 13 to understand what had happened and help plan their solution. The term digital twin was only coined in the early 2000s. With the explosion in compute power and graphics, there's been a big focus on the spatial aspect. The technology we have now with LiDAR, photogrammetry, point cloud, drones, and 3D modelling is incredible compared to even ten years ago. While the elements I described were present in the Apollo work, they've been overshadowed by BIM and 3D spatial modelling.
What we're doing at WSP is beginning to level the scales. BIM has been around for a long time, and we've done many projects using it. But we have found that transport clients aren't always seeing the value. It's helpful for us because it makes design more efficient, making tasks like clash detection trivial. But when we hand it over, clients say ‘That's good, but what I really need are the maintenance procedures for my asset’. That's because the data isn't rich; it's spatial only. They want system data, schematics, functional data about how it works and how it's connected; these are things we have successfully integrated for buildings clients.
My favourite example is Google Maps. For me, Google Maps is the digital twin everyone has in their pocket. It has a spatial model of the world and a functional model because it understands what you want to do. It understands the interchanges between modes, walking times, carbon, ticket/ride/ road charging costs, etc. It integrates realtime data about road closures, accidents,
train delays. It gives you insight about what's happening now and foresight about the best route to your destination.
It's got a great interface with very simple visualisation. People think digital twins need complex 3D rendered graphics. Sometimes that's helpful, but it's not essential. A digital twin needs appropriate visualisation for users to get value. Google Maps is intuitive and simple for everyone.
SSH: You mentioned improving accuracy and technology. Was there ever a gap between what clients were asking for and what you could actually deliver?
JE: I turn that around and say that when a client asks for a digital twin, my response is always to ask why. I see a digital twin as a tool. It's an enabler. Digital twins are like power tools: they can be transformational, compared to a hand tool, when used for the right task. But you shouldn't buy a digital twin just for the sake of having it. We help customers get the best from the tool. Once we understand the problem that clients are trying to solve, we ensure the digital twin is designed and built for the job. Just like buying the right power tool for the DIY challenge you have. And to answer your question, I don’t think there are many challenges in the railway that will be hindered by today’s technology. The challenges are mainly organisational and to do with legacy data.
SSH: Speaking of WSP's work, what's your vision for railway digital twins and how do they bring value to passengers and taxpayers?
JE: Railways are complex. There are many old assets, and they involve lots of people. Our expectation is that it will take time for any railway to implement digital twins effectively.
There are already things in railways that are digital twins. Traffic management systems take a model of the railway, understands the functions and systems that feed into it, feeds it with real data from the network, and helps controllers and signallers make better decisions.
At WSP we look at railways as comprising four digital pillars:
• Digitally delivered projects, where you're building new or enhancing existing infrastructure.
• Smart railway maintenance, focused on efficiently maintaining and renewing assets.
• Intelligent operations and control, for running services.
• Rail as a service for the customerfacing elements like revenue collection, reservations and travel information –that applies equally to freight customers and passengers.
Across the pillars, we see digital twins developing over time. For example, we're looking to integrate systems engineering and BIM to improve efficiency and provide a digital foundation for the other pillars. This will feed the development of maintenance digital twins, enhancements in train planning, traffic management and access management, and improvements in insight and foresight for freight users and passengers.
Ultimately, once digital twins mature across all four pillars, you can integrate them to create an overall railway digital twin. You can optimise design, maintenance, operations, and customer service from all perspectives.
From a project perspective, that allows us to move to what I describe as the Pixar approach: design, fail, improve. Pixar doesn't start making a film until they've tested it hundreds of times using cheap digital approaches.
In railway projects, we need to let our people try ideas and do this design-fail cycle in a safe digital environment. That unlocks innovation, appropriate risk-taking, and means we deliver faster, better, cheaper.
SSH: How close are we to delivering that?
JE: We do things like that in different areas. In some buildings and hospital clients, we're getting much closer. The UK railway is challenging because of old data and missing information around legacy assets. We've also got contractual challenges. Through GBR (Great British Railways) and GBRX initiatives, I think we'll move toward delivering this over the next few years.
SSH: Are you hopeful about that? Will this kind of industry change provide a better platform for achieving these goals?
JE: I'm very hopeful. We have to be careful not to expect organisational change to be the silver bullet. The railway is complex. It's taken us 30 years of privatisation to get where we are. GBR won't change the world overnight.
But the momentum that's building, combined with the technologies and thinking that companies like WSP can bring from other sectors, provides a great opportunity. GBRX is enabling innovation across the railway, by introducing innovators from different sectors, joining up different parts of the industry and removing barriers.
SSH: Given your background in cybersecurity, how does WSP balance open data sharing with safety-critical system requirements?
JE: The principle is that data associated with public transport systems should be as open as possible while maintaining appropriate security. There are things you can't share, but most data should be owned by public authorities and made available. TfL (Transport for London) has led the way with sharing data, demonstrating the innovation and value this can release. Initiatives like the Rail Data Marketplace show how we can safely and securely share data, allow companies to monetise it, and enable innovation.
SSH: Is data sharing more of an issue in rail? Given WSP's digital twin work across water management and other sectors, is there something about railways that makes them trickier or more siloed?
JE: There's always a tendency for anybody working in any industry to say their industry is different. The problem we have in railways is complexity: data about the train is collected by the train manufacturer, but they work for the train maintainer who works for a train operating company, who works for the DfT (Department for Transport). It's very siloed. We've drawn contractual boundaries across fundamental engineering interfaces like the wheel-rail interface and overhead line, which makes it harder to share data. When you only see part of the picture, you can't expect even the cleverest AI to understand patterns across the whole system.
SSH: When you were Senior Director of Global Rolling Stock Testing at Hitachi, how much of that data was Hitachi collecting itself versus receiving from operators?
JE: I was responsible for testing and validation of new trains. One hundred percent of the data we used for testing was collected by my team at Hitachi. The vast majority was data we collected driving trains around the network. We had a fleet that spent several years collecting data.
I was involved in one project with the Birmingham Centre for Rail Research and Education, where we used their very detailed, physics-level railway simulator, called BRaVE, which is used as both a digital model and a digital twin. We used BRaVE as a digital model, to test software systems in the train by connecting the train to the model rather than being on track.
We proved that this could save time; we could do in an afternoon what might otherwise take months of on-track testing. This represents huge cost savings, safety benefits from not putting people on track at night and delivering something much faster to customers.
There's a mindset in railways that we're quite linear: we design, build, then test. For me, verification and validation should happen throughout the project lifecycle –we call this left-shift referring to moving activities left on the schedule. Digital twins will help realise left-shift.
Testing doesn't start when you've built something. It's too late to find out it doesn't work then. It's better to test in a lab before you put it on track, because once you've got a train on track and find something doesn't work, the cost and time impact is huge.
Left shift means testing in a lab is better than testing on track, but better again is testing before you've built it, testing concepts using this Pixar approach where we let engineers test ideas.
We're very risk averse. We do big projects that are too big to fail. We end up gold-plating things because we're making assumptions and add extra safety factors. You build over-specified things because you weren't sure how they'd work. If you could explore, test, and trial in a digital environment, let a driver sit in a virtual cab and say ‘does that work? Will that make your job easier or impossible?’ then by the time you get to testing in a lab, you're confident you've got a fit-for-purpose design that isn't massively over-engineered.
SSH: You mentioned left-shifting testing. How can WSP's digital twins enable early validation rather than late-stage physical testing?
JE: That's the real vision. If we can free our engineers, operators, and users to explore how things might work. WSP did awardwinning work on HS2’s Old Oak Common where we took 3D spatial designs and, with partners, rendered them into a gaming environment, allowing people to move around the virtual station, particularly people with disabilities. We used eye tracking to see what they looked at, what caught their attention, caused anxiety, or seemed difficult to understand. That helped our design teams optimise this massive new station to make it pleasant, easy to navigate, and more accessible. That isn't really a digital twin because there's no real-world connection, but we're using visualisation to understand how to improve the design. That creates a design-fail-improve loop quickly with real people.
SSH: During your testing work on the Class 800s, 385s for ScotRail, and 803s for Lumo, did you see improvements in your approach across those different projects?
JE: Absolutely. We were always learning and understanding how to use digital tools and data better to improve testing speed and accuracy. But I was head of testing, very much at the end of the V lifecycle. While I could make testing better, what we're talking about with design-fail-improve is about left-shifting, changing how we think about
‘We're an industry that's data-rich and information-poor. When you've got massive amounts of data, the natural approach is to focus on the bit in front of you.’
design and integrating verification and validation throughout.
I don't think many organisations have managed to make that work yet. When you've got big global organisations like WSP with design happening in different places around the world, that's one of the things digital twins could really help with.
There's so much data. We're an industry that's data-rich and information-poor. When you've got massive amounts of data, the natural approach is to focus on the bit in front of you. If that's happening across continents, we end up siloed.
Different companies do civils, signalling, electrification. As things have become more complex and contractual, and we're delivering projects differently, a digital twin that allows multiple disciplines to interact with the same virtual environment could help us reintegrate railway design processes.
SSH: Is this something you've developed in tandem with your academic and professional careers?
JE: Yes. I'm lucky to have one foot in academia that gives time to think. I'm involved in TransiT, an EPSRC-funded research programme involving 8 universities and 67 industrial partners, including The University of Birmingham and WSP. The purpose is to develop frameworks to federate digital twins to support transport decarbonisation.
They're joining together digital twins in roads, freight, air, sea, and rail to tackle decarbonisation problems in transport. Carbon emissions from transport are significant for our net zero challenge. Birmingham brings their rail expertise and BRaVE model, which they've used to develop a digital twin of rail movements in the West Midlands.
I also work heavily in industry. WSP is an incredible company. I see things happening across buildings, aviation, and environment, plus real tangible problems our customers are wrestling with. Network Rail, train operating companies, metros worldwide all have challenges.
You open trade journals and can't move for people talking about digital twins, much of it dominated by 3D rendered, fully immersive experiences. That's a
very spatial view. Some clients genuinely struggle to see how that will help them. We're trying to articulate that digital twins as tools can help, but we always start with: what's the purpose? What problem are you trying to fix? Maybe a digital twin is the right solution, but often it's other digital technology: machine learning, AI, automation. Sometimes they just need help cleaning and sorting their data.
SSH: What are those client conversations like when you're explaining what the technology can actually do?
JE: The conversations are about what's your problem and what we can help with. If I don't think we can help, I always tell clients. WSP doesn't have the answer to every problem, but we have answers to many. Our approach is understanding the pain point and building from there.
My job is often opening their eyes to the range of digital capabilities available. Many rail clients see us as a rail engineering company. They know us for big projects in civil engineering, structural engineering, signalling, track, and overhead line equipment.
I explain that my role is being the interpreter between expertise and capabilities from different sectors. We're delivering digital hospitals to the NHS and other providers worldwide. But, for example, my colleagues delivering digital hospitals can find it hard to translate the value they bring into the rail domain. Railways, like many sectors, have lots of terminology that can be difficult to navigate.
If you don't understand the jargon, it's very difficult to penetrate. So I interpret and bring things from outside rail. The Rail Digital Advisory team understand rail, though we're not necessarily specialists in detailed AI, machine learning, Cyber or GIS skills – these come from our specialist teams.
SSH: As Professor of Railway Systems Integration at Birmingham, where do you see WSP's railway digital twin capabilities heading as these engineers you're training enter the workforce?
JE: What's really exciting about dealing with young engineers at Birmingham is they just don't see barriers the way some of us with grey hair do, and I find that inspiring. They constantly challenge me to stop thinking about why it can't be done and think about how it can. They get excited about these things and push further. We've got a rail operational modelling group within WSP with some inspiring young earlycareer professionals who want to push the boundaries of what we can do with digital models and twins. I love talking to them because they don't see why we can't do it. They're impatient to get on and do stuff. For example, they are doing some really exciting work with powerful agent-based modelling
tool, called AnyLogic, that can very quickly provide insights into all sorts of aspects of railways – from depot optimisation or junction capacity, to sizing new fleets, but also understanding passenger flows and evacuation constraints.
Our job is giving their ideas oxygen, laying the road for these people, and getting the industry to better understand digital twins as tools in the digital toolbox that help us improve railways.
SSH: Is it difficult wearing those two hats: speaking to senior executives who might be questioning versus young people who are the complete opposite?
Most executives are genuinely interested. There's sometimes cynicism, but often because people haven't explained things well. We advocate an incremental approach at WSP. The industry is littered with the carcasses of big digital projects where organisations tried to boil the ocean. I hear people saying: ‘First you need to sort out all the data, then we can build digital twins.’ But there's so much data in railways already. I find it amusing that we all talk about moving to a "digital railway," but railways have been digital for 100 years. The first fully relay interlocking was commissioned in 1929 in the US. We've got oceans of data. Everything in railways is digital (1s and 0s): train describers, track circuits, relays, interlockings, passenger information.
Trying to fix all data from the start is almost doomed to failure. A colleague used a good analogy recently: if you've got a polluted lake, rather than trying to clean the whole thing at once, just start making sure you only put clean water in. Over time, the clean water will dilute the pollution, and you can tackle specific problem areas as needed.
Our approach needs to be more incremental. We start delivering benefits quickly while gradually improving data quality, rather than attempting mega projects that try to fix everything at once.
SSH: Could we face a ‘Library of Alexandria moment’ where we lose valuable railway data before we can properly use it?
JE: If we get this right and properly manage data in a digital, cyber-secure environment, then it's much less likely to be lost in future. The real risk is now. Much of the data from Victorian-era assets and infrastructure built over the last century exists only as physical drawings and designs that aren't digitally accessible. Many of these assets massively outlive the people who built them. Previously, you could rely on maintenance teams handing down knowledge about their local assets, but that's changing as the workforce ages. The risk is that in the next few years, as the railway suffers from an ageing workforce, we're going to lose knowledge as employees retire. We need to digitise and capture that knowledge so we lower the risk going forward.
Derel Wust is the founder of 4Tel, a railway technology company he established 25 years ago after leaving a senior position within the rail system.
Sam Sherwood-Hale spoke to Derel Wust about how network-centric train control is revolutionising railway safety, the evolution from traditional signalling to digital authority systems, and why Australia's vast distances demanded a fundamentally different approach to rail management
SSH: Can you explain the essence of the Train Management and Control System (TMACS) safety system and how it differs from traditional approaches?
DW: The essence of our work on the TMACS system is network-centric control. I'll give you an analogy: imagine you're doing electronic banking on your phone, sending money to your mother, and you drop the phone, shattering it completely. Your first thought is probably, ‘Oh no, I was in the middle of a transaction. Have I corrupted my account or lost the money?’
The answer is no – you haven't lost anything because the money was never on your phone. It's on the network server at the bank, and your phone is simply acting as a transaction device. If the transaction was interrupted, no money was lost because the transaction cannot be securely concluded. If the transaction was completed before your phone broke, the money transferred successfully without corrupting your account.
We apply this same principle to rail safety. We have a network-centric control system where no one moves on the track without that movement being authorised in our central server. The smartphone or tablet app our field workers use is equivalent to banking software—it's just a transaction interface to the server. Even if someone's phone dies or breaks, it doesn't affect their safety because their safety status can only change on the central server.
We don't control train safety on phones or apps. Our safety system is designed so that nothing changes unless you complete a secure transaction with the safety server. This makes us very safe because the fail-safe situation is no change, even though we use GPS and commercial carrier communications, as we don't even need specialised railway communications.
People often ask how we can do this safely in rail systems when communication failures seem dangerous. Our answer is that it's actually very safe because the TMACS vital server keeps all users separated. If communications are lost, no one can change their status on the server. The system is secure, so if drivers have a problem, they then need to call into train control, just like calling your bank, and go through full identification procedures as necessary.
This means all field equipment and communications are commercial offthe-shelf products. Nothing needs to be ruggedised or safety-certified, although users may pay for higher quality devices for more reliability.
SSH: This is quite a unique approach. What was the process that led to implementing this system?
DW: We weren't the original developers. The history goes back to the period 19952005, when Americans were addressing issues that preceded and eventuated in their
Positive Train Control (PTC) system. They were choosing between two approaches for nationwide train control: PTC-A, which used traditional distributed interlockings with red and green signals along tracks, and PTC-B, which was network-centric like our banking analogy.
However, communications technology in the early 2000s was much more limited, there was barely 2G coverage in many places, let alone 4G or 5G that was yet to be invented. So, the American industry chose PTC-A, dropped the ‘A’ and implemented what became Positive Train Control across North America.
In Australia, we couldn't use that approach because the country is simply too vast and remote. We had to go with a communications-based solution –essentially PTC-B. The system we are using is called TMACS, or Train Management and Control System.
Development started in 1996, with initial deployment in 2001. Australian rail has been using it for 24 years now through various software upgrades.
Think of it like common office software, companies don’t rewrite entire programmes for each release. Your current version probably contains code that may be decades old; they just change the front end and add new functions. That's how modern software systems work, and it's been our approach too.
The advantage is that our system is over 24 years old, though it's now in its latest version. It's thoroughly proven, and we know network-centric train control is safe and more efficient than distributed control systems like coloured light signals over vast remote and regional areas.
The problem with coloured light signals is they don't actually control trains—they're just indicators for drivers who can choose to obey or miss them. True train control only happens with digital messages, where computers can verify authority, monitor speed, ensure compliance, and ultimately brake a train if it is out-of-authority.
SSH: Every company must balance innovation with core business operations. When were you most focused on innovation versus applying the technology?
DW: The system was first deployed in 2001 on New South Wales track, but then the interstate operator took over the track and TMACS. They didn't select TMACS – they inherited it, and initially some staff officers were cautious about using it because it was just a locally-developed, voice-based, firstgeneration system. No one else in Australia or the world used it, and they preferred something based on international systems.
TMACS then entered about a ten-year quiet period with minimal development, but it held the NSW regional network together while a replacement project proceeded. Eventually, people realised, ‘We were
replacing this system because we weren't sure it would last. Now, ten years later, it's the only thing holding those lines together.’
Current generation software is now evolving to include onboard braking capabilities. Today, the rail industry has embraced the system. As a result of the good working relationship between the rail operations staff and industry users, many new innovations were able to be implemented. Because of this, hundreds of trains and thousands of track workers are now protected by TMACS software daily. As an example, track workers have become so dependent on the ETW app, that some staff won't go on tracks if their phone is dead and the app isn't available.
Interestingly, track workers now actively ensure their phones are charged, whereas rail-specialised devices were often unreliable because they were poorly managed. Having an app on personal phones has actually improved reliability and user behaviour.
SSH: How does this approach differ from what others call ‘digital railways’?
DW: Our system works like a banking app, you must use our specific app downloaded from the Play Store because we have comprehensive security checks behind it. Once configured, you're on the system and train control gives track workers their occupancy authorisation. This is crucial because we treat track workers like trains—they can't access tracks without authorisation from the vital server. Many networks use administrative processes where someone calls, gets a code, and gets noted on a spreadsheet. That's administrative control. We use only engineering controls.
If people can choose to obey or disobey something, it's not inherently safe. However, with digital messages that computers can independently verify, you have much better safety assurance.
Many companies are digitising rail systems and calling them ‘digital railways’. But a true digital railway isn't just a digitised version of an analogue railway. You don't take analogue coloured light signals and put them in train cabs – in-cab signalling is actually counter productive because it doesn’t provide engineering controls for safety assurance. In a digital system, you're better off with our network-centric approach where trains are constantly checked against other trains, track workers, and track vehicles in a networked data system. It's not just about managing train movements – it's about managing all users at the same time.
SSH: Is this technology more applicable in the Australian context due to long, remote stretches?
DW: Yes, absolutely, but the core principles apply everywhere and to other network types. The digital messages we use aren't massive – they're about 2400 bytes
DOING BORING BETTER
ONBOARD RAIL VISION, SENSOR PERCEPTION AND WARNING SYSTEM
CAPABILITIES
HAZARD AND INFRASTRUCTURE DETECTION
Real-time detection and recognition of objects, hazards, wayside points, signage and signal aspects in and around the rail corridor.
COLLISION AVOIDANCE
Real-time monitoring of train speed, stopping distance and upcoming object detection providing visual and audible alerts.
AUTOMATED BRAKE ENFORCEMENT
HORUS complements our EN4CER series suite of onboard systems for automated train protection. Together, Horus and EN4CER act as a fully onboard advanced driver advisory system (ADAS) with automated brake enforcement capabilities.
OTHER CAPABILITIES
HORUS can also perform location and route assurance, performance monitoring, infrastructure monitoring, and front-of-train event recording. Visit our website to learn more.
4Tel have delivered advanced digital solutions to enhance transport network operations globally for 25 years.
20+ unique software solutions that integrate into existing networks
100+ transport projects proven in operational use
LEARN MORE : www.4tel.com.au
HORUS SENSORBAR
Visual data is captured by an array of sensors housed within the HORUS SensorBar, mounted to the front or rear of a locomotive, and is processed via an onboard computer.
DRIVER DISPLAY
The driver interface delivers real-time information including alarms and warnings, speed, distance to stop, signal aspect and upcoming infrastructure.
SCAN THE QR CODE TO WATCH: INTRODUCING HORUS
LEARN MORE: WWW.4AISYS.COM
maximum. On modern mobile radio systems, these small data packets can move around almost seamlessly. We're learning that the future of train control will be digital communications-based authorities, authorising trains in real-time so quickly that no one notices the underlying network complexity.
All future train control will use digital messages. With a computer in a central system issuing movement authorities, you don't even need to know where servers are located, I could control trains in Africa from Australia without any problem.
The train's onboard computer receives valid encrypted messages through any channel. You don't need approved hardware, communications towers along tracks, or copper wire that gets stolen by thieves or infrastructure that gets vandalised. We don't have any coloured light signals, everything is digital messages via satellite or radio towers. This makes networks more reliable because no one can steal your infrastructure.
SSH: What about AI and train protection technology?
DW: The missing piece is train protection. Current technology still mostly relies on drivers applying brakes, although this is rapidly improving. Trains still pass signals at danger – SPADs happen every day. We saw a significant decrease in SPAD occurrences with the addition of ‘proximity warnings’ to the electronic authority system but there are still situations where drivers lose situational awareness.
This is where AI becomes valuable. We use cameras on trains and apply machine learning to teach computers the same route knowledge we teach drivers. We compare what cameras see with what the route should be, constantly monitoring our
position and distance. This creates ‘virtual trip stops’ because we know exactly where a train needs to stop and can monitor how drivers approach it. We don't need mechanical train-stop infrastructure as our approach is all onboard. We're building AI systems onboard trains that connect to our train control system. With digital authority and onboard comparison, trains look ahead, ensuring they know their position, stay within authority, maintain proper speed, and detect hazards like trespassers or vehicles on tracks.
This addresses rail's two main risks: network-centric control provides safety without massive infrastructure expenses, and train protection to keep trains safe. We still have drivers, and AI doesn't need to replace them – it just needs to do boring tasks better. It doesn't get tired, distracted, or lost, making drivers safer. Most trains will have drivers for many years yet.
SSH: How much operates automatically without driver awareness, and when do drivers engage as AI system managers?
DW: We're not there yet. While there are big autonomous trains globally the specific AI technology we are applying is still evolving. Today’s trains are generally not making independent decisions as a machine – they follow preset programs and schedules. It's too early for full application of AI because regulators don't have enough data to be confident yet about which AI functions can be safety-certified and which can’t. For example, detecting a red-light signal will probably become safety-certified, but detecting all trespassers will probably only be best effort. AI is only a technology not inherently safe or unsafe – it is the functions to which it is applied that can be assessed for safety-certification.
SSH: What inspired you to start 4Tel 25 years ago, and how has your vision evolved?
