5 Class 350s Flood Damaged

[Merle Haggard]

Which suggests something went wrong such as blocked culverts and drains possibly caused by the flooding and / or human error. Knowing the issues near us, I wouldn't be surprised if cost cutting through lack of money contributed to the problem. I do know disputed land ownership and responsibility for maintenance has caused minor flooding near us.

If you go into the small green area to the West of the station and North of the overbridge you can access, via a footbridge, another area close to the relief channel. There, there's a mound of uprooted trees and unidentifiable items - there's even a small boat underneath - all evidently washed up there and stranded when the water receded. Nearby, there's the remains of a steel children's slide - the sort that used to b found in recreation grounds. All heavy stuff, giving some idea of the force of the surge.

 

[12LDA28C]

To me it suggests that another flood gate further downstream (possibly at South Bridge) should have been opened at about the same time. What presumably happened is that the released water then met restriction further downstream and flowed back up (against the normal flow) the storm channel to the station.
Also explains why the whole of Jimmys' End wasn't under water - the flood relief channel had the effect pf delivering the excess water into a very confined area, and the only place for it to go was the station.

This appears to be exactly what happened, according to local rumour.

 

[Russel]

350377, 350233, 350242 and
350113, 350254

I suppose if it's any silver lining, at least 3 of the 5 were going anyway...

Regarding the two units that are staying with WMT, 113 and 377, if they really are damaged beyond repair as quoted earlier in this thread, would it be better in the long run to commission Alstom to build an extra pair of 730/2s?

 

[Harpo]

On the insurance paper trail, surely the owner of the infrastructure will be the one going to any party that might have caused the flooding?

I assume that the TOC/Rosco (?) will need to pursue the owner of the infrastructure.

 

[Wolfie]

I suppose if it's any silver lining, at least 3 of the 5 were going anyway...

Regarding the two units that are staying with WMT, 113 and 377, if they really are damaged beyond repair as quoted earlier in this thread, would it be better in the long run to commission Alstom to build an extra pair of 730/2s?

Perhaps better for WMT but methinks that the ROSCO(s) would have definite views on the acceptability of that. Also rather assumes that Alstom would take an order for two units of stock which isn't in current production.

 

[Russel]

Perhaps better for WMT but methinks that the ROSCO(s) would have definite views on the acceptability of that. Also rather assumes that Alstom would take an order for two units of stock which isn't in current production.

Looking at it realistically, there's only a few of options...

1, Repair the damaged units
2, Re-lease 5 350/2's long term, refit to 350/1 standard
3, Purchase 5 additional 730/2
4, Do nothing, don't question who has claimed what, passengers suffer in the long run...

Sadly, I doubt number 4 is a totally unrealistic option.

 

[800001]

sources from within rail industry have seen the following info, how true I do not know, but multiple people have sent me the same:-

That flooding at Northampton last Sunday....

7 desiros are beyond repair
Need all new electics and bogies

Been estimated it's going to cost £1.5 MILLION pound per desiro x 7

Also 3 class730s also beyond repair, also needing new bogies and electrics

Estimate for those is £1.2 MILLION pounds each

LNWR are now in dispute as too who is paying for this


Northampton waterways OPENED a dam up the road causing the whole river to burst and Northampton station flooding in 73 minutes starting at 2338 Saturday evening
All caught on CCTV

They didn't release the dam at the other end hence what caused the flood

The 3 x 730s and 5 x 350s all had pans up and drawing power at the time the water came in and flooded and exploded each unit
2 x 350s in bay 5 had pans down

So further to the above which I posted in good faith.

I have been told that the 730s are now back in traffic, anyone able to confirm ?

And the 350s which are damaged are the same as posted by someone else up thread:-

350113.
350233/242/254
350377

 

[43096]

So further to the above which I posted in good faith.

I have been told that the 730s are now back in traffic, anyone able to confirm ?

Quite a leap to go from being “beyond repair” to back in traffic in the space of 36 hours.

 

[Silverlinky]

I'm glad that from the start of the thread to the latest postings some common sense and actual factual information came to light. The five 350's in the bay platforms were worst affected because as the water came in it had nowhere to go once it reached the wall at the end of the bay platform. The amount of rubbish and debris which ended up in the bays too was unbelievable.

The units can be repaired but its not going to be an easy job, and yes there is the dispute mow about who pays out for this as the floodgates were not operated correctly. As posted opening one of them actually saved the town centre and Far Cotton from a repeat of flooding seen in years gone by, but the water backed up in a particular area, which just happened to be around the railway station!

