Another land slip

[ess1uk]

Landslide

Disruption on the WCML 

not surprised with the amount of rain recently 

[Wickham Green too]

Birmingham to London Landslide sounds serious ! 🙄

[nigb55009]

This is a growing problem caused by previous administrations. When all the " Leaves on the line" chaos began it seemed the simplest

method was get rid of the root cause, pardon the pun. Trees were removed from embankments, little thought given to where all the

rain water soaked up by the vegetation would go. How many cuttings are being reprofiled, at great expense,  new drainage systems

are built in to these major earthworks to take water away. The use of modern traction, more powerful, faster accelerating than the

previous generation of rolling stock, doesn`t help the stituation, but thats progress. Perhaps if more thought had gone in to the problem

when it first began it wouldn`t be happening quite so often today.

[Wickham Green too]

How did they manage in steam days before all those trees were allowed to grow on the embankments ?

[nigb55009]

In steam days lineside vegetation was managed to reduce the risk of fire from sparks emitted by steam locos. After the end of steam

it was considered unnecessary. This allowed the vegetation to flourish. If you think roughly twenty years later thats about the time the

problems of low adhesion began, along with the introduction of second generation multiple units. Thats when the decision to remove

trees from the lineside was taken. I`m not saying landslides never occurred before the end of steam, but there has been a significant

increase since the mid eighties.

[adb968008]

9 minutes ago, Wickham Green too said:

How did they manage in steam days before all those trees were allowed to grow on the embankments ?

tear your petticoats off,

what ?

tear your petticoats off, and wave like mad.

 

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066279/

 

[Wheatley]

The number of trees in the photograph in ess1uk's link would suggest that loss of tree cover was not the primary cause. 

 

None of the three major railway landslips I was closely involved with the aftermath of (all significant enough to derail 156s)  were caused by removal of trees because there was not and never had been any significant tree growth on the slopes involved. One was the failure to maintain crest drains allowing the top of a shale and boulder clay slope to become waterlogged, one was a latent geological issue where very heavy localised rainfall caused a millstone grit layer to slip over a shale layer and the third was the result of putting a railway line through a geological fault. 

 

Loss of ancient tree cover might be a significant issue in tropical locations but in the UK the issue is usually either the failure to maintain existing drains, or drains being inadequate for current rainfall volumes. 

Edited February 12 by Wheatley

[locoholic]

So that's what a "blocked railway" looks like, is it? A broom was all that was required to clear the rail head!

 

Mind you, it's the same on the roads. The eastbound A40 near Monmouth has been closed for days by about eight barrowloads of soil and a couple of rocks, which impinged upon the carriageway by at least a metre. Meanwhile in Iceland they have excavator drivers who will work within a few metres of molten lava...

 

 

Edited February 12 by locoholic
Omission

[Flying Pig]

34 minutes ago, locoholic said:

So that's what a "blocked railway" looks like, is it? A broom was all that was required to clear the rail head!

 

 

From the linked article:

 

Quote

Engineers were working to cut back and clear vegetation from the railway embankment so workers could understand the scale of the damage and check there was no risk of further landslips, Network Rail said.

 

The problem is not the current obstruction,  it's whether the slip could repeat, or continue to develop under the formation. 

[Wheatley]

Quite. You need it to stop moving or at least be able to get up close and personal enough to see if its likely to move again before you go charging about clearing it. 

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

We don't want another Stainforth and Hatfield scenario presumably, so make haste with caution is the plan?

 

Mike.

[locoholic]

7 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

From the linked article:

 

 

The problem is not the current obstruction,  it's whether the slip could repeat, or continue to develop under the formation. 

As with so many other things these days, those in charge aren't reacting to what's actually happened, but are instead over-reacting because of some hypothetical worst-case scenario. Rail travel in the UK is getting so unreliable that it's now the last resort, only to be attempted if going by road isn't an option.

[Southernman46]

From the pen of this old PW Engineer ..........................

It's got nothing to do with the amount of rain or trees - manage the drainage properly - ANY track Engineer worth their salt knows that water is a deadly enemy and it needs to be dealt with satisfactorily - that means keeping the track-drains clear and flowing BUT more importantly ensuring that the crest & toe drainage of cuttings and embankments is working as it should - NR have forgotten these essentials and have demonstrated so by the totally avoidable fatal Stonehaven crash and the incredible number of near-misses with bank slips on the Wessex SWML & WOE lines in recent years. NR gets everything it deserves in bad press for this. Installing vast numbers of slip monitors on every cutting & embankment slope serves NO purpose other than to notify of a problem once it's happened & apparently being seen to be taking action - POINTLESS - it shouldn't actually get that far in the first place.

Remember "AIMWIDE" - it's only railway - it ain't hard to get right if you concentrate on the basics ..............................

Edited February 13 by Southernman46
missing half-word

[Dunalastair]

9 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

The problem is not the current obstruction,  it's whether the slip could repeat, or continue to develop under the formation. 

 

 

That was what prematurely closed the Callander - Crianlarich section of the Oban line in the sixties. Comments were apparently made locally about how little material was visible on the line, but it was the rocks still on the slope above which made it unviable to reopen, given the short time left to the railway before scheduled closure.