DW: I was part of the rail system, quite senior actually, with substantial budget and staff, but I couldn't introduce new technologies. There was too much inertia against innovation in safety systems. I became disheartened, left for the private sector, then was approached for a major tender when part of the network was being privatised. A company asked if they could use the TMACS system to take over rural, regional NSW track. We teamed up, they won the work, and we got a ten-year contract. TMACS went into service on all that track and the rail industry really embraced it.
Now every single locomotive in Australia on the national standard gauge network carries our software embedded into their train radio system. One major deployment barrier is fitting trains with control systems. Instead of that approach, we asked: what computers already exist on trains? Can we upload an app, a software module, and use that as our interface without adding hardware?
Conventional solutions couldn't do this because they'd need safety certification of user devices. We said ours doesn't need certification because of how network-centric control works. We just install a module on the train. If it works, great; if not, the train doesn't move until its authority is sorted out. This let us create interoperable solutions with third parties quickly because we weren't constrained by historical design approaches.
You can design systems to be inherently safe or inherently unsafe with added controls to make it safe. Ours is inherently safe because it always fails to a safe stop position if control is lost. This makes expenditure on user devices an efficiency issue balancing cost and reliability rather than a safety question of buying only approved hardware.
We're unusual, we’ve built a safetycertified, vital, communications-based, virtual-block train control system using methods not common in the industry. We are industry-focused on improving safely, reducing costs and increasing efficiency. We are able to apply modern societal technologies that works and can deliver practical improvements for our customers.
SSH: Looking at 25 years of milestones, when did you realise you were hitting your targets?
DW: We always had the goal of applying modern societal technologies to solve problems with superficially simple but appropriate solutions. The trouble is that innovation away from proven methods is seen as risky. The only way we have found to introduce innovation is through methodical incremental change – win progressive
jobs and do it your way, because trying to improve things with big-bang projects met too much resistance from the status quo. The strategy was to get our ideas implemented on actual tracks and demonstrate how they work rather than just lecturing about them. Now every single product we sell is used on tracks before we sell it. Many companies develop products, launch big marketing campaigns, and hope they work. We already know our technology works. It's a different approach: solve people's problems and you'll get more problems to solve.
SSH: What were the unique challenges with the Tarcoola to Kalgoorlie line, and how did you win that bid?
DW: ARTC was already using TMACS on some lines and had some considerations on the Tarcoola to Kalgoorlie section to address. There's talk of a major project to cover Australia's entire network in due course, but it would seem that the logic was as simple as they already had our system working, so just extend it for now.
Technically, it's mostly a database configuration issue and programming specific rules to add new lines because servers and train software are already available. We configure a database to capture the new lines, update the logic software for any new rules, and you're on the system.
Activation typically happens at a quiet time, usually midnight on Sunday when traffic is lowest. We do not foresee there to be technical challenges because the system already works. We're just adding some rule changes, more databases, selected hardware and configuration files. In saying this, we undertook a long process of scoping and planning to ensure it is as simple as it sounds. In all reality it is complex work but something we have a lot of experience with and are comfortable delivering.
SSH: Will future projects present challenges you haven't faced?
DW: The big unresolved challenge is improving onboard train protection systems with onboard braking if a movement authority is exceeded. We're trying to get rail operators to use all the data we provide for engineering controls rather than just rely on user decisions.
SSH: What convinced ARTC this investment was the right priority? Are there further opportunities for growth?
DW: I can't speak for the ARTC's reasons, but from my perspective, they had the technology in service and saw they could buy time by extending it to cover this particular problem. The Australian market isn't large. Our main contribution now is demonstrating how communications-based systems like TMACS deliver networkcentric train control using minimal field infrastructure. Our focus now is onboard
protection and train automation without eliminating drivers' jobs. That's important because many gains are ‘low-hanging fruit’ for AI, not automating at the highest level, but doing boring tasks better and safer.
SSH: Where are you looking to export this technology internationally?
DW: We see Africa as the biggest opportunity for TMACS. For radio-based systems with minimal infrastructure, where copper theft and vandalism are major problems, getting away from traditional track-based signalling systems provides the best value. We have an office in Pretoria focused on growing the African market.
South America has opportunities with long lines, but language barriers are challenging for us, even if our technology fits, we can't assess business opportunities and risks properly. We don't see Asia as much of a market for our work—it needs to be large areas. North America definitely has opportunities, and we have a presence there following up on work. I'd rank Africa first, USA second.
SSH: What's the status of your South African office?
DW: We have two people there with legal structures to operate in South Africa, because working there brings unique legal and governmental challenges. Rather than scrambling to establish structures while tendering for work, we're prepared and ready to go, now focusing on winning local projects.
We have a job in Kenya controlling a pitto-port operation—a mining operation with trains running from central Kenya down to Mombasa port. This gives us an African reference project we're using to demonstrate our work to other countries.
SSH: How does handover work on the Kenya project?
DW: The driver operates under mine control authority on mining loops, then when the mine line joins the main line owned by the Government of Kenya, the driver switches to the main line's train control system. It's like air traffic control as you move through different airspace—you hand over between systems.
SSH: How do you see AI transforming rail operations over the next decade?
DW: This technology is inevitable at some level, but timing is the question. Certain functions will automate faster than others. Areas without level crossings or pedestrian access—like tunnels or desert regions – may see automation before other locations.
AI is still unproven in railway safety systems, though that will change as specific functions become individually assessed. People say it never will, but I believe it will
because all safety systems are statisticsbased, and AI is fundamentally statistical. AI systems will be able to prove statistically that they're safe for some functions.
SSH: What does it take to maintain SIL2 certification across your system?
DW: SIL gets misused across the industry. Safety Integrity Levels come from international standards and define how you statistically measure system reliability, triggering certification levels, for a specific function. SIL4 has the highest reliability while SIL1 has the lowest.
But SIL can be used in misleading ways because with complex systems involving computers, data, networks, radio towers, and people, they can't achieve the highest SIL levels – there are statistically too many failure modes to address fully. Getting a train control system certified to SIL2 is a fantastic achievement because it's extremely complex. Conversely, you might get a SIL4 relay that can be tested millions of times, but putting that SIL4 relay in a SIL2 train control system doesn't make the whole system SIL4.
When discussing SIL, you must compare like functions. A SIL2 train control system is not comparable to a SIL4 relay. A SIL4 relay cannot control trains. Any system is only as safe as its weakest component so the undisciplined use of statements like ‘SIL4 is safer than SIL2’ have no meaning unless the function under test is defined.
SIL2 is actually extremely good. When you calculate all failure modes, reaching SIL2 is very difficult. SIL2 means statistically one wrong-side failure in 100 years, that's still very good performance when a given technology might only have a useable life of 10-15 years.
SSH: How important has owning the IP been to your success?
DW: It's vital. If you just copy market IP or buy generic products, you can only repackage them—you can't pursue innovative functions easily. Owning and creating our own IP as a registered Research and Development company here in Australia has given us the ability to create very specific software to address the needs of our client base. We create it in such a way that the core system stays the same, we just modify configurations to each customer’s operations.
We also support our software in-house which means that our customers don’t buy a system that can’t be supported long-term. Our customers appreciate our full-service capability, as updates to new features and functionality can happen quickly.
The ownership of all our IP simplifies the process of working with us. There are no re-sellers to go through and what you buy cannot be purchased from anyone else. It keeps it straightforward, which is what any transport operator needs to get on with the job of running services.
Stephen Bramall is a Senior Advisor at DGA Group and is based in London. A specialist in UK transport policy, he brings 50 years of experience working on, and advising on, all aspects of transport policy across all transport modes. As a former civil servant in the Department for Transport from 1974 to 1990, he advised ministers on a wide range of transport policy issues, helped take four transport bills through parliament and for two years was the Principal Private Secretary to two Ministers of State for Transport.
Sam Sherwood-Hale spoke to Stephen Bramall, DGA Group about his experience with rail privatisation, issues facing British transport policy, the future of Great British Railways, and the challenges of delivering major infrastructure projects like HS2
SSH: You've worked on four major transport bills – the Railways Act 1993, Transport Act 2000, Railways Act 2005, and Transport Act 2008. What was the most contentious piece of legislation you worked on as a civil servant?
SB: Well, all the bills I worked on when I was in the department were controversial in one way or another. One was a Bill to privatise the ports industry – one of the very first privatisations introduced by the Thatcher government. It was such a novel concept at the time that as a relatively junior civil servant I and many colleagues were all scrambling around asking what privatisation actually meant!
Probably the most controversial Bill I worked on was when Ken Livingstone was leader of the GLC and had a ‘Fares Fair’ policy in London for buses and the underground. The Thatcher government moved to take away his powers to subsidise fares in the way that he was. That was extremely controversial and working on that Bill was hard work.
The last Bill I worked on in the department was to abolish the National Dock Labour Scheme. The government was really nervous about that because they thought it would generate a national dock strike, but in the end that didn’t materialise, largely because of the size of the redundancy package on offer to dockers made redundant as a result of the scheme’s abolition.
Of the Bills you referred to probably the most controversial one I was involved with was, perhaps inevitably, the Bill to privatise British Rail.
SSH: Why do you think the Thatcher government never moved to privatise British Rail?
SB: I think she could see that it was a political hot potato, and indeed privatisation of British Rail has been a politically controversial issue in varying degrees ever since. Thatcher just thought it was too big a political risk and you can argue that her judgement was spot on. The Labour Party has always been opposed to privatisation, regardless of whether it was successful or not. And the public generally never bought into the concept of privatisation of the railways, despite the fact that those with long memories can remember just how awful British Rail really was.
It's quite interesting. Thatcher never moved to privatise British Rail, and she never moved to privatise what was then London Transport. Yet Tony Blair did a kind of semi-privatisation of London
‘The structure of Whitehall needs to change to create the capability to take forward big infrastructure projects much more efficiently.’
Underground with his PPP for the underground. Very interesting politically –Thatcher never went near the railways.
SSH: So what changed?
SB: It’s worth remembering that although the Thatcher government did not privatise the railways it was certainly an idea that had been kicked around for some years before John Major became Prime Minister. So it was not a new concept. But after the 1992 general election I think ideologically the Tories were looking for some kind of political red meat, if you like. I don't think there was much support for privatisation of the railways within the department at official level, I think officials were pretty nervous. But I’m sure that ministers were also increasingly under pressure from private interests to proceed with privatisation – the likes of Richard Branson come to mind.
SSH: Today, nationalisation is a Labour campaign promise. Why is it not so politically contentious going back the other way?
SB: The reality is that the public never bought into the privatisation of the railways because it impacted on their daily lives – the daily commute, the disruption – and they never quite reminded themselves just how bad it was under British Rail. The problem was that the travelling public blamed all disruption on the privatised train companies when most disruption was not actually their fault. Was privatisation an experiment worth trying because the railways were so bad under British Railways? Arguably yes, and rail patronage grew significantly after privatisation.
But it's curious that the public don't seem to get wound up about the privatisation of the water industry in the same way they get wound up about privatisation of the railways. Sure, there’s a lot of concern about the performance of the water companies, and rightly so, but it doesn’t seem to lead to
a public demand for renationalisation in the same way that it did with the railways. At least, that’s my view. And yet water is rather more important to human life than getting into Waterloo on your daily commute on time. I think the psychology and dynamics of this are fascinating.
SSH: Do you think privatisation was an experiment worth doing, and could it have been done differently?
SB: Personally, having worked in the department when it was British Rail and seeing how bad it was, I think it was an experiment worth doing. You can argue that it was a great success because passenger numbers went up after privatisation, and if you believe that privatisation was a driver of that, then you can argue it was successful. Could it have been done differently? Of course. A number of alternative models were put to ministers, and one proposed creating a number of regional companies or consortia. That struck me as quite attractive as it would avoid the creation of one single mega company responsible for the infrastructure – Network Rail – which to my mind has a few drawbacks. It would also have provided a performance comparator.
SSH: Similar to Japan's model?
SB: Yeah. So you would have London and the Southeast as one consortium, for example, which would comprise an infrastructure manager, companies responsible for the maintenance and upgrade of the infrastructure, a financier – an equity company perhaps – and an operator. You would do that region by region.
The obvious challenge to that is this: it's one system, so how do you operate one system if you've got five or six entirely separate companies? My response is that's what the regulator is there for. I don't see why it's beyond the wit of man to create a regulatory regime which requires separate companies to operate to the same safety standards, infrastructure standards and so on.
I think one of the main problems with the privatised structure was that Network Rail is simply too big an organisation. Peter Hendy said not so long ago that it was the second largest employer in the country, and that was before the abolition of NHS England was announced so now it's probably the largest. Everybody knows about the infamous Network Rail permafrost – it's been quite a tricky, difficult organisation to deal with if you're a supplier. I just think it's too big for one executive board to run.
SSH: And the restructuring now with Network Rail being subsumed under Great British Railways – is that the way to go?
SB: Well, GBR is going to be bigger than Network Rail as I see it. What I find fascinating about GBR is that during the Williams rail review, the train operators were quite often saying publicly that they were nervous about creating this big single guiding mind. I recall Keith Williams specifically saying early on in the review process that he was not going to recommend the creation of a single guiding mind. I’ve never really understood what caused him to change his mind.
However, today, everybody seems to buy into GBR, which is fine. I just think GBR is at risk of being a bigger monolith than Network Rail, and if I'm right, that makes me nervous. That said, ministers are saying that GBR won’t be Network Rail Mark Two, and there’s much talk of a culture change as Network Rail morphs into GBR. Laura Shoaf as the chair of Shadow GBR is tasked with driving this culture change. This is all good stuff. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
SSH: What's driving this desire for a much larger single guiding mind?
SB: I think you need to go back to why we had the Williams rail review in the first place. I do not believe the franchising system was broken, as was claimed – it was the way it was managed that was broken, but the concept and principles of rail franchising were not broken. The problem was that No 10 panicked at the disastrous timetable collapse in May 2018 followed in short order by the third collapse of the East Coast Main Line franchise. People in No 10 panicked and concluded that the franchise system was ‘broken’ – hence the decision to have a rail review.
Shortly after the announcement that the Stagecoach/Virgin Trains consortium that had taken over the East Coast franchise was handing back the keys, Martin Griffiths, CEO of Stagecoach at the time, told the Transport Select Committee that the moment they took over the franchise they knew they had overbid because the information in the data room provided by the department was inaccurate and had overstated the revenue base of the current operation. That was not the fault of the bidders nor was it the fault of the franchise system per se.
SSH: If you were in position to address these problems without ending franchising, what would your solution have been?
SB: I would never have let franchise procurement come back into the department when the SRA was abolished. That was a fundamental mistake. I would have recreated OPRAF (Office of Passenger Rail
‘Strong and effective stakeholder engagement programmes are really important especially where you are providing public services.’
Franchising). Civil servants don't make good procurers of contracts – they're not very good at commercial negotiation. That's not what civil servants should be doing – they are policymakers, not procurers of contracts.
OPRAF was awarding rail franchises very successfully – from memory, it did it in six to nine months from start to finish. How long does it take the department today? Eighteen months. Bidders say a typical bid cost £10 million. When I was advising early franchise bidders, their costs were south of one million.
How did we get from OPRAF awarding contracts within six to nine months for less than one million, to the department taking eighteen months and costing each bidder £10 million? It's beyond my comprehension.
SSH: What do you anticipate being the unintended consequences of the new route we're going down now?
SB: Even if the Williams-Shapps plan hadn't happened, a Labour government would have renationalised the train operators anyway. Mind you, the Tories had done a pretty good job of renationalising the railways anyway with Network Rail renationalised in 2013; and with train operators being so heavily micromanaged by DfT officials and bidding against very heavily specified tenders they were effectively nationalised in all but name. It's all very well bringing the remaining private sector train operators back under public sector control, which is perfectly legitimate politically. But is it going to fundamentally change the performance of the railways? My contention is that it won't.
The vast majority of cancellations and train delays that passengers suffer is at the hands of Network Rail – and that's not necessarily Network Rail's fault because ageing infrastructure fails, signal and points failures happen, landslides happen, suicides sadly happen, engineering overruns happen. All of those things will continue to happen. We will still have leaves on the line in the autumn.
The performance of the railways is not going to change because train operators have been brought under public sector control. It may be that management of disruptions is done better because track and train are joined together, but that's not going to stop the disruption and delays in the first place.
Heidi Alexander has said bringing train operators back under public control is not a silver bullet. Damn right it's not. So when in two year’s time most train operators are back under public sector control and rail performance has not noticeably got better –
or indeed could be worse – how do ministers then respond to the question: what was the point of that then?
SSH: Do we need more political courage to describe the situation accurately?
SB: Yes, I think so. Network Rail and ministers need to stand up and say very publicly that we have a very large and ageing infrastructure. While they may believe passenger services should be run by the public sector – that's fine – they need to tell the public that the problems with the railways are ageing infrastructure and money, not ownership.
Trouble is the public want a five-star gold-plated railway on the cheap. They don't want to pay for it. They don't like fare increases, but they want the railways to work every day, all day. It's not going to happen, and it doesn't happen anywhere else.
About ten years ago, the European Commission did a survey of people's attitudes towards their national railways across the EU. They had 19 or 20 criteria – safety, reliability, performance, cost, customer service, information and so on. Guess which railway came out top on 16 out of 19 criteria? Britain.
But we have this mindset – we've allowed it to become part of the national psyche that the railways are broken but that we want the railways to run on time, all the time, and we would really rather not pay for that either.
SSH: Let's talk about HS2. How do we develop institutional mechanisms to deliver long-term infrastructure investment despite short-term political pressures?
SB: I think the structure of Whitehall is wrong. About ten years ago, a paper came out from the Association for Consultancy and Engineering recommending the creation of a Department for Infrastructure with a very senior cabinet minister as Secretary of State. You would put a large chunk of the DfT into the Department for Infrastructure, along with Energy and one or two other departments. That idea seems to me to have a lot of merit. I think that's the fundamental issue – the structure of Whitehall needs to change to create the capability to take forward big infrastructure projects much more efficiently.
And some of these big transport infrastructure projects are vanity projects – political vanity projects. HS2 was initially promoted by Lord Adonis when he was Secretary of State under Gordon Brown,
‘Public affairs is much more about providing advice on how best to engage with all the institutions of government and how best to make your case – whatever that case may be – to decision takers.’
signalling without too much day-to-day disruption. It’s happening today on the East Coast Main Line.
SSH: You've mentioned that Crossrail was a better example, but are you convinced about that?
SB: I'm not convinced. Crossrail was not the preferred project by London Transport from the Central London Rail Study in the mid-1980s. Their preferred project was the Chelsea-Hackney line. How is it that the government decided Crossrail was a better solution when London Transport, the experts, said we need Chelsea-Hackney?
‘I've spoken to companies in the rail supply chain who said if they were given not just predictability but a long-term order book, they could shave 10-15 per cent off their costs.’
and he was going around saying we haven't got a high-speed railway but everybody else has. Well, there's probably a reason for that and we should remind ourselves that about three years before Lord Adonis backed HS2, the same Labour government had commissioned Rod Eddington to undertake a study into how the transport network should be modernised. Guess what? His study recommended that the government should focus on improving existing road and rail networks with small incremental upgrades, and that major new infrastructure such as high speed rail was not needed. Why do governments – of all political persuasions – commission these studies and then promptly ignore their recommendations?
With HS2 it’s now accepted that we put the cart before the horse. We didn't properly scope the project to start with. Ministers wanted a high-speed railway, so how do you build one? You build it straight. Now they're saying it's all about capacity because of capacity problems on the West Coast Main Line. Well, if you'd said that from the outset, you wouldn't have built it straight.
SSH: If HS2 had been fully funded and completed, would it have answered the capacity problem?
SB: Certainly. But if it was genuinely a capacity issue, we wouldn't have gone slap bang through the middle of the Chilterns, we wouldn't have ended up building more tunnels than needed. If it was a capacity issue for the southern end of the West Coast Main Line, would we have ever created all that expectation up in the North about a high-speed railway line?
We started the whole HS2 thing from completely the wrong place. If it was a capacity issue, I would like to think that 25 years on from the West Coast upgrade, we've got technology that enables an existing railway line to be upgraded with more capacity through, for example, digital
Also, the original Crossrail project that was proposed is not what ended up being built. Crossrail was originally meant to be a semi-fast service from Maidenhead to Slough, then under London. It ended up being an all-stopping service from Maidenhead, effectively replicating the old Thames Trains franchise which ended up being wound up.
The business case for Crossrail was shaky, and the Adrian Montague review of the project said as much. And let’s remind ourselves that the original Crossrail Private Bill promoted by London Transport was thrown out by the parliamentary Committee that considered the case for the project. That caused a political uproar because there was huge political support for the project, which is perfectly legitimate, but the case was very shaky.
SSH: How do you see the current dynamic between government and the rail industry?
SB: I suspect it will depend on which part of the industry you talk to, but I would say there is a healthy tension. Clearly the private sector operators aren’t too pleased at being forced out of the industry, the supply chain would like greater certainty over funding and long-term order books and so on. But a healthy tension is no bad thing. You can’t please all the people all the time, and nor should an elected government seek to do so.
SSH: How do you see your role as a public affairs adviser?
SB: There are many aspects to a public affairs brief. At one level it can simply be providing resource to support a client’s engagement with stakeholders – be they parliamentarians, industry groups, trade bodies, local authorities or, in the case of train operators, passenger representatives, rail community groups and so on. That may sound boring but strong and effective stakeholder engagement programmes are really important especially where you are providing public services.
At another level public affairs can involve running major programmes to shape and inform public policy, to promote and secure legislative change – and developing
compelling political and policy arguments to support this. And getting your voice heard in a very crowded market takes time and effort. And we very often engage at a senior level in the companies we advise – at CEO and Board level – providing strategic advice on the direction of government policy, and on the issues that may be coming downstream. Public affairs is often characterised as ‘buying influence’. That’s a major misconception. As in all walks of life having relationships and contacts is important but public affairs is much more about providing advice on how best to engage with all the institutions of government and how best to make your case – whatever that case may be – to decision takers. It’s as much about what you know as it is about who you know. It’s about understanding how government functions, how the legislative process works, what makes for strong and compelling arguments, what the government’s priorities are and where your business agendas fit within that.
SSH: The industry is calling for fiveyear funding certainty and clear procurement pipelines. How crucial is this predictability?
SB: The predictability of a pipeline is absolutely critical for business. I've spoken to companies in the rail supply chain who said if they were given not just predictability but a long-term order book, they could shave 10-15 per cent off their costs.
The problem is it never happens, and there are institutional political reasons why – the Treasury being one, the political cycle being another. Everybody talks about the need for predictability – the benefits to business, costs, ability to innovate, recruit and train are blindingly obvious. But the political environment acts against it, and I can’t see an answer to that impasse because the institutions of government and the political cycle act against it.
Originally trained as an electrical engineer, David has over 25 years of experience within the lighting industry and has previously worked at DW Windsor in a number of key roles. As Rail Business Unit Manager, he helps to provide lighting and control-based solutions within the transportation sector.
Woodcock Business Unit Manager for Rail & Garda at DW Windsor
Sam Sherwood-Hale spoke to David Woodcock about DW Windsor's rail lighting solutions, the challenges of innovation in a risk-averse industry, and the company's trials with passenger guidance systems and energy-efficient technologies
SSH: David, could you tell us what your role is within DW Windsor?
DW: I’m the Business Unit Manager for Rail & Garda, overseeing a combined unit that covers both the rail sector and our Garda handrail lighting system. The specialist unit was established to deliver integrated lighting and controls solutions tailored to the needs of the industry. We work closely with a wide range of organisations, from station operators and consulting engineers to Tier 1 contractors and subcontractors, providing support throughout the specification process, from initial concept through to delivery.
