Ep 72. Today and Tomorrow's Technology Challenges

[Music] Welcome back everyone. Let's crack on with our first panel today and tomorrow's technology. The UK Rail Industry is too thick set up is facing a complex mix of legacy infrastructure, fragmented digital systems and growing skills gap all well trying to meet ambitious sustainability targets and navigate policy uncertainty. So we will dive into all of that with our panel. We've got Alan Peters, the ecosystem director for rail and stations that connect places catapult. Taryn Smart, senior program manager at network rail. And J. Raj, head of engineering for the East Coast digital program and Kelly Demi and partner at EY. Taryn, can I start with you? What is network rail doing to embed new technologies? Thank you and good morning everyone. Yes, I think when it comes to embedding new technologies, we obviously are at the cutting edge of delivering a good timetable for our passengers, striving towards a greener and meet more ecological, sustainable future. We look at lots of evidence of usability cases which you serve to our clients which in this case will be the routes in the regions. We're looking to make things safer as well. We're trying to move away from old methods of work in which we're very much manually handling. We're embracing new technology like all the various methods of gaining track information from onboard equipment, from drones, from autonomous machines which we run on the railway. And then the second phase of that is taking all that information back into network rail and actually analysing the data and seeing where we can pinpoint faults where we can actually analyse data. We have a whole system dedicated to the analytics of this to help us plan not just for this sector or this period but for far longer into the future and working with teams that are working on modeling around weather extremes and challenges that possess. We are able to build a positive layered picture of what the technology will look like in the future not to mention the overlapping embeddation of future traffic control systems known as ETCS and how that would digitise our whole radio rail network as a whole. Alan, what would you say are the biggest barriers to adopting new technologies in rail? Morning everyone and again to briefly introducing CPCs. So where the UK's Innovation Accelerator for CCCs transport and place leadership. So we've got across the whole of the nine CACPOLs, 63 sites and we're helping at the moment 8,000 decimees. So all about innovation. I lead a team and touching on the skills agenda, still is a point that we've talked around already. I lead a team that's truly multidisciplinary. That's what's needed at the moment in rail. So we've got systems engineering, economic modelling and human factors and we always need those in the innovation projects that we lead. In terms of the barriers, I think this is no surprise to anyone. It's never really the technology. It's all around that second value of death. I think we see some really nice trials. We have those trials world championed. How do you move beyond that? How do you actually commercialise that? And that gets into the slightly more intractable problems like culture, cultural inertia, product acceptance, the boundaries around organisations and the mismatches between the remit that an organisation has versus the control of the levers that it can pull. And that's the area that we're increasingly focusing on at the moment. It's all very well sort of getting that really nice pipeline. The fun all of great ideas, child and I think the UK as a whole is very good at doing that. But how do you actually get them embedded into business as usual and how do you measure that in a meaningful way? And I think the transition to GBR does offer that opportunity to centralise those innovation ownership and streamline that activity. But obviously there's plenty of work to be done in that space. And Kelly just picking up on that. Would you echo those as the major challenges that the railways seeing in terms of accelerating the use of technology? Yeah absolutely. So I wanted to just reflect on the kind of human and organisational challenges and our opportunity if we get adoption right. So TooFick talked about the deep and serious adoption problem in the railway earlier. And based on EY's experience delivering technology and able transformation in the rail for the last 10 years, I think our experience tells us that introducing any new technology in rail needs to have like a very clear why story right where benefits and the outcomes are understood. My EY colleagues are talking later about their experience delivering the rail hub solution. And that had a really clear why story around safe working on or near the line right in front line teams were able to understand that and get behind that. Another thing that we see is to get right is sponsorship. So having like an influential credible leader driving the change. It takes a very special kind of leader to be able to overcome the barriers to change whether their organisational cultural commercial as you were talking about Alan. And technology needs to be designed with user needs at the center. And when you're running a 24/7 railway, time and capacity is a challenge. So you need to meet people where they are. You need to co-create in the field. And sometimes that means meeting people at a shift change at 10 o'clock at night. And so my reflection is really overcoming that adoption challenge rarely has to do with the technology itself. And our opportunity is really just to remember that the railways ultimately about people and customers at the end of the day. Interestingly, Nicholas, which is a sent in a question saying that he's research from TFL at UEL. And to date, getting approval from new century equipment