[62613]

1 hour ago, locoholic said:

As with so many other things these days, those in charge aren't reacting to what's actually happened, but are instead over-reacting because of some hypothetical worst-case scenario. Rail travel in the UK is getting so unreliable that it's now the last resort, only to be attempted if going by road isn't an option.

Except that the hypothetical worst case scenario happened. You don't think it a good idea to investigate why, so that prventive measures can be taken to prevent a re - occurrence? Speaking as a non - railway person.

[Reorte]

I get the distinct impression that basic maintenance is seen as dull, expensive, old-fashioned, unsexy, and a waste of money that could be instead be spent on some flashy new high-tech gimmick that somehow supposedly avoids the need for it (which it never does, but the work involved in installing it might result in kicking the maintenance can down the road for a few years). There seems to be a view that you can do a one-off big job then ignore it forevermore, which is, of course, nonsense.

 

This attitude is most definitely not confined to Network Rail, it's a problem throughout the country.

[Mark Saunders]

Maintenance budgets slashed year on year and it looks the same on motorways as potholes are developing on seven year old bits and the number of small yard square bits of tarmac is growing between Leeming and Barton on the A1.

The A66 has had closures due to slippage and likewise the A59 between Harrogate and Skipton!

Piecemeal maintenance akin to only mend it when it breaks is the norm in what are allegedly building maintenance contracts which are really repair contracts!

 

[Flying Pig]

1 hour ago, Southernman46 said:

From the pen of this old PW Engineer ..........................

It's got nothing to do with the amount of rain or trees - manage the drainage properly - ANY track Engineer worth their salt knows that water is a deadly enemy and it needs to be dealt with satisfactorily - that means keeping the track-drains clear and flowing BUT more importantly ensuring that the crest & toe drainage of cuttings and embankments is working as it should - NR have forgotten these essentials and have demonstrated so by the totally avoidable fatal Stonehaven crash and the incredible number of near-misses with bank slips on the Wessex SWML & WOE lines in recent years. NR gets everything it deserves in bad press for this. Installing vast numbers of slip monitors on every cutting & embankment slope serves NO purpose other than to notify of a problem once it's happened & apparently be seen to be taking action - POINTLESS - it shouldn't actually get that far in the first place.

Remember "AIMWIDE" - it's only railway - it ain't hard to get right if you concentrate on the basics ..............................

 

How long has the neglect been going on?  Since the old maintenance regimes were abandoned in the 60s and 70s?  It can't be easy to maintain drainage when trees are growing up and pushing their roots through everything and plenty of main lines were becoming well wooded by the mid 1980s.

[Forward!]

It's significant that in 2020-21 the UK was 9% wetter than it was between 1961-1990. And when rainfall events occur, they are generally more intensive than they were in the past: more rain is falling in less time. Indeed- between 1862 and 2020 six of the ten wettest days on record have occurred in the last 20 years. A very significant part of that increase in rainfall is concentrated within the months October-March, which exacerbates the effect of rainfall events on localised flooding, damage to transport infrastructure, etc. There's also a regional effect- the North West and Scotland is seeing a greater increase in intensive rainfall than the South and East. As climate change warms the air, it can hold more moisture (7% more moisture for every 1 degree Celsius increase in air temperature), so the UK is likely to experience more dramatic rainfall events in the future.

 

Climate change, even if action is taken now, will continue to effect our fundamental transport infrastructure without extensive (and very expensive) adaptation. Victorian rail infrastructure was never designed to cope with extreme rainfall (or for that matter, to cope with extreme heat either.)

 

Will

[Michael Hodgson]

14 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

How did they manage in steam days before all those trees were allowed to grow on the embankments ?

They had a workforce who kept the lineside relatively neat and tidy, which included maintain watercourses and controlling vegetation before it became a problem.

[Reorte]

24 minutes ago, Forward! said:

Climate change, even if action is taken now, will continue to effect our fundamental transport infrastructure without extensive (and very expensive) adaptation. Victorian rail infrastructure was never designed to cope with extreme rainfall (or for that matter, to cope with extreme heat either.)

Is it climate change or simply the lack of basic maintenance I mentioned before? Sure, it won't help, but don't attempt to keep things in good condition and it doesn't really make much difference what the climate's doing, it'll fail sooner or later anyway. But it makes a good scapegoat when there is a failure.

Edited February 13 by Reorte

[Wheatley]

2 hours ago, Mark Saunders said:

likewise the A59 between Harrogate and Skipton !

 

Which is also built through a prehistoric but still active landslip. Not an issue when the only traffic was neolithic herders, you just walk up or downhill a bit to find a bit that's easier to walk on. 

[Forward!]

1 hour ago, Reorte said:

Is it climate change or simply the lack of basic maintenance I mentioned before? Sure, it won't help, but don't attempt to keep things in good condition and it doesn't really make much difference what the climate's doing, it'll fail sooner or later anyway. But it makes a good scapegoat when there is a failure.