My primary focus is guiding the team and providing technical and commercial insight to support product development, ensuring that what we create genuinely meets the needs of the sector.
SSH: During your time working on product development, was that always in tandem with working with clients and their needs, or have you moved between different roles throughout your career?
DW: Product development for me has always been closely tied to client needs. As a trained electrical engineer with more than 30 years’ experience in the lighting industry, I have a strong technical foundation for understanding both products and how they’re applied.
In the rail sector, we usually start with our standard product range, but there are often unique requirements. That might mean adding a sensor to detect movement or introducing timing devices to reduce light levels. Often, these adaptations are focused on improving safety or addressing operational challenges. When a client presents a challenge, we first see if an existing product can meet it—and if not, we have the expertise to create a variation or even design something completely bespoke.
SSH: Some of the work DW Windsor has done in the rail sector goes beyond simply providing light – using lighting to solve operational challenges like dwell time or station safety. How much of that innovation is driven by your own research versus being led by client requests?
DW: It’s a bit of both. Some ideas come from our understanding of how stations operate, while others are driven directly by client needs. A good example is a first-ofa-kind (FOAK) trial we ran at Chippenham to address dwell time delays. Passengers were blocking the doors, so we used light to guide people where to stand and to direct them towards facilities such as lifts and cycle storage. The results were promising, but just as the findings came through, COVID struck and passenger numbers dropped dramatically, so dwell times became less of a priority.
We also trialled an anti-trespass solution using sensors built into light fittings to detect when someone entered a restricted area. The fittings changed colour to signal an issue and sent an alert to station staff.
DW Windsor has a long history of innovation. Often, clients come to us with problems they’re not sure how to solve, and we work with them to understand the challenge and explore how lighting infrastructure can help. Our Garda® AntiClimb handrail, for example, was developed to improve safety on overpasses. Ultimately, the best solutions come from those experiencing the issues first hand. Our role is to turn those challenges into practical, effective answers.
SSH: You said that lighting is often about safety. Is that something borne out from the beginning in terms of DW Windsor's history, or was that learned as the company developed?
DW: Safety is a key aspect of lighting, particularly in the rail sector. The industry is naturally risk-averse, so it’s always a central consideration—but it’s not our only focus. At DW Windsor, we design efficient products that put light exactly where it’s needed, while also taking into account environmental impact, biodiversity, and the wellbeing of local communities.
Safety has been part of our ethos from the very beginning. Lighting levels and uniformity have always been seen as fundamental to safety, and they continue to guide how we develop products today. Slips and trips, for example, remain a major risk in stations. Signs warning ‘mind the step’ are often missed by passengers in a hurry, but good lighting at changes of level, direction, or height can make a real difference. In trials, we’ve seen that people instinctively follow light in a way that signage alone cannot achieve.
SSH: That trial you mentioned with the light tracking – is that a product that's already being put out for service?
DW: We trialled it at Chippenham Station, where we temporarily added an additional handrail with integrated lighting on the stairways, alongside the standard two. The idea was to help guide passengers more safely and reduce slips and trips on the stairs.
There’s a video of the trial on our website, which shows how the system not only supported better passenger flow but also encouraged people to use the correct
side of the stairway. That made movement quicker and safer, particularly during busy periods. While dwell times were a factor, the main focus was safety: making sure people could move around the station without unnecessary risk.
A university study monitored the results, and while the findings were very encouraging, the system hasn’t yet been rolled out beyond the initial trial.
SSH: Were you involved directly in that university study's methodology?
DW: Yes. In the rail sector, that’s the only way these projects can happen. To secure funding, you need a clear issue to address, backing from a Train Operating Company or Network Rail, and an academic partner to design and oversee the study. Students are also closely involved, helping with the assessments, from monitoring the trial to gathering data and carrying out evaluations, to ensure everything is properly measured and documented.
SSH: Are these relationships you've maintained over a long period, or do they move around?
DW: We’ve worked with two or three universities over the years on different trials, depending on the focus of the project and where the funding comes from. But getting something from trial stage into the marketplace is always difficult.
Passenger movement will always be a challenge in the rail sector, but priorities
shift. Right now, with passenger numbers still recovering and the transition to Great British Railways underway, issues like dwell time just aren’t at the top of operators’ agendas.
SSH: In terms of opportunities with the restructuring of rail ownership and operation, is there a way that DW Windsor can take advantage of this new national focus?
DW: It’s possible that some of these previous trials could be revived, particularly as technology has moved on. Advances in cameras, sensors, and LiDAR are opening up new ways to use lighting infrastructure to improve safety and enhance the passenger experience.
The challenge is funding. With the transition to Great British Railways and CP7 (Control Period 7) now in effect, many operators are hesitant to invest in station improvements they may not keep long-term. On top of that, the innovation process is both lengthy and costly. Even with partial funding, it can take years for a new idea to pass through compliance, which is a prohibitive timeline for SME (Small and Medium Enterprise) companies that need quicker returns.
SSH: What areas are you seeing investment in railways right now?
DW: Energy reduction is a key focus through more efficient LEDs, smarter lighting controls, and solar solutions. We’re also
seeing strong investment through the Access for All programme, which is driving the construction of new bridges and stairways.
The challenge with stations, platforms, and wider infrastructure is that it’s all outdoors, so the lighting is often exposed. Over bridges, in particular, can be difficult. Getting adequate light across stairs and walkways isn’t always possible with traditional columns. That’s why handrail lighting has become such an effective solution. Garda® offers low-glare, lowimpact illumination that provides the coverage needed without compromising safety or comfort.
More broadly, interest in controls and solar continues to grow. Both are driving innovation, helping operators cut energy use and move closer to their carbon reduction targets.
SSH: It sounds like DW Windsor has the capability, has done the R&D, has the technology and case studies, but there's hesitancy from the industry to buy into it. Are you just waiting to apply these solutions?
DW: Not at all. These trials remain valuable, even if they don’t always lead to immediate adoption. They allow us to showcase what we can do, prove the effectiveness of our solutions, and often highlight applications we hadn’t considered at the outset.
Take our Chippenham trial, for example. The focus was on reducing dwell times, using lighting to guide passengers into the right positions on the platform. Although COVID
Lighting solutions to support every passenger
Enhance safety and the passenger experience with inclusive lighting. Innovative lighting solutions designed to support Access for All—creating safer, more welcoming journeys for everyone.
reduced the urgency around dwell time issues, the project still demonstrated how lighting can influence passenger flow and improve safety.
Slips and trips are another area we’ve looked at. While not always the most expensive issues, they can seriously disrupt passengers. Our trials showed how guiding people safely along stairways and platforms can make a real difference. And when the time is right for the industry, we have the expertise and know-how to roll out these solutions at scale.
SSH: So, what areas of rail lighting are attracting the most interest right now?
DW: One of the biggest shifts we’ve seen over the past year is the growing focus on emergency lighting, particularly for platforms and over bridges. Historically, lighting regulations have focused on interiors—the aim was to get people out of a building safely. Once you were outside, that was considered the end of the journey. But that’s changing. There’s now a clearer expectation that emergency lighting should continue across the station environment, not just within the building.
That’s where a product like Garda® comes in. With the ability to integrate batteries alongside power supplies, supplying the handrail system, Garda® can now support emergency lighting strategies without the need for separate infrastructure.
Controls are another area of growing interest. Adaptive lighting systems are already well established in street lighting, and we’re now seeing the rail industry explore those benefits too. Things like improved energy efficiency, reduced operational costs, and enabling lighting to respond to real-time use.
For example, at a rural station where the last train is at 10:30pm, there’s little value in keeping lights at full output all night. Smart controls allow lighting levels to dim during quiet periods and increase again in response to movement or specific events.
SSH: I hear from many people that rail is behind in terms of adopting technology. For DW Windsor, have these solutions already been applied to other sectors?
DW: I wouldn’t say the rail industry is behind, but adoption can be slower. It’s a more fragmented sector, with a rigorous
pathway to approval, and that naturally extends timelines. That said, the technology already exists and has been used extensively in other markets.
Garda® has been around for over a decade, used extensively in both interior and exterior applications – particularly in the public realm. As such, many in the rail industry are already familiar with handrail lighting. The advantage in rail is that handrails are already a requirement – typically with top and bottom rails – so integrating lighting at that point minimises the need for additional equipment and helps reduce visual clutter.
Controls are another example. Adaptive lighting is increasingly used for pedestrian walkways, cycle routes, and public realm schemes, allowing lighting levels to adjust depending on usage patterns. With Bluetooth and CMS integration, those systems can be updated in real time. A good example is the City of London during the COVID lockdowns: they were able to reduce lighting levels across the network in response to reduced footfall, then gradually return to normal settings as activity picked back up.
Continued in next month’s issue...
Huw Kane is Service Group Manager for Rail at GHD, where he leads the company's rail infrastructure advisory services. He has extensive experience in railway project development and has worked with the Department for Transport's Rail Infrastructure North & West Directorate for eight years.
Sam Sherwood-Hale spoke to Huw Kane about GHD's expanded role supporting the Department for Transport's rail infrastructure investments across Western, Wales and Wessex regions, and how the company's whole-system approach addresses the growing challenges of climate resilience and digital transformation in Britain's ageing railway network
SSH: GHD has just been selected as part of a Costain-led consortium to provide specialist technical and commercial advice to the Department for Transport, specifically supporting their Rail Infrastructure North & West Directorate across Western, Wales and Wessex regions. This is a two-year contract with potential extensions, building on eight years of work you’ve done in the north. Tell me about this project – what does it involve day-to-day, and what does winning this contract mean for GHD?
HK: In Western, the current focus is on major projects at Old Oak Common (interchange with HS2) and Oxford (station upgrade to accommodate East West Rail and other service enhancements). The Spending Review in June 2025 confirmed funding for other schemes, including the reopening of the Portishead Line in Bristol and the construction of new rail stations at Wellington and Cullompton in the Southwest.
In Wales, attention is on significant projects in Cardiff, including improvements to Central station (led by Transport for Wales) and Cardiff Crossrail. There will also be an upgrade to the Core Valley Lines and enhanced connectivity across Wales, improving links such as the Borderlands Line through Wrexham and connections between Cardiff and Bristol.
This contract enables us to contribute our technical and commercial capability to the department’s goals of strengthening the UK economy by improving transport networks,
enhancing connectivity, and supporting reliable, affordable, and lower-carbon transport options. For GHD, this aligns with our core purpose of delivering lasting community benefit.
GHD and the Costain consortium will provide advice in two main areas:
• Supporting scheme development to meet government objectives and value for money.
• Informing client team decisions under the SRO assurance regime.
This includes guidance on cost, delivery efficiency, and programme evaluation, delivered either through ongoing engagement with the department or via independent review tasks.
SSH: This contract represents a significant expansion of your relationship with DfT’s Rail Infrastructure North & West Directorate, moving from eight years of work in the north to now covering Western, Wales and Wessex regions. Can you tell us how this broader geographical remit changes the scope of challenges you’ll be addressing, and what specific regional characteristics in Wales and the West make this work particularly complex compared to your northern experience?
HK: A key difference is that the TransPennine Route Upgrade is a major programme progressed through an enterprise arrangement with a shared set of stakeholders. In contrast, the investments in
Western, Wales and Wessex are a portfolio of medium-sized projects with varied funding arrangements and timelines. That said, many challenges remain consistent, such as the need for a system-led approach to drive efficient delivery, a clear focus on outputs and benefits, varied interfaces and dependencies, and complex stakeholder engagement.
SSH: What will you be doing on a practical level? The Rail Infrastructure North & West Directorate has a very specific mandate to assess investment proposals and provide technical and commercial advice across these regions. Given your consortium’s role in supporting this directorate, how will you be working with them to evaluate the viability of major infrastructure projects, and what’s your approach to balancing the commercial realities with the technical requirements when advising on these investment cases?
HK: The railway system’s capacity and performance depend on the interplay between infrastructure, rolling stock, personnel, and processes – changes in one element influence the others and the overall outcome. Projects must operate within the wider network’s infrastructure and operational constraints, which affect what can be achieved within project boundaries. Our technical and commercial advice factors in these interdependencies through operational planning to assess requirements, scope, interfaces, constraints, schedules, and costs. This enables decision-makers to
‘The railway system's capacity and performance depend on the interplay between infrastructure, rolling stock, personnel, and processes – changes in one element influence the others and the overall outcome.’
evaluate impacts, balance benefits and costs, align with strategic goals, and make a strong case for effective and affordable public investment.
Our advice on the TransPennine Route Upgrade supported the wider deployment of in-cab digital signalling to increase capacity without additional infrastructure intervention. This resulted in a lowercarbon railway, a reduced asset base, and less maintenance demand. When coupled with the future roll-out of Driver Advisory Systems, the wider deployment of in-cab digital signalling will support better service operation through earlier movement authority updates, improved fuel efficiency, and faster recovery from disruption.
The financial environment places significant pressure on public investment, making it essential to maximise value for money within clear affordability limits. Balancing benefits against available funding remains key.
SSH: Climate resilience appears to be a central focus for the directorate, and your contract specifically mentions assessing climate change impacts on geotechnical behaviour and flooding. With the increasing frequency of extreme weather events affecting rail services, how will your team be helping the directorate develop strategies that ensure longterm infrastructure resilience whilst maintaining operational performance across these diverse geographical areas?
HK: Greater exposure to flooding, high winds, and heat events, combined with an ageing asset base, is affecting railway performance nationwide. Improving climate resilience requires a sustained focus on asset reliability, targeted through the regulatory settlement for operation, maintenance and renewal. However, resilience works are increasingly being integrated into enhancement schemes, whether to address a backlog of renewals affecting asset condition or, as in the South West Rail Resilience Programme, to strengthen the existing railway’s capability to mitigate climatechange impacts.
Our advice supports the transition to a greener railway within net-zero objectives. This includes guidelines on the following:
• Framing enhancement requirements using historic and projected climate data.
• Conducting asset vulnerability assessments against performance and safety thresholds.
• Evaluating scope and cost for whole-life cost analysis.
• Applying scenario-based benefit modelling, passive provision strategies and criticality-based prioritisation.
SSH: GHD has previously highlighted the urgent need for rail reform and the challenges facing the transition to Great British Railways. How does this contract position you to support that transition, and are you helping the directorate prepare for this restructure whilst simultaneously delivering on current infrastructure enhancement projects?
HK: Rail reform is handled separately from this contract, though enhancement schemes share the aim of creating a simpler, more affordable, and sustainable railway, and face many of the same challenges. The current industry structure – shaped by EU interoperability regulations and the separation of track and train after privatisation – has resulted in divided responsibilities and commercial incentives, alongside cultural barriers to integration. This fragmentation makes system-wide improvements, such as digital signalling, more difficult, as they require coordinated efforts across infrastructure, fleets, training, and operations. Our advice draws on both our UK and international railway experience and the knowledge of our people from pre- and post-privatisation contexts. By focusing on desired industry outputs –what the scheme aims to achieve – we can identify barriers to success and possible ways forward. Not all railway challenges are resolved by infrastructure solutions alone.
SSH: Your ‘whole railway, whole system’ approach seems particularly relevant given the directorate’s need to coordinate with Network Rail and multiple train operators across these regions. Can you explain how this methodology helps deliver the kind of integrated solutions the directorate needs, and what specific outcomes you’re hoping to achieve over the two-year contract period that will demonstrate the value of this comprehensive approach?
HK: We advise the department with a focus on achieving strategic objectives and their associated benefits, encouraging proactive problem-solving across the industry. We work with train and freight operators, Network Rail, and other stakeholders to reach these goals.
As an objective partner, we provide impartial guidance to the department and
‘Greater exposure to flooding, high winds, and heat events, combined with an ageing asset base, is affecting railway performance nationwide.’
industry. Over the past eight years, we have built productive relationships based on open communication, recognising industry constraints, duty-holder responsibilities, and contractual commitments. We hope this collaborative approach will help deliver positive outcomes within the Wales and Western portfolio, as outlined in its business cases.
SSH: GHD have shared insights with us before about rail resilience challenges. How will that experience play out specifically on this contract?
HK: Outside this contract, GHD supports Network Rail’s earthworks and geotechnical asset management through our Digital Twin Optimisation work. This integrates the following:
• Photogrammetry and LiDAR for highresolution terrain and slope mapping.
• Geological and geotechnical data, including soil composition, slope geometry, and historical failure records.
• Real-time sensor inputs monitoring moisture, movement, and stress conditions.
• Visualisation platforms that produce accessible, interactive models for engineers and stakeholders.
This integration enables predictive modelling, remote inspections, and proactive maintenance planning. Deployment at Watford Tunnel approaches, as part of Network Rail’s Major Earthworks Management Strategy, delivered the following:
• Fewer site visits through remote monitoring and digital inspections.
• Better decision-making using real-time data for slope stability assessments.
• Improved delivery through enhanced coordination and risk forecasting.
DTO supports the management of more than 190,000 earthworks assets across the UK rail network, many of them more than a century old and increasingly vulnerable to climate-induced failures. In this contract, we can apply these insights to the enhancement portfolio through constructive challenge on requirements and emerging scope at major business-case decision points.
GHD is a leading global professional services company, delivering forwardthinking solutions across transportation, water, energy in critical infrastructure.
With 12,000+ people in 160 offices across five continents, we partner with public and private clients around the globe to create sustainable, resilient communities that is integral to critical infrastructure. Since 1928, we’ve combined deep technical expertise with a commitment to innovation across advisory, digital, engineering, environmental, and construction services.
“
We are excited to collaborate with the Department for Transport and our consortium partners to significantly enhance rail infrastructure across the Western, Wales, and Wessex regions. Our commitment to facilitating the efficient movement of people and goods is unwavering, and we look forward to contributing to improved connectivity and transport solutions in these vital areas.”
� David Hurren, Business Group LeaderTransport Solutions
David Hurren, Business Group LeaderTransport Solutions
E: david.hurren@ghd.com
Jamie Borgeat of Hygiene Pro Clean argues that the rail industry's approach to cleaning is fundamentally flawed, creating a cycle of diminishing returns that can cost some operators millions whilst degrading passenger experience
When Jamie Borgeat talks about train cleaning, he's not discussing mops and buckets. The Managing Director of Coventrybased Hygiene Pro Clean has spent the last few years watching the rail industry struggle with what he sees as a fundamental misunderstanding of asset management.
‘The increase in the quantity of rolling stock, overstretched cleaning contracts, outdated processes and (cleaning) chemicals, together with shorter turnaround windows, have all contributed to a systemic problem’ he explains. ‘Basic maintenance and hygiene that just about keep trains operational but fail to preserve their value or protect their users.’
It's a bold claim, but Borgeat brings 25 years of rail industry experience to back it up. Having worked for Alstom and tierone suppliers before acquiring Hygiene Pro Clean, he's witnessed the industry's evolution from both sides. His company's ultrasonic atomisation technology represents what he believes could be a paradigm shift in how the industry approaches fleet maintenance.
The issue goes deeper than simple cleaning standards. Traditional cleaning methods leave chemical residues that ‘trap dirt, feed bacteria, and accelerate the deterioration of interior materials.’ This creates what Borgeat calls ‘a cycle of effort with diminishing results, where the only solution is expensive refurbishments and associated waste.’
The evidence is visible across the network. ‘Even brand-new rolling stock is beginning to show signs of fatigue under intense service demands’ Borgeat notes. He points to some new trains entering service: ‘Why in God's name have some new trains got carpets? You're putting brand-new rolling stock into an old cleaning regime. That's the point.’
When asked about the broader implications, Borgeat is characteristically
direct: ‘It's the definition of insanity – doing what you did yesterday and expecting something different today.’ Hygiene Pro Clean's journey into rail began during the pandemic, but Borgeat is keen to move beyond that narrative. ‘Our product is perceived as a decontaminant which is no longer needed post-Covid’ he explains. ‘We're a decontamination process that augments cleaning. We're deep cleaners of trains – decontamination and deep cleaning are byproducts of each other.’
The technology represents a fundamental advancement over traditional methods. Ultrasonic atomisation was originally developed from emergency services mobile shower technology, looking at rapid deployment of decontamination products. Working with Salford University, they developed what Borgeat describes as a ‘dry mist’ system that operates very differently from conventional cleaning approaches.
‘What we do is create a controlled mist delivered as a dry mist. The particulate size stays between 10 and 15 microns (human hair is around 100 microns thick), delivered at atmospheric pressure – so it's not an aerosol’ Borgeat explains. ‘We fill the void with the chemical rather than spraying chemical into a void. It's very different from pressurising the void or putting pressurised spray directly onto surfaces.’
This approach delivers crucial advantages. ‘We stay outside gas regulations because we're above 9-10 microns. We get high coverage with low wetting – no high runoff, just a light coating like shower mist. You give a cleaner a hand atomiser and rag, they'll only get chemical on 40-50 per cent of surfaces. We get our product everywhere – underneath seats, down the edges, it goes everywhere.’
The coverage difference is dramatic and proven. ‘You can only sanitise a void if you get the same log reduction in multiple points within a void’ Borgeat notes, referencing validation work with DSTL (Defence Science and Technology Laboratory). ‘Everything's a void – the room we're sat in, a train, whatever. We've got an even application of chemical onto all surfaces or high percentage of surfaces.’
The chemical component itself represents years of military-grade development. Decon Pro Clean is unique because it's mechanical in its action – a two-part product that activates when it hits the surface. ‘When it hits that surface as a two-part product, it actually does its job. It breaks the threat down and starts decontamination’ Borgeat explains.
The process concludes with warm water extraction. ‘Because we only use warm water, the chemical's been active, it's got
surfactant and soap in it, so it becomes a very good cleaner. It's like putting foam on your car at the hand car wash – you've got chemical everywhere, then you just use warm water extraction.’
The result is comprehensive decontamination without residue. ‘We're not leaving residue shampoos, air fresheners, caustics, alkalis, acids, or bleaches which deteriorate interiors. We leave clean, clear, neutralised surfaces.’ The chemical specifications are impressive: ‘It's military grade – and there's no known pathogen immune to it. Anthrax, Ebola – and it's a really good cleaner.’
The dual capability means every application serves multiple purposes. ‘If we go in to do a deep clean, we're going to decontaminate it because we're a very good cleaning product. If you go in to decontaminate, we can also deep clean as well. You get a train that has no chemicals left in it, no residues from what we do, and we've extracted all the physical grime and dirt because we've broken it down.’
The company's credentials were established through emergency services work, but it's their rail projects that demonstrate fleet-wide potential. The standout example is Transport for Wales' Class 175 fleet – 70 Alstom vehicles that formed the backbone of TfW's express services.
‘Angel trains were over the moon with the results’ Borgeat recalls of the handback process. We've got testimonials about the condition the vehicles went back in.’ The economics are compelling: ‘Our cost impact was minimal – I don't think we even reached one to two per cent of the overall handback cost, and we deep cleaned interior and exterior of the whole fleet.’ When pressed on broader cost comparisons, Borgeat is specific: ‘If you were looking at a light refresh on a fleet costing two or three million pounds. There would be substantial savings, both to time and cost, by adopting a new approach.
The operational benefits extend beyond cost. ‘We can do a deep clean, a rejuvenation of the interior on nights. You can break it down over four nights, three nights. We can balance the activity so you'd never lose the train out of service.’
Despite proven results, the real challenge emerges during implementation. ‘As you move through the process and it becomes something practical that could be adopted, there's that word 'change' and they really don't like change. It's seen as a threat.’
Borgeat has witnessed this pattern repeatedly. ‘In Covid, West Midlands trains got us to present to their new Japanese owners when the franchise changed and then went off and tried to do it themselves. They're going to spend more money and use more time doing it their own way than just working with us.’
