Power to Close down UK Rail Network

[Butts]

In the event of a terrorist threat / weather problems the CAA can close all UK Airspace hence grounding all Aircraft.

Has Network Rail got the same statutory power with regard to closing down all UK Rail Lines.

 

[DarloRich]

Do you mean ONLY in a terroist attack or do you mean a shut down for another reason.

 

[OxtedL]

Network Rail can basically do what it likes... Whether it would get away with it or not is another matter.

In severe weather, Network Rail is regularly quoted as having put "blanket" speed restrictions up, for example. I don't know why they would ever feel the need to close all lines though. In a terrorist situation, the call would probably some from the BTP, but again unlikely as if you close down the whole rail network then the whole country is a little bit down the toilet. Terrorist attacks have not yet got to the stage where they are co-ordinated up and down the country, thankfully.

 

[dave_wm]

Even if there was a terrorist attack, there would be little point in closing lines that were not affected - e.g. if the attack occured in London, what would be the point in closing the West Highland or Cambrian Coast Line?

 

[Butts]

I wasn't thinking about the reason for shutting the Rail Network down but if they had the Statutory Power to do it.

With regard to a terrorist threat Trains are a "weak link" as was witnessed in London in 2005 (albeit on the undeground).

It would be relatively easy to stage a spectacular with bombs going off simultaneously in London Cardiff Edinburgh and Belfast - a couple of suitcases it does not bear thinking about.

The "Martyrs" would probably be able to get off the train and detonate devices remotely.

In my view if this happened (pray god it does not) the Rail Network would be shut down .

 

[Smethwickian]

I wasn't thinking about the reason for shutting the Rail Network down but if they had the Statutory Power to do it.

As others have said, as Network Rail is a private company, it can do what it likes. Would I be right in thinking, therefore, that its obligations to its cutomers (passenger and freight operators) are a matter bound by civil contracts. Those contracts may well contain contingencies allowing NR to suspend the provision of its services (by stopping traffic and refusing access to tracks) for various reasons within or outside its control.

If so, whether or not that would be contested as valid or reasonable under the particular circumstances would be a matter for the TOCs and freight companies to pursue by civil means.

I don't imagine it's too dissimilar to the way TOCs in turn generally seek to absolve themselves of liability to passengers for circumstances (including civil commotion, riot or terrorism) outside their control which lead to cancellations or delay.

 

[Greenback]

I think we should put the idea that trains and railways are a weak link to bed, Or at least in context.

Yes, terrorists could stage a spectacular attack with bombs at Cardiff, Edinburgh, London and Belfast railway stations. But they could do the same with sports stadia, shopping malls, festivals and anywhere else where there are large gatherings of people.

The reason that airline and airport security is so strong is the potential for widespread death, destruction and panic - not to mention the ability to take out government, that can be achieved through flying an airliner into a building or buildings.

Railways do not need the security provisions that airports require, bu tthat does not eman they are a weak link.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

It would be relatively easy to stage a spectacular with bombs going off simultaneously in London Cardiff Edinburgh and Belfast - a couple of suitcases it does not bear thinking about.

The "Martyrs" would probably be able to get off the train and detonate devices remotely.

In my view if this happened (pray god it does not) the Rail Network would be shut down .

I would have thought that they wouldn't detonate them remotely - surely martyrs die in what they do?

Also, if they were to attack the four capitals all at once, why would you then close down sleepy Cornish branches, the Yorkshire Coast, and the Far North line? Surely the threat to them is about 0?

 

[Greenback]

I would have thought that they wouldn't detonate them remotely - surely martyrs die in what they do?

Also, if they were to attack the four capitals all at once, why would you then close down sleepy Cornish branches, the Yorkshire Coast, and the Far North line? Surely the threat to them is about 0?

There would probably be demands that everything be shut down, in the same way that an attack on a football match would result in knee jerk reaction to cancel all matches the following week.

 

[Butts]

I think we should put the idea that trains and railways are a weak link to bed, Or at least in context.

Yes, terrorists could stage a spectacular attack with bombs at Cardiff, Edinburgh, London and Belfast railway stations. But they could do the same with sports stadia, shopping malls, festivals and anywhere else where there are large gatherings of people.

The reason that airline and airport security is so strong is the potential for widespread death, destruction and panic - not to mention the ability to take out government, that can be achieved through flying an airliner into a building or buildings.

Railways do not need the security provisions that airports require, bu tthat does not eman they are a weak link.

Does Madrid ring a bell - that was rail fatalities in hundreds.

 

[bluenoxid]

I would have thought that they wouldn't detonate them remotely - surely martyrs die in what they do?