is proved expensive to the point he's had to step back. The biggest obstacle is on track testing. Is that I don't know, Taryn, you're the best person to pick that up? But is that one of the problems that actually, you know, you can have all these ideas, but actually trying to test the amount is an incredibly tricky thing to do. No, that is the case. We do have two testing centres. And there's another one being built in Wales, which I think is not too far off completion, which is going to be a model example of future testing could be facilities or have. But yes, a railway does run 24/7. And we do have to get possessions. We do have to make sure that we can still provide the timetable. It is a bit tricky. It is challenging. And I can imagine in TFL, for TFL-centric systems, you know, when would they actually get the chance to do that? I think we're slightly more flexible with our national rail, but it is always going to be a challenge. Like I say, our testing facilities are there, but it's actually getting the the owners to actually do it as well. I forget the acronym for it now, but the new Centre for Rail Excellence in Wales, what I think will be coming online quite soon. And that will provide us another huge capability of it in the fact that it's being built in such a way that it's almost going to be built with all the problems built into it. So we can stress that all the various things around that. But yeah, possessions on a working railway is very, very hard, but it is one of those things that you have to strive for. You have to figure this out in your project planning. You have to do your advance requests and planning for possessions, ensuring that it's a safe time to test things. And it's all part of the process really. I don't think we've struggled too much, but I think that comes from from a foresight planning of where we are with our projects. Alan, by the way, gets the prize for coming up with the acronym, which is apparently G-C-R-E. I could have claimed that you would. I would have been the real excellence. Excellent. Well, that's all. And Jay, let's hope that your mic is back and sorted with us. You were telling us about the biggest technical technological problems that you've got with the East Coast Digital Program and how you're overcoming those. So the biggest technological challenge we have on the East Coast Digital Program is integrating six different suppliers, ETCS products on the railway, but doing it on a very busy railway and East Coast mainline between King Scross and Peterborough and doing that at scale with 30 different organisations which involve train operating companies, network rail, the actual suppliers I was referring to and doing that and are very complicated industry structure that were too thick was referring to in terms of offshore and approvals. So bringing all that together and then putting that on the railway and operating it safely and delivering high-performing system is quite a challenge on any digital programme I find on this one is a special challenge and the complexity of the different organisations involved. Craig Solley asks, is there a synergy between railway engineering, say, in the rolling stock and general IT systems it seems to me that these separate entities which need to be made closer if you want an integrated railway. And Jay you're nodding along, go on. I couldn't agree more. I think the concept of railway engineering is something that we need to start all about more as an industry. As these technologies merge and we need to look at the whole thing as one as we move to GBR, it's incredibly important that we recognise the skill set of a railway engineer and they're the ones that can look at the whole system, think about the need to dependencies between how a train is driven, how a signal manages the railway, what passenger thinks about how the railway operates and frankly passengers and care whether it's network rail or a train operating company, just want to get from A to B. So having an engineering skill set and a mindset that recognizes all these things come together and eventually we're delivering a service for the customer and we have to engineer the right solutions for the customer, it's something that we just need to make business as usual in the industry. Jean Hugo Beringer has gone straight to the point here, I love this question, the technology already exists and has been proven such as ERTMS and CBTC systems widely used across Europe not to mention the highly advanced technologies in Asia, how do you explain the gap between the UK's rail infrastructure and that of the rest of Europe? We fancy speaking up that one. The easiest way to say that would be is we are working with a railway which is fundamentals, the backbone which was built 200 years ago. We are facing challenges both commercial and deployment. We have been signed up to and in line with a lot of the work within Europe under the European Union Joint Undertaking which is progressing from GSMRS controlled train systems, moving on to the second phase of BFRCMS and then on to ETCS which will actually build too. So it's a progressive layer of how we have to build up to it. There's no one big bank solution we can just turn on tomorrow, there's going to actually work, there's a lot of development which needs to take place, we need to have a digitalisation of our railway first to enable a lot of this and it's simply a question of we can't shut down the railway to do this, we have to maintain the railway, the old adjective of doing heart surgery while the plane's patient is still alive is very much the situation when you're facing when you're building new stuff like for example if we take the sky training bank car call also with the new rails and in the Emirates these are both from scratch so you could easily layer on all