‘Compliance does not equal operability’

Christian Stickland, Head of Technical Services at Mercury3 Consult, writes about rethinking operational readiness in rail projects

We talk a lot about “readiness” in rail projects. We determine requirements, build plans, confirm assurance needs and set stage-gates to reassure us that a system is ready to operate.

And yet, time and again, new or altered infrastructure enters service and almost immediately starts to struggle. Performance drops, risk goes up, and front-line teams are left to deal with the fallout.

After more than twenty years across operations, incident management, safety and major projects, I’ve come to a simple conclusion that operational readiness is not failing because of a lack of process. It’s failing because we misunderstand what it really is.

Readiness isn’t something you switch on at the end

One of my earliest experiences on a major project shaped this view.

At the time, the role of Operations Interface Specialist wasn’t really a thing. Front-line teams were brought in late, effectively at the point of delivery readiness, when design decisions were already mature and difficult to influence.

I recall a full-day industry review session being scheduled, which included a briefing about the Principal Contractor’s test plan. The meeting lasted less than an hour.

Why? Because it became clear that the test plan had not been deconflicted with station working activities at Sheffield, nor aligned with planned maintenance and renewal activities. Operations, maintenance and train operators had not been meaningfully involved.

The result was inevitable:

· Further workshops

· Replanning activities

· Additional cost

· Cancelled and rescheduled works

· And pressure placed on the operational railway

Compliance does not equal operability

A system can meet standards and still increase workload for signallers, controllers, drivers and maintenance teams.

It can quietly transfer risk from technology to people.

It can function perfectly in theory yet struggle at 06:00 on a wet Monday during widespread disruption, or when the railway is already under pressure.

Operators are remarkably adaptable, but adaptability is often mistaken for resilience. In reality, it can mask design weaknesses until something goes wrong.

The cost of treating readiness as an end-stage activity

When operational readiness is treated as an end-stage activity, the consequences are predictable:

· Reduced performance in early operation

· Increased reliance on temporary controls and workarounds

· Additional training delivered under time pressure

· Elevated risk during periods of change

Once infrastructure goes live, it becomes the railway. For those working on the front-line there is rarely the luxury of “settling-in time”. Performance is expected immediately.

What changes when operations are embedded early

More recently, I’ve served as an Operations Interface Specialist embedded within the Transpennine Route Upgrade (TRU) programme and have been involved from an early stage in operational design and delivery.

Being involved in key decision points, not just consulted at the end, changes outcomes significantly.

This was evident during Entry into Service (EIS) G on the West of Leeds project – a full resignalling between Greenfield and Deighton, including changes in train detection, capacity adjustments at Huddersfield, and new infrastructure at Hillhouse.

Because operations had been part of shaping the solution:

· Risks were surfaced earlier

· Degraded operations were properly considered

· Workload impacts were understood

· And confidence at entry into service was materially higher

Readiness was not a final hurdle – it was built progressively.

Training is a consequence, not a solution

Training is essential, but when it becomes the primary mitigation for complexity, it often signals a deeper issue. If a system requires extensive explanation simply to function normally, it is unlikely to perform well when disruption occurs.

True operational readiness reduces reliance on reactive training because the system aligns with how people actually work.

A shift in mindset

Operational readiness is not about slowing projects down or adding unnecessary layers of assurance. It is about recognising that the operational railway is the ultimate measure of success.

I have come to believe that true operational readiness can only be achieved when operations are embedded from the very start of a project – shaping its design rather than inheriting its outcomes.

If we want infrastructure that delivers from day one, we need to stop asking whether a project is ready to open and start asking whether the railway is ready to operate.

Supporting operational readiness from day one

At Mercury3 Consult, we work with clients to embed operational thinking early in the lifecycle of complex rail programmes – helping to identify risk, reduce rework and ensure infrastructure performs as intended from entry into service.

If you would like to discuss how operational readiness can be strengthened on your programme, contact us today. Find out more about our railway operations expertise.

Download article