Network Rail hopes staff will be 'amateur meteorologists'

[Deepgreen]

The number of weather-related disasters has actually been tumbling for quite some time.

What do you define as 'disasters' here? The issues that affect the railway such as landslides, trees down, OHLE down and flooding have been pretty rife of late.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2024 ==

Its more about Network Rail and the previous lots not maintaining trees, cuttings and embankments. Wrong to blame the weather.

However, as the weather is nowadays much more influential on rail operations, largely owing to the relative delicacy of rolling stock and power supplies compared with decades past, it is an important factor, with far more abandonments of service, putting more people on the roads in dangerous weather.

 

[dosbod stuey]

What do you define as 'disasters' here? The issues that affect the railway such as landslides, trees down, OHLE down and flooding have been pretty rife of late.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2024 ==

My post was setting the scene that generally "weather events" haven't worsened - which means it's not meteorologists that are needed, but more likely engineers and geologists.

 

[BrianW]

The biggest factor at Carmont was the lack of supervision on the drainage work that was supposed to prevent it - with the contractors not carrying out the work to specification and no one in Network Rail inspecting the work afterwards.

SargeNpton- you may be right, though I think you may find that the RAIB Report following the Carmont derailment: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62274fe0e90e0747a49c94ca/R022022_220310_Carmont.pdf makes much reference to weather. A simple 'wordcount' (using Control F) indicates the following number of uses:
weather- 365; rainfall- 235; drainage- 234. (I appreciate that wordcount is a crude measure, for instance searching the document for 'rain' might take us to 'rainfall' or 'drain'.)

So I'm not sure I could agree that 'the biggest factor was the lack of supervision', though I have no hesitation in recognising that lack of supervision was a major (maybe the most significant) factor. Both are important.

Carmont was four years ago- way long enough for some learning to be put into effect. Carillion have 'gone'. The 'rail industry' can be slow and resistant to change. This is everyone's responsibility. All I see being recommended is a (compulsory?) programme to enhance awareness of weather-related 'issues' and diligence in responding to them. This is within everyone's pay grade and a duty as a human being to take care of and for others. 'Not me guv' doesn't wash with me, though 'I told you so' might cut some ice.

I reiterate that remotely monitored technology is available to measure changes and to recommend responses. It will take time and money to evaluate, install and oversee and this may cause other priorities to be 'relegated'- that is within the pay grade of someone to make those decisions and to be accountable for them. That includes trees, trains and drains

 

[Amlag]

It’so more about Network Rail and the previous lots not maintaining trees, cuttings and embankments. Wrong to blame the weather.

Absolutely spot on …you only have to look out of train windows ( I realise that sadly few people do these days as they are glued to their monitored handheld devices ) to realise lineside vegetation and trees are rampant; particularly in the always wetter areas like the SW of England.
The huge investment by NR in the last few years on new weedspraying trains and MPVs which
now don‘t even spray the lineside cess/path means brambles,grasses, bushes and trees are taking root right next to the ballast shoulder …if not dealt with this problem will prove very costly.
You can’t now travel on a branch line and even some main lines without the train in places coming into contact
with overgrown vegetation …trees falling onto lines seems the biggest single cause of train cancellations and disruptions.

As for lineside drainage, it is rarely done manually and seems only to be done reactively to a flooding problem using a JCB/mini digger machine.

As few NR staff actually travel by train it’s no wonder they don’t realise and understand these problems.

 

[Bald Rick]

No! It’s surely likely to lead to more disruption due to staff being ultra cautious, as I would be if put into that situation as a non expert. No different to when a signaller asks if I think a rough ride I’ve just reported is safe for trains to run over. I’m not a structural or p-way engineer, so I’ll only ever say no!

Actually the opposite.

Currently controllers are often cautious because they don’t know the detail, and thus take the most restrictive option, per the ‘rules’.

With more knowledge of the subject, they will be able to apply a better assessment of the risks in play, and thus be less restrictive.

I have done exactly this myself in the past - kept lines open and moving based on an assessment if the live situation, rather than closing a line because the rules told me to unless i could demonstrate otherwise.

 

[james_the_xv]

with overgrown vegetation …trees falling onto lines seems the biggest single cause of train cancellations and disruptions.

It's not...

As for lineside drainage, it is rarely done manually and seems only to be done reactively to a flooding problem using a JCB/mini digger machine.

There are works happening all the time all over the country, both proactive and reactive

As few NR staff actually travel by train it’s no wonder they don’t realise and understand these problems.

You're blaming the wrong people, biggest problem is £££, and guess where the £££ comes from?