the latest and newest equipment. It's a very hard thing to do when you have to make sure that you can move around 4.2 million people a year on its current networks. As we know look at the challenges London is facing this week because there's no tube strikes and if we have to do that regularly to upgrade it it just would not be financially viable for the greater economy of the country as a whole. How can test beds real-world trials accelerate the adoption of these new technologies in the round-sector? Give them what Taran's saying that you are you're running on something that has to keep working while you're trying to do this? Yeah and I think we've talked around the role of test sites there's other ways that you can do testing including and real-life settings so both what do we got project running in Bristol Temple Meads? We've turned that into an innovation zone. The logic really being behind that was similar to sentiment expressed already on this panel that people were finding very difficult to test their equipment or the processes in a live environment so can you do all of the hard work behind the scenes to set up things like data sharing agreements access agreements sort of pre almost triaging the product approval such that you can then do batches of innovation very quickly. Do the interesting exciting stuff very quickly without constantly having to sort of set up a test bed every time in a separate place so there's real economies of scale of doing that and someone like a station. What's really interesting I think with that approach is the use cases that come out so you start off trying to sort of understand what problems you want to solve but as as you get more and more people involved and hopefully enthused about innovation in their space so in a station environment it's the station teams the maintainers that all of the people that make that station work as they sort of experience the thought of looking ahead and working out what their sort of future station looks like. You get all these much richer use cases that come out and they're the proper use cases they're the things where there's big inefficiencies there's systems that just make less logical sense that's the sort of value of a sort of a test bed approach and you start to see that sort of richness of organizations coming together working together and hopefully if you get it right and we're starting to see elements of this at the temple meets zone people starting to put their own investment in as well so you get this sort of rolling stone gathering most type of approach and you can then do batches of innovation in a live environment very quickly and I think what I'd like to see from some UK perspective is if we could do that at scale in other types of environments as well so we've talked already about some of the use cases around line side type technologies so could we actually have a part of the network to be a live innovation zone and I know there are certain geographical areas that have already been proposed to do that could we even have a sort of rolling stock innovation zone as well as other European countries have with a large number of five ten organizations all pulling efforts resources and thinking onto one combined innovation zone I think that to me that helps you start to address this sort of second valley of death and you've got multiple multiple energy in there and you've also got multiple funding and you've also got lots of people then who can potentially take those ideas on and commercialise it as well but as I say it takes the first part is the where the hard work is and that's where you've got to sort of overcome this economies of scale question that it has to be worth setting up a test bed in order to actually get the benefits of doing it downstream. And J. Did you want to come in? Yeah it's imperative that we get this right for me there's a huge opportunity here to not just simulate and emulate systems and really use the off-site testing capability to prove the safety of the systems but actually it's operability and it's reliability and the capability of the railways the whole we can do so much more off-site now than we could do even ten years ago and I think that the technology is in front of us the opportunity is in front of us. What we have to do is create the industry environment to do that what I remember that is people have to trust that information without requiring to be repeated in the field and that requires some safety pre-woolers requires some consultation with the unions potentially on how we validate things but the technology is that we're trusting it for all other purposes there's no reason why we couldn't trust her here and I come from an environment where we've done that before TFL already so certainly think there's precedence for the main line. Grant Kilmore says that he learnt yesterday that although ETCS could ultimately provide driverless trains the current and our long strategy specifically doesn't mention pursuing this option because of the potential union issues with driver availability being a key driver of delay in cancellations for many operations how do we shift the culture to focus on safe innovation and not fear of union opposition. It's another one for you, Tarrin, are you getting all the nasty ones? I would say the railway within network rel responsibility is the infrastructure we are responsible for the track for the station for the signals for the power to that we very much don't really have much control over the drivers or drivers unions or the road in stocks all the train operators our job is to provide a safe ecological and efficient infrastructure to run on yes the technology is there and I think it will be a case of time will catch up to it and eventually we will be in that position where it is. I mean the role of of