UK’s railways can no longer cope with the effects of the climate crisis: what can be done?

[ChiefPlanner]

How many hundreds of thousands of houses - especially in suburban areas have lost their soakway front gardens to car parking ? , how many hundreds of thousands of hectares have been used for car parks (maybe used for a few hours a day) ..all relevant of course.

Locally , any "heavy" rainfall causes localised flooding / pooling for the simple reason that street cleaning / brushing is at best carried out twice a year , so debris of all sorts blocks the drains.

More to it than climate change , a lot to do with care of the local realm , though the former clearly has implications.

At least a ballasted railway is a soakway of some sort. (assuming the track drains are working !)

 

[Kingspanner]

How many hundreds of thousands of houses - especially in suburban areas have lost their soakway front gardens to car parking ? , how many hundreds of thousands of hectares have been used for car parks (maybe used for a few hours a day) ..all relevant of course.

Locally , any "heavy" rainfall causes localised flooding / pooling for the simple reason that street cleaning / brushing is at best carried out twice a year , so debris of all sorts blocks the drains.

More to it than climate change , a lot to do with care of the local realm , though the former clearly has implications.

At least a ballasted railway is a soakway of some sort. (assuming the track drains are working !)

Since you ask, here is a place to start https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Since you ask, here is a place to start https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096

A good find , and very interesting. Nothing like an evidence based report !

 

[reddragon]

If you go back in history, houses had soak-away drainage, no or gravel drives. Housing development was dense and served by buses / trams, shops were in terraces with houses above.

Today all properties are connected to drainage with no attenuation. In April 2017, Water companies lost many of their powers to limit flow volumes and SUDS have never been supported by developers. People have concreted their drives, eliminating historic soak-aways. New housing is spread out, haphazard and with lots of parking. Cars rule, with car parks everywhere. Shopping centres & out of town developments are dominated by parking. Nobody maintains road gulleys, watercourses or rivers.

Grouse burning & intense farming has stopped moorland retaining water. Trees have been cut down, ditches filled and land management stopped.

We allow development on flood plains.

Meadowhall is a victim of its own actions, simple as that!

Moderator note: can we please stick to the effects on railways from now on; if you wish to make a post that is not related to the effects on railways, please post it in General Discussion, thanks.

 

[Bald Rick]

What do other countries do to help cope with extreme heat, wetness or leaves on the line which we could take onboard? Is the issue that all the preventative measures would cost so much, it's not worth doing, it's cheaper to fix the issues as/when they occur?

Drainage does need to be worked on in some places but as with most railway schemes, why do little things like drainage when you can build HS2 and Crossrail which combined will solve all of the UKs travel problems....

Sorry, missed this until now.

Other railways have exactly the same issues. Indeed, many of them come over here to learn from us.

Extreme heat - see other threads on the subject. Essentially, other railways either re-stress the rails twice a year, or more usually put up with a higher rate of buckled rails in summer and more broken rails in winter. See the preponderance of derailments on US railroads. Speed restrictions are near ubiquitous on railways with high temperature ranges.

Leaves - they have the same issues as us, or cut down the trees. In the latter case, rarely with the local objections we see here. Only tonight I have had a friend have a slight moan about Network Rail cutting down the trees alongside the railway by his house, and why it was done; I asked him if he’d ever been in the cab of a train at 125mph, gone round a corner and seen a tree on the line that you know you’re going to hit. I have. My trousers recovered.

Wetness, for which I take it you mean flooding. They have exactly the same problems as we do. See the Narbonne - Beziers main line being closed for nearly a month (and still closed) after flooding, or the bullet trains being written off last week in Japan. Just a few of many, many examples.

 

[Silenos]

In the light of the numerous threads on weather-related disruption on this forum, I thought this article in the Guardian was interesting, not only to show how carefully this is being thought about on a high level, but also because of the recognition that shrinking the railway, rather than extending/reopening, might be the only viable response.

UK rail faces fight to stay on track as climate crisis erodes routes

Network Rail’s chief executive, Andrew Haines, says technology can help manage the effects, but adds bluntly: “We cannot infrastructure-build our way out of climate change. The price tag is too expensive and it’s too disruptive.”

 

[snowball]

In the light of the numerous threads on weather-related disruption on this forum, I thought this article in the Guardian was interesting, not only to show how carefully this is being thought about on a high level, but also because of the recognition that shrinking the railway, rather than extending/reopening, might be the only viable response.

