Cambrian coast - Fairbourne

[Phil from Mon]

Took a trip down the coast yesterday to take advantage of the good weather. Passing Fairbourne, it struck me that I have heard nothing of what the implications for this line are when the flood defences for the village stop being maintained in the next decade, as the line is pretty close to sea level until it start to climb towards Llwyngwril. Not good I would imagine.

 

[DarloRich]

build a causeway?

 

[Oxfordblues]

Fairbourne might be vulnerable to flooding but at least it's safe from invasion, with a 2.4km length of over 600 concrete blocks protecting the beach should the Germans choose to make landfall there.

(Incidentally: why are the blocks still there and what is it about Fairbourne that makes them still fear a German invasion?)

 

[pdeaves]

(Incidentally: why are the blocks still there and what is it about Fairbourne that makes them still fear a German invasion?)

Might it be to 'break up' the waves to minimise damage in the town? I don't know, never seen the blocks.

 

[30907]

Might it be to 'break up' the waves to minimise damage in the town? I don't know, never seen the blocks.

Too much trouble to move?

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

build a causeway?

That's possible, I suppose. I suspect a new alignment with an embankment carrying both the railway and the A493 is the best option. With Fairbourne expected to be uninhabitable within the next twenty to thirty years, it's probably worth starting to give it some thought.

 

[Envoy]

It looks to me like the railway is on the coastal plain whereas the A493 is just above it - following the contours - where settlements were built yonks ago to avoid the low lying marshes. So, if Natural Resources Wales plan on not defending Fairbourne and letting it be destroyed by the sea, then the Cambrian Coast Railway is likely to go the same way. See Google view:>
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6958805,-4.0489828,1525m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e1

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't suppose putting the railway onto an embankment would be all that complex/expensive in the scheme of the annual rebuild of the Conwy Valley Line

 

[Meerkat]

If you are putting the railway on an embankment wouldn’t that then protect the land behind enough to build a new Fairbourne?

 

[ExRes]

Fairbourne might be vulnerable to flooding but at least it's safe from invasion, with a 2.4km length of over 600 concrete blocks protecting the beach should the Germans choose to make landfall there.

(Incidentally: why are the blocks still there and what is it about Fairbourne that makes them still fear a German invasion?)

Don't forget that the Cold War followed WWII, defences were still needed for many years after 1945 and this country was bankrupt because of the debts run up resisting the Germans for the second time, why waste valuable resources that were needed elsewhere by removing them?

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

If you are putting the railway on an embankment wouldn’t that then protect the land behind enough to build a new Fairbourne?

It might, but who would pay for the new settlement?

The homes in Fairbourne are uninsurable and both the UK and Welsh Governments have made it clear there will be no compensation from the public purse for fear of the precedent it would set. It's a sad situation but many of the more recent residents understood the position when they bought their homes for knock- down prices.

There's a good article on the situation here.

 

[Meerkat]

A housing association, if these people are too poor to buy or build their own and insist on staying locally.

 

[Phil from Mon]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. What surprises me is that the voluminous discussion of this in the press and elsewhere has not mentioned the railway at all. I guess a causeway would be the obvious option (but that would also need protection from the sea) but the question then arises as to who would pay. Network Rail would I think have a good case that it should be the council as they are the ones abandoning the flood defences, but I’d guess there would be years of legal arguments about that.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Network Rail would I think have a good case that it should be the council as they are the ones abandoning the flood defences, but I’d guess there would beyears of legal arguments about that.

"Years of legal arguments about that" is probably right as there are always lawyers who want to milk cases!

Network Rail would have no real case though. Gwynedd aren't abandoning the flood defences. Nothing is being removed. They're still there. At some stage though, they'll cease to be effective because of the rise in sea levels. Gwynedd choses not to fight a losing battle by building additional defences.

Why is it Gwynedd council's responsibility to defend Network Rail's property anyway? They have no duty to defend the homes of Fairbourne residents. Why should the railway be treated any differently?

There is no legal obligation for public bodies to defend private property from sea ingress - nor should there be. Caveat Emptor, let the buyer beware.

 

[Phil from Mon]

"Years of legal arguments about that" is probably right as there are always lawyers who want to milk cases!

Network Rail would have no real case though. Gwynedd aren't abandoning the flood defences. Nothing is being removed. They're still there. At some stage though, they'll cease to be effective because of the rise in sea levels. Gwynedd choses not to fight a losing battle by building additional defences.

Why is it Gwynedd council's responsibility to defend Network Rail's property anyway? They have no duty to defend the homes of Fairbourne residents. Why should the railway be treated any differently?

There is no legal obligation for public bodies to defend private property from sea ingress - nor should there be. Caveat Emptor, let the buyer beware.

I’d have thought that ceasing to maintain would effectively be the same as abandoning.

There is a big difference though between protecting private property and protecting a strategic rail link, in particular given the difficulty of travel up and down the coast without it. This, and the effect on local children travelling to school, is why the line still exists. In the somewhat similar situation at Old Colwyn (which if the defences fail would sever the coast line and the A55) discussion is already involving both the Council, Network Rail and Welsh Government, so I’d guess WG would need a role as well.

 

[MarkWiles]

1) The "Dragon's Teeth" tank traps are a CADW protected ancient monument which is why they are still there.

2) Houses are not "uninsurable" in Fairbourne. I know, I live there and I have house insurance.

3) Network Rail can't plan for beyond their current ORR Control Period, so what happens post 2054 (the 40 year commitment to maintain defences given by Gwynedd in 2014) is way beyond the ability of the organisation to plan that far as it is several Control Periods into the future. Also, in the Welsh Route Utilisation document, whilst the Aberystwyth line is defined as a "main line" the line along the coast has the lesser "rural branch" designation. If the line became too expensive to maintain (and aside from Fairbourne there is coastal running at Tonfanau which despite rock armour was breached a couple of years ago, the coastal wall at Llanaber north of Barmouth was destroyed at the same time, and further north beyond Criccieth the line is at risk of inundation) would the Welsh Government have to take the difficult decision to close the route?

4) I've been actively involved not only as a resident but as a former Community Councillor for the village and in the initial action group set up by the residents when this all kicked off and things are not as black and white as it seems. However, the future of the rail line hasn't really been considered and it's not Gwynedd's responsibility to look after it, so the future of the Cambrian Coast line beyond Machynlleth, whilst politically might be seen as safe, actually isn't simply because the industry funding and regulatory frameworks don't look that far into the future.