What should be done to make the rail network more robust against severe weather.

[Bungle73]

Surely serious questions need to be asked about the resilience of the railway in any kind of out of the norm weather? We seem to be bumbling from one catastrophe to the next. This isn't a problem that's going to go away. With climate change it's only going to get worse.

 

[12LDA28C]

Surely serious questions need to be asked about the resilience of the railway in any kind of out of the norm weather? We seem to be bumbling from one catastrophe to the next. This isn't a problem that's going to go away. With climate change it's only going to get worse.

Short of spending £Billions on flood defences and improved drainage networks to protect the railway against events which are still (relatively) rare, what do you suggest?

 

[Class 317]

A sensible and on going funding programme for the below.

Raising signalling and electrical equipment above flood water height or protecting it within flood barriers with sumps and pumps if this is not possible.

Better vegetation management.

Improve flood defences both hard barriers and land use change to reduce flood risks on worst affected areas.

Raising lines above flood water levels.

Improve diversionary routes via extra signal sections, loops etc as appropriate so more diversions can run during disruption.

Ensure higher crew route knowledge of diversionary routes.

Bolster control and planning functions so they have more staff available to manage disruption and plan in advance for disruption.

Extra capability to turn trains short and operate shuttle services via additional turn back facilities.

Shorter isolation sections for OLHE and 3rd rail to limit the areas with disruption should problems occur.

 

[Falcon1200]

Raising signalling and electrical equipment above flood water height

That has already been done at particularly vulnerable locations, eg north of Carlisle station and at Hinksey, south of Oxford. However the question is, as always, where is the funding going to come from for all the other, worthwhile but costly, in some cases eye-wateringly expensive, solutions? Whatever Government is in power will have spending priorities and protecting the railway from occasional disruption will not be top of the list.

 

[coppercapped]

Surely serious questions need to be asked about the resilience of the railway in any kind of out of the norm weather? We seem to be bumbling from one catastrophe to the next. This isn't a problem that's going to go away. With climate change it's only going to get worse.

How about putting a roof over the whole island...?

 

[stuu]

How about putting a roof over the whole island...?

The Monster Raving Loony Party used to have a policy of towing Britain south so the weather was nicer

 

[yoyothehobo]

This

The Monster Raving Loony Party used to have a policy of towing Britain south so the weather was nicer

is probably more feasible than this

A sensible and on going funding programme for the below.

Raising signalling and electrical equipment above flood water height or protecting it within flood barriers with sumps and pumps if this is not possible.

Better vegetation management.

Improve flood defences both hard barriers and land use change to reduce flood risks on worst affected areas.

Raising lines above flood water levels.

Improve diversionary routes via extra signal sections, loops etc as appropriate so more diversions can run during disruption.

Ensure higher crew route knowledge of diversionary routes.

Bolster control and planning functions so they have more staff available to manage disruption and plan in advance for disruption.

Extra capability to turn trains short and operate shuttle services via additional turn back facilities.

Shorter isolation sections for OLHE and 3rd rail to limit the areas with disruption should problems occur.

 

[Class 317]

This

is probably more feasible than this

I'm not proposing spending billions just a realistic and sensible programme of works as a rolling programme over a 10 to 20 year period.

Most of the options listed are relatively low cost like rasing signalling cabinets, extra isolation switches for OLHE, better vegetation management, extra control staff and increasing diversionary routes knowledge would be very low cost versus the cost of ongoing disruption and the replacement of damaged equipment.

Don't forget that these events are becoming more frequent and severe which will increase the cost of recovery from them.

 

[Llanigraham]

Raising signalling and electrical equipment above flood water height or protecting it within flood barriers with sumps and pumps if this is not possible.

Already been done in areas that have previously had this problem and being considered in others, but it isn't as easy as some think. And it costs money!

Better vegetation management.

Seems to be happening.

Improve flood defences both hard barriers and land use change to reduce flood risks on worst affected areas.

Costs money! Also does not take into account flooding that is caused by the water table rising during excessively high rainfall events.
Land use changes need surrounding land owners actions.

Raising lines above flood water levels.

Been done in some areas, but then floods top that, such as has happened at Dovey Junction on occasions.

Improve diversionary routes via extra signal sections, loops etc as appropriate so more diversions can run during disruption.

