The chaos that engulfed Germany’s railway system last week has thrown a harsh spotlight on the fragility of digital infrastructure. A coordinated cyberattack left Deutsche Bahn’s signalling systems in disarray, stranding thousands of passengers and costing the economy an estimated €200 million. Yet amid the crisis, a quiet truth has emerged: Britain’s rail network, often derided for its delays and fare hikes, may be safer than its continental counterparts when it comes to cyber security. And the reason, ironically, is its patchwork legacy systems.
While Germany invested heavily in a single, centralised digital control platform – making it a ripe target for hackers – Britain’s railways still rely on a messy mix of ageing analogue signals, manual checks, and fragmented IT networks. This hodgepodge, long criticised by modernisers, has made it exceptionally difficult for cyber attackers to paralyse the entire system. “You cannot hack what is not there,” said one rail industry insider. “Our network is a nightmare for smooth operations, but it is a fortress against cyberattacks.”
Network Rail, the public body responsible for Britain’s tracks and signals, confirmed that it had not suffered a major cyber incident since the 2017 WannaCry attack that hit the NHS and other sectors. In contrast, Deutsche Bahn has been hit multiple times this decade. The UK’s approach, which sees each train operating company run its own reservation and scheduling software, has created a “diversity of defences” that hampers large-scale attacks.
But this defence comes at a cost. Passengers in the North of England, where many lines still use semaphore signals and paper-based timetables, frequently endure delays. Yet after the German collapse, some are asking whether a slower but more secure railway is a price worth paying. “I would rather be late than have my personal data stolen,” said one commuter at Manchester Piccadilly. “But I wish we did not have to choose between the two.”
The government’s Transport Department has been pushing for a £30 billion modernisation plan that would digitalise most of the network by 2040. Critics of the plan now have fresh ammunition. “The German debacle must be a wake-up call,” said a Labour MP on the transport select committee. “We need to ensure that any new system is designed with security as the absolute priority, not just speed and efficiency. Otherwise we will repeat Europe’s mistakes.”
Yet business groups warn that clinging to outdated technology will hold back economic growth. The British Chambers of Commerce called for a balanced approach: “We cannot let an overreaction to the German incident slow down the urgent upgrades our rail network needs. But we must also learn from their failures.”
For now, Britain’s railways plod on, a patchwork of old and new. The German crisis has exposed a paradox: sometimes the most advanced systems are the most vulnerable, and the most backward are the most resilient. As the government plans its digital future, it must decide what kind of railway Britain wants – one that is fast, efficient, and at risk, or one that is slow, infuriating, and safe. For passengers frozen on a platform in Runcorn or Rochdale, it is a cold comfort.