Water levels in the bay saw the water half way up the wheels, behind which is various equipment including traction motors, this equipment didn't take too kindly to being saturated!

The units themselves now currently sit behind the stored class 321 units in Northampton Up sidings having been dragged out and are being assessed.

Ref the previous post, yes the 730's which were stabled in the Riversidings over that weekend, as they often are to maximise space at Bletchley Carriage Sidings for 350 traction running on the rest of the WCML when Northampton is blocked due to planned engineering work, made their way back to Bletchley under their own power and have seen use since.

 

[43096]

I'm glad that from the start of the thread to the latest postings some common sense and actual factual information came to light. The five 350's in the bay platforms were worst affected because as the water came in it had nowhere to go once it reached the wall at the end of the bay platform. The amount of rubbish and debris which ended up in the bays too was unbelievable.

The units can be repaired but its not going to be an easy job, and yes there is the dispute mow about who pays out for this as the floodgates were not operated correctly. As posted opening one of them actually saved the town centre and Far Cotton from a repeat of flooding seen in years gone by, but the water backed up in a particular area, which just happened to be around the railway station!

Water levels in the bay saw the water half way up the wheels, behind which is various equipment including traction motors, this equipment didn't take too kindly to being saturated!

The units themselves now currently sit behind the stored class 321 units in Northampton Up sidings having been dragged out and are being assessed.

Ref the previous post, yes the 730's which were stabled in the Riversidings over that weekend, as they often are to maximise space at Bletchley Carriage Sidings for 350 traction running on the rest of the WCML when Northampton is blocked due to planned engineering work, made their way back to Bletchley under their own power and have seen use since.

Thank you for the level-headed update. Some of the previous posts from elsewhere saying units were write-offs always had the hallmarks of the to be expected hyperventilating that always accompanies such things. The “are being assessed“ bit is key: there’s no way decisions on write-offs would be made yet until they have been properly looked at by the engineers and insurers brought in to make their assessments.

 

[bspahh]

This thread is a good warning about what could happen if drainage ditches get blocked.

Cambridgeshire County Council have a PDF document on the Rights and Responsibilities for watercourse maintenance.

They are a presumption outlined in common law, which date back to the Tudor times.

The word “riparian” means next to water. It can be used as to describe people who
live on, own or tenant land next to a watercourse, and for the environment next to a watercourse, for example riparian planting and riparian trees.

 

[NSEWonderer]

So the 730s aren't damaged beyond repair as first mentioned in this thread?

 

[SLC001]

It's hard to believe that they are not repairable but at what cost?

 

[simonmpoulton]

Give them to Brodies - they'll fix them up they did a wonderful job on that Scotrail 156 which was underwater!

 

[Wolfie]

Give them to Brodies - they'll fix them up they did a wonderful job on that Scotrail 156 which was underwater!

Anything can be repaired. Whether that can be done economically, particularly given the number of 350/2s currently due to be off-lease without a new home, is a whole other issue.

 

[800001]

Quite a leap to go from being “beyond repair” to back in traffic in the space of 36 hours.

Only posting what multiple people weee saying, and some of those people are high up in relevant TOC of which the units are allocated! This was more than ‘railway rumour’!

 

[Discuss223]

There's more heavy rain today and flooding in the midlands area. It never rains, but it pours!

 

[43096]

Only posting what multiple people weee saying, and some of those people are high up in relevant TOC of which the units are allocated! This was more than ‘railway rumour’!

Clearly it was no more than railway rumour/wibble. No way would an assessment on write-offs be made in that time and it looks all the more daft that three units “beyond repair” are in service. It’s the same nonsense we get after every incident like this - someone says “it’s a write off” and everyone assumes it is correct without stopping to think.

 

[Wolfie]

There's more heavy rain today and flooding in the midlands area. It never rains, but it pours!

If we are going to be consistently getting more weather extremes then the existing infrastructure is likely to struggle. If that infrastructure is not properly maintained things will be much much worse.

 

[87015]

Only posting what multiple people weee saying, and some of those people are high up in relevant TOC of which the units are allocated! This was more than ‘railway rumour’!

Which bit of it? The wrong date of the event (you'd think the TOC would know) or the further stuff which was absoutely unproven by very high level research? Are you saying LNR sent this around because I know they struggle with the existance of a railway south of Cov but jesus...

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

Quite a leap to go from being “beyond repair” to back in traffic in the space of 36 hours.

They were already back in traffic before this alleged LNR started story was sent round

 

[Hadders]

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.