 

[43066]

Actually the opposite.

Currently controllers are often cautious because they don’t know the detail, and thus take the most restrictive option, per the ‘rules’.

With more knowledge of the subject, they will be able to apply a better assessment of the risks in play, and thus be less restrictive.

I realise that’s the theory, I’m just not sure it follows. They will be given some information on weather, but not necessarily enough to be definitive, so it won’t necessarily translate to more sensible decisions around keeping lines open.

It sounds to me like yet another poor substitute for doing things properly in an era where the government are starving the industry of funding.

 

[Horizon22]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2024 ==

A recent example of the requirement to interpret weather forcasts well was when a wind storm was forecast for southern England but with the worst in the west. However, my local line, the North Downs, was simply closed that day owing to the perceived threat of damaging winds, which never materialised as they were, as forecast, in the west. The whole issue is not helped by the BBC's very poor consistency of forecasting between its different outputs, the web pages being notorious for not agreeing with themselves!

Network Rail use Met Desk for their forecasting which can be somewhat more granular but difficult where a line crosses multiple routes.
For instance the North Downs goes into NR Sussex and Wessex before ending up in Western (albeit at the boundary at Reading).

 

[Falcon1200]

Long tradition of staff reporting weather conditions - from the SM at Crosby Garrett on the S&C doing reports for the Met Office , to a more local report of the LT supervisor at Amersham, reporting temperatures to the Control to decide whether (pun) ice precautions should be instigated.

Yes indeed, in Scotland an example is asking Signallers and Drivers to report snow conditions in remote areas.

If only we had some sort of official meteorological department that could supply this kind of data...

Can they tell us how deep the snow is lying at Drumochter or Rannoch?

 

[AlterEgo]

“Amateur meteorologists”?

Are we *really* happy about potentially safety-critical decisions being made by (their own words) amateurs?

Safety critical decisions are currently being made by people with absolutely no knowledge of the weather whatsoever. Becoming an actual meteorologist usually requires a degree. I don’t think anyone is suggesting MOMs and the like go to university for years to understand the correlations between wind, rain, and washouts. I don’t see how it’s a bad thing that these staff are being trained more directly in how the weather affects the railway, although “amateur” wouldn’t have been the word I’d have used in the press release!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2024 ==

Can they tell us how deep the snow is lying at Drumochter or Rannoch?

Precisely the sort of thing this would be useful for.

 

[Bald Rick]

It sounds to me like yet another poor substitute for doing things properly in an era where the government are starving the industry of funding.

What would you say is doing things oroperly in this context?

 

[Deepgreen]

My post was setting the scene that generally "weather events" haven't worsened - which means it's not meteorologists that are needed, but more likely engineers and geologists.

However, they HAVE worsened, in frequency and severity, apart from snow-related ones, which have declined. Flooding is far worse and more frequent, and heat issues have increased, with buckled rails and speed restrictions. Accompanying this increase has been the trend towards closing the service down when problems are (sometimes wrongly or inaccurately) forecast.

 

[dosbod stuey]

However, they HAVE worsened, in frequency and severity,

By what metric?

Flooding is far worse and more frequent

Given that my posted north Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy chart shows no change over decades, we have to put this down to land use change or infrastructure rather than weather.

 

[Deepgreen]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Apr 2024 ==



Network Rail use Met Desk for their forecasting which can be somewhat more granular but difficult where a line crosses multiple routes.
For instance the North Downs goes into NR Sussex and Wessex before ending up in Western (albeit at the boundary at Reading).

Yes, but notwithstanding that, the line was completely closed for no good reason owing to a "weather precaution". The information used by the decision-makers was either wrong and they made the right decision on that basis, or they made the wrong decision based on right information. I would call myself an amateur meteorologist, and I could see from the weather maps (isobar/pressure maps) of that occasion that the worst winds would be much further west than the North Downs line. The fact is that the railway shuts down more and more often as a precaution these days, for whatever reason, but the upshot of that is that a far higher risk is then created by putting those people onto the roads, which are far more dangerous in inclement weather than the railways are. The railway's decisions are way too parochial, rather than considering the overall societal risks caused by forcing people onto roads.

 

[BrianW]

By what metric?


Given that my posted north Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy chart shows no change over decades, we have to put this down to land use change or infrastructure rather than weather.

I don't see this posted, or referred to- have I missed it somewhere- can you indicate where and/or when you posted it.
Your contention (which may be supported by evidence) doesn't square with my perception, so I'll tyake some convincing.
I don't doubt that the 'rail' response may be thought rather tardy or inadequate by some (many?), and excessive by others. Fortuitously (?) related fatalities have been few.