Extra signal sections may not improve diversionary routes. Costs money.

Ensure higher crew route knowledge of diversionary routes.

Agreed but who pays?

Bolster control and planning functions so they have more staff available to manage disruption and plan in advance for disruption.

Agreed, but who pays for these extra staff?

Extra capability to turn trains short and operate shuttle services via additional turn back facilities.

The problem then is what do you do with the passengers between the shuttle points if the railway isn't available?
As we all know there isn't an RRB tree.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I'm not proposing spending billions just a realistic and sensible programme of works as a rolling programme over a 10 to 20 year period.

Most of the options listed are relatively low cost like rasing signalling cabinets, extra isolation switches for OLHE, better vegetation management, extra control staff and increasing diversionary routes knowledge would be very low cost versus the cost of ongoing disruption and the replacement of damaged equipment.

Don't forget that these events are becoming more frequent and severe which will increase the cost of recovery from them.

But what you have listed would likely cost in the 100s of billions of pounds.

Dont forget the railway is already having to deal with ageing assets which are susceptible to weather events. There just isnt the realistic budget for any of the above. The cheapest one would be to add more staff, but i really dont think there is much appetite for that at all.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not proposing spending billions just a realistic and sensible programme of works as a rolling programme over a 10 to 20 year period.

Most of the options listed are relatively low cost like rasing signalling cabinets, extra isolation switches for OLHE, better vegetation management, extra control staff and increasing diversionary routes knowledge would be very low cost versus the cost of ongoing disruption and the replacement of damaged equipment.

Don't forget that these events are becoming more frequent and severe which will increase the cost of recovery from them.

Vegetation management alone will cost an enormous sum, which is why it is not already being done.

Increasing diversionary route knowledge would require substantial increases in staff establishment to cover the extra training, with the attendent enormous cost.
The railway signalling industry in the UK is so dysfunctional that it can't keep up with life expiry replacements - it doesn't have the resources for major signalling modification works.

 

[The Planner]

Increasing diversionary route knowledge would require substantial increases in staff establishment to cover the extra training, with the attendent enormous cost.
The railway signalling industry in the UK is so dysfunctional that it can't keep up with life expiry replacements - it doesn't have the resources for major signalling modification works.

NR doesn't have the money to pay for them when most signalling companies just name their price.

 

[AngusH]

Climate change adaptation - Network Rail

Our Adaptation reports summarise progress of understanding the impacts of climate change on the railway and how we can improve resilience.

www.networkrail.co.uk

Essentially the money is being spent (2.8 billion planned in CP7)

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CP7-WRCCA-Plans-combined-summary-of-all-regions-April-2024.pdf

So there are plans and some money, so hopefully it will make an improvement

It specially includes some work on vegetation management and more work on flood defences, plus other things.

The report is much more detailed obviously, but network rail is working on this stuff

 

[skyhigh]

Raising lines above flood water levels.

Good luck with that one.

Raising all the lines as well as associated infrastructure including station platforms, OHLE and over bridges (not to mention the cost of somehow raising tunnels) would cost billions of pounds.

It would be much cheaper to improve flood defence infrastructure, though that would also cost an eye watering amount.

 

[Harpo]

Resilience costs money and nobody wants to pay.

While money is tight, it’s definitely best focussed on the 300+ days a year steady state operation rather than a handful of days.

 

[Mollman]

I heard an interview the other day where someone basically said we just have to get used to the increase in storms. I think that we just have to get used to the railway closing when there is bad weather and make sure it is easy to reopen (e.g. equipment above flood level in susceptable places).

 

[Bald Rick]

A sensible and on going funding programme for the below.

Raising signalling and electrical equipment above flood water height or protecting it within flood barriers with sumps and pumps if this is not possible.

Better vegetation management.

Improve flood defences both hard barriers and land use change to reduce flood risks on worst affected areas.

Raising lines above flood water levels.

Improve diversionary routes via extra signal sections, loops etc as appropriate so more diversions can run during disruption.

Ensure higher crew route knowledge of diversionary routes.

Bolster control and planning functions so they have more staff available to manage disruption and plan in advance for disruption.

Extra capability to turn trains short and operate shuttle services via additional turn back facilities.

Shorter isolation sections for OLHE and 3rd rail to limit the areas with disruption should problems occur.

