Yes, we need a name change!

Yes, “permanent way” is not a term used worldwide. It is adopted only by close enough to the UK railway track professional organisations (strangely enough, those are also the only ones that use the concept of “virtual transition“, another poorly understood term). Now “permanent way” is abandoned even by the UK railway industry, replaced with the internationally recognised and exact equivalent “railway track”. One of the reasons for this is the acrobatics we did with the term (see below).

No, “permanent way” never meant technically anything more than “railway track”!
The rigorous technical term “permanent way” was always equivalent to “railway track”, and we have at least one blog, hundreds of books and standards, and thousands of projects and technical documents to prove that. Documents with names, signatures and companies’ logos, referring to the “permanent way” technical discipline only as “railway track”.

Obviously, the “fence to fence” late (or early if you want) re-definition of the term “permanent way” did/will not fool anyone, and contributed to the poor understanding of the term.
If we need to bring other disciplines properly and transparently on board, we need to change the name for sure. Or, as we did up until recently, just push for a clear subtitle, under the 142 years precious acronym PWI, and its instantly internationally recognisable logo.

Yes, the PWI has always been about more than track.

The Institution has always been open to present and represent the “fence to fence” railway – the entire railway infrastructure. If we look back through the Journals of the institution, we will find articles about the whole railway infrastructure. And there was no problem with the name at all.

Why not the Institution for Railway Infrastructure Engineering?

Now PWI has the Institution for Railway Infrastructure Engineering as subtitle. A good first step! And I think the competence is already with the PWI to claim this as the new name. The PWI is already the Institution for Railway Infrastructure Engineering (we just need Signalling?).

Correction: In the spree for renaming, this subtitle seems to disappear, replaced by “Empowering Railway Engineering”. I think this is another mistake, reminding me of the 1984 revisions of history…

I strongly disagree with the voices that now say “people don’t really understand what Railway Infrastructure is”.
I disagree with this argument, especially after years of PWI being presented as the Institution for Railway Infrastructure Engineering.
If it would be to ask the people who don’t understand what “railway infrastructure” means what do they understand by “sleeper”, “switches and crossings” or other similar odd and obscure terms, I’m sure they’ll drive us into renaming the entire engineering terminology.
Let’s educate those who don’t understand the term “railway infrastructure” instead of bending to their technical ignorance.
Bending to informal simplification, terminology ignorance, misleading ambiguity and colloquialisms is not the way forward for a serious professional institution, with already 140 years of history.

Communication is not what you say, it is what the others understand

Yes, I know! Look who’s giving advice on communication?!

The PWI justification for the proposed name change can be found here: https://www.thepwi.org/about/our-next-chapter/. The proposed new name is Railway Engineering Institution (RailEI).
But this justification is for me a collection of light, rosy and fluffy statements, and some clumsy explanations why “permanent way” and “railway infrastructure” no longer work.

The members will be asked to vote from next week.
But this “Our next chapter” page has, in my opinion, little relevant information for many of them.
This page is written for those that already want the name to change, and it provides little assurance for the ones that might, for one reason on another, be against it.

“Permanent way” is a poorly understood term?
How does this sound to the lifetime members of the institution, or to those with years of experience, who had their job title of “permanent way” engineer? How does it sound to the members using every day an up to date standard called “Inspection and Maintenance of Permanent Way”?

“Railway infrastructure” is also imprecise and poorly understood term, and seems “to exclude safety and performance”?
How does this sound to Network Rail, the owner and maintainer of the Great Britain’s railway infrastructure?
How does this sound to all the engineers that work in the “infrastructure” department of various design or construction companies, working every day for the safety and performance of the Britain’s railway infrastructure?

The “8 Key Reasons Why This Matters To You” don’t say anything of substantial relevance to me and to so many members of the Institution. On the contrary, for many of us these fluffy statements are concerning.

Perhaps some members are concerned that the main discipline the organisation has served so well for 142 years might be pushed in a dark corner by more enthusiastic and vocal new-commers or by the greedy desire to attract new paying members.

Perhaps some are concerned that the journal will have even more advertisements, more diluted content, less relevant knowledge sharing.

Perhaps some are missing the conferences from long ago, where there was so much to learn, less (self)promotion of high seated persons of interest and sponsors, and more useful interaction with other common members.

Perhaps some are concerned that by aiming for EVERYTHING, the newly named institution will end up being good at NOTHING!

We have not seen a clear plan for growth, but only propagandistic statements on how inclusive and suddenly recognisable the organisation will magically become because of the new name. Everyone knows – people join professional institutions because their names are instantly recognisable, inclusive, warm and cosy, cool.

We have not seen an impact assessment on how these growth aspirations will affect the disciplines and the members the institution now serves. And I think this is a concern for a significant number of members, who are still looking for technical knowledge and professional development and not only for an organisation that gives you cool, inclusive and instantly recognisable acronyms to add after your name. How cool is FRail?

Although I think a name change is required, although to a certain degree I think I understand this push for change, I’m not convinced by the things I’ve read and heard in the last few weeks.

This is now my opinion. If you disagree or not, please, vote!

Express what you think and feel, with your vote.

Read, think and VOTE!