 

Indeed, but the point I was making is that even maintaining our infrastructure to past levels is going to require more effort in the face of climate change, and will therefore become increasing unviable in the future as rainfall events become more frequent and more intense. In some cases it is already fact that traditional designs are failing. Sure, poor maintenance is not going to help, but good maintenance is not going to solve the problem either. Completely different approaches to building and maintaining infrastructure will be needed to cope with the effects of changing weather patterns. I work in historic environment management and already the sector is talking about managing whole landscapes in very different ways than before- and yes, actually admitting that it is not possible to save everything in the form it's currently in or even to preserve historic land use patterns is a consideration. In our sector we call it "curated loss". I expect there is something similar in other sectors. Let's also not forget that the world has already recorded its first full year of breaching the 1.5 degree warming target- so even if we do act now, the impact of climate change will still be felt in the UK landscape in decades to come, whether we like it or not.

 

The scale of the problem for rail infrastructure is huge. There are 596 stations and 1800km of track deemed at high risk of surface flooding due to intense rainfall events. The effects of rainwater scour are probably the single biggest cause of structural failure on the system. There are currently about 60-70 earthwork failures on the system each year. The changing pattern of rainfall compounds the problem because we're getting wetter winters and drier summers.  This is expected to lead to an increase in earthwork failures on the rail network. This means greater fluctuations in soil moisture, which in turn causes cracking and in turn, structural failure.

 

The 2021 UK Climate Change Risk Assessment (a five yearly assessment required by law under the 2008 Climate Change Act) concluded that Network Rail has “been proactive in implementing adaptation measures” but that “sustained action is still required”, with significant risks remaining particularly around flooding and heat, and around “single points of failure” such as bridges, earthworks, and subsidence.  There's a lot that can be done using technology for real-time monitoring of earthworks (e.g. LiDAR) and a lot of risk-assessment, but fundamentally this isn't a problem that's going to be solved by just keeping up good maintenance regimes- there needs to significant, sustained, adaptation. The infrastructure is simply not designed to cope with increased rainfall or extreme heat. The million dollar question is where do you start upgrading it?  And the answer to that depends largely on where a failure has the potential to have the biggest impact. If one asset (e.g. a crucial bridge or high-risk cutting) is upgraded, this can enhance the resilience of other, lower risk sections of the network. Also, much more thought needs to be given to mitigating the impact of failures (such as planned diversionary routes), because this problem isn't going away!

 

Adaptation of the network is going to take time and it's going to cost a LOT. But the upgrading of key pieces of transport infrastructure will avoid the costs and disruption of emergency works (planned work is £ for £ cheaper than repeated emergency repair works). The really tricky thing is that it is not easy to conduct traditional cost-benefits analysis of adaptation works and upgrades because we cannot predict climate change with a great deal of certainty (we know it's happening, but are less sure of how fast it's happening and how its impact will be felt in different parts of the UK because our weather patterns are heavily dependent on things like the jeststream and Ocean currents.) Take a famous example of Dawlish- we know that sooner or later storm disruption is likely to make the route economically unviable. So when do you pull the trigger on upgrading it? You could argue for an "up front" investment, or you could adopt a "wait until we have more data on climate change" approach. Both have arguments in their favour, but both also present significant risks.

 

Some very serious decisions will need to be made in the next decade or so. The scale of vision needed to avoid catastrophe is huge- I like to think of it in terms of Bazelgette having the vision to build an entirely new solution to sewage in London- 1100 miles of drains and 82 miles of sewers so large they could incorporate enough spare capacity to see it still operational 150 years later. That's the scale we need to be thinking about. Even though (albeit in another sector) thinking about stuff like this is my day job, the scale of the challenge (or rather our politician's unwillingness to acknowledge it) still sometimes keeps me awake at night.

 

Will

Edited February 13 by Forward!

[Michael Hodgson]

9 minutes ago, Forward! said:

 

Some very serious decisions will need to be made in the next decade or so. The scale of vision needed to avoid catastrophe is huge- I like to think of it in terms of Bazelgette having the vision to build an entirely new solution to sewage in London- 1100 miles of drains and 82 miles of sewers so large they could incorporate enough spare capacity to see it still operational 150 years later. That's the scale we need to be thinking about. Even though (albeit in another sector) thinking about stuff like this is my day job, the scale of the challenge (or rather our politician's unwillingness to acknowledge it) still sometimes keeps me awake at night.

 

Will

There's more than just rain and landslides to worry about.  The foward thinking behind the Thames barrier was not quite so far-sighted. 

[Reorte]

1 hour ago, Forward! said:

 

Indeed, but the point I was making is that even maintaining our infrastructure to past levels is going to require more effort in the face of climate change, and will therefore become increasing unviable in the future as rainfall events become more frequent and more intense. In some cases it is already fact that traditional designs are failing. Sure, poor maintenance is not going to help, but good maintenance is not going to solve the problem either.

Good maintenance will give far fewer problems even with change, and buy time to make whatever alterations and changes are needed.

 

Plus there's no point in making all those changes you're arguing for if they're not going to be properly maintained either, otherwise it's just another case of doing the big fancy thing that's supposedly the solution to everything and ignoring the ongoing basics again.