This tendency reflects what he sees as a deeper cultural issue. ‘We're a bit like the Emperor's new clothes’ he observes. ‘How can someone just come in and change things to that extent? Well, we can, but there's this need to try and look as though they've reinvented what we did.’
The procurement process itself presents significant barriers. Borgeat describes a particularly frustrating experience with one operator: ‘We were nearly there –well within direct award value. But when procurement got involved, they projected it out three years and the pricing became ridiculous.’
The experience highlights a fundamental mismatch: ‘The procurement process doesn't encourage adoption and development. UK PLC does not encourage innovation. That's why everyone goes to America to develop their products.’
Underlying Borgeat's argument is research from the Billion Journey project with Go Ahead Group. ‘After getting a ticket at the right price, the train turning up on time and getting a seat, close fourth place is the environment within which the passenger is travelling’ he explains.
This has profound implications for investment priorities. ‘So by default, you sort out tickets, you buy more trains, Mr. DfT, and we have more seats. The next thing they're going to moan about is the condition of the vehicle. That's a fact.’
The passenger impact extends beyond aesthetics. ‘People take dogs on their trains. They eat on the trains. They spill organic
matter constantly and these trains aren't deep cleaned properly’ Borgeat notes.
Borgeat's central argument is that the industry must reframe train presentation as strategic asset management. ‘Train presentation is as important as the mechanical aspects of the train’ he insists. ‘I'm struggling to see why it's not got the focus it should have. It reduces cost, lengthens the viability of the asset.’
The distinction between mechanical and ‘hotel’ maintenance is crucial. ‘You've got physical maintenance and then there's hotel maintenance of the vehicles, which does add value and protects the asset’ he explains, referencing the industry's continued focus on traditional engineering whilst neglecting passenger environment standards.
When asked about British culture's approach to aesthetics versus functionality, Borgeat is direct: ‘You're absolutely on the money. We're just saying it's cleaning. They want to spend loads of money on Wi-Fi and all the other bits and pieces’ whilst basic cleanliness standards remain unchanged.
The resistance Borgeat encounters reflects broader cultural issues. ‘Innovation is hard in railways’ he observes. ‘The industry is lazy. It's not dynamic.’ However, he notes this isn't unique to rail: ‘It's exactly the same in emergency services. It's exactly the same in the NHS.’
The challenge is compounded by what he sees as a ‘silver bullet’ mentality. ‘We've been
treated like a bit of a silver bullet, which is not right. We're not a silver bullet. We can support, help, improve, augment current cleaning practices.’
Hygiene Pro Clean's experience reflects broader challenges facing small enterprises in established industries. ‘We need development processes that can also harness skills within SMEs’ Borgeat argues.
The company's current contract services in rail – approximately half a million pounds annually – demonstrates both opportunity and limitations. ‘That's from absolutely nothing’ Borgeat notes. ‘We are a disruptor at the forefront of train presentation challenges, but we need to be recognised and supported.’
The scale mismatch creates particular challenges. During Covid, ‘the Abellio group said, 'we're happy to sign up with you, Jamie, but you've got to cover every depot and every fleet from ScotRail down to the southwest.' Well, impossible.’
Looking towards Great British Railways, Borgeat sees opportunity for systematic change. ‘If they're going to take on rolling stock, they're going to take on the UK railways, I struggle to understand why they don't want to look after the asset properly.’
His vision extends beyond cleaning to broader asset protection. ‘They should be looking at innovative programmes to help that happen, which is what we are. Hygiene is a safety issue when you have another Covid.’
Despite frustrations, Borgeat remains optimistic. ‘I think we've peddled really hard. We've done a lot of good stuff, want to continue to do it, and we will. But let's get it on the agenda.’
His long-term vision focuses on system supply. ‘Long term, it's selling the systems, training and supporting us as a brand within train presentation. Have that Calgon type system that people use on their trains.’
The company continues working with sympathetic operators whilst building the case for broader adoption. ‘We've got to applaud those who, despite the environment, are placing work with us and encouraging innovation. They're up against the same challenges.’ Borgeat's experience illuminates challenges extending beyond a single company. ‘It's not all about HPC. It's about how the industry engages with SMEs
Coventry-based Hygiene Pro Clean (HPC) supports UK rail operators, ROSCOs, TOCs and FOCs, with deep cleaning and decontamination services that enhance train presentation, protect assets, and reinvigorate fleets.
Innovative HPC system delivers a turnkey solution using a patented, chlorine-free, non-corrosive chemical that is effective inside and out.
HPC’s One-Process is a byproduct of cleaning and consistently delivers the highest standards of cleanliness, rejuvenating fleets and extending deep clean schedules, advantageous when asset availability is limited. Fast and effective, the HPC method has been validated by DSTL Porton Down HPC system can be easily integrated into current practices
Whether you need a full-service partner or technology provider, we deliver performance and safety that passengers and operators notice.
Hygiene Pro Clean Limited
T: 0800 024 8090
E: sales@hygieneproclean.com
generally’ he emphasises. ‘Maybe for all innovation, it just goes in the too difficult box too quickly.’
As the industry moves towards Great British Railways, the opportunity exists to embed innovation into strategic planning from the outset. Borgeat's vision of treating train presentation as strategic asset management could deliver significant benefits across passenger experience, asset protection, and operational efficiency.
The question remains whether an industry historically resistant to change can embrace the fundamental shift that technologies like Hygiene Pro Clean represent. As Borgeat puts it: ‘We need to be recognised and supported. We're at the forefront of some of the challenges in train presentation, but we need the industry to recognise how hard it is to navigate our way through to a solid yes or a solid no.’
With new rolling stock already showing premature deterioration and passenger expectations rising, the industry's approach to train presentation may well determine the success of rail's post-pandemic recovery. Borgeat's argument for treating cleanliness as strategic asset management deserves serious consideration as the sector charts its course towards public ownership and operational reform.
www.hygieneproclean.com
Michael Rustell is the founder of Inframatic, a company developing AI systems to unlock value from unstructured data in infrastructure projects. He holds a doctorate in design automation and previously worked as a maritime engineer at AECOM, where he led data science initiatives. Rustell spent six years in academia at Brunel University while building Inframatic's core technology, recently leaving to focus full-time on the startup as client demand grew.
Sam Sherwood-Hale spoke to Michael Rustell about transforming infrastructure engineering through AI, the challenge of making unstructured data searchable, and why the next two years will separate the industry leaders from the laggards
SSH: You've written about AI representing a knowledge revolution—more than just a leap forward in computing. You mentioned that 80 per cent of business data is unstructured and ignored. Could you walk me through how Inframatic transforms this ‘dead data’ into something actually usable?
DW: We're deep in those projects right now. The company is six years old and originally started to build this system, though I ended up doing consulting work early on. For the past two years, I've focused on building the system, and in the past six to seven months, we've been reaching out to clients and kicking off projects.
Most data in business is unstructured –reports, drawings, videos, photos – anything that's not in a table. That was always very difficult for AI to understand historically, and I spent much of my career getting that information into tables, which is painful. Previously, everything had to be in tables for AI to work with it, but now tables are actually quite hard to use, while all this unstructured material that was previously difficult has become incredibly valuable. The value of data has shifted from about 20 per cent being valuable to 80 per cent plus.
The product we build, Matic, takes this unstructured information, breaks it down, and restructures it in a searchable, useful way. For example, with a technical drawing, we can break it down into individual figures – a sleeper system or a section of a station – extract the text, notes, and information about who created it. This becomes searchable, and when it's searchable, it's usable.
That dead data gets transformed from stationary documents into searchable knowledge. Once it's searchable, you can query it by asking how many sleepers are in the system, what track gauges exist across the entire project, or doing assessments of whether a report meets employer requirements. This requires having the employer's requirements structured and retrievable, the document you're reviewing retrievable, and the system understanding how to correlate information to check conformance.
SSH: Much of this speeds up processes humans would do manually. But are there places where humans struggle with questions where the answer exists but is difficult to retrieve?
DW: Very common. You've got a couple of problems. Most information is trapped within data, and knowing which bits contain that information is a complex task split across many people's understanding of the project. That's figuring out where stuff is. Secondly, once you have the information, the answer often isn't in one or two documents, it might be scattered across ten or eleven pieces of information. As humans, we can only hold a certain number of bits
in our head at any time. That becomes very complex, particularly when working on screens, you might have a few documents here, a few there, something on your desk, an email comes in. It's very hard to assemble the narrative from all of that quickly.
Whereas AI, if your information is structured and the system understands how to ask the right questions and get the raw information needed to answer the question and provide that to you as the engineer in a way you can understand, query, and audit. Then you have the ability to do that work with a system that can help and seed that process.
SSH: That's really the dream isn’t it. Everyone having their own assistant. You're a team of one, you can't focus on everything all the time, and working alone you can miss or forget things.
DW: I think that framing is correct. If you consider how complex real projects are, they're difficult with lots of nuance not captured in any model's representation of the world. You have tacit knowledge and judgment in engineering, particularly in how interfaces between different disciplines work – geotechnical and structural, for example. Your model might be very good at those individually, but when combined, it's easy to miss things.
It's easy to check what's incorrect when the system says something, but understanding what's missing from an answer requires high-level human thinking: ‘We encountered this on a project before, why isn't it here?’ or ‘Although guidance says do it like this, the real way is different because that's how it's done in industry, it's just not written down anywhere.’
The idea of having an assistant that can help find information, direct what you want to do, and automate low-value but timeconsuming tasks like searching, rephrasing,
building fairly simple but sometimes sophisticated processes, that's the true value. It's not a replacement tool by any means. It's a system that can help automate low-value but time-consuming tasks.
How ahead of the game were you in terms of being aware of where this
My doctorate was in design automation, something similar to what I do now but more simplistic. It was building a system that used AI to optimise the layout of large port systems, specifically LNG terminals. Through doing that, I realised the power of this type of system would enable me to build something like what I'm doing now. I didn't understand the exact form, but I knew I'd be using structure knowledge representation and AI.
Through my career at HR Wallingford with University of Surrey, then AECOM as a ports marine engineer I started understanding what AI could be if you could automate processes. But the big challenge was everything was unstructured. Building datasets to do anything meaningful was infeasible.
My idea was: if I could build a system that could create its own rules based on high-level planning rules from standards and methodologies in design textbooks, that would be powerful because you don't have to explicitly write rules, rules have already been written by humans into standards.
I've always wanted to do this and was planning for it. When the right kind of AI came out, specifically large language models, I didn't know what that would be, but they offered the ability to turn unstructured information into structure. Once things are structured, you can do all the autonomous writing and building processes based on industry-agreed ways of doing things contained in textbooks or standards.
‘The companies that go through the challenges now will be the ones that in 18-24 months realistically get all the fruits of those labours. Suddenly their two per cent profit margins become three, four or five per cent.’
LLMs unlocked the value of knowledge trapped in unstructured data, and once you have that, you can put it to work in new, interesting ways.
SSH: So for you it was the application possibilities that were most fascinating?
DW: Yeah. There was an architecture I had in mind of what I wanted to build, and there was a missing piece, how do we get knowledge into the system in the first place? That part didn't exist; it was too time consuming. When large language models started gaining prominence and becoming useful, it was very clear that was the technology needed for the application to be realistically doable.
Now LLMs have become so capable that trying to understand what they can actually do is quite a challenge because they've gone far beyond where they were even six months ago.
SSH: With the projects you're working on, how much give and take is there with clients? Are you telling them how to use it, or presenting it as a tool they can adapt?
DW: More the second one, a tailored approach. We've got the solution and we're trying to fit it to the problem, which isn't always the right way, but the end game is a system that can work at the centre of very large infrastructure projects.
Getting there requires going on a journey with client organisations to find their pain points. When you show the technology and how it can understand technical documentation, they're quite forthcoming about challenges. Sometimes you have to tease it out, but they'll say ‘This is something we spend ten hours a week on across ten people. Could you help?’ When the answer's yes, that can be the foundation of a pilot project. Once you get to the end, you have something tangible that solves the problem and shows the art of the possible, this isn't fairy tale, it's something real. Then you think about what you could do expanding this to more problem domains.
SSH: Do you see any emerging patterns between different client requests?
DW: Yeah, definitely. The standards part has resonated everywhere. The ability to understand standards has been the consistent theme. That's interesting because standards are copyrighted, so you have this additional layer where you have to work with organisations that create them, except ones available openly. But there's a lot of nuance and interpretation. It's not easy, particularly as we rely on standards as the de facto correct way to do things or from a legal perspective the backbone over which we build. But being able to understand those, make them searchable and usable, has definitely resonated consistently.
SSH: This issue of AI hallucinations, is that something that comes up often with clients?
DW: 100 per cent, because for large language models, hallucinations are how they convey information. It's not a bug of the system, it's what they do. They're probabilistic models that try to estimate a distribution based on input tokens, what's the next token? They're very sophisticated; research suggests they're planning multiple tokens ahead.
The hallucination aspect is very important, which is why you have to be able to ratify information with raw sources. It's OK to say: ‘Hey, how are you?’ and get ‘I'm great, how are you!’ But if you want a technical answer, you have to have a source that contains that information and be able to check against it. That has to be built into the system so you can have the system selfvalidate on information it's found, then have validation, application, checking, and the ability for humans to see all that and understand it's correct.
If it's just giving you something and saying ‘Here's a reference’ and you can't challenge that, you're still with a system that's not making you smarter. You need it to say ‘This is what I think is correct and here's all the evidence I've used.’ Hallucinations are a feature of LLMs we have to learn to deal with.
SSH: That's interesting, describing that as a feature. It does make sense and instils confidence because you need humans to interpret results. What training do you give people using it to ensure they interpret outputs correctly?
DW: We're working on those parts now with these projects – what outputs need to look like for specific users. Each client has slightly different requirements. Although standards have been a central theme, what are standards being used for? You have differences in how things appear and how users interact.
That's ongoing because you want the system to be as easy to use as possible. Onboarding should be simple, you don't really need training, it just works how
‘It's not a replacement tool by any means. It's a system that can help automate low-value but time-consuming tasks.’
you expect and helps you understand. If your system is complex and not easy to understand, we're trying to make it as userfriendly as possible like an iPhone, you pick it up and it works. You swipe, move things, click. We want it easy and sensible so that of course if it says something you need to back that up because that's what we do in engineering.
SSH: Your progression from AECOM's Data Science Centre of Excellence to founding Inframatic, you've seen both corporate and startup approaches. What assumptions about AI adoption did you have to abandon when you started your own company?
DW: Working in bigger companies was challenging, partly because AI wasn't very mature and trying to prove anything had value was difficult because there wasn't repeatability. You'd build something for a project and that would be it, never see light of day.
My thinking changed because at the big company it was very project-specific, whereas in your own company it's visionspecific: what's the vision, where do you see the industry in three, five or ten years, how can you contribute?
Going from corporate to startup and academia was different in terms of time. In bigger companies it's very much about utilisation rates, you're constantly billing and innovation gets pushed aside because of the payment system, how you book time and bill clients. The margin is very small, whereas in a startup you have fewer overheads but also less income while building.
SSH: What was the light bulb moment that made you make the switch?
DW: I was trying to build an AI-centric role for myself that was fully recognised. I was still working as a maritime engineer, which I love, but I saw I had more to offer the company. Trying to carve a new role over three years and it just not happening for whatever reason. I think the company wasn't ready, the industry wasn't ready.
But the other part was building this system. I saw the time was coming. I had ideas I'd been developing since my doctorate about what I wanted to do, and it was clear
years, as well as working on several maritime expert witness projects as well as building software through Inframatic. I've actually just left academia to focus full-time on the startup. We finally have enough client work to make this sustainable.
As AI's gotten really useful in the past few years, it's been about trying to get ahead—build the thing while others were still sleeping. Now there's more competition. I write about this stuff to help other people, but recognise I'm just a small company trying to do a big thing. It makes you vulnerable against big players, but you've got to change the world somehow.
SSH: One article was about the golden age of AI being all about knowledge. What behavioural changes need to happen for the industry to realise AI's potential?
DW: That's bigger than technological change. Behaviourally, a lot of engineers are towards the end of their career, AI wasn't even a thing, computers weren't a thing for many when they started. You have this entrenched way of doing things built into different processes. Now there are these new tools that claim to be very helpful and world-changing, and on some levels that's right. I think that's the long-term effect, but navigating that is always messy because big system-level changes bring disruption, and disruption is great for some and not for others.
Culturally, everything's getting primed for these changes. It's about ensuring Inframatic provides leadership around that because we've been thinking about this for such a long time. I admit I don't understand the full cultural shift aspect, but I do see the vision for what a connected industry could look like where you have AI and knowledge systems at the centre from a technical perspective, and what that could mean for project delivery.
I've got some ideas around that. I know it's going to be fundamentally different and if done correctly, would be significantly better. But there's a lot of thinking that's just not my expertise. I'm very niche and realise I'm a fairly limited individual when it comes to many things, but what I am good at, I'm very good at.
SSH: The system you're building is for people like you, engineers and the way they think. If it works for you, do you expect it to work for a whole class of professionals?
DW: Yeah, I hope so. My driving force was working at AECOM thinking a lot of processes we do are fairly formulaic. There's thinking and engineering that goes on and that's really interesting, but there's also administrative work that's never much fun. If we could automate some of this stuff that's not particularly fun and is timeconsuming, and have access to knowledge in a way that could help us do our jobs better,
‘LLMs unlocked the value of knowledge trapped in unstructured data, and once you have that, you can put it to work in new, interesting ways.’
you could have a small team of maybe five talented engineers working together on fairly large projects, putting out high-quality work at the rate of a much larger team.
I was thinking that would be really interesting—if I had myself and a few good engineers and a system that could help us, we might be able to compete with bigger companies. That was the dream, what could that look like and what would a system need to do? That thinking has evolved over the years into where it is now.
SSH: There was a government report published this June about behavioural science and AI readiness at the Department of Transport. It found that passionate engineers work unpaid overtime to integrate AI. When you're brought into organisations, what's the difference between companies that succeed with AI and those that burn out their teams?
DW: I was that passionate engineer working unpaid overtime to build algorithms nobody asks for a lot of my career. I can relate.
We're still on that journey, and I think you need champions. Some companies have a champion who hears the idea, loves it, and will fight for you internally, make projects happen, knock down doors, finds money, fight for you because they understand the value. Those companies where you have internal drive, not just me as a startup saying ‘buy my thing’ but a pull relationship because there's shared understanding of the vision, that's when projects start to happen.
If you're pushing constantly and they're struggling to get people involved, you're set up for failure even if your solution is really good. You have to have that desire internally within companies, and you have to demonstrate value as well. It's not just vision to get the ball rolling, you have to turn that into something tangible pretty quickly, otherwise they lose momentum and you need momentum just to get to the start line.
SSH: In the next five years, where do you see Inframatic going?
DW: Five years is a good time horizon. I think this kind of system will be mandated on large infrastructure projects. The government's putting a lot of push towards AI, and if we can demonstrate that AI provides safer outputs and more auditable systems, it will create evidence to support that.
Over the next five years we'd like to be seen as leaders in that space, providing better outcomes for infrastructure, fewer errors, more auditability, faster timelines, better designs. When you start looking at all the metrics you can measure, it will become very clear that this kind of system gives you so many benefits that it would be irresponsible not to use it. We want to drive that towards better outcomes for the entire industry.
SSH: Finally, what would be an ideal client for Inframatic?
DW: Client organisations are the ones we like most. There aren't many of them, but they offer the right mix of problems, they're public-facing, paid for by taxpayers in one way or another, and they usually have very well curated data and assets, or at least lots of data. They often have their own standards which gets around copyright issues. Those are the clients we're really interested in.
But that's only a small number of companies. Others are companies genuinely wanting to lead and willing to take risks building new capabilities, wanting to create AI-first organisations. Really we're not selling a product, we're selling a vision of what your company could look like. It's not a simple app purchase—you need to do significant work within your company. We can help drive that and provide infrastructure, but we need to grow along with clients to understand what this could look like.
Ideal clients are those organisations and companies really wanting to do innovative work, wanting to take their engineering to a different level, realising that's not a onestop solution but an overhaul. The ones prepared for it will get a genuine market advantage quite quickly as they start doing things faster.
Those speed gains aren't coming in the first six to twelve months, but 18 months to two years after you've done pilots, embedded the system, found what doesn't work, failed, succeeded, and done that enough to understand the pathway. The technology will have moved on as well. Then you start seeing very big changes around 18 months from now. But until then there's going to be a lot of ‘AI doesn't work in engineering’ and ‘this is OK but we can't scale it.’
The companies that go through the challenges now will be the ones that in 1824 months realistically get all the fruits of those labours. Suddenly their two per cent profit margins become three, four or five per cent, and that's when there are big systemic changes happening across the industry.
D e v e l o p e d f o r r e g u l a t e d i n d u s t r i e s .
T r a n s p a r e n t , a u d i t a b l e a n d b u i l t f o r a s s u r a n c e .
L e a r n m o r e a t i n f r a m a t i c . a i
Martin is Director of Transport Markets, UK & Ireland for Worldline. He was formerly vice president and Chief of Staff at Cubic Corporation in San Diego. He spent twelve years with Cubic Transportation Systems in business development, public affairs, marketing and operations management with a particular interest in smart cities. Previous roles have included business development at HP Enterprise and military service as an officer in the Royal Marines Commandos.
‘That's a really complex minefield to navigate because who decides what's ethical?’
Sam Sherwood-Hale spoke to Martin Howell, Transport Markets Director at Worldline, about the future of Britain's railways, the urgent need for data sharing across the industry, and how lessons from his military background could help transform passenger experience
SSH: Could you tell us about Worldline's role in the UK rail industry and how your involvement has evolved over those years?
MH: Martin Howell: Worldline is a key supplier of technology products and services that supports the railway across retailing and operations. A large part of our business in the UK comes from rail operations and by that I mean stock and crew scheduling, customer information systems, incident management, making sure that if there's a failed train, you can run your network around it and we provide much of the technology, which enables
that. In retailing, we are an omnichannel provider enabling train operators to retail tickets to their customers online, at station and on-board trains. We are an accredited third-party retailer too, so we sell tickets independently through an app called RedSpottedHanky.
We’re also the provider of a multimodal app that will launch later this year for the West of England Combined Authority bringing together the ability to plan, book and pay for tickets for the trains, buses, taxis, e-bikes and scooters – across in the West of England – to give people the best holistic view of their entire end to end
journey to enable them to see that there is an alternative to single occupancy cars. I think the reason that's important is because I believe that the future of the railway depends on its ability to integrate across other modes and become seen as part of an ecosystem that works for the whole country. The railway has a real dichotomy in that it is run by people who are deeply passionate about it, who are very knowledgeable but who see the railway through railway coloured spectacles. I think we could do much better nationally thinking about the railway as the spine at the centre of an integrated transport ecosystem.
‘It's so easy to forget that rail has a social function as well as an economic function.’
SSH: Do you think that the challenge of making rail better for passengers can be met with the same action as the action of attracting more people who don't use rail to the network?
MH: I think they go hand in hand. For the railway to survive, it has to attract more customers and for more customers to make that choice, two things have to happen. The service has to be reliable. This is where the idea of the Time Promise comes in. We have to be able to deliver people to their destination at the time we said we would whilst also keeping them informed about services that are available and be clear about what ticket options there are.
Perfect example – my daughter and her partner recently moved to Winchester, which is where I live. He's now looking at what ticketing options he's got to go to his job in London and it's not clear. The multiple ticket options and the range of ticket variables that are available to people are a deterrent. Keep them informed. Make trains run on time and thereby you will attract more people to use them.
SSH: In terms of the data that you have access to at Worldline, you mentioned the basics of getting someone or getting the freight to the place on time. Do you have access to data that shows you how often that's not happening?