you know there's been a lot of press about the drivers this week for obvious reasons in London but it's sort of a very fundamental safety issue and the whole public perception of that is our railway is safe we have an exceptional world leading safety record for what we provided network rail the technology will catch up with us we will be in the position in the future where we will have possibly a lot more more integrated encoded systems that will run for us autonomously but I think we're a few years away from that for for various reasons as well. Hello you wanted to come in yeah I mean I think with automation you you look to borrow what other sectors are doing and it's automation and subset of all the activities around AI is coming on quick really really quickly you've just got to use it for the right use cases and it's you've got to see it as a combined system I think and you've always got to maintain the same level of safety or indeed use that type of technology to actually show that you can enhance safety so it's that sort of gradual journey but it's was it rail 200 this year 200 years since the rail network was created it it has changed considerably in that time it is continuing to change so automation will be increasingly apart but it won't be necessarily the sort of headlines the big driverless train type parts but it will be other use cases that gradually build up this sort of greater picture of automation as the technology becomes available and it becomes trusted and validated. And Jay did you want to write something as well on that? Yeah I just wanted to make one point around the specific point around driver availability so there are innovations in that space already there and I think the Elizabeth line already uses an innovation to integrate stop and tree management with the way the railways run in the rock in the control centre so there's innovations there which will improve and I already have, as we can all tell from those travel in Lisbon line, often quite a high quality service. And actually, somewhere that has down to some of the innovations around stock and crew management that are integrating to where the service is often. So I think that there's different ways to solve the problem. And it's not always just making things driverless. - Just staying slightly with the union theme, but Martin Abrams says that tens of thousand workers across all grades and sectors in the railway and unions have always adapted to embrace new technologies, but it's increasing concern that the primary aim of motivating factor for the rollout of new technologies is once again to reduce headcount. Can you illustrate what engagement you're having or will have with the trade unions to ensure that frontline workers on the railway are part of this transition? - I think when we embed new technologies onto the railway, we often have in one of the first and foremost things is does this reduce boots on bad ass as we say? Does this make it safer? We've lost way too many colleagues over the last couple of years from accidents happening on the railways. So this new technology is actually making our workforce safer in a lot of cases. We obviously have to consult with our unions and our family of workers to ensure that they are happy with these things and progress. And in the most cases, what we're delivering from the Chief Technical New Office of Network Rail, is that enhanced layer of safety. We want to not have people walking up and down tracks at two o'clock in the morning, hoping that that freight train is coming through. The idea is this technology we're embedding and embracing is helping us to make the railway safer place to work. The old catch-rage we always had was everyone at home safe every day. And we'd be stand by that. We would rather face, and I'm sure the unions will get us, we'll rather embrace new technology if it makes it safer. Kelly? And I was just going to add, just as a principle, the successful technology programs always have union engagement up front really early on and consistently throughout that program. So I think that's absolutely a get right here. OK, I just want to pick up with you as well, because I know you're very hot on the skills shortage. Richard Horridge is saying, many successful initiatives have been led and delivered by NetRet World rather than the supply chain. We'll network rail and later GBR investing, retaining and upskilling in a house talent who will place closer to the problems they're trying to solve. I mean, it's a key thing, isn't it, upskilling the workforce and closing that skills gap? Yeah, absolutely. And Taren, feel free to come in, because I know that you're passionate about this as well. But I think that the railways full of people who are passionate about the industry. And it's one of the reasons why I love working in the sector. And I see this purpose and passion as a superpower to attract new and different skills to the industry. And I'd love to see that reinvigorated as a part of GBR. And to drive technology adoption, the railways going to need skills in data analysis, data science, data engineering, human-centered design, you name it. And that's really different than the primary skill sets it has today. So yes, I mean, there is a skill shortage in infrastructure generally, when you think about the national infrastructure plan, that absolutely applies to rail. And there's an aging workforce. But I think the demographic around the type of talent that the railway needs is changing. And these technological skills are in demand everywhere. And so I think that the industry is going to have to get creative about how they attract and retain and develop this talent. And this is where I think partnerships are really key. In some cases, the railway may need to borrow talent from elsewhere and explore