Kenton Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 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 Heh, those dammed statistics again! Funny how quickly we forget the droughts of earlier this year when we all were performing rain dances and were under hose-pipe bans and the threat of water bowser supplies. It is nothing unusual and just another occurrence of events. A 100 year sample is hardly a true snapshot of history especially when it is deliberately skewed to the end of the period which it is supposed to represent. Besides (and despite the weather "forecasting") we have had nothing but light showers round here (the weather forecast was for 60mm). That is not trying to belittle the flood waters that have been witnessed elsewhere, just to point out that the floods are localised. They also tend to reoccur in the same areas as they have done for years and frequently due to poor planning or maintenance. Like building on flood plains/river banks and insufficient drainage provision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted September 26, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 26, 2012 I do appreciate that Tim, sure. However, besides lifting the entire section a few feet there are other measures that can be taken to prevent flood water to damage the infrastructure. Let's go back to the rebuilding phase of the WHR. At several locations the engineers knew about the potential flooding risk and took preventative action. It paid off the very first storm hitting North Wales a few years later... Look up the site of the late dr Ben Fisher, he got it all documented I appreciate what you are getting at Vincent, but in terms of retro-engineering existing full-size railways, whilst maintaining the planned timetable, is going to cost a lot. In the current climate of budgetary caution and (rightly) requiring business cases to stack up, there are frequently more important priorities for spending. Three of the locations that have already been mentioned by Robert Shrives (above) are on my own 'patch', and whilst the external factors contribute to flooding issues, (including changes to adjoining property and climate), the topography of these locations don't easily lend themselves for an easy engineering solution. Much has been done at Chipping Sodbury, for example, including the constrution of an overspill 'lagoon', which have made this location a lot less prone to delays than in previous years. However, it's not just about managing the water when it inundates the railway, so that it doesn't cause damage - the trains will stop running once the water actually covers the railway, so we really don't want the water to get anywhere near the rails at all.... Someone mentioned axle counters - well these have got us out of salt contamination-related track circuit failure trouble on the Dawlish Sea Wall and the Exe Estuary wall for years now, as has the over-ride axle counter at Penzance (although that could perhaps do with being extended to encompass an adjoining area of running line, something to think about!)... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stuartp Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 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? One of the ways water works is that if you dig a massive drainage ditch or a sough through a hillside, water collects in it. Railway cuttings and tunnels work exactly the same way, the floods which closed the S&C this time round were all caused by water running off high ground and inundating cuttings, not from rising river water. 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. Exactly. There is no spare stock ready to be pressed into service; better to restrict the disruption to a particular section of route, even if the effect on that route is catastrophic in the short term (say a day or so), than have knock on delays lingering on for days or even weeks because availability has suddenly plummeted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted September 26, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 26, 2012 Exactly. There is no spare stock ready to be pressed into service; better to restrict the disruption to a particular section of route, even if the effect on that route is catastrophic in the short term (say a day or so), than have knock on delays lingering on for days or even weeks because availability has suddenly plummeted. Yup, strategic thinking about the bigger picture. In my Control days on Southern 40 years ago, we were blessed with a passenger train service that finished every night not long after midnight. That gave the night shift time to cobble together a morning service allowing for whatever disaster had struck the night before. There were generally a few spare units to be had here or there, or certain trains known to be lightly loaded, or where the unit only did a couple of peak hour trips before being berthed again (anyone remember the 0814 Barnehurst to Blackfriars in the late '70s? There was even a pop record about its regular cancellation) could be knocked out. Far, far better to cancel today and know that when the track conditions permit, the trains will be able to perform, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caradoc Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 How many more reasons does NR need for shutting up shop? In fairness to them - not many! I agree with 96701 that this comment is unfair. The last thing Network Rail needs is to close lines every time there is heavy rain, costing it money and adversely affecting its performance figures, but like most of the Rule Book, the instructions it contains are the result of many years of experience and incidents. As for the suggestion that the