 

[dosbod stuey]

I don't see this posted, or referred to- have I missed it somewhere- can you indicate where and/or when you posted it.
Your contention (which may be supported by evidence) doesn't square with my perception, so I'll tyake some convincing.
I don't doubt that the 'rail' response may be thought rather tardy or inadequate by some (many?), and excessive by others. Fortuitously (?) related fatalities have been few.

Ah you might have to search for it yourself as it appears it's been vanished.

"North Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy" should get you the relevant data.

My contention is that it is weakening infrastructure, geologic/land use changes or increased population that are causing more stress - not weather.

 

[Deepgreen]

Yes indeed, in Scotland an example is asking Signallers and Drivers to report snow conditions in remote areas.



Can they tell us how deep the snow is lying at Drumochter or Rannoch?

At Rannoch, yes, as there is a met station there (or was).

 

[stuu]

Ah you might have to search for it yourself as it appears it's been vanished.

"North Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy" should get you the relevant data.

My contention is that it is weakening infrastructure, geologic/land use changes or increased population that are causing more stress - not weather.

That is concerned with hurricanes in the tropics. What is the UK relevance?

There are plenty of research papers which show that the intensity of rainfall is increasing compared to long term averages e.g. this one

It's also pretty obvious to anyone who has been around for a while with a mk1 eyeball

 

[Deepgreen]

By what metric?


Given that my posted north Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy chart shows no change over decades, we have to put this down to land use change or infrastructure rather than weather.

Sorry, I can't find that in any posts. In any case the Atlantic is a vast area/system, and the specific impacts on the UK are only a small part of that, meaning that any supposed average lack of change will have outliers such as the UK. Most models indicate that the UK will have been most severely affected by climate changes (and I'm not attributing those changes to any one cause here). Don't forget, too, that it isn't just storms that have an impact, but a lack of them (in summer), leading to extreme heat/drought and the problems associated with that (buckling rails, dying trees, soil contraction, severe run-off on bone-dry soil, etc.).

 

[BrianW]

That is concerned with hurricanes in the tropics. What is the UK relevance?

There are plenty of research papers which show that the intensity of rainfall is increasing compared to long term averages e.g. this one

It's also pretty obvious to anyone who has been around for a while with a mk1 eyeball

Thank you <stuu> for the link to this authoritative peer-reviewed paper; I would hope and expect that there are people at Network Rail who pay heed to such helpful studies amnd making appropriate and timely responses.

Sorry, I can't find that in any posts. In any case the Atlantic is a vast area/system, and the specific impacts on the UK are only a small part of that, meaning that any supposed average lack of change will have outliers such as the UK. Most models indicate that the UK will have been most severely affected by climate changes (and I'm not attributing those changes to any one cause here). Don't forget, too, that it isn't just storms that have an impact, but a lack of them (in summer), leading to extreme heat/drought and the problems associated with that (buckling rails, dying trees, soil contraction, severe run-off on bone-dry soil, etc.).

.. and thank you eepgreen> too. Investment in monitoring and evaluating, including in 'human capital' (and maybe AI for 'decision support') is (to my simple mind) needed, and soon, and ought not to wait until there is a predictable (let alone actually predicted) disaster.

 

[dosbod stuey]

That is concerned with hurricanes in the tropics. What is the UK relevance?

There are plenty of research papers which show that the intensity of rainfall is increasing compared to long term averages e.g. this one

It's also pretty obvious to anyone who has been around for a while with a mk1 eyeball

That reads as if they are referring to models and not data.

Wrt third paragraph, the memory is very poor when it comes to weather season events.

Sorry, I can't find that in any posts. In any case the Atlantic is a vast area/system, and the specific impacts on the UK are only a small part of that, meaning that any supposed average lack of change will have outliers such as the UK. Most models indicate that the UK will have been most severely affected by climate changes (and I'm not attributing those changes to any one cause here). Don't forget, too, that it isn't just storms that have an impact, but a lack of them (in summer), leading to extreme heat/drought and the problems associated with that (buckling rails, dying trees, soil contraction, severe run-off on bone-dry soil, etc.).

Given we're talking about broad-scale climate now, larger geographic areas are more valid and ACE is the number one accepted measure of cyclonic activity (ie, wind and rainfall).

If something is happening to just the UK, then that supports that it is local infrastructure/land use/population that are key determinants.

 

[BrianW]

Ah you might have to search for it yourself as it appears it's been vanished.

