5 Class 350s Flood Damaged

[modernrail]

I'm not suggesting they are incompetent just have a lack of contingency planning around a predictable and indeed predicted in advance event.

A weather warning for severe flooding up to a height likely to cause problems in this area was issued 52 hours in advance followed by a flood warning 27 hours ahead. This flood warning had an 87% confidence level that the area of Northampton including the station and sidings would experience flooding to a level to cause significant damage to property and or risk to life.

It may not have flooded for years but we live in times of uncertainty regarding weather events and a changing climate making them likely to both occur more frequently and be more severe.

WMT had between 52 and 27 hours notice that this was a strong possibility on this occasion. Indeed the possibility of these areas flooding given the fact it has happened before is higher now than ever. Better contingency planning should be in place across the railway for responding to these events given the increasing frequency they are occurring.

I was waiting for somebody to clarify the warning and that is surely the only relevant point here, not whether it was unprecedented or not. We are all aware that unprecedented weather events are expected regularly and have been happening regularly. We pay for a warning system to help us navigate that new reality and landowners need to follow it.

That is potentially really damning isn’t it? If that was the warning surely there has been a failure to act. In insurance terms, surely you would expect an insurance company to give short shift to ‘I didn’t act on the warning but it is not my fault because it was unprecedented’. Perhaps the test would be, what would a reasonable train company do when faced with a flood warning that may impact its property and assets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Dec 2024 ==

Source?

Anything I saw at the time suggests the water level ended up being half a metre higher than any worst case prediction.

But that was still a prediction of flooding? I would never expect the authorities to nail the actual height completely accurately. This is Mother Nature we are talking about.

 

[WestAnglian]

I really think this shows a lack of planning on their part as they weather and flooding in the area was forecast in advance far enough ahead that there should have been time to move them somewhere else as a temporary measure.

I understand staff might not have been available at the last minute but it should h been possible to avoid this issue.

There's always one.

Given the huge extent tof the flood warnings which country should they have been sent to?

 

[modernrail]

There's always one.

Given the huge extent tof the flood warnings which country should they have been sent to?

Flood warnings don’t cover a whole geographic area, they are very specific.

There’s always one!

 

[Class 317]

Flood warnings don’t cover a whole geographic area, they are very specific.

There’s always one!

My thoughts as well!

Seriously through this one was predicted in advance and flood warnings are very precise covering small areas likely to fllood. Flood alerts are the more general ones covering wide areas which are difficult to predict an impact from.

I receive flood and weather warnings in granulated detail apart if my work with the national grid. As critical infrastructure I assume the railway should have access to a similar service?

 

[modernrail]

My thoughts as well!

Seriously through this one was predicted in advance and flood warnings are very precise covering small areas likely to fllood. Flood alerts are the more general ones covering wide areas which are difficult to predict an impact from.

I receive flood and weather warnings in granulated detail apart if my work with the national grid. As critical infrastructure I assume the railway should have access to a similar service?

It must do. Again, if it didn’t or it did and wasn’t acted upon I would expect an insurance company to give the relevant rail related company short shrift.

I actually can’t believe that is what has happened here as that would be significant negligence. Something else must have gone wrong - the flood warning not including the relevant area or something like that.

You would also I think expect a rail related company to be on a heightened state of alert. So if there was a warning, even an alert, I would have thought it would be reasonable to expect the company to activate a watch over the relevant area who then make a call to move assets once the river is rising beyond a certain level.

Bursting of banks doesn’t happen without the river rising to a worrying level first.

I do think we need to understand the size of the problem here. A warning of regular unprecedented severe weather with a heightened risk of larger amounts of water in play means just that. They should have called it global soaking as much as global warming. We are massively in the firing line because of our weather patterns, just like those areas south of the Great Lakes in the US are at an increased risk of increasingly severe lake snow events.

 

[Class 317]

It must do. Again, if it didn’t or it did and wasn’t acted upon I would expect an insurance company to give the relevant rail related company short shrift.

I actually can’t believe that is what has happened here as that would be significant negligence. Something else must have gone wrong - the flood warning not including the relevant area or something like that.

