multivac Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The rains have come again and flooded the ECML, with Network Rail shutting the line down between Peterborough and York due to flooding. There are many pictures of steam and diesel hauled trains making their way through much deeper floods with water right up to the firebox or above the bogies. How come trains in the past were allowed to proceed along flooded track but not now? See http://www.pegnsean.net/~railwayseries/rsdb-11-4-steamworld.jpg More importantly, stay safe out there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pH Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The presence of high-voltage electricity? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold big jim Posted September 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 25, 2012 blame culture? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold DaveF Posted September 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 25, 2012 The presence of high-voltage electricity? I have seen photos (in books so cannot reproduce them here) of Swiss electric locos, which run on 15kV , running through water which covers the track. They are mainly at Rorschach Hafen, where the line floods when the level of the Bodense (Lake Constance) is high. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 A lack of moral fibre? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westie7 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 This really pi$$es me off, Last year I was on the AB-KX and was turfed onto buses at Waverley due to flooding..twice. Every winter the line between Montrose and Abroath is flooded at Inverkeillor. Lost count of how many meetings I've been late for in Glasgow. Whatever is being done (if anything!) doesnt provide a long term engineered solution. And they'd rather keep folk on trains instead of domestic flights! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingsignalman Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Until the flood water is up to half way up the rail trains can run normally. Above that, they have to be cautioned. Trains can continue to run until the water is (I think - I should remember really) 6" above rail level. This is providing the flood water is not moving. If the water is moving or the ballast appears to have been dislodged by the (still or moving) water then trains must stop whatever the height of the flood water. My excuse for the poor memory is that the rules are different for DC lines. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Not a problem in other parts of the world... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brf3J0X8xW8 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derekl Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 One of the caption comments on the steamworld photo may sum it up: "how could they be sure the track was there?" I think the attitude today maybe a little less relaxed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingsignalman Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 This really pi$$es me off, Last year I was on the AB-KX and was turfed onto buses at Waverley due to flooding..twice. Every winter the line between Montrose and Abroath is flooded at Inverkeillor. Lost count of how many meetings I've been late for in Glasgow. Whatever is being done (if anything!) doesnt provide a long term engineered solution. And they'd rather keep folk on trains instead of domestic flights! I think the rules on running through flood water were tightened up somewhat after a DMU train took a dive of a bridge on the Central Wales line and, I think, a couple of passengers drowned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivercider Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I think the rules on running through flood water were tightened up somewhat after a DMU train took a dive of a bridge on the Central Wales line and, I think, a couple of passengers drowned. That would be Glanrhyd Bridge in 1987, the bridge was weakened by scour to the pier foundations. I remember reading a report about it somewhere, conditions generally were pretty terrible that day. cheers edit - the Railways Archive has the accident report online Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Oil and water do not mix, whereas water boils to make steam? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rivercider Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 edit Whatever is being done (if anything!) doesnt provide a long term engineered solution. edit I don't know of the specific problems you mention, but, when I was on the railway, we had a frequent problem in the Chipping Sodbury area. The day after heavy rain the cutting/tunnel would regularly flood up to rail level. I know it affected the track circuits and trains often had to be diverted as a result. The solution here was to install axle counters to replace track circuiting in the affected area. I'm no signalling expert, or engineer, so don't know if that is potentially a practical solution in other areas cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 A 19th February 1990 scene never never to be seen again, as the rules governing river levels below railway bridges changed after this...... The 14.22 Llandudno-Blaenau Ffestiniog crossing Troderavon Viaduct during continuous heavy rain in North Wales..... 'Normal' river height can be gauged from the view below.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phlogiston Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 The Rule Book on running trains through flood water have been changed (tightened up) this year, as it happens. Certainly, for a long time, you were allowed to run normally if the water was (i) not flowing and (ii) no more than 2" below the top of the rail head. Between 2" below and 4" above rail head, you could run, but had to be cautioned at reduced speed. Above 4", and at any depth if the flood water was 'flowing', movements had to be stopped. The definition of 'flowing' is important, because you cannot risk running anything if ballast or anything else supporting the track has been compromised by the effects of the water. On the other hand, I would personally not be concerned if water that appeared to be flowing was simply draining away and the track was not affected. However, in the middle area (ie. between 2" below top of rail head and 4" above), variations started to appear following individual train operators making un-related modifications to rolling stock at various stages in the vehicles life cycle, so you could have the situation where one company was not permitted to operate a specific type of traction if the water was above rail head (ie. with still 4" to go in 'Rule Book' terms), due to the risk of damage by water ingress to axlebox components, whereas another operator, which had implemented a different modification (or not done one), could still run through, at caution, if the water was less than 4" above top of rail head. The problem for the TOC that couldn't run with the water above top of rail head is that any damage to the set's axle boxes could see the set out of traffic for days, with potential for cancellations or other unwanted amendments to the booked service. What now happens is that if the signaller is advised that water is above top of rail head, but less than 4" above, the matter is reported to the individual train operator control, who will advise whether the rolling stock concerned can run through the flood water or not. As regards river bridges, I would hope that all such bridges on Network Rail have now been assessed for the risks of scour and the response to Flood Warnings etc. will be laid down in the local Flood Plan/Adverse Weather Plan. In some cases this may mean normal working can stay in force, in others it may mean a watchman is sent to monitor the site and report back if conditions deteriorate beyond a certain point. In some cases it might mean a speed restriction or even a precautionary closure until divers have been down to check the abutments, once flood conditions have abated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted September 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 25, 2012 I suspect Privatisatisation hasn't helped. After all, if Network Rail gaily lets trains run, and a train comes to grief due to flooding, then NR foots the bill, no doubt. Why would the train come to grief? Well, as above, there are plenty of reasons why the flooded P Way might be "invisibly" damaged and cause a derailment. Then there's the near-universal use of traction motors, typically axle-hung, which are simply not designed to have huge amounts of water in their internals - and cannot be sealed due to the need for ventilation. Flashovers and other events on these could be very expensive - and then leave the paying customers stuck in some remote place, waters on all sides, with rescue a bit of a challenge. Again, NR to foot the bill, and obviously responsible for rescuing the poor customer, as their inability to deliver a reliable infrastructure was the cause. How many more reasons does NR need for shutting up shop? In fairness to them - not many! