RailEI - Our Journey to a New Chapter

The term “permanent way” is no longer widely understood. Within the railway engineering community, it’s now commonly associated solely with track. This narrow perception means many rail industry professionals in vital areas such as earthworks, electrification, water management, planning and data systems didn’t see the Institution as relevant to their work, even though our programmes and content already support them. 

Outside our industry, the term is even more confusing. Among wider stakeholders and the public, “permanent way” is often met with puzzlement or simply not recognised at all. 

To remain inclusive, relevant and understood, we needed a name that clearly reflects the full breadth of railway engineering we support, and that resonates with both current and future Members. 

We tried. For nearly a decade, the Institution made consistent efforts to explain the meaning of permanent way. But despite our best attempts, it’s still largely understood within the industry to mean track and little else. 

Explanation takes time and often fails to change perception, especially among those working in other railway disciplines or entering the industry for the first time. It was the Board’s view that spending Member funds trying to re-educate the industry and public would not be a good use of resources. 

To attract a broader, more diverse community – and for our true scope to be instantly recognisable – we needed a name that clearly reflects who we are and what we do. Like other Professional Engineering Institutions, we needed a name that’s instantly understood.

The Board did carefully consider including the word infrastructure in the new name, but ultimately decided against it, for a few key reasons:

1. The potential for confusion and loss of focus

Infrastructure is a term that’s not well understood outside specialist engineering circles, and even when used within engineering the term’s scope and meaning can change depending on the context: its scope has to be defined to achieve a clear common understanding.

For example, within Network Rail’s maintenance organisations infrastructure includes signalling and electrification engineering; but in European railway Technical Specifications for Interoperability (known as TSIs) electrification and signal engineering are excluded from the Infrastructure TSI, being covered in separate specifications. In TSIs, the term infrastructure is used quite narrowly and the definition excludes many of the railway engineering disciplines that our Institution supports. The scope for confusion is obvious and grows as terms like digital railway infrastructure become current.

In short, replacing one poorly understood and imprecise term (permanent way) with another (Infrastructure) wouldn’t help our objective of having a name that clearly reflects the Institution’s broader mission and purpose.

2. It excludes areas we actively support

Many of the biggest risks to railway safety and performance happen where different engineering disciplines meet – for example, where track meets signalling, or wheel meets rail, or pantograph meets catenary. These are critical system interfaces.

Our Institution plays an important role in helping Members understand these interfaces and how different disciplines must work together to deliver safe and reliable systems of railway transport. Using the term Infrastructure in our name might suggest we only focus on individual parts of the system and could distract from our purpose in helping people see how everything fits together.

3. We’re aiming to be inclusive of the whole railway system

The name, Railway Engineering Institution, doesn’t claim that we are experts in every field. But it does reflect our commitment to being inclusive of the whole railway system, reflecting our focus on the crucial interactions between the various parts, and to supporting people working across all disciplines.

We want everyone involved in railway engineering – whether they work with track, power, data, structures, drainage, or operations – to feel part of the Institution. This broader name makes that possible.

Yes. A comprehensive consultation on our strategy started in late 2022 and ran through to Spring 2023. It involved Section representatives, our Technical Board, PWI Ambassadors, Past Presidents, and open Member meetings. Feedback was gathered through 28 themed questions and written responses. 2 questions related directly to name change, and support for a change outnumbered opposition by 3 to 1. This informed the Institution’s 2024–28 strategy, formally adopted in late 2023 and published in the January 2024 Journal. 

Corporate Members were consulted through the Technical Board and direct outreach, with six of seven responses supporting the name change. The Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE) raised concerns about similarity, prompting refinement of the proposed name. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) also raised questions, which are being addressed through our reaffirmed commitment to collaborate. In informal discussions, representatives of other professional bodies including the Engineering Council (EngC), Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng), and the National Engineering Policy Centre (NEPC) agreed our name was unclear and potentially restrictive. 

Furthermore, international partners in India, Ireland and Australia expressed support. Overall, feedback from corporate and international stakeholders was overwhelmingly positive.

Our 2024 survey gathered responses from 116 non-members, supported by over 30 face-to-face interviews. Whilst a question about changing the name wasn’t directly posed, the feedback made it clear that permanent way is either equated solely with track or not recognised at all. 

This reinforced the concern that our name was a barrier to wider engagement – particularly for those working in other areas of railway engineering or considering joining the industry.