MH: There is a large amount of data across the industry that belongs to our clients. We welcome the world in which open data is legislated as the norm, but at the moment this data is kept in silos, preventing a holistic view. It is not being used as efficiently as possible because it is only being used for commercial gain for individual operators.
There is a national prize to be gained here, which is that we are able to provide a service based on an understanding of where people are travelling from, where their journey originates, door to door and where they're going to rather than which stations they're travelling between. That's pretty easy to do with electronic tickets. You know where somebody got in the system, where they got off. Wouldn't it be great if we could understand where they were travelling from and to and give them options for the entire journey with the railway at the centre of that?
The timetabling systems that we use are based on snapshots taken every six months of where the demand is, which doesn't really give an accurate picture. I think that accuracy of being able to allocate revenues
exactly to where we needed to would be a benefit for everybody, and would yield rich streams of data that would enable us to plan better services, which in turn will reduce cost because you're not running trains with nobody on them.
SSH: What needs to change for data to be seen as being valuable if it's freely available?
MH: I think that we can get on to the question of renationalisation, but if more and more of the operators are coming under DFT Operator Limited or GBR in due course, then the data will become part of a nationalised system. And so by definition, we would think that we would therefore be able to pull much more data, much more quickly, and there wouldn't be the silos that exist presently.
But I think this hasn't happened for two reasons. One is the government have got too much else on their plate. There's an awful lot of people in the DfT who are running to keep up with the process of change. The second reason is because ministers are political animals who think about what's going to be popular with voters. And across the world, there's been scaremongering about the way data gets abused.
Conversely, you have an entire generation of young people who really don't care about their data being used as long as they're getting something back for it. Making data more accessible and relaxing some of the fear about it would enable us to deliver a better service. But if there is even the slightest whiff of this being done purely for commercial gain, then people are not going to be very happy about it.
It's so easy to forget that rail has a social function as well as an economic function. It is not just a means of moving goods and people from A to B. It's access to education, employment, it prevents loneliness, and it's an engine of economic growth. If there's one benefit that will come from renationalisation, it should be that we start to see the railway not as a cost but as an important part of the fabric of society.
SSH: Worldline processes £11 billion in rail revenue annually across all its clients. What does that scale of operation teach you about the industry's challenges that perhaps individual operators can't see?
MH: Operating at that sort of scale and doing so with absolute accuracy shows that although technically it might seem daunting, it's perfectly doable. There is so much technological innovation available, but we still have parts of the rail industry that operate under pretty arcane legacy systems.
I think what we have learned is that it's unlikely the government is going to be particularly innovative on its own. It can't afford the risk. But small, agile innovators have so much they can contribute to the railway. There's a huge range of potential
partners out there who are willing to be creative, but we all need some clarity about what the industry is going to look like.
The willingness and the ability to come up with some really good innovative solutions is proven – we could deliver these today if there's just a will in the industry and in the DfT and the government to open doors to let us do it.
SSH: So you think it's definitely a case of when, not if?
MH: Yes. I think the signs are that things are moving, they're just moving a bit slowly and in that time, there's an awful lot of marching army costs for suppliers who are wondering how long before we can start to see the extent and size of the pipeline. It's in the interest of everybody to get some clarity about what the direction is, what the time scales are, and when the procurements are likely to happen – national retailing, national operational systems, national customer information systems. We would just love to know that.
SSH: What can the railway learn from how other sectors operate?
MH: Imagine if other merchants tried to run their retailing system the way the railways run theirs. You're not sure of the price and when the goods will arrive. Unfortunately, you bought it at the wrong price at the wrong time of day. So we're not going to let you have the goods until you pay up another £5. They're not going to be in business that long, are they? They have built a massive global business on the principles of – it's simple to buy, you know exactly what you're getting, you're guaranteed the best price and it arrives really quickly.
Look at it this way: you have three trains running on a wet Wednesday afternoon in February, London to Birmingham, with probably 30 people on them. What would be wrong with dropping the price because you can communicate to your local customer base instantly? It's that kind of creativity and thinking of which we need more. One suggestion might be why don't we price per mile? We've got the means to communicate, and we've got the means to flex the system like that. We just don't do it.
SSH: Do you think that there is a world in which all the operators are open about their data and they can look at it and maybe even hand it over to someone that can analyse it properly?
MH: I think with the data and the involvement and ethical standards and the involvement of the private sector, there is so much that could be done to help understand where the demand is, what people need, how to make it simple for them, how to take the railways from being a predominantly middle class mode of transport and make it for everybody. We could do so much more if we take the shackles off the data.
SSH: You've written about this customer first approach. What would you say to critics about the focus on customer experience being a luxury versus basic reliability?
MH: I think they can go hand in hand. The purpose of our Customer First Railway whitepaper was to say that over the years, we have lost sight of the needs of the customer. By the way, we've deliberately said ‘customer first’ rather than ‘passenger first’ because passengers don't have a lot of choice, whereas customers choose whether they want to use your service or another service. Customers have power.
We believe that the customer experience must be at the core of attracting people and that's why I go back to this integrated transport idea. People must understand how easy it could be to use the railway.
If we use AI to help in predictive maintenance and in scheduling maintenance, maybe we would have fewer breakdowns. If we used AI to help us predict where there's going to be signal and points problems, we can speed up processes and make trains more reliable.
We're in the foothills of what AI could do to help us improve customer experience, reliability, and customer information systems. We're starting to use it ourselves in crew and stock rostering, cutting hours out of the processes. There's plenty of scope for technology to improve customer experience hand in hand with reliability.
SSH: Is there a mindset issue at play here? Your military service and time in the US with Cubic – how has that shaped your perspective on what British transport could achieve?
MH: The American rail system has great potential, but because of the distances involved, rail has been totally overtaken by cars and by aviation. There is, for example, no direct service that will take you from downtown San Diego to downtown LA –you stop about 10 miles short. Rail is used for freight a great deal because it's cost effective, but people don't want to travel long distances by rail in the US.
To get to the military point, I served for a few years as a Royal Marines Commando officer straight out of university. There are four elements to what they call the commando ethos: courage, determination, selflessness, and cheerfulness in the face of adversity. If you imagine a workplace where everybody thought like that, it'd be pretty good. It encourages humour, team cohesion, everyone taking responsibility and it has sense of urgency.
As a leader, when you tell a troop of Marines the task we have to carry out, they’re not actually ‘taking orders’ in the way people imagine. They will listen to what the objective is, and then they will work out how we are going to do this together. They understand what needs to be done and they
are already working out how to overcome the likely barriers. It is frighteningly refreshing. I think we need some of that mindset in transport and in the railways.
We as an industry can integrate transport so that people's lives will be better, they will be able to use their cities more efficiently, it will be more cost effective. Every government wants that. The rail industry and supply chain can work together to deliver that improvement in society. We can do that. So why don't you let us?
SSH: You've been active at industry events recently, the Rail Industry Association Rise awards, the AI for rail event at BT Tower, UITP. What insights or standout themes have emerged for you from these events and how they're shaping Worldline's priorities looking ahead to the future?
MH: UITP showed us that the problems and challenges we see in the UK are not unique. We were talking to people from all over Europe and the world about how our rail operation systems work. The two themes that came from our AI and rail event at the BT Tower in May were that we have to be thinking more about what the future railway needs to look like and what society will look like.
Use AI to predict what society is going to need and how society will change – how we will fight climate change, all of those things need to be factored into this because ultimately the transport network will do what society needs it to do. I think we need to consider how rapidly and in what way people will take up AI. In any event, in order to capitalise on innovation and in particular AI as it develops, we need a change in mindset. Let government be clear about its priorities for a modernised railway, and quickly clarify the private sector’s role in a nationalised railway. Learn lessons from adjacent industries, and act decisively – a good example would be to establish a Rail Innovation Taskforce.
On the Rise awards, that just confirmed to me the power of diversity. For the fourth year running, we are a top 50 gender equality employer and we won the EDI award with RIA too. It is madness not to be using all the human resources available to you by not making your workplace as welcoming as possible to everybody. If you can bring them together you will have a total that is greater than the sum of the parts.
SSH: Those initiatives you mentioned like gender equality – how much intention is behind that and how much of that is just the culture of the company that exists anyway?
MH: I think if it's something that you put up on a poster on the wall, it's going to be corporate wallpaper. It comes from the top. It's demonstrated from the top because people will emulate their leaders. I feel it's
demonstrated every day and it's not just talked about, it's not just hot air. We do this every day and it is conscious. In this case the culture is formed from intent.
SSH: For Rail 200, what is Worldline doing to participate in those activities?
MH: Well, we are a big supporter of Rail 200. We are still finalising which of the events we are going to be supporting, across the country. It's an exciting time to look to the future and we want to see that our activity in Rail 200 is about how we attract the next generation and how we make the railway as attractive as possible as a career option. We believe firmly in developing our future talent on which the entire transport network will depend – that was the reason we sponsored the Inspiration Train, showing young people the possibilities of a future career in the rail industry.
SSH: You gave testimony in the House of Lords three years ago calling for legislation mandating open data sharing. What kind of specific legislation or changes would you most want to see to enable that vision?
MH: I preface any answer by saying I am neither a legislative nor a data expert, but the data relating to an individual should be that person's data and they should have the right to be able to say that data should be made available to anybody if they want to for purposes that are going to be ethical and are not going to be used for exploitation. That's a really complex minefield to navigate because who decides what's ethical?
I think if people had more responsibility over their own data and how it is used, we could transform the entire industry. Firstly, not all data is personal – much relate to asset movements and performance. However, if we could shape legislation that would give individuals the rights over their personal data that go beyond GDPR, where everything is ‘you can't do this’ but gives the individual the rights to say: ‘I want my data to be used in a way that's going to bring me benefits.’ I know it won’t be easy, but there must be a way.
SSH: You mentioned earlier that you witnessed the entire cycle of privatisation in your career. What is the most important lesson for the current process we're going through now where we're renationalising that should be learnt from that experience?
MH: Two things I think. Learn the lessons of how to break out of the silos so that data can be shared. I think the other thing is privatisation by very nature of competition means that the franchises were limited to a period. Sometimes seven years, sometimes ten years. We need to look longer term than that, particularly with the advent of AI. We need to start to think about where do we want the railway to be in 15 or 20 years.
At Worldline, we’re bringing a customer-first, sustainable and integrated transport system closer with groundbreaking technology and AI-led products and services.
We’re applying long-term thinking with bravery to create a modernised railway that’s fit for Britain’s future.
And we’re embracing the power of AI through our Integrale suite, giving operators an on-the-day service delivery advantage by:
• streamlining real-time crew and stock management
• detecting problems before they happen
• accelerating service recovery
Find out more in our AI on track: Revolutionising rail services with artificial intelligence whitepaper
Proud supporter of Railway200
Shortlands Station becomes the latest station in South East London to benefit from accessibility upgrades with the installation of three new passenger lifts from Stannah
The project focused on installing new passenger lifts to network specifications, enabling seamless access from the station entrance to each platform, as part of a wider project and ongoing effort to improve accessibility across Network Rail’s stations.
Stannah Lifts worked with South Eastern Railway (SER) – Southeastern and Network Rail Kent route – and civil engineering contractors, BAM Nuttall, to ensure seamless integration of three 16-person passenger lifts to SER specifications, providing step-free access to each platform.
In partnership with the Department for Transport’s ‘Access for All’ scheme (AfA), an investment of over £8 million also funded the construction of a new emergency staircase, a footbridge, new CCTV cameras for improved security and modern lighting to enhance visibility for visitors.
These improvements mark a major milestone in transforming the station into an inclusive environment, benefiting passengers with reduced mobility, wheelchair users, families with pushchairs and anyone requiring step-free access.
Stannah faced several logistical challenges due to the restricted size of the site and limited access, which made material deliveries particularly difficult. At the start of the lift installations, the footbridge had not yet been installed, requiring a crane to directly carry materials onto the narrow platforms.
Ensuring safety and minimising disruptions to rail operations and passengers were top priorities throughout the project. Therefore, this required close coordination with Network Rail and BAM Nuttall to plan minimal rail line blockages, delivery timings and safe access solutions.
Another challenge was maintaining full station functionality and public access.
With the station remaining fully operational during construction, material deliveries by crane had to be carefully scheduled during off-peak hours to protect the safety of commuters.
This resulted in the car park being temporarily closed overnight, minimising disruptions to commuters and allowing safe crane operations to lift materials onto platforms 2 and 3.
Stannah was able to make deliveries for Lift 1 into the main compound, which was more accessible.
The narrow width of the platforms also presented a design challenge. Standard lift sizes would not fit within the space available without breaching the required two-metre clearance on each side. As a result, the lifts had to be custom-designed to meet space constraints.
Stannah Lifts proposed the installation of three 16-person passenger lifts, each featuring a car size of 1,100mm wide by 1,750mm deep to accommodate the narrow platforms.
To improve the flow and efficiency of passenger movement, the lifts were designed with through-car entrances, allowing doors to open on both sides. This solution eases congestion by enabling passengers to enter and exit from opposite ends of the lift car, reducing wait times and improving accessibility during peak periods.
To minimise disruption to station operations, all lift installations were carefully scheduled and carried out at once. This coordinated approach limited the duration of the installation, helping the station to remain accessible throughout the installation process.
Shortlands station now offers greater convenience for wheelchair users, those with limited mobility or people travelling with heavy luggage, bicycles and pushchairs. The energy-efficient hydraulic lift system with the bespoke car sizing helped to address the space constraints on the platforms.
Peter Stapleton, Southeastern Railway’s Head of Facilities said: ‘This project demanded a high level of coordination
between partners due to the narrow platforms, operational site and limited access for deliveries. Through close collaboration, Stannah were able to successfully navigate the logistical hurdles and install passenger lifts within tight and narrow enclosures, enabling stepfree access.’
The new passenger lifts now provide stepfree access from the station’s main entrance to each platform, linked by a new footbridge. Prior to these improvement works, access was unavailable to wheelchair users. One lift, located in the car park, provides direct access to the footbridge, while the other two lifts are positioned on the bridge to serve each platform. This integrated design provides step-free access that now allows passengers to move easily between all areas of the station, supporting more inclusive and efficient travel.
Peter Ford, Project Manager, Major Projects Division of Stannah Lift Services, shared: ‘We’re proud to have enhanced accessibility for commuters at another station, and we continue to work with Network Rail to make more stations accessible for everyone. This project demanded close collaboration with BAM Nuttall and Network Rail to coordinate material deliveries within tight space constraints, manage off-peak working hours and ensure the safety of passengers moving through the station. Thanks to the dedication of the entire team, we’ve successfully delivered another fully step-free station.’
For more information, visit www.stannahlifts.co.uk
Laura Hedley, Head of Consultancy and Talent Services at the OPC, shares insights from recent South Eastern Railway workshops on recognising and tackling complacency to help maintain safety vigilance
Over recent months, OPC psychologists have worked alongside colleagues at South Eastern Railway (formally Network Rail Kent route) to support their regular safety updates and workshops for hundreds of their safetycritical frontline employees. These sessions examined how risk is perceived in day-today work, how it arises, can be anticipated or prevented, and the human behaviours that can influence it.
A recurring theme raised by participants as a key factor in failing to anticipate risks was complacency. This prompted the design of a bespoke workshop to explore this issue in greater depth with frontline teams.
At the Occupational Psychology Centre (OPC), complacency often emerges during Post Incident Assessments (PIAs) undertaken with employees who may have been responsible for, or involved in safety incidents. It can often appear as a precursor to Non-Technical Skills (NTS) gaps such as poor checking or reduced situational awareness. It is a subtle yet very significant behavioural vulnerability that can quietly undermine even robust safety systems and interfere with routine activities.
Laura Hedley, Head of Consultancy and Talent Services, said: ‘Many experienced safety professionals recognise complacency, yet it’s not often discussed or formally recorded as a risk factor. For those with deep operational insight, it may appear as a slow decline in vigilance, increasing overconfidence, or a ‘mental fog’ that blunts risk awareness. Left unchecked, it can quietly erode safety-critical performance and, in some cases, contribute to incidents with serious consequences.’
So, what is complacency?
In psychological terms, complacency is a state of reduced vigilance, overconfidence, or disengagement from risk, often brought on by routine, familiarity, or a false sense of security. It’s not inherently lazy or
reckless behaviour; it can stem from genuine experience, confidence in one’s role, or the belief that ‘nothing has gone wrong before’. But that very familiarity can cause drift: where attention fades, assumptions take root, and early signs of risk may be unnoticed.
Laura added: ‘Complacency can affect capable, experienced people who stop noticing subtle changes around them, and in themselves. Familiarity can mute our natural sense of caution, particularly with routine tasks. At the OPC, we see complacency as a mindset shift, that sometimes happens unconsciously, but is likely to quietly widen the gap between what someone thinks is safe, and what actually is safe. The danger becomes background noise, and because it rarely presents as a technical safety lapse, it can go undetected. That’s why it’s vital to explore its influence in safety-critical environments.’
The complacency workshop
In the follow-up safety session, OPC psychologists delivered a tailored workshop exploring how complacency develops and how it can affect safety performance. Over 150 employees took part in guided group discussions focused on three core questions:
1. What does complacency look like?
2. Why might it arise?
3. How can it be recognised – in ourselves and others?
During the workshop, OPC psychologists also shared practical strategies for identifying and managing complacency to support safer working practices. After the session, the OPC conducted a detailed content analysis of the groups’ feedback to deepen understanding and gather additional frontline team insights of how complacency
‘It’s helped our people strengthen how we manage daily risks, and particularly the subtle nature of complacency. It’s given both employees and leaders practical insight into spotting early warning signs and support to take proactive steps to tackle it, reducing the potential for errors.’
manifests and influences safety behaviour. What follows are some key outputs from the workshop discussions including some of the fresh insights from the content analysis:
Question 1. Recognising complacency
Delegates described a range of subtle indicators, many of which can be easily missed in busy operations. Common signs included operating on autopilot i.e., going ‘through the motions’, or tasks completed with minimal active engagement or thought processing. Skipping steps, failing to doublecheck details, relying on memory or previous experience instead of adhering to safety procedures or rules were key mentions.
Overconfidence in ones’ own ability, a reluctance to challenge unclear instructions, emotional withdrawal, and assuming others colleagues have completed their tasks correctly without verification were also noted.
During the feedback, participants shared experiences like:
• ‘You feel disconnected – like you don’t care anymore or can’t see the point.’
• ‘It’s not that you don’t know how to do the job. You stop thinking about it and might miss steps.’
• ‘You might be distracted by your phone and not pay proper attention.’
Content analysis revealed that complacency isn’t a simple slip in behaviour, but a multidimensional issue involving mental attitude or mindset, emotional, and behavioural contexts. In safety-critical settings, stress and pressure can amplify the problem.
Laura explained: ‘Stress may cloud judgement, narrow focus, and reduce situational awareness, making shortcuts much more likely. It can also intensify
The OPC’s content analysis grouped the feedback into six key themes. The table below shows the themes in ranked order:
The table shows their rank ordered frequency of mentions:
Routine and Familiarity Over 30 per cent Repetition naturally reduces mental load as confidence grows in the process steps. This can lead to an ‘autopilot’ state and dulled risk awareness. E.g., ‘Mundane tasks can make you go into a kind of tunnel vision.’
Fatigue, Stress or Distraction 20 per cent
Emotional strain, personal issues or mental overload can reduce focus and affect decision-making. E.g., ‘Worries at home can crowd your thoughts, and you lose the plot.’
Confidence, Risk and Attitude Nearly 17 per cent
Overconfidence can affect both older employees who may rely too much on their experience, and younger, overly-confident workers may underestimate risks. Both can lead to shortcuts, assumptions and poorer rule adherence. E.g., ‘You can become a little too comfortable, thinking you’ve got it covered!’ Low Motivation or Disengagement 16 per cent
Feeling undervalued or bored impacts focus, attention to detail or level of care in the job. E.g., ‘When there’s little recognition or reward, you can just stop caring.’
Support, Knowledge & Workplace 15 per cent In some organisations the availability of management support, resilient planning, effective leadership and work conditions can all affect concentration. E.g., ‘Balancing home life and shift work is really tiring.’
existing behaviours across other factors, like communication, the quality of work or reduced concentration. This complex interplay is precisely why complacency demands closer focus in safety-critical environments.’
Question 2. Why might we become complacent?
Frontline employees shared reasons that align closely with psychological understanding of behaviour in repetitive,
high-pressure, safety-critical roles. Five key drivers stood out in the content analysis.
OPC psychologists recognise that complacency is rarely just an individual failing. It can reflect wider system pressures, culture, and wellbeing. Without time to reflect or strong leadership, even conscientious staff can sometimes slip into routine thinking and disengagement. Likewise, factors such as safety leadership or an organisation’s job design can also influence complacent behaviours.
Question 3. How can we spot complacency in ourselves or others?
Recognising complacency, especially in experienced teams where routine is the norm, is challenging. Delegates highlighted several warning signs. There were some overlaps in the themes from previous questions:
• Declining Task Quality – nearly 40 per cent of responses mentioned examples like missing steps, errors, or rushing. They shared feedback such as: ‘I sometimes backtrack or miss tasks when I’m not completely focused’ and ‘Some people just don’t care, they’re always late or unprepared.’
• Reduced Focus & Mental Clarity –zoning out, ‘brain fog,’ forgetfulness, and distraction were common mentions (15 per cent) with examples like: ‘I sometimes can’t remember if I did a task’ and ‘I can feel distracted by other worries while on the job.’
• Overconfidence & Mental Attitude – also had 15 per cent of mentions, making it the joint second theme in how we recognise complacency. Feedback included ignoring checks or assuming safe working performance due to personal experience. E.g., ‘I don’t need any extra training; I know what I’m doing’ and ‘I don’t need to do any extra checks I’ve done it all ok, already.’
• Physical Fatigue – physical influences were mentioned (twelve per cent) as tell-tale complacency markers, such as tiredness, hunger, or shift patterns affecting levels of alertness. E.g., ‘Your body feels it before your brain does.’
• External Distractions – ten per cent of mentions included environmental or workplace triggers like work overload, personal issues, and lack of breaks.
• Loss of Drive or Engagement – nine per cent of mentions included signs of boredom, emotional or mental detachment, and a lack of motivation. Feedback like: ‘Sometimes people seem over-relaxed or bored in briefings, lacking drive.’
Many delegates noted that behaviours they observed in others were also familiar on their own lower-performing days. This highlights the importance of self-awareness as a protective tool, especially when supported by the right organisational culture.
OPC’s practical tips to tackle complacency
To help delegates avoid complacency, the OPC recommended some practical strategies centred around four key areas. First, building personal awareness requires asking yourself critical questions such as ‘How focused am I? Am I rushing? Am I checking properly?’ and recognising high-risk moments, which may include certain shifts, repetitive tasks, familiar routes, or tasks you know very well.
‘It’s not inherently lazy or reckless behaviour; it can stem from genuine experience, confidence in one’s role.’
Second, taking deliberate action involves using Risk-Triggered Commentary (RTC) to sharpen focus and situational awareness, as verbalising your actions helps break autopilot and enables you to spot risks more readily. This should be paired with pointing or touching items (if safe to do so) to help re-engage focus, and if possible, briefly stepping away from the vicinity to help break repetitive routines and reset your focus. Additionally, pausing regularly to ask yourself ‘Did I really check that?’ is essential. Third, using aids and prompts means relying on tools such as post-it notes, using formation cards to avoid 'stop short' and door release incidents, and using checklists. It's important to stick to the rules and not rely on confidence, schedule 'pause-andreview' points into tasks, and encourage peers to check your work, even when ‘it feels fine’. Finally, challenging the norm involves not assuming safety because nothing went wrong last time and challenging or questioning ‘it's always been done this way’ since you don't need to accept that approach. Throughout all these strategies, it's crucial to treat checking as a strength, not a weakness.