You would also I think expect a rail related company to be on a heightened state of alert. So if there was a warning, even an alert, I would have thought it would be reasonable to expect the company to activate a watch over the relevant area who then make a call to move assets once the river is rising beyond a certain level.

Bursting of banks doesn’t happen without the river rising to a worrying level first.

I'm assuming the fault was not with the forecast as it did cover the relevant area. More likely the interpretation of the information provided and it's likely effect on operations.

More than likely this area never flooded in the memory of those making the decision to the level forecast and it did not occur to them how bad it was going to be.

Happened at a certain national grid site back in 1998 which caused a power outage for 12 hours as the transformer wasn't shut down in advance damaging other equipment.

 

[Darandio]

But that was still a prediction of flooding? I would never expect the authorities to nail the actual height completely accurately. This is Mother Nature we are talking about.

Yes, just like many other years. I'm not sure what your point is?

 

[43096]

If any 350/2s were affected they may try to avoid them reentering service.

It doesn’t work like that. Porterbrook will want them back in operational condition, in accordance with the lease terms. If they are genuinely unrepairable, then that would be an insurance payout.

 

[modernrail]

Yes, just like many other years. I'm not sure what your point is?

Oh so you think they can just be ignored because they happen. Sorry, I get your point now.

 

[Belperpete]

On the main Storm Bert thread we had people whinging about the unnecessary disruption due to over-reaction to "just a bit of rain", and now on this thread we have people whinging that they weren't proactive enough.

If they had rearranged the rosters in advance to ensure that there were sufficient drivers available to move all those units at short notice once the alert became a warning, then those drivers wouldn't have been available for duties the day before or day after. Now consider the impact of doing that for every stabling siding in the vast swathes of the country covered by flood alerts. And of course in all those places where the sidings hadn't flooded, no doubt people would be whinging about the unnecessary disruption.

 

[Wolfie]

Haha yes, I did think that it would be too high. I'm just baffled by the whole incident. I've never heard of a train being flooded! Tracks, yes, stations occasionally but never trains.

There was a 156 in Scotland l seem to recall.

 

[Russel]

More than likely this area never flooded in the memory of those making the decision to the level forecast and it did not occur to them how bad it was going to be.

Even if flooding had happened in this location previously, I'd be fairly certain that anyone in a position to make a decision wouldn't have the local knowledge to make a judgement call... we all know how centralised these things are now.

 

[Wyrleybart]

From what I understand of 350s, they don't have pneumatic seals on the doors like some other stock, meaning the doors remain sealed tightly when the train is stationary. I find it hard to comprehend how water could have gotten through the chain of rubber seals that guard the doorways on such a unit. I assume all of the undercarriage gear is waterproof and securely sealed from water ingress, that's a given in that trains undergo climate testing before entering service. I am guessing there is a lot more to this story. Perhaps a cab door window was left open and water got in?

It wasn't so much the saloons as the electrickery under the floor. Do you expect 25kV electrics to make traction motors work whilst stood in three feet of water?

 

[modernrail]

Even if flooding had happened in this location previously, I'd be fairly certain that anyone in a position to make a decision wouldn't have the local knowledge to make a judgement call... we all know how centralised these things are now.

That’s the sort of thing I think we are going to have to get a lot better at. These situations are obviously very… fluid.

It’s a big challenge. We are already seeing it in the now massive numbers of land slips. The railway is next to rivers and the sea in loads of places. The days of reasonable predictability seem to be over, so we are just going to have to get a lot better at reacting well.

I was affected by the north of Preston call last week. I think they broadly got it right. Whilst one of our group still managed a 50k run in the fells (5ft NHS A&E doc so clearly made of strong stuff), it was quite an intense storm to continue running a railway in.

 

[Pompey00]

What? That won’t be enough at all.

No. None of it will be. It might be rain proof for obvious reasons, but it can’t survive being fully submerged in water. We’ve seen how badly certain trains deal with Dawlish. LNWR and Siemens have got 14 lots of fried electrical equipment to deal with. If any 350/2s were affected they may try to avoid them reentering service.

Exactly this. There is outrage when you suggest that the units could have been dumped anywhere that electrical equipment wouldn’t have been destroyed.