Also, if they were to attack the four capitals all at once, why would you then close down sleepy Cornish branches, the Yorkshire Coast, and the Far North line? Surely the threat to them is about 0?

Actually, they are even easier to set up with little CCTV and reasonably remote locations. However, the threat from Cornish terrorists, Highlanders and Filey Republicans is quite low

 

[Greenback]

Does Madrid ring a bell - that was rail fatalities in hundreds.

I'm not disputing that - as I said the same would happen if shopping centres, festivals, or sports events were targetted. Are they weak links as well?

The difference is that a large airliner coming down or into a building or built up area ha smuch more potential for large scale destruction. Hence, security at airports is stornger.

American airspace was closed after 9/11 in order to ascertain whether there were any more rogue aircraft that could be used to attack cities. Trains cannot attack cities and government buildings in the same way.

I am sure that the government has the power to close the network in exceptional circumstances. Whether it would actually do so is anyone's guess.

 

[rail-britain]

As above, the threat would more likely be dealt with locally

I am sure it has happened in the past (some time around 1993) where the entire network was suspended briefly due to a national threat
Trains on rural lines were not affected, until they reached larger stations

I remember services in and out of Euston were suspended due to a threat from the IRA
Passengers had to evacuate the station, yet the staff were left within the station
A simple tannot announcement had been made, rather than Fire Alarm
As a result the staff were left within the station area
After 5 minutes I went looking for confirmation whether it was necessary for staff to also evacuate, but noone could advise further and was told to continue as if nothing had happened...

 

[ChrisCooper]

The way terrorists operate, the very thought that an attack would lead the the widespread closure of the rail network would be a major insentive to carry one out. It would cause massive disruption to the economy, and even has a potential for loss of life (pushing more traffic onto the roads leading to more road accidents, and also disrupting either directly or indirectly the transport of personel and supplies related to essential services).

9/11 which lead to a temporary closure of US airspace was an unprecedented event, and at the time of the closure was ongoing and nobody knew how serious it was likely to be. The only similarity on the railways I could see is if there were large numbers of trains being blown up over a fairly short timescale. Madrid and London do not compare as they were simultaneous (reasonably) so that by the time it was known what was going on and action could be taken it was already all over.

The only situation where I could see a shutdown of part of the rail network for security purposes would be as part of a largescale shut down of transport in a particular area due to a serious incident. An example would be an NBC incident in a major city leading to the city basically being locked down. Not only would any rail routes through the effected area be closed, or at least be used only for evacuation, so would any roads, and airports inside the area would also be closed or stop inbound flights. The same would be true of major weather situations, not that it is particularly likely in this country, and depending on the circumstances there might be no warning anyway. Basically in any situation where the rail network is shut down, most likely life in the entire area effected will also be shut down to a greater or lesser extent. If it came to the whole rail network being shut down, it's going to be the least of anyone's concerns.

 

[OxtedL]

The way terrorists operate, the very thought that an attack would lead the the widespread closure of the rail network would be a major insentive to carry one out. It would cause massive disruption to the economy, and even has a potential for loss of life (pushing more traffic onto the roads leading to more road accidents, and also disrupting either directly or indirectly the transport of personel and supplies related to essential services).

Let's not get ahead of ourselves... I doubt terrorists are really that interested in causing deaths by increasing traffic and hence more road accidents. It has rather less impact than an explosion... :roll: A widespread closure of the network would be quite difficult to cause through terrorism as you would probably need a lot of people in a lot of places, probably across a fairly long period of time. The shear number of things that could go wrong would almost certainly sabotage such an attempt.

Basically in any situation where the rail network is shut down, most likely life in the entire area effected will also be shut down to a greater or lesser extent. If it came to the whole rail network being shut down, it's going to be the least of anyone's concerns.

Well said.

 

[Trog]

The last time the IRA put a bomb on the track BR's reaction was to send the P-Way and S&T out to see if they could find any more.

Bit of a dodgy idea as the average P Way man on finding a bomb would probably either take it back to his bosses office and ask if this is what we are supposed to be looking for, or throw rocks at it until it went bang. I tend to the second school of thought myself, if I have found the bomb I feel I am entitled to hear it go bang.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The same would be true of major weather situations, not that it is particularly likely in this country, and depending on the circumstances there might be no warning anyway. Basically in any situation where the rail network is shut down, most likely life in the entire area effected will also be shut down to a greater or lesser extent. If it came to the whole rail network being shut down, it's going to be the least of anyone's concerns.

It's almost happened a couple of times:

In October 2002 we were travelling back from a couple of nights in Newcastle and while we were there a major wind storm shut down most of the southern parts of the UK; we were able to get no further than Doncaster on the Sunday and, along with everyone else on the train, had to be found emergency overnight accomodation by the railway. In our case it was a motel nearby.