I'm not proposing spending billions

I’m afraid you are. There is already a multi-billion pound programme of work to deal with the weather, including much of what you list plus more (earthworks in particular).

Crew knowledge for diversionary route is an interesting one - it can cost millions just to get new crew route knowledge in for (say) one reasonable diversionary route. And keeping it for a ‘might happen’ scenario is also expensive.

 

[eldomtom2]

I’m afraid you are. There is already a multi-billion pound programme of work to deal with the weather, including much of what you list plus more (esrthworks in particular).

Crew knowledge for diversionary route is an interesting one - it can cost millions just to get new crew route knowledge in for (say) one reasonable diversionary route. And keeping it for a ‘might happen’ scenario is also expensive.

Which gets back to the cost issue again...

 

[zwk500]

I heard an interview the other day where someone basically said we just have to get used to the increase in storms. I think that we just have to get used to the railway closing when there is bad weather and make sure it is easy to reopen (e.g. equipment above flood level in susceptable places).

This is a point worth discussing - preventing the railway closing at all may not be cost effective, but reducing the amount of time the railway is closed after flooding may well be feasible.

 

[Wuggie Norple]

To take a specific example: Chipping Sodbury tunnel seems to flood on a regular basis, closing the line between Bristol Parkway and Swindon. This has been going on for years. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to install sufficient drainage and pumps to prevent this happening. Why hasn’t it been done?

 

[notverydeep]

Network Rail will already have various teams in place who consider and manage projects that mitigate weather risks. They likely have some ongoing projects and funding that enables them to consider and develop future schemes or adjustments to maintenance plans and these will be evaluated by standard procedures (in use across the entire public sector) to determine the business case and take those initiatives with a good case (benefit cost ratio) through the appropriate governance process and if approved, to implementation. Funding is obviously tight, but they will clearly prioritise and some critical / high risk areas are likely to see investment, potentially along the lines of the suggestions in @Class 317’s post above. It is likely that the budget for this type of work is already in the £100 millions. It is also likely that it will remain a struggle to keep up with the increasing incidence of severe weather events.

 

[Harpo]

To take a specific example: Chipping Sodbury tunnel seems to flood on a regular basis, closing the line between Bristol Parkway and Swindon. This has been going on for years. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to install sufficient drainage and pumps to prevent this happening. Why hasn’t it been done?

Sodding Chipbury has had huge amounts of work over decades involving pumps, holding lagoons etc..

The bottom line is that when there is an inundation in that area, there is nowhere else to send the water.

 

[zwk500]

To take a specific example: Chipping Sodbury tunnel seems to flood on a regular basis, closing the line between Bristol Parkway and Swindon. This has been going on for years. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to install sufficient drainage and pumps to prevent this happening. Why hasn’t it been done?

If you're invoking Clarksonian sentiments about the wit of man, remember that any time he has asked 'how hard can it be?' the answer has almost always turned out to be 'extremely'.

For reference, the railway runs under the river Frome at Chipping Sodbury. This weekend multiple rivers burst their banks by a considerable amount around the Bristol area (I know from personal experience as I had to drive from Bristol to Frome (different river Frome, just for fun) and back on Sunday). As the railway is the lowest point in that area, it naturally collects the water. NR has built ponds and installed pumps, but the narrow channel of the River means they can only pump so much or they'll flood the river downstream. You've also got a really steep escarpment immediately east that Chipping Sodbury tunnel goes through, just to make it more awkward.
A 20km aqueduct to the Severn is theoretically possible, but would involve a vast amount of land take and engineering to deal with the local topography (the area is anything but flat until you get to the coast).

Oh, and this time Chipping Sodbury is closed for a landslip.

 

[Wuggie Norple]

If you're invoking Clarksonian sentiments about the wit of man, remember that any time he has asked 'how hard can it be?' the answer has almost always turned out to be 'extremely'.

For reference, the railway runs under the river Frome at Chipping Sodbury. This weekend multiple rivers burst their banks by a considerable amount around the Bristol area (I know from personal experience as I had to drive from Bristol to Frome (different river Frome, just for fun) and back on Sunday). As the railway is the lowest point in that area, it naturally collects the water. NR has built ponds and installed pumps, but the narrow channel of the River means they can only pump so much or they'll flood the river downstream. You've also got a really steep escarpment immediately east that Chipping Sodbury tunnel goes through, just to make it more awkward.
A 20km aqueduct to the Severn is theoretically possible, but would involve a vast amount of land take and engineering to deal with the local topography (the area is anything but flat until you get to the coast).

