SVR Embankment collapse

[duffield]

They will be as part of the NR/SVR partnership

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this partnership but I've found various information about it online.

 

[wce]

Carriages stored at Kidderminster aren't they usually?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Feb 2025 ==


75069 is been moved to kidder 7802 is been moved to Kidder for running in 7714 is staying at Bridgnorth according to posts on unofficial S.V.R. Facebook page.

Not sure where you got 7802 moving to Kidderminster from, at the moment that’s not the plan as there are still a few jobs to complete which will be done at Bridgnorth.

For the moment 75069 will be the sole steam locomotive available at the southern end.

 

[AndrewE]

Not sure where you got 7802 moving to Kidderminster from, at the moment that’s not the plan as there are still a few jobs to complete which will be done at Bridgnorth.

For the moment 75069 will be the sole locomotive available at the southern end.

apart from the diesels which live down that end?

 

[wce]

apart from the diesels which live down that end?

Sorry yes, I accidentally omitted steam from my reply.

 

[Harpo]

“Adam Checkley, from Network Rail, said they believed the damage was storm-related.

"It's the river and the sheer power of the river that's probably taken the wing wall of this particular structure away and the earthwork has followed it through," he told the BBC.

Potentially answering the question whether it was a formation or structural failure.

Fingers crossed that it means there isn’t an underlying formation issue to be resolved during reconstruction.

 

[trebor79]

That's exactly how it would work if you don't know what you are doing yes.

Environment Agency generally have a 12 week turnaround and natural England I don't see a reason they would be involved specifically.

EA 12 week turnaround?
Perhaps that's what it says on their website but they have long failed to achieve that.
It's not unusual to wait a year for a permit to be issued. They also now have a message on their website saying basically "don't contact us about your permit issuance because responding to your query just wastes our time and makes it even slower, so we won't bother responding to such queries in future".

 

[YorkshireBear]

EA 12 week turnaround?
Perhaps that's what it says on their website but they have long failed to achieve that.
It's not unusual to wait a year for a permit to be issued. They also now have a message on their website saying basically "don't contact us about your permit issuance because responding to your query just wastes our time and makes it even slower, so we won't bother responding to such queries in future".

A recent project on my heritage railway required five permits across the year on site, all of which were issued within 8 weeks of submission.

 

[kje7812]

A post on the SVR FB page showing boreholes being sunk to explore the ground conditions
Pictures from the SVR FB, originally by Gary Essex

 

[GWR Modeller]

Not much in the way of new updates, but here's another article on the incident.
BBC News - Work begins to find cause of railway landslip

Shropshire: Works begin to find cause of heritage railway landslip

Lesley Carr says some Bridgnorth businesses are worried the bridge closure may affect trade.

www.bbc.com

 

[kje7812]

Survey work continuing, hopefully more information will be available within the week.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

SVR website shows that trains will be running between Kidderminster and Hampton Loade on dates in February half term week. One steam and one diesel diagram, supplemented by the DMU for the ‘Paddington Bear’ event at Highley.

Note there is no way for wheelchair customers to join / alight at Hampton Loade due to the nature of the station, according to the timetable on the website. There may also be steam footplate rides on certain dates at Bridgnorth station.

 

[swt_passenger]

Not much in the way of new updates, but here's another article on the incident.
BBC News - Work begins to find cause of railway landslip

Shropshire: Works begin to find cause of heritage railway landslip

Lesley Carr says some Bridgnorth businesses are worried the bridge closure may affect trade.

www.bbc.com

From the BBC report, they finally mention the wing wall collapse.

“The landslip led to the collapse of one of the wing walls that holds up the bridge over the Mor Brook, a tributary of the River Severn.”

^^^ That’s the wrong way round IMHO, I firmly believe the collapse of the wing wall led to the landslip.

Then in the next sentence: “Mr Bond, [SVR head of infrastructure], said there had been a "failure of the wing wall of the bridge", which caused hundreds of tonnes of rubble and earth to tumble down.”

^^^ They finally describe it the right way round? I’m not sure why they seem so reluctant to call it what it is.

 

[YorkshireBear]

From the BBC report, they finally mention the wing wall collapse.

“The landslip led to the collapse of one of the wing walls that holds up the bridge over the Mor Brook, a tributary of the River Severn.”

^^^ That’s the wrong way round IMHO, I firmly believe the collapse of the wing wall led to the landslip.

Then in the next sentence: “Mr Bond, [SVR head of infrastructure], said there had been a "failure of the wing wall of the bridge", which caused hundreds of tonnes of rubble and earth to tumble down.”

^^^ They finally describe it the right way round? I’m not sure why they seem so reluctant to call it what it is.

Landslip sounds more like an act of god than one of our bridges collapsed? That is the ultra cynical part of my brain. I suspect however it is innocent, and that the first images looked like a landslip (which it did), and they have decided not to muddy the comms strategy on it.

 

[DarloRich]

They finally describe it the right way round? I’m not sure why they seem so reluctant to call it what it is.

because they are not experts on the BBC website and probably don't realise the semantic difference between the two statements

 

[Harpo]

“Adam Checkley, from Network Rail, said they believed the damage was storm-related.

