---
title: Rail Systems Integration is a Contact Sport
url: "https://www.systra.com/ireland/expert_insights/systems-integration-is-a-contact-sport/"
type: expert_insights
date_published: 2023-08-29
date_modified: 2023-10-09
schema:
  @type: WebPage
language: en-IE
word_count: 1300
reading_time: 7 min
canonical: "https://www.systra.com/ireland/expert_insights/systems-integration-is-a-contact-sport/"
featured_image: "https://www.systra.com/ireland/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2023/08/kevin-gedge-scaled.jpg"
---

# Rail Systems Integration is a Contact Sport

**Negotiating the many moving parts of the UK rail system is more complex than many defence projects, says Kevin Gedge, SYSTRA’s UK & Ireland systems engineering lead.**

Systems engineering has traditionally been associated with ‘complex industries’
such as aerospace or defence. Its purpose is to somehow weave together a myriad
of components and technologies, together with human players, to create the
optimum output.

With the ever-increasing complexity of the UK rail system, systems thinking is
also a necessity for modern rail projects. Ensuring track, train and timetable
are seamlessly operating together is paramount. This has led me to the
proposition – could the railway be more complex than those other industries?

Just mapping out the network of stakeholders is a task in itself, encompassing
government departments, the infrastructure owner, train operators, rolling stock
owners, manufacturers, suppliers and many others integral to the operation of
the whole rail system. Add onto this that our existing rail system has evolved
organically over centuries; and that all upgrades must be constructed, tested
and entered into operation with limited impact to existing services for
passengers and freight. Finally, and for good measure, throw in rapidly evolving
digital tools, customer expectations, an urgent need to decarbonise transport to
reach net zero and the diverse needs of members of the public who interact with
the railway system.

Without an ability to balance the various and often opposing perspectives, we
are expecting our decision makers to fly blind or, at least, with a heavily
restricted view. It is hardly surprising, then, that the jigsaw pieces of some
rail projects don’t always fit together and so run into problems. Managing
uncertainty, differing needs in terms of urgent and important works, project
lifecycle cost vs whole lifecycle cost and the need to cope with change are
often contributory factors.

Applying a systems approach to big, complex infrastructure upgrades is vital
because it can better predict and demonstrate the wide-ranging impacts of change
and smooth the transition to operation – which inevitably reach beyond the scope
of the project in question to include political, reputational, and environmental
impacts. Where change is imposed, a systems-led approach is one way to manage
and mitigate any far-reaching detrimental impacts.

### Beginning at the end

Often rail projects tend to start at infrastructure level: building or extending
railway lines, widening tunnels, and adding bridges. A systems approach takes a
step back to look at what outcomes are ultimately needed and then works back
from there.

For instance, Northern Powerhouse Rail from the start, set itself whole industry
level performance-based outcomes such as a specifying a desired journey time
between Manchester and Leeds. The goal was to find the optimum solution for the
money available, balancing how this can be achieved through rolling stock and
infrastructure capability as well as timetable design in a top-down approach
without being constrained by thinking first about any single element.

There are constraints, of course, linked to existing railway infrastructure and
services. One of the biggest challenges for any UK rail project is that
information related to existing performance is often not at the granularity to
allow effective decision making.

One of the first tasks for any systems integration team is to understand the
existing system and its interfaces together with the stakeholders involved.
Going through this process helps to unearth constraints or issues within the
existing system that would impact on planned projects or interventions.
Furthermore, it often identifies limiting factors that sit outside the boundary
of the system of interest but crucial to meeting commitments.

As with other sectors, digital twins are proving useful for working out how new
and old will work together. Additions to a system or interventions to existing
systems can be played out virtually to test different options and look at how
future scenarios could be accommodated. However, effectiveness of the model is
again limited, modelling train delays from outside of the system boundary or
reliability of assets not within the project footprint adds complexity and begs
the question when do you stop? Such additional detail will increase the time a
model takes to run, which in turn affects the agility of using modelling and
simulation to inform design.

![](https://www.systra.com/ireland/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2023/08/kevin-gedge-1024x683.jpg)

_SYSTRA’s work on high speed rail projects including Northern Powerhouse Rail enables projects to benefit from a systems led approach to delivery._

There is also a danger that systems engineering for rail projects gets stuck at
infrastructure asset level too, homing in on elements such as signalling,
tracks, stations, and civil engineering structures and how they fit together.
However, that view misses out on a crucial layer of integration which must be
managed for a rail project to be successful.

Above the infrastructure integration layer sits industry level integration, this
involves entities such as the Department for Transport, franchise operators
rolling stock owners and maintainers coming together with the infrastructure
owner. With each having their own stakeholders and organisational objectives,
integration involves getting them to sign up to common goals to deliver an
outcome such as a significantly improved passenger timetable. But in doing so,
several incremental changes over a phased migration from current to future end
state is necessary to limit impact to passengers.

Experience on rail projects globally has shown that phased migrations deliver
better long-term approaches. But providing a safe, operable, and performing
railway during the transformation journey is not easy. The interdependencies,
interplays, and knock-on impact of delay to one element of the migration is
complex and requires openness by all parties involved to generate and maintain
an accurate and trusted system migration plan.

### MEDIATION NEEDED

Mark Wild, former Crossrail CEO, has been famously quoted as describing ‘systems
integration’ as “almost a contact sport”, which is incredibly apt. There can be
some very robust discussions and encounters as players at industry level seek to
reach a consensus on what the project outcomes should be.

A systems integrator must sit down with the different parties, understand all
perspectives, and often act as a technical translator to generate a shared
vision defined by the requirements for the project. It is a sometimes painful,
but a necessary process. Without it, there will be far more pain for the project
to deal with further down the line from diverging expectations, scope gaps or
previously unidentified constraints.

Perhaps the most painful change that the rail sector faces is the need for a
completely different mindset in delivery. A systems approach rejects the idea of
a heroic project leader who saves the day at the 11^(th) hour, instead favouring
a methodical ‘mission control’ structure which requires power to be devolved to
a series of teams who have clarity of their remit and the competence to carry
out their part of the works.

This approach, as already applied in similar industries, should also lead to
better and more timely decision-making, with empowered teams having the
flexibility to act quickly when needed. Too often, decisions are not made or
delayed because of limited information or they are constrained by programme and
budget milestones which ultimately may compromise the final project quality and
performance.

One of the perceived downsides to a systems-led approach could be that more time
will be spent in the earlier phases of a project. However, experience has shown
that taking more time upfront to understand the problem and identify
constraints, boundaries and interfaces will lead to less time overall and
reduced risk of rework and cost in the delivery phase. It will be exciting to
see how this plays out on rail projects such as Northern Powerhouse Rail and the
upgrade to HS1 that are actively applying a systems-led approach.

[Join our community](https://www.systra.com/ireland/register/join-our-community/)