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 96701 Posted September 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 25, 2012 How many more reasons does NR need for shutting up shop? In fairness to them - not many! That's not a fair thing to say about the people who make up Network Rail and work in all sorts of adverse conditions to try to keep the railway open, check it after the weather has abated to confirm there's no damage and if there is damage, to carry out repairs to get it open again. Decisions to close railways aren't taken lightly, don't forget that if NR closes the line, NR pays anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted September 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 25, 2012 That's not a fair thing to say about the people who make up Network Rail and work in all sorts of adverse conditions to try to keep the railway open, check it after the weather has abated to confirm there's no damage and if there is damage, to carry out repairs to get it open again. Decisions to close railways aren't taken lightly, don't forget that if NR closes the line, NR pays anyway. Unfair to whom? It isn't about the workforce, it is about commercial imperatives, in a not-for-profit company. Having been in the railway for 38 years I know all about the dedication of individuals. This is not about that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted September 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 25, 2012 My thought is: if a particular section is so prone to flooding, why aren't NR making quick work to elevate it above flood levels? Or take action to prevent flood water accumulating at that location? I mean, you don't have to be Dutch to understand how water works, right? Vincent, if only it was that easy. We've already done lots on our patch..., but lifting lengthy sections of railway by a factor of three or four feet is no simple or cheap matter, as I'm sure you will appreciate, especially if various items of fixed infrastructure are involved, such as tunnels and level crossings.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 96701 Posted September 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 25, 2012 Unfair to whom? It isn't about the workforce, it is about commercial imperatives, in a not-for-profit company. Having been in the railway for 38 years I know all about the dedication of individuals. This is not about that. NR is a not for dividend company. Any profits are put back into the railway, so shutting the railway costs them, and the ORR watch them like a hawk, so shutting the railway isn't as easy an option as you are proposing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpion Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 i think the fact that its raining more than it has for a 100 years has a lot more to do with it than it being someones fault Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 There are many pictures of steam and diesel hauled trains making their way through much deeper floods with water right up to the firebox or above the bogies. How come trains in the past were allowed to proceed along flooded track but not now? There are various factors, some which have been mentioned already. Signalling systems are often different now - on TCB lines water will fail TCs and cause signals to be held at red. On Absolute Block and ETB lines where flooding was away from track cirsuits this obviosuly wasn't/isn't the problem, then it is down to the physical state of the line. This really pi$$es me off, Last year I was on the AB-KX and was turfed onto buses at Waverley due to flooding..twice. Every winter the line between Montrose and Abroath is flooded at Inverkeillor. Lost count of how many meetings I've been late for in Glasgow. Whatever is being done (if anything!) doesnt provide a long term engineered solution. I think not compromising safety is more important - wouldn't you agree? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brake Compo Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Unfair to whom? It isn't about the workforce, it is about commercial imperatives, in a not-for-profit company. Having been in the railway for 38 years I know all about the dedication of individuals. This is not about that. The real issue is that society has become a lot more risk averse and a much stricter view is taken of safety issues. One can see it in all modes of transport: in rail the proceedures for re-railing vehicles are much more onerous, we see the BTP taking over accident sites for days to turn them into crime scenes. The same thing happens on roads, speed limits on roads are much more strictly enforced, MoTs are tougher, the driving test is tougher... In aviation DG TREN has started to exclude long lists of African and other third world airlines from Europe's skies. In shipping maritime inspection is tougher, with unsafe flag of convienece vessels being detained on a very regular basis. I am sure that greater caution in flooding has absolutely nothing to do with the organiational structure of the system, but things like the Glanryd Bridge disater and the Ness bridge collapse have had a big influence. Even if BR were still around it would not be allowed to get away with the lax and sloppy attitudes that lead to things like Glanryd and Clapham these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I think not compromising safety is more important - wouldn't you agree? In all fairness that's the all encompassing chestnut used to justify most things that are stopped/abandoned/banned/can't be bothered with these days. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Robert Shrives Posted September 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 25, 2012 At XC in an attempt to get through water 170 and 220/1 sets run in wash speed of 3mph. HST no chance at rail level - there are several mods on some fleets to prevent ingress into bearings- I can recall HST stock sitting on a bridge at Newton Abbott -but not on the rails due to axle box failure. But a lack of diversionary routes and retained knowledge of routes will always hamper the modern railway. EC hampered today by another evil with cable theft blocking the Coast route via Sunderland. At Flax Bourton, Chipping Sodbury and Wickwar to name three places on "WR " and Winchester on "SR" outside boundary building and road changes have had adverse impacts on drainage with much money spent on pumps and diversions to water flows - not totally sucessfully because land becomes waterlogged and can take no more so drains block back. Axle counters and such do help in many cases but are not a great cure - salt issues mess at Penzance. A big issue is that railways are now staffed for a planned day only and the extra feet on the ground to cope with most problems simply do not exsist with staff often hours from locations and due to travel only have limited time on sites- part of the efficient railway it is cheaper (for some) to have trains suspended and pay out compensation rather than have a never stop national resource of which we can be proud. Robert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.