Oh, and this time Chipping Sodbury is closed for a landslip.

Very comprehensive response which I appreciate - thanks!
I asked because my daughter was on a Cardiff to Padd train on Sunday that was diverted via Bath due to the line being closed, which I did not realise was due to a landslip. The diversion cost a lot more time than the extra 20 minutes GWR were predicting, so instead of changing at Swindon and Didcot to get to Oxford as planned, she bailed at Swindon and caught the S6 bus, rather than risk further delays and cancellations.

 

[zwk500]

Very comprehensive response which I appreciate - thanks!
I asked because my daughter was on a Cardiff to Padd train on Sunday that was diverted via Bath due to the line being closed, which I did not realise was due to a landslip. The diversion cost a lot more time than the extra 20 minutes GWR were predicting, so instead of changing at Swindon and Didcot to get to Oxford as planned, she bailed at Swindon and caught the S6 bus, rather than risk further delays and cancellations.

Unfortunately there's not a lot that can be done by the railway about that. Rain gauges were recording up to 80% of average monthly rainfall in 48 hrs, and it simply overloaded the local waterways. I feel sorry for your daughter - similar stories were abundant in Bristol this weekend. I know of at least 2 people who simply gave up on Sunday and Monday and had to stay with friends or family nowhere near their intended destination.

On monday morning, the only 2 routes open from Bristol were the line to Gloucester/Birmingham and the line to Cardiff. The lines were closed at Chipping Sodbury, between Bath and Chippenham, at Newbury, west of Castle Cary, around Yatton, between Plymouth and Newton Abbot, between Swindon and Kemble, near Lydney, and probably a few more I don't know about.
It's easy to say GWR threw in the towel but the only reasonable description is they received multiple sucker punches for a knockout loss.

 

[Falcon1200]

Chipping Sodbury tunnel seems to flood on a regular basis, closing the line between Bristol Parkway and Swindon. This has been going on for years. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to install sufficient drainage and pumps to prevent this happening. Why hasn’t it been done?

There is also, as mentioned, a diversionary route via Bath, and if that is closed too, another (not as simple admittedly) via Gloucester. If all 3 routes are blocked conditions will be so extreme that it is debatable whether trains should be running at all.

 

[cslusarc]

What Britain needs is more man-made ponds where excess rainfall can collect within 1 mile (or so) of railway lines.

 

[Llanigraham]

To take a specific example: Chipping Sodbury tunnel seems to flood on a regular basis, closing the line between Bristol Parkway and Swindon. This has been going on for years. Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of man to install sufficient drainage and pumps to prevent this happening. Why hasn’t it been done?

It has been tried, but the problem is where do you send the water you've pumped out.
It was been now found that the pumped water caused flooding elsewhere in the stream it was pumped into.

 

[Meerkat]

If you're invoking Clarksonian sentiments about the wit of man, remember that any time he has asked 'how hard can it be?' the answer has almost always turned out to be 'extremely'.

For reference, the railway runs under the river Frome at Chipping Sodbury. This weekend multiple rivers burst their banks by a considerable amount around the Bristol area (I know from personal experience as I had to drive from Bristol to Frome (different river Frome, just for fun) and back on Sunday). As the railway is the lowest point in that area, it naturally collects the water. NR has built ponds and installed pumps, but the narrow channel of the River means they can only pump so much or they'll flood the river downstream. You've also got a really steep escarpment immediately east that Chipping Sodbury tunnel goes through, just to make it more awkward.
A 20km aqueduct to the Severn is theoretically possible, but would involve a vast amount of land take and engineering to deal with the local topography (the area is anything but flat until you get to the coast).

Oh, and this time Chipping Sodbury is closed for a landslip.

Easy - A siding full of water tankers ready to shuttle the water to Avonmouth to be dumped in the estuary.

I am of course joking, but also curious - if you weren't worried about cost would it be technically possible - how much water per train relative to the amount needing to be shifted?

 

[HSTEd]

All we need is a billion pounds for a bored tunnel to the estuary!