The OPC believes complacency is a complex multidimensional issue encompassing cognitive, emotional, and behavioural aspects that can quietly erode safety performance. It may start with small lapses such as reduced vigilance, overconfidence, or a false sense of security. When combined with fatigue, stress or pressure, these tendencies can intensify, clouding judgement, narrowing awareness, and making shortcuts more tempting. Left unchecked, complacency can create performance drift, where critical risks are overlooked and safety standards slowly slip.
‘Stress may cloud judgement, narrow focus, and reduce situational awareness, making shortcuts much more likely.’
Laura summed up saying: ‘It’s easy to become complacent without realising it, but it isn’t always down to individual failings. Environmental and organisational factors can play a role too. However, by recognising your own vulnerability for complacency and taking simple, deliberate actions, could be the difference between a close call and a safe outcome.’
Bob Coulson, Infrastructure Director at South Eastern Railway summarised the impact saying: ‘The new complacency workshop has been hugely valuable. It’s helped our people strengthen how we manage daily risks, and particularly the subtle nature of complacency. It’s given both employees and leaders practical insight into spotting early warning signs and support to take proactive steps to tackle it, reducing the potential for errors. The findings also highlighted opportunities for us, as leaders to review job design and operational practices, ensuring we continue to protect our people on the ground and build an even stronger safety culture. Alongside the OPC’s expertise, we’re shaping a safer, more focused railway for the future.’
Want to learn more about how the OPC can support your rail organisations to recognise complacency and prevent NonTechnical Skills gaps? Get in touch with our friendly team.
Tel: 01923 234646
Email: admin@theopc.co.uk
Visit: www.theopc.co.uk
Air horn systems, Wash wipe systems
Pantograph systems
Inter-car hose assemblies
Waste disposal, Full pneumatic pipework systems
Seating framework, Grab rails and luggage racks
Body to bogie pipework, Levelling valve systems
A comprehensive range of quality products and innovative services, delivered to production line side for rolling stock OEMs.
Presented in kit form, tested and ready for immediate installation, reducing logistic, production and inventory costs.
The STAUFF Line process is adopted by global OEMs to successfully achieve cost savings in rolling stock manufacture.
comprehensive
Presented in kit form, tested and ready for immediate installation, reducing logistic, production and inventory costs.
AUFF Line p adopted by global OEMs to successfully achieve cost savings in rolling stock manufacture.
Paul Davison explores how a compassionate approach to safety, grounded in empathy, systems thinking, and trauma awareness, can help the rail sector navigate the complex realities faced by its staff. He also demonstrates how time sensitive support, the prioritising of human wellbeing, not just process, can become the cornerstone of resilience within safety
‘Accidents don’t just ‘happen’, they unfold over time, carrying emotional, psychological and spiritual legacies. Compassion helps us sense this and heal all of it.’
Recognising and understanding the full range of human experience, the physical, emotional, psychological and spiritual, is vital to support safety-critical rail staff and build systems that learn, adapt, and protect.
Just after midnight, Sam, a signaller, handled a near-miss: a train overran a red signal. No one was hurt, but Sam was shaken. It stayed with them as they played out a constant set of ‘what if’ scenarios that prevented them from relaxing and the event impacted their sleep. While their manager was supportive, the investigation that followed felt cold and procedural.
No one asked how they were feeling or coping. And they never raised a concern again. Had someone asked Sam how they were coping, the silence that followed the
incident might have broken, replaced instead by healing, learning, and a stronger culture.
For Sam, the welfare offered felt like a secondary management tick box exercise, which impacted how they felt they were treated and cared for. As a result, Sam gave stock answers to questions and while some learning around the incident took place, healing didn’t.
Situations like these are more common than we care to admit. Our systems often focus on what happened, but not how it happened to the people involved. The Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) has called for more trauma-informed, psychologically safe environments, and the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) has noted, ‘a focus on workforce wellbeing is critical to system resilience.’ This is safety critical, not a soft add-on. How to move from principle to practice?
Well, a shift is required: from complianceled safety to compassion-led safety. This compassionate approach to safety is a mindset that keeps people at the heart of safety. It is a shift from managing cost centres and risks, to leading valued assets who solve open ended challenges.
When
In order to rethink the timeline of harm, a compassionate approach to safety asks:
• Who was affected, and when?
• What latent conditions were already in motion, months or years before?
• How is it impacting people, mentally, emotionally, even spiritually?
By reframing incidents as temporal and layered, they enable:
1. Pre event learning reviews, to identify deviations before they become failures.
2. Post event learning reviews, to uncover the human, emotional, and organisational factors, not just the procedural errors.
3. Post-event welfare and wellbeing support that is enduring.
This isn’t vigilance for its own sake, or a tickbox exercise. It’s care that begins long before a failure and continues long after.
A broader view of human factors asks what is a compassionate approach to safety? A traditional human factors approach looks at how people interact with tools, tasks, regulations and their environment. But a compassionate approach asks a deeper question: What does it feel like to be a human working in a high-risk, highaccountability role every day?
It understands that human performance isn’t just shaped by fatigue or distraction, but by four interwoven dimensions:
• Physical – long shifts, extreme weather, PPE discomfort, and circadian disruption from shift work.
• Emotional – managing conflict, responding to critical incidents, and bearing hidden grief or guilt.
• Psychological – pressure to perform, fear of blame, and hyper-vigilance in dynamic conditions.
• Spiritual – what is meant, is the sense of purpose, belonging, and ethical alignment that guides us especially after a crisis. When these are shaken, people can feel lost or disillusioned.
A compassionate approach to safety integrates these realities into how organisations lead, plan, investigate, and support.
Critics may worry that a compassionate approach dilutes accountability. That it engenders a fear of litigation and will encounter cultural resistance. Our experience is the opposite, compassion enhances responsibility, because it supports people to take ownership safely.
It aligns with safety-II thinking, the principles of trauma-informed care (TIC), and the RSSB’s drive for just and fair cultures.
In practice, it creates:
• Stronger voices and trust among safetycritical staff.
• Earlier surfacing of risks through open reflection, reviewing and sharing.
• Healthier performance under pressure through human factors awareness.
• Fewer adverse events and a faster recovery through a culture of learning and support and care.
It is not about letting standards slip but about both lifting the capacity of people to meet those standards under real-world conditions and co-creating environments where they can thrive and flourish. Where they can sustainably be the best person they can be.
Too often, accidents are seen as momentary: a missed signal, a wrong switch, a misstorqued bolt. But in truth, each of these are but a marker on the overall timeline of the event. Accidents are temporal and they stretch both forwards and backwards into the systems, stories, standards and scars of the organisation.
As James Reason described in the Swiss Cheese Model, various latent conditions lie in wait within an organisation. Waiting to trigger an adverse event, these may include overdue or delayed maintenance, misaligned or unclear procedures, skill fade or under-
‘Safety isn’t just the absence of accidents; it’s the presence of compassion.’
training, and unspoken pressures from targets or resource constraints.
But more often, it's the neglected human factors that matter most: a team too exhausted to speak up, a line manager unsure how to brief or debrief, a line manager too busy to ‘listen up’, a culture that avoids ‘difficult feelings’, and incivility that creates a communication ‘blackhole’.
A compassionate approach to safety is uniquely suited to manage this temporal complexity. It doesn’t just ask what went wrong today, but what was happening last week, last month, or even last year that made this possible.
Additionally, and arguably more importantly, a compassionate approach to safety supports people long after the event. The accident does not end once the investigation is complete and everyone returns to work. Trauma for those with first hand involvement and the vicarious trauma experienced by those surrounding the incident, can last a lifetime. Their recovery and restoration take time and it’s different for everyone. Compassion means staying with people for the whole journey, not just the immediate aftermath.
The people within the rail industry, and not just those roles traditionally thought of as safety critical, carry the emotional and operational weight of the system. They must be risk-aware, resilient, emotionally intelligent, fast-reacting and adaptable. Often all at once!
‘The weight of safety is carried daily by those on the front line. Compassionate systems support them before, during and long after the moment of risk.’
But their wellbeing is not always prioritised. The Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) is a psychological model borrowed from trauma-informed practice. As an optional set of conceptual resources, it suggests we consider how people make sense of risk and responsibility. The framework examines three key areas: what has happened to them in their past (power), how current situations affect them both real and perceived threats (threats), and how they interpret events based on their own life experiences (meaning).
But many systems neglect this burden. How often do we ask how someone is, not just what they did? In its original context the PTMF asks what happened to you instead of asking what’s wrong with you and Compassionate Safety® can offer us this very different way of viewing safety critical personnel.
Reconceptualised, the PTMF can be employed to help understand a situation post incident, it can also help us to consider what is happening in a person’s life and urges us to ask not only ‘Did they break a rule?’ but:
• What have they encountered in their past? Were they emotionally and psychologically supported before, during and after the event? (power).
• Could they safely speak up? Were the rules fair, workable, known and realistic? (threat).
• Why did it make sense for them to do what they did? (meaning).
Effective safety equity grows from compassion. Which is a trust based, and relational system.
Understanding aggression through the lens of PTMF
Amir, a Revenue Protection Officer, approaches a passenger who appears anxious and is sitting alone in a quiet carriage. Upon checking the ticket, Amir finds it’s invalid for the current service. When informed of this, the passenger becomes suddenly aggressive, shouting, ‘You people just want to humiliate and fine people like me!’ He refuses to hand over ID and accuses Amir of targeting him deliberately.
The reconceptualised PTMF considers:
• Power – the passenger views things through the lens of what has happened to them in the past.
• Threat – it could be that Amir is perceived as an authority figure with institutional power. Someone who can impose fines, involve police, and potentially criminalise their actions. There may be connections to perceived humiliation or public exposure which acts as a powerful social threat.
• Meaning – to the passenger, this may not be about an unpaid fare it becomes a symbol of being judged as ‘less than,’ caught out, or policed.
• Response – the aggressive behaviour is not just about the current event but a protective response to a broader history of disempowerment, shame, or fear. The aggression serves as an attempt to regain control or assert self-worth.
Amir may need support not only for their safety but for the emotional toll of the confrontation. A toll that could all too easily result in mental ill-health and a long-term negative impact on wellbeing. A compassionate approach to safety recognises the cost of carrying risk, even when no one gets hurt.
A compassionate approach to safety, isn’t just a new manual or a fixed programme of tick-box training. It’s a mindset and a method that embeds into culture. Here’s how it might look:
• Psychological Safety – train leaders to create space for openness and vulnerability. Normalise reflection and learning, rather than perfection. Instil a learning culture, in which everyone is ‘becoming’ safer.
• Emotional Debriefing – after incidents, big or small, offer structured, safe opportunities to process emotions without judgement. This also extends to those who may be experiencing vicarious trauma.
• Human-Centred Investigations – go beyond procedural compliance. Explore what real work looks like, not just workas-imagined. Invest in understanding the human factor.
• Spiritual Alignment – invite conversations about purpose, growth, and identity at work especially after highimpact events.
• Wellbeing Infrastructure – invest in counselling, coaching, peer support, and protected recovery time after trauma.
Noting that these suggestions are not just after the event, they also require an ongoing pre-emptive investment. An investment to support people to prepare themselves in these aspects and to better avoid, trap and
The
weight of safety is carried daily by those on the front line. Compassionate systems support them before, during and long after the adverse event.
mitigate hazards and risks. Such upfront preventative investments have long lasting returns.
Here are the Five Steps to Compassionate Safety:
1. See the Person Before the Process.
2. Build Psychological Safety into Every Layer of the Organisation.
3. Embed Human Factors in Risk Management.
4. Reframe Incidents as Temporal, Not Just Technical.
5. Invest in Pre-Event and Post-Event Care.
A future-proofed safety culture
Safety is everyone’s responsibility. But without compassion, that message can become hollow or worse, a hidden threat. Compassion enriches accountability. It makes safety personal, ethical, and sustainable.
For us it isn’t new. This has been our approach for over ten years in a range of sectors including rail. It is an award-winning approach that works.
Compassion lifts safety from compliance to a co-created caring culture. It turns systems into living ecosystems that adapt, learn, and are kind.
By recognising accident timelines as layered and lived, and extending long after the traumatic event, and through supporting people in all four dimensions of their experience, organisations build safety that is:
• More human, not less.
• More relational and based in trust, not fear.
• More resilient and capable of safely adapting.
• More sustainable and grounded in meaning.
A compassionate approach to safety invites rail to evolve again. To shift from compliance-managed safety to compassionled safety. To acknowledge that we are not just human beings, but also human doers
‘Culture change doesn’t begin in a manual. It begins in how we treat each other.’
that yearn to become something else. To recognise that people are not simply hazards to be managed or assets to be protected but problem-solving humans that deserve to be actively led, supervised and supported. It is about defining problems to reflect reality not a pre-chosen solution. It requires leaders that are capable of dealing with cognitive dissonance and failure, and that understand how organisations continually ‘become’ safer. People deserve felt and present leadership that listens to understand the daily challenges they face.
In addition to the technical, it is an investment in the non-technical skillsets. Then by investing in the full human experience, body, mind, heart and spirit, organisations create the conditions where safety isn’t just enforced from the outside but upheld from the inside.
Compassion catches people kindly when they fall, and it is the thread that weaves together safety with culture, and leadership to release discretionary performance, that contributes in a sustainable manner to the organisation’s overall performance. It is wholesome, supports mental health and not only invests in wellbeing, but nurtures well beings such that they can thrive and flourish.
And in doing so, we protect not just the journey, but the people who make the journey possible. Compassion isn’t a luxury in safety; it’s the next frontier.
Paul Davison is the CEO and Founder of PPWD, a company that specialises in bringing compassionate safety to safety-critical environments.
Paul moderates the Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors Rail Sector Group.
In November 2024, ExMesh Engineering supplied its latest fencing system, Fastrack Trio, for a security upgrade on the ECN5 rail boundary at Stonehaven in Aberdeen
The project was delivered in collaboration with Scottish Woodlands, Network Rail, as well as lineside neighbours, with the installation conducted over eight days. The Stonehaven site was logistically complex, with restricted access caused by an adjacent third-party fence, making it particularly well suited for the deployment of Fastrack Trio, a system designed to simplify installation, offer easier handling and improve safety in restricted environments.
The challenge
The site presented a number of challenges typical of rail infrastructure upgrades, beginning with restricted access due to the presence of a third-party fence. Additionally, there was a need to enhance perimeter security as part of Network Rail's wider infrastructure improvement strategy.
Perhaps most critically, the project operated within a fixed window with works booked and approved in advance, making on-time delivery essential as delays could result in costly rebooking or restricted future access to the rail site. Although the deadline wasn't particularly tight, coordination had to be carefully managed to align with Network Rail's scheduled site access and to avoid delays.
Scottish Woodlands were directly awarded the work as a Tier 1 fencing contractor for Network Rail, with ExMesh Engineering supplying the Fastrack Trio system. The project followed a structured timeline that began with the award in September 2024, followed by scoping and pricing in October 2024, leading to the installation start date in November 2024, with the work completed over eight days.
Throughout this process, the collaborative effort between Network Rail, Scottish Woodlands, and lineside neighbours helped ensure smooth site access and adherence to the project timeline.
‘Fastrack Trio was ideal for this site. The shorter panels made it easier to get materials into place where access was tight. It also allowed us to clad the access steps showing how adaptable the system can be on complex jobs. The handling benefits made a real difference and we’d use it again on sites with poor access.’
Stuart Bell, Fencing Manager, Scottish Woodlands
The solution – introducing Fastrack Trio Fastrack Trio was developed as a variation of our original Fastrack system, offering the same level of high-security performance as our SR1 and SR2 solutions, both of which are specified for use by Network Rail on a national level. The system delivers key benefits through shorter mesh panels for improved handling in restricted areas, while featuring fewer stringer rails that make materials lighter and easier to transport. Most importantly, it provides enhanced installer safety due to reduced manual handling risks. Although Fastrack Trio does not significantly reduce installation time, its ease of transport and assembly in poor access locations makes it a highly practical choice.
Installation and collaboration
The project was completed on time despite the access challenges, and while no major labour or time savings were recorded during installation, the system proved effective in terms of handling and safety on site. Materials were easier to move to the fence line, representing a key benefit given the poor access conditions, while safety was enhanced due to more manageable panel dimensions.
Installation performance was comparable to standard Fastrack systems, though installers noted the improved ease of material movement as a key advantage on difficult terrain. Beyond the primary fence installation, Fastrack Trio was also used to retrospectively clad the site's access steps, providing a practical demonstration of the system's versatility and adaptability. This bespoke element, completed onsite, highlights how the modular design of Fastrack Trio allows for custom applications beyond standard fencing, offering added value in complex environments. Throughout the project, Network Rail's and Scottish Woodlands' collaborative approach contributed to the successful outcome.
‘This project ran smoothly thanks to the coordination between teams and the practicality of the Fastrack Trio system. It allowed for safer installation in a challenging access environment, and we’re pleased with the result.’
Hayley Simpson, Scheme Project Manager, Works Delivery Off Track, Scotland Route, Network Rail
The project delivered comprehensive success across multiple metrics, with completion achieved within schedule while demonstrating improved material handling and safety on site. The installation proved the system's practical performance in challenging environments, establishing Fastrack Trio as a reliable choice for accesslimited rail sites. Furthermore, the successful retrofitting of access steps showcased the product's adaptability, confirming its value beyond traditional fencing applications.
The Fastrack Trio installation at Stonehaven confirmed the system’s value in accessrestricted rail environments. While installation time remained like standard systems, the ease of material transport and enhanced safety made it a smart choice for the site. Fastrack Trio is recommended for future projects where site access is limited or complex.
ExMesh Engineering is part of The Expanded Metal Company. If you want to learn more about Fastrack Trio or discuss your upcoming rail security requirements, then visit https://exmeshengineering.com/ security-ranges/security-fencing-systems/.
Jonathan Smith is Head of Sales and Marketing at Kilfrost Ltd. He has more than 15 years of experience in global B2B sales, marketing and business development. Passionate about innovation and sustainability, he leads Kilfrost’s growth across the rail, aviation, and heat transfer industries.
Kilfrost manufactures de-icing and heat transfer fluids. Founded in the 1930s as an aviation supplier, the company now serves rail and industrial clients. Based in the UK, Kilfrost produces biodegradable fluids for thermal management and weather protection systems.
‘Our unique strength lies in our rich aviation heritage where failure is not an option. This 'failure is not an option' mentality has driven success and shaped our approach to every aspect of our business.’
What is your USP Unique Selling Point?
Our unique strength lies in our rich aviation heritage where failure is not an option. This ‘failure is not an option’ mentality has driven success and shaped our approach to every aspect of our business. The formidable knowledge gained from the aviation industry has been applied across the board, ensuring the same high standards of reliability and precision in all our products, including those for rail.
In addition, Kilfrost remains as committed to innovation and R&D as our founder, Joseph Halbert, who nearly a century ago developed a ground-breaking de-icing product inspired by the humble snowdrop. This legacy of learning, adapting, and pushing the boundaries of performance continues to define our work today, driving the development of next-generation solutions that meet the evolving demands of our customers.
Want to know more about Kilfrost?
Tel: +44 (0)1434 320 332
Email: info@kilfrost.com Visit: www.kilfrost.com
What is your role within Kilfrost, and how did you get started in the industry?
As Head of Sales and Marketing for Kilfrost, a global leader in de-icing and heat transfer fluids, I lead the charge on our global commercial strategy. My focus is twofold: reinforcing our trusted reputation in the aviation sector and expanding our impact in the rail and heat transfer industries.
With a background in technical sales and marketing across a range of technologies, I’ve always been drawn to industries that have innovation and performance at their core. That’s what makes Kilfrost a perfect fit – a company with a proud heritage of delivering safety-critical solutions, and a forward-looking mindset that continues to push the boundaries of what’s possible.
Tell us about Kilfrost?
Kilfrost has been at the forefront of advanced fluid technologies for over 90 years. From the development of world-first fluids for the de-icing protection of aircraft in the 1930s, to the introduction of radiator anti-freeze used by Antarctic expeditions, and the first-ever use of a bio-derived glycol for an eco-friendly fluid, we are the original pioneers, and we continue to lead the way today.
Originally known for pioneering aviation de-icing/anti-icing fluids, we’ve since applied that extensive expertise to develop highperformance solutions for rail and industrial applications, including heat transfer fluids for process heating and cooling. For example, our rail product range features low-toxicity, environmentally responsible heat transfer fluids designed to ensure safe, efficient operations even in extreme climates.
What’s more, we’re not just a supplier; we’re a trusted partner. Our in-house technical services team works closely with customers, providing bespoke support from product selection to on-site performance evaluation.
What types of products and services do you offer to the rail sector?
Kilfrost offers a comprehensive range of deicing/anti-icing and thermal management fluids specifically designed for the conditions of the rail sector. From trains and tracks to stations, third rails, overhead lines, and even points and switches, we help to ensure that every element of the rail network operates smoothly, even in the harshest of weather conditions.
A standout in our portfolio is Rail Plus, a biodegradable, multi-purpose product designed to keep trains running safely in temperatures as low as -25°C.
Rail Plus is versatile in its application. When applied to pantograph arms, points, and other critical parts, its thickened formula offers extended protection from frost and freezing precipitation. The fluid also has a great application for electrified third rails as it prevents ice from forming and resists snow, hail and rain to ensure that there is continued and ‘good’ contact between the third rail. Without this, electrical arching could occur which could lead to a loss of power to the line. In fact, it’s currently in use on Network Rail’s electrified lines in the Southeast of England.
Rail Plus also actively protects the track and other metal infrastructure from corrosion. And as it’s not a lubricant, it won’t remove, interact or affect any lubricants already in use. In addition to our highperformance fluids, our technical services team plays a crucial role in supporting our customers. We offer fluid monitoring, indepth analysis, and lifecycle planning to help operators optimise fluid performance and ensure long-term efficiency and safety.
‘We're particularly excited about the convergence of smart fluids and IoT monitoring. These fluids don't just perform; they can communicate their condition in real time.’
and performance standards. We understand the vital role rail plays in sustainable transportation, and we’re committed to providing solutions that align with those values.
Beyond product development, our technical services support customers in optimising system performance, reducing waste, and extending the life cycle of our fluids.
How do you work with clients when they come to you with a problem?
We pride ourselves on close collaboration. For example, when a rail operator comes to us with a thermal or operational challenge, our in-house technical services team is engaged with them from day one. We begin by assessing the system in detail, proposing the most suitable solutions, and often conducting on-site analysis or fluid sampling to ensure accuracy. This consultative, science-driven approach allows us to deliver effective solutions that are tailored to the specific, real-world needs of the operator –ensuring optimal performance every time.
What has the market response to your rail products been so far?
What are your plans to ensure Kilfrost remains a key player in the rail sector?
Kilfrost has been a key player in the rail sector for decades, and our success has always been rooted in continuous improvement and innovation. However, we never rest on our laurels, and that commitment to progress is stronger than ever. We’re actively investing in R&D to stay ahead of evolving regulatory, environmental, and performance demands.
Additionally, we’re expanding our technical service capabilities to ensure seamless support for operators throughout product transitions and maintenance cycles. Our long-term vision is clear: to set the gold standard for thermal safety and efficiency in rail, driving performance and reliability across the industry.
What is the most exciting technology in your industry today?
How have your products developed over the years?
Since our origins in aviation, Kilfrost has evolved considerably, adapting to meet the needs of diverse industries. Our products have advanced with a clear focus on both high performance and sustainability. Our latest rail fluids, for example, are bio-derived and meet the most stringent environmental standards, all while maintaining the technical excellence our customers have come to rely on.