The cost of arranging STP diagrams even a week in advance to end somewhere else, other than Northampton, leaving them dumped at say Euston under the roof, being aware of the unacceptable weather conditions expected to affect the main depot at Northampton would have been negligible compared to the cost of rebuilding a fleet of 14 EMUs.

What we’re talking about here is the opposite. The main Siemens depot is in Northampton, where the line flooded.

Are you seriously telling me the sidings are called Riverside sidings? What phenomenon is known to happen to rivers during severe storms?

The reason the original London and Birmingham Railway bypassed Northampton was that its too low down, that is a train contemporary with Stephenson’s Rocket could not have climbed the gradients to leave Northampton.

Flooding, at a riverside location known to be low lying is just inevitable.

Those aren’t EMUs with live high voltage electrical equipment to deal with either.

Understood thankyou

 

[westcoaster]

I'm sure in one of the early pictures published you could see an orange unit in the sidings.

 

[800001]

I'm sure in one of the early pictures published you could see an orange unit in the sidings.

There was 730s in some of the pictures that I saw of the flooding.

 

[westcoaster]

There was 730s in some of the pictures that I saw of the flooding.

Just typed in Northampton station flooding to Google, and pressed on images.

Shows both sidings full of orange class 730s.
350s in platform 4&5.

Looks like a pair of 350s appeared in P3 some time after.

 

[Liam L]

I'm sure in one of the early pictures published you could see an orange unit in the sidings.

Yes, a 730 is stabled there presumably for type training

 

[50039]

Unprecedented flooding.... curious... I remember Northampton flooding in the late 90s. The whole of Jimmy's End was under water - it was several feet deep at the bus depot, and the house in St James were uninhabitable for months (I had a friend who lived down there and was out of his house for a long time).

So - wondering how these floods compared? Did the station flood back in the 90s flood (apologies - can't remember the exact year)

And - for the record... just curious, not trying to suggest anything untoward.

 

[childwallblues]

Haha yes, I did think that it would be too high. I'm just baffled by the whole incident. I've never heard of a train being flooded! Tracks, yes, stations occasionally but never trains.

156478!

 

[Merle Haggard]

Unprecedented flooding.... curious... I remember Northampton flooding in the late 90s. The whole of Jimmy's End was under water - it was several feet deep at the bus depot, and the house in St James were uninhabitable for months (I had a friend who lived down there and was out of his house for a long time).

So - wondering how these floods compared? Did the station flood back in the 90s flood (apologies - can't remember the exact year)

And - for the record... just curious, not trying to suggest anything untoward.

That's right, and Jimmy's End flooding was almost annual back to my parents' memory before the war. Probably since it was built.

The whole of Jimmy's End is pretty level and what's odd is this. The track in the station is 2 or 3 metres above that, so you might expect for floodwater levels that reach the tracks then in Jimmy's End houses would have been submerged by that amount, and 3 metres would be up to first floor level. But I looked around this afternoon and there doesn't seem to me to be any flood damage. In the 1990s big flood, when houses had been under about 1m of water, walking round there were many signs - wet carpets and furniture in the street, all the windows and doors open, dehumidifiers, damaged cars, 'tide mark'. But none of that today. Indeed, the on-street electric vehicles charging points alongside Victoria park are still working, and the little sub-station serving them has louvres about 6" above ground.

I did take photos to try to illustrate this and post them here, but it's difficult to illustrate levels in a 2d photo.

My theory is that the flooding of the station was not caused by the river rising (I estimate that a rise of 4 metres would be needed for that) but some drainage problem at the station preventing the rainfall from running away.

 

[AngusH]

My theory is that the flooding of the station was not caused by the river rising (I estimate that a rise of 4 metres would be needed for that) but some drainage problem at the station preventing the rainfall from running away.

Which may explain the vehicles were there.

Perhaps the site should have been safe from the predicted flooding but something went wrong and it unexpectedly wasn't.

Essentially:

"That flood is predicted as n meters , but the yard is good up until m meters of flooding, so we're going to be ok"

 

[Wolfie]

Which may explain the vehicles were there.

Perhaps the site should have been safe from the predicted flooding but something went wrong and it unexpectedly wasn't.