"It's the river and the sheer power of the river that's probably taken the wing wall of this particular structure away and the earthwork has followed it through," he told the BBC.

From last Thursday 6 Feb.

 

[swt_passenger]

From last Thursday 6 Feb.

Yes, I also noticed that from the NR chap and had quoted it on the 4th. But in the more recent piece the SVR themselves are finally making the same statement. I agree with @YorkshireBear - it’s as if they were trying to play it down on the basis a landslip isn’t as bad as a bridge wing wall collapse.

 

[NER1621]

it’s as if they were trying to play it down on the basis a landslip isn’t as bad as a bridge wing wall collapse.

Or non-technical reporters didn’t understand what was being said and put down something that sounded “right” without checking. Really no need for conspiracy theories.

 

[Meerkat]

Or non-technical reporters didn’t understand what was being said and put down something that sounded “right” without checking. Really no need for conspiracy theories.

The worst is reporters applying a bit of vaguely remembered ‘knowledge‘ to a press release that actually makes it less accurate.
You really need things presented by people who really know what they are talking about, or people who accept they don’t and don’t start adding faulty and misleading interpretation.
It would help if press releases were run by someone with no relevant knowledge to check they aren’t open to misinterpretation.

 

[Deepgreen]

I suspect that the underlying cause could be either a formation or structure failure.

I also wonder whether RAIB will investigate as it’s far more than just a ‘landslip’.

As no accident or railway operation infringement has occurred I imagine the RAIB has no input. I don't think they have an interest in infrastructure issues where no trains or people have been involved.

 

[duffield]

As no accident or railway operation infringement has occurred I imagine the RAIB has no input. I don't think they have an interest in infrastructure issues where no trains or people have been involved.

It's a bit anomalous, really. If this collapse had occurred just as a train was crossing or approaching without time to stop, with disastrous consequences, obviously the RAIB would be involved. If it occurs when no trains are running, as it did, then there is no RAIB involvement.

But the difference between these two cases is purely luck as to the timing and thus the outcome. So any safety recommendations from the first case (such as increased infrastructure inspection or monitoring) should really be applied equally to the second case, but in the second case these recommendations will not even be made due to the lack of RAIB involvement.

In other words, there is a case for the RAIB to investigate significant, unexpected infrastructure failures (such as this one) which *could* have led to an accident/incident, even though they did not.

 

[DelW]

It's a bit anomalous, really. If this collapse had occurred just as a train was crossing or approaching without time to stop, with disastrous consequences, obviously the RAIB would be involved. If it occurs when no trains are running, as it did, then there is no RAIB involvement.

But the difference between these two cases is purely luck as to the timing and thus the outcome. So any safety recommendations from the first case (such as increased infrastructure inspection or monitoring) should really be applied equally to the second case, but in the second case these recommendations will not even be made due to the lack of RAIB involvement.

In other words, there is a case for the RAIB to investigate significant, unexpected infrastructure failures (such as this one) which *could* have led to an accident/incident, even though they did not.

Indeed, the RAIB did get involved when a somewhat similar wingwall failure on NR did involve a train:

Report 01/2024: Train striking debris at Yarnton

RAIB has today released its report into a train striking debris at Yarnton near Hanborough, Oxfordshire, 10 February 2023.

www.gov.uk

Just after 18:35 hrs on Friday 10 February 2023, the driver of the 17:34 hrs Great Western Railway service from London Paddington to Hereford reported striking an object on the single line at Yarnton, between Oxford and Hanborough. The train had struck brick rubble from a collapsed wing wall, part of a bridge carrying a local road over the railway.

(my bold)

The main differences being that this was an overbridge, and didn't involve possible river scour.

 

[Deepgreen]

It's a bit anomalous, really. If this collapse had occurred just as a train was crossing or approaching without time to stop, with disastrous consequences, obviously the RAIB would be involved. If it occurs when no trains are running, as it did, then there is no RAIB involvement.

But the difference between these two cases is purely luck as to the timing and thus the outcome. So any safety recommendations from the first case (such as increased infrastructure inspection or monitoring) should really be applied equally to the second case, but in the second case these recommendations will not even be made due to the lack of RAIB involvement.

In other words, there is a case for the RAIB to investigate significant, unexpected infrastructure failures (such as this one) which *could* have led to an accident/incident, even though they did not.

Indeed - however, if the RAIB is to investigate every railway issue that could have led to an accident (rather than just a failure without any human impact) they are going to need to expand vastly!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Feb 2025 ==

Indeed, the RAIB did get involved when a somewhat similar wingwall failure on NR did involve a train:

Report 01/2024: Train striking debris at Yarnton

RAIB has today released its report into a train striking debris at Yarnton near Hanborough, Oxfordshire, 10 February 2023.

www.gov.uk

(my bold)

The main differences being that this was an overbridge, and didn't involve possible river scour.

Yes, for the reason that it did involve a train. The SVR one didn't (as far as I know) and is therefore a different issue, outwith the purview of the RAIB - there was no 'accident'; merely an infrastructure failure.