The development of our products is driven by ongoing feedback from our technical services team, ensuring that our R&D stays ahead of emerging challenges. This continuous loop of innovation and realworld insights allows us to deliver solutions that not only perform but also align with evolving industry demands.
What are your views on sustainability and how does that influence your products?
Sustainability is at the heart of everything we do at Kilfrost. We are especially proud to have been the first to manufacture de-icing/ anti-icing fluids sourced from sustainable, non-crude oil materials, as well as the first to offer a non-toxic, highly efficient heat transfer fluid.
All to say, Kilfrost has always been at the forefront of technology, and we honour our commitment to the environment by investing in research and bringing new ecofriendly products to market.
Our R&D team is constantly developing fluids that are biodegradable, non-toxic, and derived from renewable sources, ensuring that our products meet both environmental
The market response to our rail products has been incredibly positive. Operators appreciate our transparency, technical support, and the reliability of our products particularly their exceptional performance in harsh conditions. In an industry where downtime is costly and safety is nonnegotiable, Kilfrost solutions consistently deliver measurable value.
Beyond product performance, customers appreciate our technical services. Our technical team plays a crucial role in helping clients navigate transitions smoothly, minimising disruption during system changeovers. This combination of reliable products and comprehensive support has solidified our position as a trusted partner in the rail sector.
How does Kilfrost collaborate with the supply chain?
At Kilfrost, we take a partnership-driven approach to supply chain collaboration. We work closely with OEMs, maintenance providers, and system designers to ensure seamless compatibility, ease of use, and optimal performance.
We recognise that for many industries, such as rail, our products are often timecritical, especially when extreme weather conditions demand immediate action. Our extensive experience in aviation and rail, where stringent approval processes are the norm, means we’re well-versed in delivering reliable solutions under pressure. To support this, we've built a comprehensive global logistics network, ensuring everything from raw material supply to final delivery is aligned for timely and efficient service.
We’re particularly excited about the convergence of smart fluids and IoT monitoring. These fluids don’t just perform; they can communicate their condition in real time. When paired with machine learning this technology has the potential to revolutionise preventative maintenance and boost operational reliability, particularly in the rail sector. By continuously monitoring fluid health and system performance, you can predict issues before they arise, reducing downtime and improving efficiency across the board.
What are your views on collaborative working?
Collaboration is key to success. Whether we’re working alongside rail operators, OEMs or academic institutions, our ambition is always to leverage collective expertise to drive superior outcomes. Our in-house technical team plays a crucial role in these partnerships, offering valuable data, indepth analysis, and hands-on support. By combining diverse perspectives and skill sets, we can deliver innovative, reliable solutions that meet the unique needs of our clients.
How can the rail industry better collaborate with academic institutions to drive innovation and research?
The rail industry stands to benefit significantly from stronger collaboration with academic institutions. By combining industry expertise with academic rigor, we can accelerate the pace of innovation and address the evolving challenges and needs of the industry.
At Kilfrost, we actively engage with universities and research institutions to trial new materials and validate fluid performance under extreme conditions. These collaborations not only help us stay at the cutting edge of fluid science but also to recruit top-tier technical talent.
9 UK galvanizing sites offering collection and delivery
Low maintenance, long-lasting corrosion protection
Work galvanized to BS EN ISO 1461 standards
Transport fleet available
From the tracks to their surrounding infrastructure, galvanizing protects the railway industry’s steel with a low-maintenance, long-lasting coating that’s been proven over centuries.
SALES@JOSEPHASH.CO.UK www.josephash.co.uk
JAMES SAXELBY
COMMERCIAL MANAGER AT JOSEPH ASH GALVANIZING
James Saxelby is a seasoned professional with over six years of experience in the steel industry. He specialises in galvanising, driven by a passion for durability and innovation. Committed to quality and service, he is consistently delivering solutions that enhance performance and extend the life of steel products.
How did you get started in the industry?
After transitioning from medical sales, I embarked on a new path in the steel industry with a company in Sheffield specialising in mild steel. This served as an ideal entry point, where I built a strong foundation by learning about the various grades of steel and their practical applications. I then moved into aerospace steel sales, gaining deeper technical insight and industry knowledge. When the aerospace sector was significantly impacted by Covid, I moved into the galvanising industry and joined Joseph Ash. This role has enabled me to continue expanding my skill set while remaining rooted in the steel industry.
How did you start at Joseph Ash Galvanizing?
I joined Joseph Ash in 2021 as Sales Executive at our Chesterfield site. In 2023, I was promoted to Commercial Manager – a role I continue to hold – where I oversee strategic sales operations and drive commercial growth. At the start of this year, I also took on responsibility for our Transport department, a challenge I’ve fully embraced and one that has further broadened my operational expertise.
Tell us about your career before you joined Joseph Ash Galvanizing?
I began my career in Marketing at a global medical company, where I specialised in creating advertising materials and sales literature to support the commercial team. This creative and strategic role laid the foundation for my transition into medical sales, where I took on responsibility for selling diabetes equipment and outpatient products, acting as both a sales representative and a support resource for the wider team.
Building on this experience, I later made a move into the steel industry, where I’ve continued to develop my commercial expertise and thrive in a fast-paced sales environment.
What success have you experienced in the last twelve months and how do you measure success?
The aftermath of Covid presented significant challenges, and the shift in government further impacted the volume and momentum of infrastructure projects across the UK. However, we’re beginning to witness a positive upturn in activity, and there’s growing optimism that this trend will continue moving forward.
What does sustainability mean to you?
For me, innovation in galvanising is rooted in adopting energy-efficient processes and prioritising recycling throughout the
production cycle. These practices not only reduce our environmental footprint but also align with broader sustainability goals. Galvanising itself offers long-term benefits – from enhanced durability and corrosion protection, to lower lifecycle costs – making it a smart, environmentally responsible choice for structural steel protection.
Galvanised steel also supports and contributes to the principles of a circular economy. The corrosion protection provided from galvanising steel significantly extends its lifespan, reducing resources used to remake and replace or repair and maintain the component. Additionally, the steel is robust and maintains its coating so can be readily dismantled and reused. At the end of the coating’s lifespan, the steel can be re-galvanised, reducing the resources required for production of new steel. Finally, galvanised steel is fully recyclable –the steel and zinc can be fully recycled together without loss of properties.
How has technology developed since you started in the industry?
While the core galvanising process has remained largely unchanged, advancements in passivation science and acid level monitoring continue to evolve year after year. At Joseph Ash, we’re dedicated to harnessing technology wherever possible to drive progress and ensure the highest standards in our operations.
When did the company start trading?
Joseph Ash founded the company in 1857, originally trading as Joseph Ash & Son. The company grew in tandem with the UK railway industry and became the premium supplier to the Great Western Railway Company, which extensively used Joseph Ash for many of its track-side requirements. Fast forward to 2025, and Joseph Ash Galvanizing has been trusted to protect the UK’s steel against corrosion for over 165 years, providing a broad range of services including hot dip galvanising, powder coating, shot blasting and spin galvanising. The acquisitions of Medway Galvanising in 2013, Premier Galvanising in 2015 and Widnes Galvanising in 2022 have all helped to create a network of nine strategically located sites across the UK – in Bilston, Bridgend, Chesterfield, Corby, Hull, Medway, Telford, Walsall and Widnes. We are home to the widest and deepest galvanising baths in the UK at Telford and Bilston respectively, and Joseph Ash Chesterfield has one of the longest baths in the UK at over 16 metres in length.
We work across a wide range of sectors as the applications that benefit from galvanising are vast. As such, we have developed our market expertise across many sectors, particularly construction,
agriculture, transport, nuclear, and telecommunications. We’re involved throughout the supply chain, from working with architects specifying materials through to sub-contractors and self-employed fabricators, and we can assist with technical knowledge and guidance at all stages.
We’re proud to offer a comprehensive range of steel finishing services across our nine UK sites to suit a wide range of requirements. Despite our name, we offer more than galvanising; we also offer spin galvanising, shot blasting, and powder coating across our nine UK sites. Spin galvanising is available at Joseph Ash Telford, and Joseph Ash Medway offers a one-stop-shop facility of shot blasting, galvanising, and powder coating – all in one location.
Our Bilston and Telford sites are home to the deepest and widest galvanising baths in the UK respectively, catering to a wide range of structural needs. In addition, our Chesterfield site boasts one of the longest galvanising bath in the UK, ideal for large steel fabrications.
Having sites across the UK means we’re never too far away to assist with your project – from Widnes and Hull in the north, to Medway in the south, and Bridgend in Wales.
At every location, we have a dedicated customer service team to ensure our customers get the best service possible and answer any questions they may have. We aim to make the process as simple as possible, offering collection and delivery to and from the steel’s end destination with timely turnaround times.
Founded in 1857, Joseph Ash has protected Britain's steel for over 165 years. What began as a railway supplier has grown into the UK's leading galvanising specialist, operating nine sites from Hull to Medway.
Want to know more about Joseph Ash Galvanizing?
Tel: 01246 854650
Email: sales@josephash.co.uk Visit: www.josephash.co.uk
Gall Zeidler Consultants celebrates 25 years of innovative solutions and engineering excellence, marking a quarter-century dedicated to advancing tunnelling and underground infrastructure.
We leverage our expertise in transportation, infrastructure, water conveyance, energy, and mining to help clients overcome challenges and deliver world-class infrastructure projects sustainably and responsibly. Over decades, we’ve built a diverse portfolio of major projects, many ranking among the most significant worldwide. With a diverse team, we operate globally through nine offices across Europe, North America, Latin America, and Asia.
As rail networks evolve, Passenger Information Systems must deliver more than timetables – they must offer real-time clarity, reliability, and confidence across totems, platforms, onboard and wayfinding screens
For design engineers responsible for specifying and delivering these systems, the challenge is clear: ensure 24/7 visibility and operational resilience, integrate seamlessly with wider rail infrastructure, and futureproof the technology against obsolescence. FORTEC UK meets these demands with ruggedised display assemblies, embedded systems, and advanced optical bonding technologies.
engineering
The information provided to rail passengers is only as effective as the system displaying it. Whether installed on a windswept platform, within a high-speed train cab, or at a digital kiosk in a busy interchange, display systems must:
• Remain legible in direct sunlight or rain.
• Operate in extreme temperatures and under constant vibration.
• Handle power fluctuations and interface with real-time data feeds.
• Meet railway compliance standards and deliver a long product lifecycle.
These aren’t simple requirements. Engineering teams must carefully select every component, manage integration with back-end software, ensure maintainability, and deliver a polished, intuitive user experience – all within tight project timelines.
FORTEC UK partners with rail technology teams to solve these complexities, providing display assemblies that are ready for the real-world challenges of transport environments.
Display solutions designed for rail
At the core of every PIS system is a display – and not just any display. Rail applications demand hardware that delivers high brightness, long service life, and mechanical durability.
The wide range of TFT displays tailored for public transport use on offer includes:
• High brightness (up to 4,500 cd/m²) for readability in full sun.
• Wide operating temperature ranges from -40°C to +85°C.
• IPS and SFT wide viewing angles for visibility from all directions.
• Optical bonding for even further enhancement of visual characteristics improved viewing angles, contrast ratio, colour reproduction and removal of internal reflections associated around air gaps.
• Long-term availability for consistent fleet or network rollouts.
Whether you're deploying compact onboard screens or large concourse signage, the portfolio ensures consistent performance and reduced obsolescence risk.
Poor visibility, fogging, and mechanical failure are common issues when displays aren't properly bonded – especially in highvibration or high-humidity environments.
FORTEC UK’s Vacubond® optical bonding is a dry vacuum process using pure silicone gel, providing:
• Elimination of internal condensation.
• Improved contrast and sunlight readability.
• Enhanced shock and vibration resistance.
• Zero yellowing under UV exposure. Vacubonded displays are engineered for reliability in the field – reducing callouts and lowering long-term maintenance costs. Other optical bonding methods from Fortec UK such as wet lamination and use of alternative gels suiting application and cost budgets.
Passenger information isn't static – it’s realtime, data-driven, and often networked. That means PIS units must be more than displays, they need to process data, support connectivity, and adapt dynamically.
FORTEC UK supplies embedded computing platforms purpose-built for rail:
• Intel® and ARM architectures with fanless cooling.
• EN50155-ready / EN45545 options for onboard integration.
• Wide voltage input (9–36V or 24–110V) for flexibility.
• Support for 5G, LTE, Wi-Fi 6, and GPS as required.
From intelligent totems to onboard diagnostics panels, these systems power smarter, more connected rail environments.
‘The information provided to rail passengers is only as effective as the system displaying it.’
Successful deployment of PIS technology relies on more than just hardware. FORTEC UK supports the entire development cycle, from initial prototyping to longterm support.
FORTEC UK offers:
• Early-stage design support consultation and technical specification guidance at concept stage.
• Seamless integration electrical support, including touchscreen tuning and custom enclosures.
• Custom components – aluminium extrusions, tailored heatsinks (anodised options), and 24/7 IP-rated internal cooling fans.
• Power solutions – standard or customised options with full FORTEC technical advice; rail-approved variants available.
• Performance enhancements shielding, NVIS compatibility, UV protection, and anti-glare treatments.
• European bonding and assembly reducing lead times and carbon footprint.
• Lifecycle management drop-in replacements, ECN updates, and structured EOL notifications for longterm consistency.
This is especially valuable for large-scale rollouts, where maintaining uniformity across multiple sites or fleets is essential.
The solutions are designed for the engineers, project managers, and heads of technology responsible for specifying, sourcing, and integrating PIS. These individuals are tasked with:
• Ensuring long-term system viability and component availability.
• Managing compliance with rail standards (e.g. EN50155, EN45545).
• Mitigating technical risk during integration.
• Selecting suppliers with reliable support, traceability, and documentation.
• Balancing cost, performance, and maintainability across years of service.
FORTEC UK has built its offering around these priorities – not just selling components, but becoming a technical partner trusted to deliver what’s needed, when it’s needed, and to the right spec.
• Smart ticketing kiosks and interactive signage with embedded processors.
Each application has its own technical demands – and FORTEC UK’s experience enables it to tailor the display, bonding, and computing elements accordingly.
As transport authorities and operators focus more on sustainability, supply chain security, and digital transformation, the technology behind PIS must evolve in tandem.
FORTEC UK supports these goals by:
• Manufacturing and assembling within the EU, reducing transport emissions.
Written by Brendan O’ Reilly, Displays and Embedded Solutions Manager
Address: Cambridgeshire, UK
Tel: 01480 411600
Email: info@fortec.uk
Visit: www.fortec.uk
A comprehensive range of health, welfare and financial support for less than 20p a day.
Pre Metro's proposed Dudley Dasher proves Very Light Rail offers a cheaper, more flexible future
Current transport investment appears to be focused exclusively on mega-projects, with delays, budget overruns, or cuts. However, one of the smallest passenger rail services in the UK is proving that a cheaper, fairer, and more flexible future does exist.
The Stourbridge Shuttle, a Very Light Rail service, runs a mere 0.8 miles between
Stourbridge Town and Stourbridge Junction and has, largely in silence, undertaken over 7.5 million passenger journeys, with a reliability of over 99 per cent. It is affordable, low-emission, and fully integrated into the UK national rail network – all at a fraction of the cost of traditional infrastructure.
This isn’t a nostalgic nod to branch lines of old. It’s a vision for how Very Light Rail
(VLR) can be used to deliver real, immediate, and scalable solutions in towns and cities across the UK.
Central to this mission is Pre Metro Operations Ltd (PMOL), the operator of the Shuttle, and the team behind the proposed Dudley Dasher new expansion project. Discussions of transport success are often framed by the size of the investment, often in the billions of pounds for a new
metro line or high-speed rail. However, we should be asking if those transportation interventions are yielding the necessary returns for the communities they aim to serve.
When success is based on just the size of the linear route laid or the capital expense, we fail to consider smaller opportunities that may have a far larger cumulative impact. Pre Metro’s model so far changes this narrative.
The Stourbridge Shuttle was designed to be light, local and reliable: providing high-frequency services, using minimal rolling stock (low emissions), minimal infrastructure solutions, and creating a timetable that was rapid and efficient.
It shows us that the value in rail investment shouldn't only be considered based on the number at the bottom of the delivery budget, but also in terms of costper-passenger, how long it takes to deliver, and what the impact on the community was. And that’s what their new project, the Dudley Dasher, seeks to build upon.
This route would use disused freight alignments from Stourbridge to Dudley via Brierley Hill, connecting communities that do not currently have suitable public transport access. With capital costs on conventional metro extensions reaching £100 million per route kilometre, it is undeniable that the proposed Dudley Dasher for a total of £30 million over more than 5 kilometres is exceptional value.
At its core, the Dudley Dasher aims to address some of the Black Country’s most pressing challenges: transport accessibility, affordability of public transport, and overreliance on car travel. More than 80 per cent of journeys in the region are made by car, with few convenient rail alternatives, resulting in substantial traffic congestion on busy local roads, like the A461.
Community and stakeholder engagement have been integral to the project’s development. Pre Metro has undertaken surveys of over 1,000 residents and 300 local businesses across the Black Country.
The findings were unanimous: people want faster, cleaner, and cheaper alternatives. Local MPs Cat Eccles and Sonia Kumar, and West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker, along with Dudley Council leaders, have all visited Pre Metro to learn about the initiative, and it’s clear to see that support isn’t lacking.
Behind the scenes, Pre Metro is working hard to lay the groundwork for the Dasher. But it is one thing to promote these types of innovations, but it's another to find ways to deliver them. The UK's transport delivery system is still hindered by systemic issues, such as insecure funding arrangements, centralised political control of public transport and a historically fixed infrastructure model which often discourages and deters innovation.
There's no doubt that one of the biggest obstacles is funding. Funding isn't always determined by need but by sophisticated
economic models, which are believed to be good at measuring scheme payback. Some recent additions to the rail network have, however, materially understated passenger levels and thus scheme benefits. Small to medium schemes, such as VLR, which require less capital to invest in but produce more immediate outputs, are often presented in the same bureaucratic process in line with billion-pound projects – this is both time-consuming and unnecessary, delaying delivery and promoting uncertainty around the implementation of reasonable public transport schemes.
Politics is another obstacle. Rail projects often take longer than election cycles, and elections dictate political priorities. This makes it harder for projects to maintain continuity and reduce private or public sector confidence.
The Stourbridge Shuttle worked because it was designed to avoid these problems. It was locally delivered, community-supported and established to serve people and the local community, plus it reduced traditional rail operational costs by 50 per cent.
Another limiting aspect is the UK mainline rail network itself, much of which still exists on Victorian infrastructure. But VLR can work around it. Lightweight vehicles, battery-electric propulsion and modular infrastructure mean VLR can operate in narrow corridors, on former freight alignments or even in mixed traffic routes. VLR's low weight, lower speeds and low emissions mean it can operate alongside existing landscapes without heavy rail's wider corridor and infrastructure paving.
The proposed Dudley service would operate on battery-electric or hybrid VLR vehicles manufactured in the Midlands, with a number of stops providing access to education, health, retail, and work opportunities. At a time when most metro projects are experiencing rising costs and
delays to delivery, the Dasher provides a way forward that is inclusive, cost-effective, and ready to deliver within three years.
VLR is already experimenting with the technology that will shape urban and regional mobility for the next decade. The opportunity from on-platform charging, modular vehicle design, and adaptive route planning may be a step change for light rail and heavy rail alike.
Pre Metro’s Chair, Steve Jasper, said in a recent interview: ‘I’ve always advocated that you can evolve a corridor, and you don’t always have to go from nothing to a huge, costly project. Begin with a cheaper option, and then if demand justifies it, upscale it at a later stage.’
It is not just a philosophy for Pre Metro, but for any operator or authority to consider when looking to deliver fast, clean, and costeffective public transport.
Pre Metro argues that smaller-scale, flexible systems like this can act as the connective tissue in a network, linking major transport corridors and local access points. Most importantly, these transport systems are not prototypes; they are real, they are operational, and they are successful. The Stourbridge Shuttle, for example, carries over half a million passengers each year in a reliable, affordable, and environmentally friendly manner.
The argument for Very Light Rail, and small-scale innovation more generally, is no longer abstract. Pre Metro has established a process for success with the Shuttle, one which the Dudley Dasher will build upon with up-to-date technology. If we are willing to respond now and value flexibility, community needs, and affordability, we can begin to implement the right solutions in the right places.
VLR solutions like the Dasher are not waiting to be invented. It’s waiting to be backed and financed now.
A greener railway needs many solutions, and every technology has a role to play in transforming rail transport for a sustainable future
The railway plays a vital role in supporting the economy and connecting communities across Britain. It is already the most environmentally friendly mode of public transport, accounting for just 1.4 per cent of the total UK transport emissions. To demonstrate this, several experts have identified that rail is the most energy efficient way to travel from London to Glasgow as compared to a petrol fuelled car, or even an electric car.
Nevertheless, Network Rail is now actively incorporating a variety of technologies such as renewables, batteries, electric vehicles and solar carports to meet the changing demand of the sector and UK Power Networks Services is ideally placed to support them and other rail clients from concept to delivery.
Decarbonising traction power requires a mix of technologies tailored to different route types. The electrification of railways is crucial for modern, eco-friendly transport in towns and cities. There is still potential
for improvement and innovation. UK Power Network’s Services work on the Great West Electrification Project (GWEP) introduced solutions like the Rationalised Autotransformer System and polyfibrereinforced concrete, which reduced costs and minimised safety hazards and environmental risks.
While electrification has been the primary method for decarbonisation, Hydrogen and Battery trains have their own role to play. National Rail’s Traction Decarbonisation Strategy identified that Hydrogen and Battery trains could provide an efficient solution specifically in certain scenarios. These solutions have already been demonstrated by some innovative projects.
Throughout 2024, Great Western Railway was trialling a battery-powered train between West Ealing and Greenford in all weather conditions. The aim was to test the viability of fast-charging battery trains, which require around half the upfront investment of traditional electrification, while offering the potential to deliver the cleaner, greener rail services we all aspire to. Discontinuous electrification is a hot topic, with onboard batteries on rolling stock
a potential solution to the electrification of full non-electrified rail routes. UKPN Services has worked with several train operating companies (TOCs) and rolling stock companies (ROSCOs) about how this can be done. Energy experts at UK Power Networks Services understand the challenges of developing charging infrastructure for battery trains, including ensuring adequate grid capacity and strategically placing chargers to align with train schedules. On similar lines, the concept of HydroFLEX was developed. HydroFLEX is a bi-mode train that combines overhead electric power with hydrogen fuel cells, enabling operation on both electrified and non-electrified routes. It retrofits a Class 319 train with a hydrogen powerpack. Hydrogen is increasingly being considered as a fuel to decarbonise transport infrastructure. The Berkshire Local Enterprise Partnership tasked UK Power Networks Services with creating a report on options to support a proposed electric vehicle and hydrogen hub. UKPN’s experience in project management and low-carbon transport hub projects ensured a comprehensive options assessment.
Regenerative braking, renewables and microgrids powering rail operations
By implementing regenerative braking systems in trains, the team can recover kinetic energy during braking and convert it into electricity. This process reduces energy consumption and operational costs, while also lowering carbon emissions and mechanical wear. Overall, it makes train systems more efficient and sustainable.
The company’s experts have collaborated with London Underground to explore inverter technology in traction power substations, enabling the export of regenerative braking energy back into the distribution network. UKPN partnered with Network Rail High Speed and Southeastern to implement regenerative braking for London St. Pancras Highspeed, converting energy from slowing trains into electrical power for other trains or the National Grid.