Essentially:

"That flood is predicted as n meters , but the yard is good up until m meters of flooding, so we're going to be ok"

Just as long as m is greater than n lol....

 

[Russel]

So, are any of the 730s damaged?

 

[50039]

Th

That's right, and Jimmy's End flooding was almost annual back to my parents' memory before the war. Probably since it was built.

The whole of Jimmy's End is pretty level and what's odd is this. The track in the station is 2 or 3 metres above that, so you might expect for floodwater levels that reach the tracks then in Jimmy's End houses would have been submerged by that amount, and 3 metres would be up to first floor level. But I looked around this afternoon and there doesn't seem to me to be any flood damage. In the 1990s big flood, when houses had been under about 1m of water, walking round there were many signs - wet carpets and furniture in the street, all the windows and doors open, dehumidifiers, damaged cars, 'tide mark'. But none of that today. Indeed, the on-street electric vehicles charging points alongside Victoria park are still working, and the little sub-station serving them has louvres about 6" above ground.

I did take photos to try to illustrate this and post them here, but it's difficult to illustrate levels in a 2d photo.

My theory is that the flooding of the station was not caused by the river rising (I estimate that a rise of 4 metres would be needed for that) but some drainage problem at the station preventing the rainfall from running away.

That makes a lot of sense. I seem to recall the 90s flood (Easter?) was caused by flood defences elsewhere causing water levels to rise in St James and elsewhere. But at the time, I was commuting by train and don’t recall any problems with the trains - although I guess it would have been a few days over the weekend until I travelled again.
I remember the tide mark on the bus depot wall….

 

[modernrail]

That's right, and Jimmy's End flooding was almost annual back to my parents' memory before the war. Probably since it was built.

The whole of Jimmy's End is pretty level and what's odd is this. The track in the station is 2 or 3 metres above that, so you might expect for floodwater levels that reach the tracks then in Jimmy's End houses would have been submerged by that amount, and 3 metres would be up to first floor level. But I looked around this afternoon and there doesn't seem to me to be any flood damage. In the 1990s big flood, when houses had been under about 1m of water, walking round there were many signs - wet carpets and furniture in the street, all the windows and doors open, dehumidifiers, damaged cars, 'tide mark'. But none of that today. Indeed, the on-street electric vehicles charging points alongside Victoria park are still working, and the little sub-station serving them has louvres about 6" above ground.

I did take photos to try to illustrate this and post them here, but it's difficult to illustrate levels in a 2d photo.

My theory is that the flooding of the station was not caused by the river rising (I estimate that a rise of 4 metres would be needed for that) but some drainage problem at the station preventing the rainfall from running away.

That’s really interesting. If true, I wonder if the intensity of the rain was key.

I was thinking about the awful situation that unfolded in Valencia and wondered how quickly things changed. I was in Barcelona that week and we received an alert on our phones. The rain came and lasted about 3 hours. I commented that is nothing compared to the UK.

However, it was easily enough at the intensity it fell with to flood a load of infrastructure. Quite shocking actually. The drainage must have easily been overwhelmed or maybe blocked. I would have thought more intense rain/faster flow might increase the risk it rips stuff off and so increases blockage risk - maybe quite substantially?

 

[simonmpoulton]

Drainage system is a big problem everywhere these days it's either inadequate for the level of water or it's not been cleaned!

 

[PG]

Drainage system is a big problem everywhere these days it's either inadequate for the level of water or it's not been cleaned!

My theory is that the flooding of the station was not caused by the river rising (I estimate that a rise of 4 metres would be needed for that) but some drainage problem at the station preventing the rainfall from running away.

I've no local knowledge of the area but going by the posters that do it does seem like something was amiss with the drainage in or around the station area. Hopefully this will be investigated.

 

[Discuss223]

Class 350s use pantographs, not third rail, I could understand if the third rail was submerged and it couldn't get a current. I don't believe what some posters are suggesting about the electrical traction equipment being damaged, this is all encased in steal or strengthened aluminium casing from seeing videos of the undercarriages. Aren't trains also coated in a special powder to be weather resistant and protect the vital components? Is it not a design floor that a train could be disabled by rain water?