succumbents. And I think that the railway should embrace talent mobility in this moment, moving people around the sector as track and train come together. So-- and the thing that we forget is that people who are data scientists and engineers love an environment where they can have access to data, freedom to experiment, and like real life problems to solve. That's exciting for them. And I think it's in the railway's gift to create this environment and culture to try them to thrive. And did you want to add anything on that? Yeah. So I think it's-- I mentioned the point of our railway engineers earlier. A railway engineer of the past is not necessarily the railway engineer of the future. And I mean, my experience that we've blurred the boundaries consciously already in the deployment digital systems by recognizing an engineer and ops need to come closer together. So the best engineers I've worked with are actually the ones that understand how to run the railway. And the best operators are the ones that understand the technology. So actually mobility isn't just about moving engineers around and moving operates around. Mobility is actually about recognizing the skill set of the future railway. It's a very different skill set. And we should look to broader spaces than just the conventional spaces to find those people. And I've worked with some really, really talented people that if you look at their badge, might suggest they're not appropriate for the role. But the experience and their knowledge are interest, demonstrate actually they are entirely capable of fulfilling those sorts of future roles for digital systems. And just picking up James Connelly's sent in a question saying we consistently find that rail programs and projects are constantly trying to reinvent the wheel when it comes to digital technologies applied on the track as opposed to focusing on the elephant in the room, adoption, people, behavior, and culture. How can we as a sector bring the lower tier and smaller contractors on the digital journey? Is that pretty much picking up on what you were saying? Somewhat, I think there's another answer this. Using these cost-dissue programmers a case study, it's a program of partners. It's not necessarily a conventional enterprise like what we used to put some of the other major programs. But what we have to do is to take all those organizations on the journey. Because if we wanted to deliver a no signals railway, which is very different to conventionally signal railways, everyone needs to be on the journey. Everyone needs to be ready to adopt technology, ready to operate it, which means that even the smallest operator, a little closer to our scenarios operator of a fleet of steam locus, for example, need to be ready to do that. So we're taking everyone on the journey by educating them on what this technology brings, walking them through the process to get ready, business ready to adopt it, walking through the process around regulatory pre-walled authorization and transferring the knowledge and where necessary moving people back to the mobility point into those organizations, where necessary to support them. So we're taking all reasonable steps, I think, to be helpful. And I think that's why the partnership's so powerful for a program like this. And I certainly think that partnership approach of recognising we're all in it together. And we are here for the great to good is the way to go. And if we don't have that mindset, and we leave people behind, we won't get to the end goal. Alex, I'm Dr. Mickalis. I think that is, says, how are safety critical systems being evaluated for integration into broader digital rail programmes? I'll have it stab. I think it's quite an abstract question, because it depends what is the safety critical system and what's the digital programme. But I'll just set out some industry sets up. So there are multiple sort of organizational regulatory and standardised ways of doing this, which include common safety method from a standards perspective, all the way through to the regulatory or RR in terms of what the, in terms of approvals to place into service. That's pretty well defined. And I think that's industry standard. What I would say, however, is it set up for the scale of what we're about to undertake in the next 10, 15 years in terms of the digital programmes? Have we set it up in such a way that everyone understands the rules for response? We've so many organisations coming together. And most importantly, is it efficient? Is it effective in practice? Because in our experience in this industry, approvals takes a long time. So to answer the question simply, it's all set out in standards where they'd say, piece of technology on the side or the core digital cycling technology is all set out by challenge. I'm working through from my capacity with the industry as to find a more efficient way to do that, because it's not sustainable as it is. How long did you want to just jump in? Yeah, and I think the rail industry, particularly the UK, has a firm grasp of standards and regulation, as Anjay says, I think where it gets interesting is when these types of future technologies come into play, these complex systems, these systems that may have an element of automation in them. And there it becomes a bit more challenging, and it's not just rail that will have to grapple with it. This is the sort of rail move where you can't actually write a standard set of requirements for what a safety critical system needs to do. And at that point, you have to then start bringing in things like virtual testing, you have to start bringing in other approaches to give yourself the confidence that it is going to achieve that high level of safety that you need. And this is, I think, this is the interesting space in automation and AI at the moment, and