track should be raised where it floods, this would be incredibly expensive and in many places impractical; There has to be a point at which massive expenditure, to eliminate disruption on what is actually a very small number of occasions, simply cannot be justified. And as to controlling the floodwater, this comes from the surrounding land, not from the railway itself, and is therefore completely beyond the railway industry's control. We just have to accept that sometimes mother nature will win ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted September 26, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 26, 2012 I beg to differ. The already mentioned scheme on the rebuilt WHR also has water coming from non-railway property, but they took action and since several (flash) floods have come (and gone!) with little or no impact on the trackbed. I fail to see why a similar solution cannot work for NR... Especially, as Tim has pointed out, when the source of the water is known on particular locations... In Tim's example a cutting gets filled by water from higher ground. If one knows this happens, make sure to drain the water away from the cutting before it reaches it and at the same time increase drainage capacity in the cutting itself. Yes that takes money, but how much would be saved by investing it? Suppose the investment is 500k and increased maintenance will be another 5k annually, the average damage to the track, including revenue losses, replacement costs of equipment, bustitution, etc could well be 120k annually (sometimes places flood more then once a year), meaning in just 4 years the 'brake-even' point has reached and from year 5 it saves 100+k annually.... I appreciate that the UK also has to cut budgets to make ends meet, but investment programs like this can be paid for by future savings. Anyway, I understand and appreciate the difficulties Tim and his fellow managers have, but I'm still not convinced this is beyond the abilities of the British to resolve permanently. True, so true! But that doesn't mean to raise your fists to the clouds, curse at it and remain idle The Dutch certainly didn't after the disastrous 1953 flood and as a result we've become the go-to stop for large scale water works: after Katrina, the Americans came, I understand Indonesia (former Dutch colony) asked for help for their sinking capital Jakarta, the Gulf states increasing their land surface by building islands in the Gulf and I'm sure many more water related projects have Dutch involvement somewhere... But the problem which has been mentioned is things happening adjacent to railway land which have caused problems on it - and these are new problems and not of the railway's making so why should NR foot the bill for correcting them - that cost should be down to those whose lineside. or near lineside, changes have resulted in the railway flooding; at a minimu all the delay costs etc should be sent to those people for settlement and not added to NR's bill. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 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. For those of us on the 'front line' it's not an excuse. Often the public's lack of understanding of issues makes it appear so - and to be fair how would they know the ins and outs of railway operations? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 96701 Posted September 26, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 26, 2012 I do know that the lineside power and signalling location cases at Malton in North Yorkshire have been raised and now stand on stilts. The level of the Derwent at the moment is in the possible flooding mark, but if it doesn't hit the railway, was it worth spending the money to extend / renew all the cables? I have no opinion really - it seemed like a good idea at the time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingsignalman Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I beg to differ. The already mentioned scheme on the rebuilt WHR also has water coming from non-railway property, but they took action and since several (flash) floods have come (and gone!) with little or no impact on the trackbed. I fail to see why a similar solution cannot work for NR... Especially, as Tim has pointed out, when the source of the water is known on particular locations... In Tim's example a cutting gets filled by water from higher ground. If one knows this happens, make sure to drain the water away from the cutting before it reaches it and at the same time increase drainage capacity in the cutting itself. Yes that takes money, but how much would be saved by investing it? Suppose the investment is 500k and increased maintenance will be another 5k annually, the average damage to the track, including revenue losses, replacement costs of equipment, bustitution, etc could well be 120k annually (sometimes places flood more then once a year), meaning in just 4 years the 'brake-even' point has reached and from year 5 it saves 100+k annually.... I appreciate that the UK also has to cut budgets to make ends meet, but investment programs like this can be paid for by future savings. Anyway, I understand and appreciate the difficulties Tim and his fellow managers have, but I'm still not convinced this is beyond the abilities of the British to resolve permanently. True, so true! But that doesn't mean to raise your fists to the clouds, curse at it and remain idle The Dutch certainly didn't after the disastrous 1953 flood and as a result we've become the go-to stop for large scale water works: after Katrina, the Americans came, I understand Indonesia (former Dutch colony) asked for help for their sinking capital Jakarta, the Gulf states increasing their land surface by building islands in the Gulf and I'm sure many more water related projects have Dutch involvement somewhere... Using the rebuilt WHR as an example is not really a good one unless you are suggesting that NR closes the lines down for 60 odd years.............. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