We were advised that no trains at all were moving south of Doncaster, nor were any alternative rail routes into London open. What about a taxi or coach, we asked? No - the roads were closed as well. OK... light aircraft or helicopter then? Nope - the airports were apparently also closed...


And the other occasion I am aware of?

Does October 1987 ring any bells with anyone....?

 

[SS4]

Does October 1987 ring any bells with anyone....?

Vaguely, but not first hand since I was yet to be born

I would imagine they do have the power to shut down the whole network but I cannot see it having with terrorists using conventional weapons. A pandemic or a chemical/biological attack (ie: where it's imperative to contain pathogens) is more likely.
I can only imagine they'd shut down regions though, if only for the economy's sake

 

[ChrisCooper]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves... I doubt terrorists are really that interested in causing deaths by increasing traffic and hence more road accidents. It has rather less impact than an explosion... :roll: A widespread closure of the network would be quite difficult to cause through terrorism as you would probably need a lot of people in a lot of places, probably across a fairly long period of time. The shear number of things that could go wrong would almost certainly sabotage such an attempt.

I was trying to make reasons why closing the network down in the event of a terrorist attack would not be a good idea, hence why it's not going to happen except in exceptional circumstances. I mentioned the idea of road accidents to remind people that closing the rail network for safety issues in general tends to actually increase risk and has the chance to kill more people than it saves. Terrorists wouldn't attempt to shut down the rail network to cause road accidents and to even think that is stupid, but if it was easy enough to do then then it would be a prime target due to the massive disruption and chaos it would cause. This is why there does not need to be a contingancy to close down the rail network other than in the event of the most extream circumstances, and why to do so would be counterproductive and dangerous.

 

[strange6]

I can't see any reason for shutting the network down unless some outfit rigged an atom bomb to a loco and set off for London with it, but even in those circumstances, why shut the whole network off?. Even then, it would be the Police who would have the final say in what happened to the network, all or part thereof!

 

[merlodlliw]

Contingency plans are in operation, depending on the colour,the Govt via its agencies can shut the entire system down within an hour, if it chose to.

 

[Maxfly]

Network Rail do have the powes to shut down the newtowrk if they deem it necessary, certainly up here in Scotland several months ago the carried out a controlled shutdown due to the high winds and the destruction/havoc the were causing. I am assuming they conversed with TOCs & FOCs during the decision making on this. It started with the blanket 50mph speed restriction and then moved to the shutdown. It would be assumed that it is a last resort but the simple answer to the OP's question is yes

 

[michael769]

Network Rail do have the powes to shut down the newtowrk if they deem it necessary, certainly up here in Scotland several months ago the carried out a controlled shutdown due to the high winds and the destruction/havoc the were causing.

Even that was not a 100% shutdown. I was fortunate enough to travel on one of the very few trains (Bathgate - Edinburgh) that continued to run throughout.

 

[cdonnigan]

Just a thought but say in the event of a major attack in a big city wouldnt the rail network be better off being used as means of evacuation.

 

[GB]

Just a thought but say in the event of a major attack in a big city wouldnt the rail network be better off being used as means of evacuation.

Funny you should say that.....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On the point of closing down the network, I don't think there will ever be the time where all or most of it is shut down, but certainly localised events such as 7/7 would see parts of it shut down. The decision is unlikly to be taken soley by NR but in conjunction with other services and departments.

I know when the tube train near Liverpool St was bombed, GE national rail services were prevented from entering the capital for a number of hours.

 

[Maxfly]

Even that was not a 100% shutdown. I was fortunate enough to travel on one of the very few trains (Bathgate - Edinburgh) that continued to run throughout.

Aye, it was intitially to be complete shutdown with only trains already on the move to complete their journeys, what made them keep A-B trundling i don't know but there must have been a valid reason i assume as when control called the box the exact words were 'we are going for a controlled shutdown of the network' named the last departure/arrivals for my line and informed thos trains on the move would carry on to their destinations.

Have to say it was a cracking windy day and after this phonecall i was most impressed that all the boards for the TSR at the box had stayed up untill the very last train that ran that day came round the corner to inform me one of them had been blown over and that he knew this because he had just ran over the top of it lol

 

[michael769]

what made them keep A-B trundling i don't know but there must have been a valid reason i assume

The A-B was actually shut down. They were running 170s under the wires as far as Bathgate. The only other service was Edinburgh to North Berwick. It struck me as strange that the only 2 lines operating were on electric lines, albeit apparently running diesel under the wires. Presumably some judgment was made that conditions were not so bad on these, lines - certainly when I got home it did not seem exceptionally windy out at Livingston.