safety critical industries like rail will follow other industries who are also working on this space. So a nuclear and aviation that perhaps a couple of years ahead in trying to do this, it's something that's not going to be solved overnight. So it's a good question from that regard, because things will change slightly. But at the moment, there are really good standards and regulations in play. If it comes to the attention-- Sorry, go on, Anjay. Sorry. I want to make one point on this. And I use an industry-- but follow your own point about other industries. The Boeing 737 MAX crash is a classic example. example of where all the regulatory processes and checks were there, yet something failed and 350 people died. So we have to ask ourselves what can we learn from that sort of experience from another industry and whether we're set up for new technology to point, which is what that ultimately was about was innovation and modern technology with an existing operational environments. I just want to set that challenge out to all of us in the industry. We need to look out to other industries and learn from them. If you are listening, could you send your question to the next panel because that is all about leveraging data and it's a data question. So if you could save that one for the next panel, just before I go back to the questions, Kelly, I just wanted to ask you about AI. It is the big thing. How do you go about implementing AI and using the best of AI and not just sort of palmulating that AI is going to be the solution to everything? Yeah, absolutely. And I'm seeing pockets of excitement and brilliance all over the sector when it comes to AI. But I think the railway needs collaboration, coherence, confidence and capability. So I'll also unpack those in a minute. So there's so many people working on use cases and pilots across the industry. So there really needs to be that collaboration across track and train to bring these together. There's so much to go after and predictive maintenance, customer experience, network operations and collaboration between different parts of the railway and collaboration with technology partners and suppliers is absolutely key. So that's the first one. I think that there needs to be coherence around the plan to develop AI for the sector and a guiding mind. And we're really excited about the work that you guys do in which you be our ex around the AI action plan for rail. And we're really starting to see that collaboration and coherence come to life. Thirdly, I think there needs to be confidence that AI is being developed ethically and transparently. And this is where safe, responsible AI practices and guardrails are super, super important. And finally, you know, the railway needs capability to successfully adopt AI. So this is the resources, the skills, the learning pathways, the data, the platforms, the processes to prioritize the use cases and to scale it and building this capability is really about creating the right skill set, mindset and tool set, laying the foundations for AI to be successful. Alan, did you want to just come in and lie, you were nodding away with that? I'm just massively, massively agreeing. Yeah, it needs that to be a 360 degree approach, doesn't it? Really? And it takes time. I mean, I think the pockets of AI excitement is a really nice word for putting it. You know, there's some things where we're already seeing genuine efficiency gains from using elements of automation elements of AI. I use them interchangeably, probably, badly. It's not going to be this whole cell change, of course, it's not. And I think like any other safety critical industry, we'll just take its time. And as I said before, to apply it to the right use cases and apply it with the right combination of the things that humans are good at and will continue to be good at. Tara, and I think this is probably one for you, but with the new network rail regulations around safety, critical communication, tracks and coming into force in March next year, how can suppliers of core recording software that solve this problem again to the contract base more effectively and get certification faster? That would fall into our product acceptance team. Obviously, this will go through various stageguests. I think we have set up a system whereby it will be slightly more streamlined than it was previously to enable this, excuse me, enabling a deployment and rollout of that. I don't have direct contact with this. So I'm actually a little bit vague on the system. I just read a couple of reports about it, sir. Maybe not a question for me. The tricky one, because I think we're getting weird. I'm literally, I'm waiting through an awful lot of questions. I'll try to listen to you all. We have had two or three about cybersecurity. And as we move to a more AI automated driven thing, how do you protect against cyber attacks and make sure you are secure? I'll start. Again, I guess I can use the Eascust Digital Programmer's case study, which I guess could extend to how we run the future railway. Digitization brings with it that risk inherently. We can look at it in pockets and say, well, if everyone does that bit, we are secure. But all it requires is a weakest link and suddenly the whole railway is exposed to a fundamental risk because of one failing somewhere. So I think, first of all, it's recognition that everyone carries that responsibility. It's not centralized. Everyone has to take ownership of that in the same way as we have convention taken ownership of safety. Security has to set up there now alongside safety because it does have a safety impact if we are not secure. The second thing is actually to look at the sum of the parts. So on Eascust Digital Programme, while everyone does their part, all the partners, what we're doing with