The 1990s floods in Northampton were at Easter 1998. The flooding in St James was absolutely awful. Many people lost all their possessions and an elderly resident drowned to death in one of the flooded houses.

There was an enquiry after the 1998 floods; the cause was given as blocked storm drains. The report said that the defences were now fit for all but a one in 200 year event.
Doesn't time fly!

There was also a rumour at the time that St James was sacrificed to save Peterborough (further downstream) from flooding. Since 1998 there has been extensive flood defence work in and around Northampton.

Something does seem to have gone wrong here. The BBOB Rugby Club occupies a site just north of Northampton station and the pitches flood regularly. Their club house has never flooded, even in 1998. This time the club house was under a significant amount of water.

 

[SLC001]

BBOB has been flooded before and as recently as 2020. The latter meant that they could no longer get insurance cover and so the recent flooding has hit them hard financially.

 

[modernrail]

On the insurance paper trail, surely the owner of the infrastructure will be the one going to any party that might have caused the flooding?

I assume that the TOC/Rosco (?) will need to pursue the owner of the infrastructure.

I am not so sure. I think it will be TOC claims from their insurers who then look for somebody to blame. I don’t think there will be a viable claim against NR. I am not clear there will be one against the operator of the floodgate if there was a warning out for the area. The operator might be within its rights to say, we warned you - so your job to monitor and move. Even if there was no warning I am not clear the operator caused anything claimable as there were managing a river under natural stress. It is different to, for instance, factory A’s mill pond bursting and flooding factory B.

If the insurers don’t feel they have a viable party to go after, I expect they will be thinking about telling the TOC they are not covered for the loss because they failed to take appropriate action on the basis of the warnings (assuming they were strong enough). Unless the policy is generously worded in which case maybe they will be fine.

Feels like a complex one. I will put a fiver on the insurance company paying out and a fiver on the TOC having to suck it up.

Perhaps it will have to be the TOC that sued God.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I am not so sure. I think it will be TOC claims from their insurers who then look for somebody to blame. I don’t think there will be a viable claim against NR. I am not clear there will be one against the operator of the floodgate if there was a warning out for the area. The operator might be within its rights to say, we warned you - so your job to monitor and move. Even if there was no warning I am not clear the operator caused anything claimable as there were managing a river under natural stress. It is different to, for instance, factory A’s mill pond bursting and flooding factory B.

If the insurers don’t feel they have a viable party to go after, I expect they will be thinking about telling the TOC they are not covered for the loss because they failed to take appropriate action on the basis of the warnings (assuming they were strong enough). Unless the policy is generously worded in which case maybe they will be fine.

Feels like a complex one. I will put a fiver on the insurance company paying out and a fiver on the TOC having to suck it up.

Perhaps it will have to be the TOC that sued God.

The issue seems to be that a gate was not opened down stream so that might point to the operator of the water courses incorrectly following procedure. That would be the only route to liability.

Does anyone know what flood warnings specific or more general for the area were issued ?.
However I know of someone who lives in a medium risk area (1 per 100 years *(below) and quite a small percentage of all UK housing) who gets warnings/alerts quite often (14 in the last 12 months, once for Storm Bert and 12 days later has just received a warning this evening). He seems to have learnt to ignore them although I have suggested he keeps things that are irreplaceable upstairs (eg family photo albums).

Supposing the insurers do pay out to repair the 350s and S&T infrastructure. You can bet insurance cover will not be possible to get when it comes up for renewal. That is what many victims of flooding find.

* = In the video interview the NR guy kept quoting 1 in 100 but not saying years (or any other unit). Makes me feel there is a lack of understanding there. Also he mentioned (at 5:06) "rose to a rate where we could not see railhead" not "rate" but "level" ?. Indicate he is tired ?.

EDIT
Forgot to say. It would seem a good idea to raise S&T installations in lower lying areas so that equipment and cable ends are at a decent height above the ballast. I assume that for the S&T most damage is caused to equipment BUT also water ingress at the ends of a cable - so it does not matter how low most of the cable run is as long as the open ends don't get a drink.

After all. The most severe disruption may well be as a result of damage to the route not the 5 units that cannot now run ?.
Certainly initially.

 

[Russel]

Give them to Brodies - they'll fix them up they did a wonderful job on that Scotrail 156 which was underwater!

Not disputing the work they did on the 156, but there is a big difference between a 30+ year old DMU and a modern EMU.

 

[Dstock7080]

EDIT
Forgot to say. It would seem a good idea to raise S&T installations in lower lying areas so that equipment and cable ends are at a decent height above the ballast.

