The appointment of Professor Rod Smith as chief scientific adviser to the Department for Transport puts a hugely respected yet outspoken engineer at the heart of government.
Smith’s role will be to provide engineering wisdom to politicians and Whitehall mandarins who are due to make some big decisions on issues such as high-speed rail and airport capacity. These are topics close to Smith’s heart, and he doesn’t plan on holding back. “It’s a really attractive challenge,” he says. “In the past I’ve been quite critical of the department and the government and I did wonder if they had invited me inside the tent to shut me up.
“I might have to be a little bit more measured and circumspect. But it will be my role to offer constructive, informed criticism. If people only want to listen to those who tell them what they want to hear, then you will have a problem.”
He brings enormous experience to the role, having been a lecturer in the engineering department at the University of Cambridge for many years before heading the department of mechanical engineering at Imperial College London. He is the author of more than 300 publications on fatigue and fracture of metals and on many aspects of railway engineering. He is chairman of the Future Railway Research Centre at Imperial and is also the president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
His latest appointment is a welcome sign that the government understands the importance of the role of transport in a modern society and that it appreciates the value of technically sound advice. This, says Smith, is an overdue realisation.
He says: “Transport is central to our existence – where we work, where we live, where we build houses in the future, and how we stop some areas of the country like the South East from overheating.
“Unfortunately, we’ve never had a proper integrated transport policy. It was one of John Prescott’s favourite phrases when he was transport secretary – but nothing ever happened. It’s not about integration in the short term – getting off a train and on to a
bus, that sort of thing. It’s about the integration of transport within a wider view of policy over the next 30 years – things like how we will manage the switch of transport based on fossil fuels to some form of renewables. It’s about big issues.”
The in-tray at the Department for Transport is certainly stacked high. The decision by the government to go ahead with plans to build a high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham comes against a backdrop of vociferous local opposition, while capacity needs to be expanded on many existing routes. Big decisions need to be made regarding airport expansion at a time of concern about the environment. And the thorny issue of road charging needs to be grasped if urban congestion is to be reduced. It will be Smith’s responsibility to provide engineering advice on matters such as these to enable politicians to make informed decisions.
It is perhaps the railways that pose the most imminent challenge. The government announced this month that it wanted to build a high-speed link between London and Birmingham, and eventually on to northern England and Scotland. But delivering the project will prove difficult: it has encountered strident opposition from local groups who are now threatening legal action.
Smith is sympathetic to opposition groups, but remains convinced that Britain urgently needs additional rail capacity. “I think there’s a fair consensus that High-Speed 2 should go ahead,” he says. “But we ought to have a very clear picture of where we are going with it, and stop thinking about this as a railway between London and Birmingham extended to places like Manchester and Leeds. We need to be thinking what the shape of things will be in 50 years’ time, when it will be a truly national network. How will high-speed rail be integrated into our thinking in terms of regional development? This is a stepping stone to having a really good level of rail service all over the country.”
Smith is aware that HS2 also faces funding challenges. But he believes that, if the political will is there, these obstacles can be overcome. “The funding argument can be put forward about anything at any time,” he says. “But sometimes you’ve just got to acknowledge that investments made to benefit the future are more valuable than investments made to prop-up banks.
“We could have said that we couldn’t afford any project in the past. But it’s not possible to do an absolutely categorical cost-benefit analysis of these things because it depends where you define the boundaries and what you count as benefit and what you count as cost.
“There’s a sort of gut decision that HS2 is something that we need, and that we should go ahead and do it.” He thinks the best way to deal with opposition is to compensate those affected in a swift and fair manner. “There will be a small number of people who are adversely directly affected by HS2 – not everybody wants a high-speed train through their garden. But you cannot make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. What we should do is compensate these people handsomely at the earliest opportunity – take the uncertainty out of it and get on with it.”
The aviation sector faces similar challenges, with calls for additional capacity to be met either through extra runways at airports such as Heathrow or by the construction of new facilities, such as an airport in the Thames estuary. Smith is keen to open a debate on these matters so that decisions can be made sooner rather than later.
“If we had known what Heathrow was going to develop into, then we wouldn’t have put it where it is,” he says. “It’s not in a good position and at some stage we will move it elsewhere. But where it should be is open to debate. We can’t put these decisions off forever.”
On the roads, capacity is also a problem. Smith thinks that, increasingly, intelligent transport systems and even additional congestion charging schemes will need to be used to reduce traffic jams and decrease journey times. “It will all be part of the agenda in the future,” he says.
“It’s very hard to see how we can continue allowing urban traffic to grow in the way that it is doing – it’s just getting ridiculous. Even with the congestion charge in London, traffic is at a crawl most of the time. Journeys are no faster than they were 100 years ago – it’s hopeless.”
Then there is the shipping sector, which Smith refers to as the “unsung” mode of transport. “Per tonne carried, ships are incredibly efficient, and the world’s economy depends on the low shipping costs that big container ships and bulk carriers have made possible.
“Where might mechanical engineers help in shipping? Well, certainly in terms of engine technology and emissions reduction, and in the area of materials handling. Container ports are already models of efficiency and speed, but then the cargo is slowed when we have to transfer it to road or rail. The big issue of putting it on rail is that the loading gauge is too restricted – again that’s a problem we’ve known about for a century and we haven’t made any progress.”
Smith says he embraces the challenges that lie ahead, and is proud to represent the engineering profession at the heart of government. “I’ve got to commit myself to a listening and learning experience which I will thoroughly enjoy doing. I’m looking forward to it, it should be good.”
President works to expand the IMechE’s international links
Professor Rod Smith is halfway through his one-year tenure as the 126th president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Much of his time so far has been spent touring the regions, where he has met many active members. “It’s been fascinating,” he says. “There’s good work going on in the regions and some really bright young members.”
He has also initiated international liaison projects, in line with IMechE ambitions for expansion. One of these projects was with engineering colleagues in Japan in the wake of last year’s devastating tsunami. “I was quite taken aback by the weakness of the Japanese electrical power distribution system, so contacted friends in the Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers. We are running some joint activities that will feed in to their thinking,” he says.
“They are creating a less nuclear-based energy plan, which will be difficult as they have no indigenous energy resources and a very weak distribution system, generating electricity at different frequencies in the north and south of the country. We now have some nice links there.”
Smith says the IMechE is in great shape and can look forward to a bright future. The 100,000th member was signed-up this month, and he believes the institution is generating a much more visible presence.
However, challenges remain. “We must never lose sight of the fact that we are a membership organisation,” he says. “Sometimes when you are sitting in headquarters on Birdcage Walk, there can be a tendency to forget that. At times it is difficult to know what the members want, and they often want contradictory things.
“It can be difficult to get a representative view from such a large number of members, but we should strive to do that. I know we cannot satisfy every need but we are an organisation that exists for the members.”
He also believes that thought needs to be given to the structure of the profession, to enable it to speak with a clearer voice. “I honestly feel that some time in the future the big engineering institutions will come together and integrate the profession. And we will be better for it. Whether we are ready for it or not now I’m not sure.
“I’ve initiated a series of meetings with the presidents of the other big institutions. I was quite surprised those meetings weren’t taking place regularly – so we have got that back on the agenda.
“I find amongst the presidents a great desire to do things together. We are not talking about short-term merger, we are talking about doing more and more together and using synergies that exist for economies and that add value for our members.”
What would the creation of a mega-institution mean for other, smaller bodies? “The smaller institutions have a niche value but I do find it exasperating that they only come to the table when financial pressures force them to.
“It sounds a little bit harsh, but I cannot see the point of an individual existence for them, weakening the voice of the profession as a whole.”