In May 2025, Network Rail signed a 14year deal with EDF power solutions for 64 GWh of electricity annually, providing about 15 per cent of the power needed for its offices, depots, and stations at a fixed cost. This long-term agreement not only stabilises energy costs but also supports Network Rail’s commitment to sourcing 100 per cent renewable electricity.
UK Power Networks Services understands the challenge of integrating renewables to the critical infrastructure of the country. It has recently taken ownership of 70 solar, wind and hydro energy plants, generating 68.7 MW of electricity for United Utilities Water. It also recognises that microgrid solutions could help integrate renewable sources and batteries into the rail infrastructure.
Working on a concept similar to microgrids, SP Energy Networks’ Flexible Energy Railway Hub demonstrates how local renewables and battery storage can be integrated into station infrastructure, turning rail assets into flexible energy consumers.
The availability of EV charging points at railway stations is an important element of the UK’s broader decarbonisation strategy. Network Rail is expanding EV charging infrastructure through concession agreements, enabling seamless low-carbon travel for passengers. UK Power Networks Services was one of the first in the country to develop a smart electric vehicle charging system, which was used to power UPS’ central London delivery fleet.
As part of the CP6 Design Services Framework, UKPN has successfully delivered strategic EV depot planning and design works for Network Rail’s Southern region, supporting their transition to lowcarbon transport infrastructure. Notably, the company is the only company to have secured a position in the CP6 DSF for Electrification and Plant Distribution Design lot across three regions; North-West and Scotland, North-East, and South-East of England, demonstrating its national capability and trusted expertise in rail electrification.
Solar carports have significant application in a rail environment for integrating renewables while providing sheltered parking. They offer dual benefits, generating clean energy and providing sheltered parking. When paired with EV chargers, solar carports can significantly reduce emissions and improve air quality in urban areas. While the uptake of such installations has been limited, the potential for its application is significant especially if EV chargers are also integrated.
Northumberland County Council commissioned UK Power Networks Services to design and build an integrated clean energy system for Morpeth County Hall. The project features one of the UK’s largest solar carports, an 800 kW solar PV array, a 400 kW battery storage system, and 120 EV charge points for use by the Council’s staff. By enabling similar installations, the railway industry is expected to bring significant air quality benefits, particularly in urban areas.
Comprehensive decarbonisation of the UK’s rail network will deliver substantial environmental and economic benefits. The rail industry already contributes significantly to the UK economy. By integrating new technologies, it can enhance service quality, reduce emissions, create jobs, and deliver cost savings to commuters.
UK Power Networks Services supports the rail industry’s transition to a low-carbon future by delivering traction power systems, renewable integration, and energy resilience solutions. The company works with Network Rail, London Underground, Docklands Light Railway and London St. Pancras Highspeed to deliver traction power and innovative energy solutions.
UKPN can work with you to solve your energy challenges through innovative solutions, delivering resilience, cost efficiency and sustainability.
Joining the Chartered Institution of Railway Operators as a member can unlock the skills, recognition, and connections to drive your career forward
Professional recognition within the industry
Connection to a network of over 13,500 like-minded rail professionals
Access to exclusive events, webinars & CIRO TV
POD – the only CPD tool built for rail operations
Free mentoring from experienced professionals
Member discounts on learning resources & short courses
“As I moved roles, my CIRO membership helped to prove my commitment to professional development. In my operations manager interview, I believe having CIRO accreditation at the Member level certainly gave me an advantage.”
– Jamie Sutherland, Local Operations Manager, Network Rail
If your employer is a CIRO corporate member.
Get in Touch to see if you’re eligable www.ciro.org
membership@railwayoperators.co.uk
Scan the QR code to see if your company is a CIRO corporate member — and start your journey today.
Local manufacturer Elite Precast Concrete has played a crucial role in the restoration of the Severn Valley Railway (SVR) rail line by supplying their versatile Legato concrete blocks to help rebuild essential infrastructure following a landslide earlier this year
The devastating landslip at the end of January brought the historic Severn Valley Railway (SVR) to a standstill, threatening the future of the beloved heritage line and causing significant disruption between Bridgnorth and Hampton Loade stations.
Antony Bartlam, SVR’s structural engineer and project manager, described the event as ‘a complete freak accident’ noting: ‘That embankment and the wing wall have been there for 160-odd years, and nothing had happened to it.’
The repair project, managed by specialist contractors CML, required a robust, rapid and cost-effective solution that could meet the demands of a heritage railway and comply with stringent environmental regulations.
Enter Elite Precast Concrete’s Legato® interlocking blocks – a modular, heavy-duty solution, ideal for large-scale retaining walls embankment repair.
Over 100 Legato® blocks were delivered to site and expertly installed, along with a geotextile material on newly poured footings. Their interlocking design provided immediate stability and strength, forming the backbone of the new embankment structure.
‘Legato® blocks were the perfect choice for this project’ said Stuart Hale, CML’s Contracts Manager. ‘Their size, weight and interlocking capability allowed us to build a solid, permanent wall quickly and efficiently – crucial for getting the railway back on track without compromising on safety or quality.’
The project was not without its challenges. Extensive ecological surveys were required to protect local wildlife, including otters and crayfish, and temporary culverting of the Mor Brook was implemented to allow safe access for heavy machinery. The modular
nature of the Legato® blocks allowed for precise installation even in these sensitive conditions, minimising environmental impact and ensuring compliance with all regulatory requirements.
The choice of Elite Precast Concrete, based locally, underscores a strong commitment to sustainability and regional economic resilience. By sourcing materials from a nearby supplier, the project significantly reduced the carbon footprint associated with longdistance transport, minimised traffic impact, and supported the local economy.
visitors back to a fully reunited Severn Valley Railway.’
‘Using locally produced Legato blocks not only sped up the delivery and construction process but also reinforced our mission to build sustainably’ said a CML spokesperson.
‘It’s a win for the environment and a win for regional businesses.’
Elite’s Legato blocks are renowned for their flexibility and durability. They are designed for rapid deployment and can be reused or reconfigured as needed – aligning well with eco-conscious construction practices.
Following months of restoration work, the Severn Valley Railway celebrated the full reopening of the line with a spectacular visit from the iconic Flying Scotsman. The return of this legendary steam locomotive drew large crowds, turning the event into a momentous occasion for both railway enthusiasts and the wider community.
Jonathan ‘Gus’ Dunster, SVR’s Managing Director, praised the work: ‘It’s so satisfying to see real progress and we’re welcomed
‘The Flying Scotsman is a symbol of resilience and heritage and having it steam along the restored track was the perfect way to honour everyone’s hard work’ said Owen Batham
The collaboration between SVR, CML, and Elite Precast Concrete highlights the power of community-driven infrastructure projects that balance efficiency, heritage preservation, and environmental responsibility.
As trains once again travel safely through the Severn Valley, the project stands as a testament to what can be achieved when local expertise and sustainable values are placed on the right track.
Tel: 01952 588885
Email: sales@eliteprecast.co.uk
Visit: www.eliteprecast.co.uk
Advanced monitoring systems using real-time video analysis and IoT technology are helping railway operators enhance safety and reduce delays for passengers
By delivering real-time data, they empower operators to take immediate action, reducing delays, minimizing accidents, and ensuring a smoother journey for passengers.
transformation to meet the changing expectations of modern passengers. They need not only speed and convenience but also safety and reliable communication throughout their journey.
To hop on the trend, railway operators are starting to invest in advanced technologies to enhance station and onboard experiences. From real-time monitoring of rail tracks to comprehensive information systems, these innovations are shaping a more efficient, safe, and passenger-friendly environment.
Real-time rail track monitoring systems can minimize risks and elevate safety to a new level. The integration of machine vision, AI, and IoT technology can help to realize the monitoring systems. With certified onboard edge AI systems, the data collected from sensors and cameras can be processed and analysed immediately, enabling continuous monitoring of track conditions in real time.
Powered by the efficient Intel® Core™ processor, the tBOX520 delivers the outstanding computing and graphic power necessary for real-time data processing and analysis. This enables continuous monitoring of rail tracks, allowing for immediate detection of anomalies like track deformation or obstructions.
The tBOX520 offers flexible connectivity options, including multiple Ethernet ports, USB interfaces, and serial connections. The A-coded VAM701 can connect with IP cameras for real-time high-quality video transmission, and the X-coded AM706 can connect with routers and other sensors. This modularity allows for seamless integration with various devices used in rail tracks, fulfilling customers’ diverse needs.
Meeting stringent railway industry standards like EN 50155 and EN 45545-2, the tBOX520 ensures safety, reliability, and fire protection. To ensure smooth operation in harsh conditions, it can withstand a wide operating temperature range of -40°C to +70°C meeting EN 50155 OT4 conformity, and supports a wide power input range of 24 to 110 VDC. Additionally, it satisfied the standard of EN 61373 (Category 1 Class B) shock and vibration, ensuring a steady connection in the train.
Address: Peter House, Oxford Street, Manchester, M1 5AN
Tel: 0161120 93680
Email: info@axiomtek.co.uk
Visit: www.axiomtek.co.uk
ComatReleco’s MRS13R overcurrent relay now supports a wide range of railway applications, from traction units to infrastructure monitoring
ComatReleco is one of the world’s leading suppliers of high-quality relays and contactors of all kinds. With one of the broadest product portfolios, including customised solutions, ComatReleco serves customers in the industrial automation and building installation, rail and transportation segments. Its core competencies are industrial relays, timing relays, monitoring relays and contactors. These are installed with the latest semiconductor technologies or also with the traditional electromechanical design.
ComatReleco continuously invests in research and development, thus ensuring a consistently high rate of innovation. Several international patent applications support this fact. The company’s research and development team is headquartered in Switzerland and has access to additional qualified employees in its subsidiaries in Germany and China. With a share of
more than 20 per cent of total research and development costs, ComatReleco outperforms many global players in its segment.
ComatReleco has a group-wide quality management system with real-time access to test and inspection protocols. The relays and contactors are 100 per cent tested at the end of the production line. On arrival of the goods at the central warehouse in Switzerland, another quality test is carried out.
Are you using a ComatReleco product or are you looking for a suitable solution?
ComatReleco’s support centre in Switzerland will be happy to help you find the right relay or contactor for your application. ComatReleco is known for the world’s largest number of customised solutions for industrial, time and monitoring relays and contactors.
Originally developed to protect trains from overcurrent events on the overhead contact line, the MRS13R offers a fast and reliable alternative to conventional fuse-based solutions. Designed for rapid detection and switching, the relay identifies short circuits or overloads and initiates a response within 20 milliseconds. Once the fault is cleared, the switching state resets, minimising downtime and avoiding additional interventions. The MRS13R works in conjunction with a current transformer and circuit-breaker but can also be used in systems with direct load connection, covering applications from lowcurrent to kiloampere levels. Its forcibly guided contacts ensure reliable feedback to control systems, while a diagnostic input allows users to test mechanical switching independently of fault conditions.
The flexibility of the MRS13R has led to its consideration for a broader range of applications across the railway sector. Beyond its initial use case, the device is now being evaluated for both rolling stock and infrastructure installations. Its configurable parameters, reliable feedback based on forcibly guided contacts, and compliance with EN 50155, EN 45545-2 and EN 61373 make it a strong candidate for modern railway monitoring systems.
The MRS13R is currently being commissioned to monitor power
distribution at both portals of a major railway tunnel. By providing early detection of overcurrent events, the relay supports uninterrupted operation and enables rapid mitigation of power failures inside the tunnel system.
Another infrastructure project currently evaluating the MRS13R is a railway station in central Switzerland. The overhead contact line system was divided into multiple segments with each segment now being monitored with the MRS13R relay. This enables quicker identification and isolation
of faults, helping maintenance teams reduce downtime and improve reliability. The system is under field testing and may be rolled out to other stations.
Most recently, the MRS13R is being reviewed for monitoring battery-powered train systems. These new-generation trains require sensitive and fast-acting protection components in their traction networks to maintain safety and minimise damage in case of faults.
These examples highlight the versatility and added value of the MRS13R across a wide variety of railway contexts. Whether in infrastructure or rolling stock applications, the relay provides a reliable protection layer that reduces maintenance efforts, shortens recovery times, and ensures safe operation even under demanding environmental conditions.
Tel: +41 31 838 55 77
Email: info@comatreleco.com
Visit: https://www.comatreleco.com/
It takes time and effort to understand the railway industry and its supply sector, and to win work in it. RIA Training Services offer tailor-
Designed for small and medium-sized organisations across any tier of the rail supply chain. This explores key concepts in Environmental and Social Governance (ESG), performance, growth strategies, and technical competence, how to create a growth strategy methodology, and how to compare returns on investment for ESG initiatives. It is also pertinent in the context of ESG’s increasing role in procurement.
Rockfall protection netting systems are a common engineering solution to mitigate the risks associated with rock slope failures and long term degradation which can result in rockfall events that threaten the safety of buildings, infrastructure and people
‘MacRo Design is a great tool to undertake a full design of rockfall protection netting systems. The safety factor-based results allow engineers to fully assess the chosen solution and, through an iterative process, come up with a design that is both proportionate and economically engineered to deliver value engineering to our clients’
The effective design of rockfall protection netting systems can be challenging for designers as it can be a complex process which requires a detailed understanding of both the condition of the rock (e.g. its discontinuities and potential failure mechanisms) and the technical performance of the chosen rockfall protection netting system.
In 2018, CIRIA C775 Rock netting systems – design, installation and wholelife management was published to provide
designers with a practical guide for the design of rockfall protection netting following a systems-based design approach to ensure all components work together to provide a robust and reliable solution.
CIRIA C775 sets out two different rock netting design approaches that seek to either:
• Allow a rockfall to happen but contain it within the netting system – a Draped Netting System (DNS).
• Prevent the rockfall happening by reinforcing and stabilising the rock mass in situ – a Stabilised Netting System (SNS)
Rockfall containment with draped netting systems (DNS)
The DNS design approach allows small and medium sized failures to occur on the rock slope and uses the drapery netting to contain rockfalls harmlessly between the netting and the rock face. The netting is suspended from a steel wire rope line at the crest of the slope, secured with a series of anchors which allows the netting to hang loosely on the rock slope. Debris collected behind the mesh is then cleared as part of a routine maintenance operation.
Rock mass reinforcement with stabilised netting systems (SNS)
The SNS design approach aims to reinforce the rock mass and stabilise potential failures in-situ on the rock slope by tightly fitting (‘contouring’) the rockfall netting to the slope using rock anchors and/or rock dowels. The anchors actively stabilise the rock mass whilst at the same time fastening the netting system to the face. The netting system then provides passive restraint to limit the movement of rock failures between the anchorages, transferring the rock mass loads back to the anchorages; the mesh netting cannot actively restrain the rock slope since it is flexible, not rigid.
The rockfall protection netting is not the only component of the system that needs to be fully understood in terms of its technical performance and suitability to overcome the challenges posed by the potential failures on the rock slope. Careful consideration also needs to be given to the selection of the other key components of the system including the anchors and the steel wire ropes which are used to connect the netting to the rock slope.
Following a systems based design approach to ensure that the components are compatible with the intended design outcome, can be a complicated and time consuming process. Designers also need an understanding of the site environmental classification and the durability or assumed working life of the chosen solution within those environmental conditions.
It is important to ensure the design challenges are suitably addressed without the over-specification of solutions, which may be unnecessary and uneconomical. This presents a serious challenge to designers looking to deliver optimal value to their clients at a time when budgets are constrained but problem sites are increasing due to the impact of climate change.
Maccaferri’s new design software package, MacRo Design helps designers rapidly overcome the complexities associated with the efficient and economical design of rockfall protection works.
The software adopts the Eurocode 7 approach and provides a limit state design framework using partial factors applied to actions, materials and geometrical data. This ensures a conservative and safe design whilst simultaneously providing the user with a design safety factor (how much of the performance of the mesh has been utilised) to avoid over-design and specification of uneconomical solutions.
Built-in prompts and assistance notes guide the designer through the process which can be particularly useful when complete site information is not available. Additionally a transparent users guide shows the equations being used at each step, building better understanding and ease of design verification.
MacRo Design mirrors the DNS and SNS approaches within CIRIA C775.
The designer inputs data for the rock face including the slope inclination, the thickness of the surficial instability, the rock density, and the most critical set of joints in the rock mass.
The site environmental class in accordance with BS EN 10223-3:2013 can be selected to provide guidance on the required coating for the chosen netting to deliver a suitable assumed working life in the given environmental conditions.
The designer can also input the types of rock anchor used to stabilise the rock face that are to be used with the netting. Anchor properties required include diameter, drilling diameter and spacing of the anchors on the rock slope.
The user selects from the library of rockfall protection netting systems with a variety of protective coatings; the relevant technical parameters for the chosen netting are then automatically used in the design.
The MacRo 2 software is used to design draped netting systems and requires the designer to input data for the rock face including the slope inclination, the slope height and the dimensions of the likely debris accumulation within the netting along with information on the friction value of the debris and its unit weight. Snow and ice loads on the mesh can even be entered if appropriate.
As with MacRo 1, the site environmental class can be selected to provide guidance on the required coating for the chosen netting and the designer can select from a full library of rockfall protection netting systems with a variety of coatings to provide
the required assumed working life in the site environmental conditions.
The other critical components of the draped netting system, the anchors and crest rope, can also be designed within MacRo 2. The designer can select the type of anchor bar, diameter, drilling hole size and spacing along with the diameter of wire rope, steel grade and core type to ensure the netting, anchors and crest rope are designed in accordance with the systems based approach prescribed in CIRIA C775.
Delivering safe design
In accordance with the Eurocode 7 design approach, safety coefficients can be assigned ahead of the calculations with the click of a button. The software output is in the form
of a safety factor and ‘working rate’ for both the anchors and the netting to enable an economical design; the designer can rapidly swap mesh types to quickly home-in on an efficient mesh/anchor combination, reducing overdesign and cost to clients and the environment.
Finally, once the designer is satisfied with the results of the calculations, a concise design report can be downloaded for incorporation within the wider design package.
MacRo Design software is a web based free-to-access software package available via the Maccaferri edesign web portal www.edesign.maccaferri.com Users simply create an account with their email address and are able to access the software from
any computer with an internet connection. Previous designs are retained in the cloud, and no files need to be downloaded to the user’s computer, reducing cyber security risks.
For more information get in touch with Pete Richardson, Rockfall Systems Manager UK & Ireland at p.richardson@maccaferri.com
rail projects demand efficient and adaptable solutions for various aspects of their operations
This is particularly true for onsite accommodation solutions. Modular units, including cabins, welfare units, and other pre-built structures, continue to be reliable solutions, offering practical scalability and flexibility. We explore how these innovative accommodations are enhancing rail project management.
Modular accommodation solutions offer several key benefits that make them ideal for rail projects. Their rapid deployment allows for swift response to changing project needs, as units can be quickly transported and installed. The customisable configurations of these modules enable them to be arranged in various layouts, suiting specific site requirements or topographies. Perhaps most importantly, the inherent scalability of modular solutions means capacity can be easily increased or decreased by adding or removing units as needed.
Quality control is another significant advantage of modular accommodations. Factory-built units ensure consistent quality and compliance with safety standards across all installations. Moreover, the ability to hire these units for the duration of a project provides cost-effective solutions for rail development initiatives of varying lengths and scales.
The scalable nature of modular accommodations addresses one of the most significant challenges in rail project management: fluctuating workforce sizes. As projects progress through different phases, the number of on-site personnel can vary dramatically. Modular solutions empower project managers to swiftly expand accommodation capacity during
peak construction phases and easily reduce footprint during slower periods or as the project winds down. This flexibility extends to adjusting the mix of accommodation types as project needs evolve.
By allowing this level of adaptability, modular solutions ensure that worker needs are met at all times while optimising costs by aligning accommodation capacity with actual requirements. This scalability is a key factor in maintaining project efficiency and worker satisfaction throughout the lifecycle of a rail project.
The flexibility of modular units is crucial in addressing the varied challenges presented by rail projects. These projects often span diverse terrains and urban landscapes, requiring accommodation solutions that can adapt to different environments. Modular units excel in this regard, as they can be configured to fit into challenging spaces, whether it's a narrow urban corridor or a remote mountainous area.
Modern modular units are designed with versatility in mind, offering multifunctional spaces that can serve various purposes.
A single unit might function as an office space one week and be reconfigured as a meeting room the next, adapting to changing operational needs without the need for major renovations. This flexibility is particularly valuable in the ever-changing landscape of rail project management.
As work progresses along a rail line, the ability to relocate assets becomes crucial. Modular accommodations can be easily moved to follow the project's progression, minimising transportation times for workers and ensuring that essential facilities are always close to the active work zones. Additionally, the interiors of these units can be customised to meet specific project requirements, ranging from basic welfare units with essential amenities to more complex structures housing specialised equipment or serving as temporary control centres.
Customisation options extend to the aesthetics and branding of the units. Interiors can be tailored to reflect a company's identity through custom colour schemes, logo placements, and branded furnishings. This personalisation creates a cohesive, professional environment
and reinforces company culture, even in temporary workspaces.
The versatility of modular accommodations extends to their ability to incorporate various amenities and systems as needed. Units can be equipped with different features to suit the specific requirements of each project, from basic welfare facilities to more complex setups. Energy efficiency is also a key consideration, with options for environmentally friendly solutions to reduce both environmental impact and operating costs.
While modular accommodations offer these significant advantages, there are practical considerations to keep in mind. The logistics of transporting units to remote locations can be challenging and require careful planning. Additionally, there may be a need to manage perceptions and educate stakeholders about the quality and comfort of modern modular accommodations.
Despite these challenges, the ability to hire these units for specific project durations often provides a cost-effective and flexible solution compared to traditional construction methods, making them an attractive option for many rail projects.
The scalability and flexibility offered by modular accommodation solutions are transforming how large-scale rail projects approach on-site facilities. By providing adaptable, high-quality spaces that can evolve with the project's needs, these solutions enable project managers to optimise resources, improve worker comfort, and ultimately enhance overall project efficiency. As rail infrastructure continues to expand and evolve, the role of hired modular accommodations in supporting these ambitious projects is set to become increasingly pivotal.
Tel: 0800 51 55 55
Email: Contact.Hire@wernick.co.uk
Visit: www.wernick.co.uk
QTS Group announces in-house ecology team with three key appointments QTS Group has launched its first-ever in-house ecology team with the appointment of three experienced ecologists. Andrew Campuzano has been appointed as lead ecologist. Helen Simmons will take up the role of senior ecologist, leading ecological work across Scotland. Kate Hunt joins the business as ecologist and will support projects across the Wales and South Western region.
New Transport for Wales Chair announced Vernon Everitt has been announced as Transport for Wales’ new Chair.
Network Rail announces new Chief Executive Network Rail has announced the appointment of Jeremy Westlake as its next Chief Executive, replacing Sir Andrew Haines who will be retiring. Jeremy, who is currently Chief Financial Officer, will formally take up the role in October following a transition period alongside Sir Andrew.
Key appointment as trams in Blackpool enter exciting new era A well-known figure in the light rail sector, Steve Staley has joined Blackpool Transport as Tramway Operations and Safety Manager, ahead of a busy summer season.
Arriva Rail
appoints
Experience Director
Norbar is a UK manufacturer of battery, electric, pneumatic and manually operated torque multipliers, wrenches, torque measurement equipment and bespoke torque control solutions specially developed for the rail industry Contact Norbar and speak to The Voice of Torque Control
The UK’s rail industry is rapidly evolving as new technologies become available, putting pressure on the associated energy infrastructure.
On every scheme, we take the time to understand your strategic energy requirements, ensuring that we always deliver the best outcomes possible.
Scan here to get in touch