seahorse Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I know it's not really funny, but others may wish to share my wry smile at the report on BBC Red Button that due to floods, Northern trains are not stopping at Liverpool Central Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted September 27, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 27, 2012 For those of us on the 'front line' it's not an excuse. Often the public's lack of understanding of issues makes it appear so - and to be fair how would they know the ins and outs of railway operations? I'm afraid in many cases it is James - not because of those in the frontline but because of what is served up not only in the Rule Book but numerous other Instructions (sometimes poorly drafted judging by examples I have seen in various official contacts with NR) and clearly in many cases produced more with the intention of covering the Company's back rather than a matter of safety or keeping trains running in adverse situationsj. The Rule Book is of course produced by RSSB - an organisation which is basically detached from any sort of day-to-day railway experience or responsibility and one which I know pays little or no heed to practical suggestions for revisions from frontline operational people to either improve the contents of the Book or at least sort out some of the dangerous ambiguities it has gained since it was translated into dumbed down English (and I have recently learnt that the Block Regulations - already a poorly laid out & difficult publication to follow- are about to undergo a big revision which it is being said is being done to bring them into line with the approach used in the Rule Book ) I fully understand that part of the difficulty is a lack of suitably trained and experienced staff out on the ground and able to undertake tasks needed in emergency or perturbed operational situations but that in turn is a symptom of the same corporate mindset based on taking an easy way out or soft option and 'dropping the handle' when things get difficult. Alas it is all too easy to pay compensation to train operators instead of actually spending the money on staff and resources to deal with perturbed situations. And sorry to get off the OT of flooding - where we did of course run through water above rail level, but after the line was checked and such checks were carried on while the flooding lasted - because staff were there who knew the ground and knew what was happening on their section or length when flooding occurred. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westie7 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 More speed restrictions today between Stonehaven and Montrose, flooding at Craigo. For the last two years this has been due to the bottom of the embankment being washed away by the swollen River North Esk. repaired obviously badly now that we are back to square one. I'm not talking about "Compromising Safety" !! My original point was about NR paying subcontractors to do a job of work (Repairs, Reinstatement and Prevention?) and then the same problem recurring... Either get some organisation to carry out effective works so the problem doesn't recurr, or get the original contractor to redo their original work for free Write contracts properly and this is achievable Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewartingram Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 More speed restrictions today between Stonehaven and Montrose, flooding at Craigo. For the last two years this has been due to the bottom of the embankment being washed away by the swollen River North Esk. repaired obviously badly now that we are back to square one. I'm not talking about "Compromising Safety" !! My original point was about NR paying subcontractors to do a job of work (Repairs, Reinstatement and Prevention?) and then the same problem recurring... Either get some organisation to carry out effective works so the problem doesn't recurr, or get the original contractor to redo their original work for free Write contracts properly and this is achievable If it is anything like we do on the Underground, there is no 'futureproofing' in any job. Basically we maintain equipment on their behalf. I won't go into precise detail for company reasons (I'm only a small cog on a very big wheel btw). LU gets a faulty piece of kit, they 'put a job out' for us to fix it. Bearing in mind our contract is for 100% reliability, (unachievable, so every job starts off by costing us a fine!). We are contractually bound to attend and fix within a certain time, it can be as little as 2 hours. Anything thing over that time and we are fined - heavily - by the minute. And there are more fines if the station is closed, massively more if the line is closed (trains delayed/not running). So naturally from this, the company has the view that we are there 'to close the job' not fix it. Pass the buck to a.n.other contractor, find evidence of operator misuse, or whatever, = not our fault, so no fines to us. If resetting a button restores the equipment to use, then that = job fixed. As an engineer, if I see something that is badly installed (which in my heart I would love to do properly, and increase its reliability) there is no incentive to modify it, as we would get fined for taking too long. Now contractually, another failure in the same way within a certain time brings in another massive fine, but usually