AWS/TPWS grids, axle counters?

 

[Silverlinky]

The issue seems to be that a gate was not opened down stream so that might point to the operator of the water courses incorrectly following procedure. That would be the only route to liability.

Does anyone know what flood warnings specific or more general for the area were issued ?.
However I know of someone who lives in a medium risk area (1 per 100 years *(below) and quite a small percentage of all UK housing) who gets warnings/alerts quite often (14 in the last 12 months, once for Storm Bert and 12 days later has just received a warning this evening). He seems to have learnt to ignore them although I have suggested he keeps things that are irreplaceable upstairs (eg family photo albums).

Supposing the insurers do pay out to repair the 350s and S&T infrastructure. You can bet insurance cover will not be possible to get when it comes up for renewal. That is what many victims of flooding find.

* = In the video interview the NR guy kept quoting 1 in 100 but not saying years (or any other unit). Makes me feel there is a lack of understanding there. Also he mentioned (at 5:06) "rose to a rate where we could not see railhead" not "rate" but "level" ?. Indicate he is tired ?.

EDIT
Forgot to say. It would seem a good idea to raise S&T installations in lower lying areas so that equipment and cable ends are at a decent height above the ballast. I assume that for the S&T most damage is caused to equipment BUT also water ingress at the ends of a cable - so it does not matter how low most of the cable run is as long as the open ends don't get a drink.

After all. The most severe disruption may well be as a result of damage to the route not the 5 units that cannot now run ?.
Certainly initially.

The gate was certainly opened late! As the NR guy says the river was rising from around 8pm on the Sunday night however the floodgate downstream was not opened until 3am on Monday morning. The water was backing up into town at this point and the gate was opened to alleviate the flooding in the town. The alarms were sounded at Billing Aquadrome from around 0030-0100 telling them to evacuate ahead of the deluge expected once the gates were opened.

It was the sheer amount of rain with nowhere to go once the rivers were full, the down river Northampton Washlands flood storage reservoir was already full by this point thanks to the wet summer and previous heavy rain.

 

[edwin_m]

AWS/TPWS grids, axle counters?

These are relatively insensitive to water damage and relatively easy to replace if damage does happen. The relays and other equipment within location cases are much more problematic, and in flood-prone areas these are often build on raised platforms to be (they hope) clear of the maximum water level.

 

[Harpo]

It sounds as if it was an evolving situation? If so, you’d have expected the relevant authorities involved in managing the water to be in constant touch with NR and other agencies at gold control level as with most major incidents.

Wonder how it actually worked?

 

[Merle Haggard]

The gate was certainly opened late! As the NR guy says the river was rising from around 8pm on the Sunday night however the floodgate downstream was not opened until 3am on Monday morning. The water was backing up into town at this point and the gate was opened to alleviate the flooding in the town. The alarms were sounded at Billing Aquadrome from around 0030-0100 telling them to evacuate ahead of the deluge expected once the gates were opened.

It was the sheer amount of rain with nowhere to go once the rivers were full, the down river Northampton Washlands flood storage reservoir was already full by this point thanks to the wet summer and previous heavy rain.

Billing Aquadrome, as its name suggests, is adjacent to the river. It was originally intended as a sum mer time holiday rssort, which then developed into mobile homes to stay in for a holiday to all round living accommodation. I live not too far away (but about 150' higher, deliberately) and can hear the flood warning sirens. It's flood about 4 times in the past year.

The 1990s floods in Northampton were at Easter 1998. The flooding in St James was absolutely awful. Many people lost all their possessions and an elderly resident drowned to death in one of the flooded houses.


There was also a rumour at the time that St James was sacrificed to save Peterborough (further downstream) from flooding. Since 1998 there has been extensive flood defence work in and around Northampton.

Something does seem to have gone wrong here. The BBOB Rugby Club occupies a site just north of Northampton station and the pitches flood regularly. Their club house has never flooded, even in 1998. This time the club house was under a significant amount of water.

That's the odd think about this flood. The 1998 one devastated the St. James area behind the station, as you remember, but did not flood the station; but this time, although the station was flooded the St James area itself was seemingly unaffected - there's some sheltered housing behind the station (and behind the wall of the flood relief channel) and well below the level of the station; they seem to have totally escaped flood damage - best evidence is that there's potted plants in the front gardens apparently unaffected.

It would be interesting to see the flood warning area chart; did it reflect the contours? I would have thought that, if it did, it would show the higher ground at the station as above the flood level.