"North Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy" should get you the relevant data.

My contention is that it is weakening infrastructure, geologic/land use changes or increased population that are causing more stress - not weather.

Au contraire? I take as read your contention that 'ACE is the number one accepted measure of cyclonic activity (ie, wind and rainfall)'. Looking at the Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy (which I appreciate may not be as academically 'reliable' as the primary source), the chart seems to show that in the 15 years between 1995 and 2021 (26 years) there were 10 years in which the accumulated energy exceeded 150 'units', as against 14 for the whole period of study before that (1851-1994)(143 years). That seems to me to be a severe worsening of weather generally and 'weather events' particularly, and suggests you might at least accept that worsening weather is at least a factor, and not only local infrastructure/land use/population. Not that that justifies inattention to the infrastructure, indeed far from it- it confirms that more attention is required.

 

[Horizon22]

Yes, but notwithstanding that, the line was completely closed for no good reason owing to a "weather precaution". The information used by the decision-makers was either wrong and they made the right decision on that basis, or they made the wrong decision based on right information. I would call myself an amateur meteorologist, and I could see from the weather maps (isobar/pressure maps) of that occasion that the worst winds would be much further west than the North Downs line. The fact is that the railway shuts down more and more often as a precaution these days, for whatever reason, but the upshot of that is that a far higher risk is then created by putting those people onto the roads, which are far more dangerous in inclement weather than the railways are. The railway's decisions are way too parochial, rather than considering the overall societal risks caused by forcing people onto roads.

Often “blanket” restrictions are imposed across lines or routes.

Therefore this initiative may prevent things like this and allow certain services to run based on a more dynamic risk assessment from someone with a bit more training. I’d expect roles like Network Rail Route Control Managers and Incident Controllers might be included.

 

[The exile]

If something is happening to just the UK, then that supports that it is local infrastructure/land use/population that are key determinants.

Or that local weather patterns have shifted somewhat. It doesn’t have to take much. To take an entirely imagined example, just imagine the difference in effect between a storm path that regularly tracks West to East centred on a line roughly where Pitlochry is and the same set of storms tracking West to East over Falkirk. This is not to deny that there have been changes in the way we react / levels of risk aversion.

 

[Annetts key]

Given that my posted north Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy chart shows no change over decades, we have to put this down to land use change or infrastructure rather than weather.

With all due respect, given how complex local weather conditions can be, I'm not sure what you posted is very helpful.

The biggest problem appears to be the amount of rain (quantity), the length time it falls in and which area it affects. A large storm with lots of rain that falls steadily across a wide area is generally not a problem for the railway. However, a large amount of torrential rain in a localised area often is, if it happens to be in an area where the infrastructure can't cope (there may be other reasons why it can't cope).

It is generally acknowledged that climate change may be contributing to a change in local weather patterns.

Some parts of the railway are mostly not affected. But some parts are apparently affected more often. There may be a number of reasons why. One of which is how much funding there is and the priority of the drainage/embankment/cutting work.

But also, some TOCs are more cautious of letting some types of rolling stock/trains run on flooded lines.

For example, I've seen freight trains running on a flooded line before, but the TOC diverted all the passenger services to the alternative diversion route. Network Rail considered the line open to traffic...

 

[Deepgreen]

Often “blanket” restrictions are imposed across lines or routes.

Therefore this initiative may prevent things like this and allow certain services to run based on a more dynamic risk assessment from someone with a bit more training. I’d expect roles like Network Rail Route Control Managers and Incident Controllers might be included.

Yes, but the whole North Downs line runs from Reading eastwards, not westwards, and so away from the area of worst winds, yet the whole route was summarily closed for the day. Frankly, it simply isn't good enough to panic (misguidedly) in this way and take people from a safer mode to a less safe mode.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2024 ==

With all due respect, given how complex local weather conditions can be, I'm not sure what you posted is very helpful.

The biggest problem appears to be the amount of rain (quantity), the length time it falls in and which area it affects. A large storm with lots of rain that falls steadily across a wide area is generally not a problem for the railway. However, a large amount of torrential rain in a localised area often is, if it happens to be in an area where the infrastructure can't cope (there may be other reasons why it can't cope).

It is generally acknowledged that climate change may be contributing to a change in local weather patterns.

Some parts of the railway are mostly not affected. But some parts are apparently affected more often. There may be a number of reasons why. One of which is how much funding there is and the priority of the drainage/embankment/cutting work.

But also, some TOCs are more cautious of letting some types of rolling stock/trains run on flooded lines.