 

[DelW]

Yes, for the reason that it did involve a train. The SVR one didn't (as far as I know) and is therefore a different issue, outwith the purview of the RAIB - there was no 'accident'; merely an infrastructure failure.

Indeed, I'm well aware of that. I was offering it as a confirmation that it's largely fortuitous what will be or won't be investigated. Both cases involved a wingwall collapse affecting the track, but largely by chance, in one case a train arrived and was unable to stop short, while the other happened while no services were running.

In my industry (civil engineering) safety improved considerably when mandatory "near miss" reporting was introduced, i.e. allowing investigation of occurrences that might have caused an accident but by chance did not. This was very effective at picking up potentially dangerous circumstances and eliminating them before they caused an actual accident.

 

[Lemmy282]

From the RAIB site
The RAIB has its remit laid down in law by The Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005, which principally require the branch to investigate any accident or dangerous occurrence that results in:

• The death of at least one person;
• Serious injury to five or more people; or
• Extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment.

 

[trebor79]

Yes, I also noticed that from the NR chap and had quoted it on the 4th. But in the more recent piece the SVR themselves are finally making the same statement. I agree with @YorkshireBear - it’s as if they were trying to play it down on the basis a landslip isn’t as bad as a bridge wing wall collapse.

Or non-technical reporters didn’t understand what was being said and put down something that sounded “right” without checking. Really no need for conspiracy theories.

Indeed. 99% of the population won't know the difference and only about 50% of those who do will surmise that infrastructure maintenance rather than flood *might* have been the primary cause.
No need for a conspiracy.

 

[P Binnersley]

From the RAIB site
The RAIB has its remit laid down in law by The Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005, which principally require the branch to investigate any accident or dangerous occurrence that results in:

• The death of at least one person;
• Serious injury to five or more people; or
• Extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment.

Extensive damage is defined as:

Interpretation​

2.—(1) In these Regulations—

“extensive damage” means damage that can immediately be assessed by the Branch to cost at least 2 million Euros in total;

I've heard a few numbers suggested, but nothing this high.

 

[mjc]

From the RAIB site
The RAIB has its remit laid down in law by The Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005, which principally require the branch to investigate any accident or dangerous occurrence that results in:

• The death of at least one person;
• Serious injury to five or more people; or
• Extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment.

That’s not the full list from the regs though.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1992/schedule/1 is the list of incidents to be notified immediately (other schedules have ‘lesser’ incidents with more relaxed reporting requirements) and in addition to the elements noted above includes incidents necessitating line closure > 6 hours and near misses where under slightly different circumstances death or serious injury or damage may have been caused.
My reading is that on at least two counts this incident should have been immediately notified to RAIB (unless some other exclusion applies, I don’t know the line, does it cross any carriageway?)

Quote below is Schedule 1 of the regs linked above.

Types of accidents and incidents other than any occurring within the Channel Tunnel System which must be notified to the Rail Accident Investigation Branch immediately and by the quickest means available​

1. An accident resulting in the death of a person or the serious injury of two or more persons.

2. An accident on a level crossing involving rolling stock, resulting in the death of a person or serious injury to a person.

3. A collision between rolling stock on a running line which causes damage or blocks a running line that was open to railway traffic at the time of the collision.

4. A derailment of rolling stock on a running line that was open to railway traffic at the time of the derailment, or which blocks a running line that was open to railway traffic at the time of the derailment.

5. A collision of rolling stock with an arrestor mechanism or buffer stop, other than in a siding, that causes damage to the rolling stock.

6. An accident involving the release or combustion of dangerous goods being carried on rolling stock that necessitates the evacuation of the area.

7. An accident or incident that is likely to result in suspension of a railway service for a period in excess of 6 hours.

8. An accident that causes extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment.

9. An accident or incident which under slightly different conditions might have led to a death, serious injury or extensive damage to rolling stock, the infrastructure or the environment.

 

[Harpo]

SVR has to work to the same rules on notification as the national network on immediate and bulk notification items. This incident would have required a number of ‘immediates’ including the Environment Agency.

 

[JKF]

Yes, I also noticed that from the NR chap and had quoted it on the 4th. But in the more recent piece the SVR themselves are finally making the same statement. I agree with @YorkshireBear - it’s as if they were trying to play it down on the basis a landslip isn’t as bad as a bridge wing wall collapse.

an SVR person quoted in an earlier post was describing the wing wall damage as ‘storm damage’, presumably due to fast-flowing water in the culvert. Might there be an insurance-based reason for emphasising this is the case? Would they have any cover for either the damage itself, or the interruption of service and resultant lack of income? Even if they only have cover for the latter it’s likely to be a significant payout.

 

[railfan99]

SVR has stated 1,427 donations totalling more than GBP75,000 have been received. That's a typical donation of GBP52: about what I'd have expected, though more will be to the smaller end.

Pleasing, but more is needed (sadly) so while not everyone will have spare funds, those who do might consider donating to the SVR Resilience Fund.