we go the way of chancing that happenning. End result is that recurring faults linger on, (usually in the hope that companies get 'variations' which LU pay heavily for), though it MUST be said there is no safety compromise, just an inefficient way of doing things. In my view it should be all done in-house, much like London Transport or British Railways were. Stewart Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westie7 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Mmmm Interesting. Wonder how many of these Civil Engineering Contractors are ISO registered, Just finished as part of a team auditing a Multinational Engineering company which routinely failed to "adequately implement and execute Corrective and PREVENTATIVE action", (As defined by BS EN ISO9001 Para 8.5 etc) They're jumping up and down wondering why they are now off the contractors list and missing a 7 digit contract from their books! Got to laugh when I get shown certificates on the wall and management systems galore! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold 96701 Posted October 13, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 13, 2012 Hang on a minute. Aren't we talking an embankment being scoured by a river? Who wrote the specification, and who delivered the work? If the work was delivered to specification and scour still took place, then the specification was lacking, not the quality of work. Or are you involved in the process Westie7? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Wonder how many of these Civil Engineering Contractors are ISO registered, The only thing with railway work is that time is far more constrained than in other sectors. Projects often require to be planned for short bursts of activity rather than weeks or months like other civils projects. The comparisons when talking to those working on similar sized projects in non-rail environments were always interesting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgundy Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 It has been a bit damp in the West of England today as these photos illustrate. This is one of Captain Kernow's favourites on the Bristol and Exeter canal. The former Flax Bourton quay is just visible in the distance, with the course of the Land Yeo stream behind the bushes to the left - at a somewhat higher level than the "track". Looking southwest, the cut on the right leads to the former fuel terminal. Best wishes Eric Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Captain Kernow Posted November 24, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 24, 2012 It has been a bit damp in the West of England today as these photos illustrate. This is one of Captain Kernow's favourites on the Bristol and Exeter canal. I've clicked 'Like' because it's a good couple of photos, but I can't say I'm pleased to see the scene presented!... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
R A Watson Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 I have just seen on the local B B C news that a pub "close to Taunton" has been flooded twice recently. Isn't that the place some on here meet regularly for special social occasions? Waly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glorious NSE Posted November 24, 2012 Share Posted November 24, 2012 Hang on a minute. Aren't we talking an embankment being scoured by a river? Who wrote the specification, and who delivered the work? In some of these, if you're talking the basic route and level then it was some bloke called Brunel... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted November 25, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 25, 2012 Footage here of the Cowley bridge junction area in Exeter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20484594 Some missing ballast there! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugsley Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 I have just seen on the local B B C news that a pub "close to Taunton" has been flooded twice recently. Isn't that the place some on here meet regularly for special social occasions? If you mean the Cross Keys at Norton Fitzwarren, then yes. It flooded on Tuesday and Thursday, I'm not sure how it fared last night. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Gary H Posted November 25, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 25, 2012 Footage here of the Cowley bridge junction area in Exeter. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20484594 Some missing ballast there! I was supposed to be there tonite delivering some S&T cable to help the cause. Had a call earlier today to say its now been abandoned because of what we see here! Theres alot of damage there for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted November 25, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 25, 2012 This is all rather depressing. I recognise that many householders will also be suffering cost, damage and difficulty due to the weather, but NR isn't actually made of money either. All these ghastly pictures - thanks for posting, grim though they be - look like big bills, and no doubt loss of service is bad news all round, too. I hope recovery is swift and the cost less than it might be. As a retired railwayman I want the system to thrive, not get knocked about. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted November 25, 2012 Share Posted November 25, 2012 Flooding on the West Somerset Railway at Williton too apparently after 2 inches of rain overnight. Link to Facebook on BBC Radio Somerset. http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=405873122817128&set=a.405834682820972.93537.158925984178511&type=1&theater Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.