For example, I've seen freight trains running on a flooded line before, but the TOC diverted all the passenger services to the alternative diversion route. Network Rail considered the line open to traffic...

Another key point - trains (and the railway as a whole) are far more delicate these days and fall over in anything but clement weather.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

With all due respect, given how complex local weather conditions can be, I'm not sure what you posted is very helpful.

The biggest problem appears to be the amount of rain (quantity), the length time it falls in and which area it affects. A large storm with lots of rain that falls steadily across a wide area is generally not a problem for the railway. However, a large amount of torrential rain in a localised area often is, if it happens to be in an area where the infrastructure can't cope (there may be other reasons why it can't cope).

It is generally acknowledged that climate change may be contributing to a change in local weather patterns.

Some parts of the railway are mostly not affected. But some parts are apparently affected more often. There may be a number of reasons why. One of which is how much funding there is and the priority of the drainage/embankment/cutting work.

But also, some TOCs are more cautious of letting some types of rolling stock/trains run on flooded lines.

For example, I've seen freight trains running on a flooded line before, but the TOC diverted all the passenger services to the alternative diversion route. Network Rail considered the line open to traffic...

The disruption caused by weather now is somewhat different to 20/40 years ago. As highlighted we have a more cautious approach to life as a whole than we used to along with whatever you believe climate change is bringing along. The example of freight train on a flooded line but a passenger TOC wouldn't is a prime example of this, you only have to look at schools closures if bad weather is forecast and do not travel warnings.
Preemptively cancelling trains is seen as better than the let's run it and see how far we get attitude, better forecasting does not always reduce disruption but even better forecasting and understanding can localise it more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2024 ==

Yes, but the whole North Downs line runs from Reading eastwards, not westwards, and so away from the area of worst winds, yet the whole route was summarily closed for the day. Frankly, it simply isn't good enough to panic (misguidedly) in this way and take people from a safer mode to a less safe mode.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2024 ==


Another key point - trains (and the railway as a whole) are far more delicate these days and fall over in anything but clement weather.

I'm not sure you can say the infrastructure is more delicate but given the lack of appetite for risk in general is part of the impression it's more delicate

 

[Falcon1200]

At Rannoch, yes, as there is a met station there (or was).

Does that tell Network Rail how deep the snow is and whether it is safe for trains to pass?

 

[Deepgreen]

The disruption caused by weather now is somewhat different to 20/40 years ago. As highlighted we have a more cautious approach to life as a whole than we used to along with whatever you believe climate change is bringing along. The example of freight train on a flooded line but a passenger TOC wouldn't is a prime example of this, you only have to look at schools closures if bad weather is forecast and do not travel warnings.
Preemptively cancelling trains is seen as better than the let's run it and see how far we get attitude, better forecasting does not always reduce disruption but even better forecasting and understanding can localise it more.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Apr 2024 ==


I'm not sure you can say the infrastructure is more delicate but given the lack of appetite for risk in general is part of the impression it's more delicate

A lot of OHLE seems prone to failure, but I was thinking especially of signalling, when semaphores were robust and mechanical - essentially, the more equipment is controlled by electronics, the more delicate it becomes. Of course, I'm obviously not saying everything should be mechanical, but, say, a steam train (or even diesel - just with a self-contained power source) running with mechanical signalling is about as robust as you can get.

 

[43066]

What would you say is doing things oroperly in this context?

Not making real terms reductions in maintenance budgets for ageing infrastructure at a time when weather related disruption is increasing would help!

If it’s thought that this training will genuinely help, by all means do it, but it feels like papering over the cracks when the consensus amongst many in the industry is that infrastructure is deteriorating.

Given that my posted north Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy chart shows no change over decades, we have to put this down to land use change or infrastructure rather than weather.

It’s just not clear how this relates to weather related issues on the railway specially. As others have noted rainfall in particular is increasing, as are droughts and other “extreme events”, not just tropical cyclones.

The railway's decisions are way too parochial, rather than considering the overall societal risks caused by forcing people onto roads.

Just like any other method of transport the railway has to decide whether it’s safe for it to run services, taking into account the duty of care owed to passengers and staff, and make judgment calls accordingly. It seems a little odd to suggest they those making these decisions on behalf of their employers should also consider wider societal risk when doing so may directly conflict with aforementioned duties or care.

Closing the railway also doesn’t force people onto the roads, or in any way imply that they’re safe to use (often they will not be), notwithstanding that people may choose to use them nonetheless.

We wouldn’t criticise British Airways for grounding flights from London to Newcastle or Scotland during high winds, for example, on the basis it forces people onto the roads.