regards to security integration is actually running a series of integration tests where we're going to put scenarios out there. We're going to play a railway, albeit in a safe setting with our passengers. Obviously, it remains safe in terms of how we test it. But the objective is to put the end users in situations where they've been trained, they've been briefed, they've been given the tools, runs like a security, and to see what happens. We're talking to DFT about that. We're talking to the regulation about that. And the point is essentially to effectively test our readiness when we deploy these big digital systems. So you can confirm that everyone's done that, actually, when you add the parts up, we actually secure when things go wrong. And rest assured, I don't think we're looking at a single line of defense. There's always multiple lines of defense just like with safety. So this isn't about scaring the industry, but it's that building that additional confidence because when we put track and drain together, equally, are you equally important when it comes to cybersecurity? Ali, did you want to jump in on that? No, I was just, I wanted, I was nodding furiously because I think the railways got such a strong safety and risk culture. And like, I'd love to see that extended into cybersecurity as it adopts more technology, right? So I couldn't agree with you more on day in terms of like that being everybody's responsibility. So, you know, at a macro level, it's the industries. And then there's organizations within the industry. And then there's the individual care that people need to take in that vigilance. Question from James Thompson. It's quite a long question. So I'll try to praise it, but how will National Rail and GBRX address the need for mobile connectivity for both rail passengers and the railway OPS community? Currently obviously on the digital journey with 5G, then it's going to move towards 6, 7G. Is it basically jumping ahead of where the railway currently is? I'm not sure that anybody here could answer that, but we heard to affect talk about the opportunity spaces that they are looking at in GBRX. And I know passenger and customer experience is like a massive theme for them, right? And so, you know, I don't know if it belongs in that bucket, but I think that there's no shortage of initiatives that are happening in that space and absolutely you need 5G and connectivity to do some of these things, but where I think they're trying to come in is almost like coordination, body to bring these initiatives together to really create a system wide impact. Matt, moments have what your experience in using digital twins and modeling techniques and signaling supporting migration towards new technology? Angel, you're nodding? Yeah, quite a bit. I think I'd come back to something I said earlier, it's imperative that we adopt this approach. We can't afford to use access, like we have convention use access and Taran pointed out earlier as well. There is already lots of proven techniques to create digital twins for signaling systems and to validate as twins. My personal experiences of doing this at TFL where we did this on a pre-group of formalized modernization, where we effectively create a complete integrated digital twin of the signaling system in multiple facilities, accessible remotely. We would use this digital twin to prove the system during COVID, out of people's garages. So it's proven from my experience. What I would say is as an industry, we have to get behind that. Sorry, I might be repeating myself more or say earlier, but we have to recognise the value of that. We have to get behind trusting that technology and really use it to stress the system, bring the end users closer to it. It's not just about an engineering solution, we've got to bring the operators. So when I was talking about people and garages, like Jenny home saying, we had operational representatives that were represented as signals, testing out of garages in COVID on a digital twin that was running remotely in the cloud. So this is proven. We've got to get behind it on the main line. Tams and Dane feels possibly the last question we've got time for says, are we learning from other countries who maybe further ahead than we are in developing innovative tech in the railway? Is that something, Taryn, that you are doing that it's a collaborative experience? Yes, yes. We have formed a cooperation with a lot of international partners. We have regular meetings with our colleagues in Japan and Korea, not to mention around Europe as well. We have partnerships formed with our Scandinavian representatives from Norway, Sweden, also from Holland, sorry the Netherlands, Switzerland. SNCF in France, FRA in USA, transport for New South Wales and Canada Rail. We're constantly having meetings together, exchanging lessons learned, best practices. If they've traveled on new technology, we look at their trial data and see if there's an adaption case for us, can we actually use this sort of symbiotic relationship we have with our international partners. It's obviously reciprocal in all areas. It helps us look at R&D in a different light, because as well we get to look at the parameters of how long they run a test for. So if we're going to do this similar sort of safety case test, we won't have to deal half a year like our colleagues in Australia did. We can only do it for three months. So there's a lot of benefits from that and we're constantly learning and constantly sharing these ideas, not to mention will have been the sector itself, that there's lots of bodies which allow regular communities of practice to get together to look at signaling, to look overhead lines, to look at pathway designs, which we are regularly be part of and we encourage our off- and positive to be heavily involved in.