UK rail faces fight to stay on track as climate crisis erodes routes

I've already linked and quoted this article in the Landslips thread. (I think was actually in the Observer, which shares the Guardian's website as they are under the same ownership):

Landslips

The Scunthorpe landslip appears to be in the cutting just West of the station. There is a T3 showing on Traksy.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[matacaster]

I understand that the railways historically often ran alongside rivers as they were relatively flat, but also low lying. Two Yorkshire examples..
Midland route Leeds to Bradford habitually floods climate change or not.
Hebden bridge area floods every few years. It's at bottom of a very steep valley.

Flood mitigation measures to either of these would be very difficult and expensive in the Leeds case and almost impossible in the case of hebden bridge.

 

[HSTEd]

Well the only way to escape the liability of disintegrating Victorian infrastructure would be to discard it.

But can't see the railway industry or government being able, or willing to pay for, thousands of kilometres of new route to replace it all.

 

[Silenos]

Well the only way to escape the liability of disintegrating Victorian infrastructure would be to discard it.

But can't see the railway industry or government being able, or willing to pay for, thousands of kilometres of new route to replace it all.

According to the Observer/Guardian article referenced above:

Lisa Constable, who leads on climate change adaptation strategy at Network Rail, says future planning includes looking at regions where extreme weather and higher net rainfall is likely to cause more flooding or erosion – and how to respond when that occurs. “In some cases, that means abandoning the railway,” she says.

 

[HSTEd]

According to the Observer/Guardian article referenced above:

I'm fairly sure they mean simply abandoning rail service to the affected areas entirely, rather than building a new, better alignment.
Large parts of the system will probably be discarded wholesale.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm fairly sure they mean simply abandoning rail service to the affected areas entirely, rather than building a new, better alignment.
Large parts of the system will probably be discarded wholesale.

She says what she means:

“Do we decide we have to build out into the sea on reclaimed land? Or are we going to abandon the track, bring it inland, build a new one, put people on buses instead of the trains? What is best for communities and the economy, as well as the railway?”

I think looking at it rationally the Pwllheli branch past Tywyn must be at significant threat of closure when (it is now when, it's stated policy) Fairbourne is abandoned to the sea (though if the road is relocated building a new railway alongside it may be feasible), whereas Dawlish would probably be replaced inland because it's a major mainline.

Don't know about the Cumbrian Coast, I think that's generally set quite high up on rock cliffs so perhaps less vulnerable?

 

[RT4038]

I'm fairly sure they mean simply abandoning rail service to the affected areas entirely, rather than building a new, better alignment.
Large parts of the system will probably be discarded wholesale.

Large parts? How much is that ? 20% 40% ?

 

[HSTEd]

I think looking at it rationally the Pwllheli branch past Tywyn must be at significant threat of closure when (it is now when, it's stated policy) Fairbourne is abandoned to the sea (though if the road is relocated building a new railway alongside it may be feasible), whereas Dawlish would probably be replaced inland because it's a major mainline.

These decisions are going to be extraordinarily fraught, as they are in the case of Fairbourne, which is largely a result of silos of the government fighting each other to avoid spending their own budgets.
The council saves money by condemning the settlement because the cost of rehousing the population will be picked up by someone else, even though the economically sensible option is to defend the settlement at almost all costs, given the price of replacement housing.

Stand by for arguments that makes today's look positively meak!

Don't know about the Cumbrian Coast, I think that's generally set quite high up on rock cliffs so perhaps less vulnerable?

It is economically hopeless though, especially with the upcoming end of freight traffic to Sellafield.

Large parts? How much is that ? 20% 40% ?

In route mileage, the vast majority of the traffic is on a comparatively small portion.

The Far North line alone is about 1.7% of the entire GB rail system by route miles.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is economically hopeless though, especially with the upcoming end of freight traffic to Sellafield.

So economically hopeless that they doubled the service on it in the last 10 years to hourly and that has stuck! Quite different from the Cambrian which as of June will only have a few trains per day, a bit more like the Scottish rural lines.

I suspect it would be considered worth funding because of the inclusivity angle, particularly if the major employer along there is to close.

 

[yorksrob]

There's been a fair amount of climate related disruption this year so far. The network seems to have responded quite well.

I've already linked and quoted this article in the Landslips thread. (I think was actually in the Observer, which shares the Guardian's website as they are under the same ownership):

Landslips

The Scunthorpe landslip appears to be in the cutting just West of the station. There is a T3 showing on Traksy.

www.railforums.co.uk

I'm not sure I buy the line "we have a big Victorian railway and we can't afford to replace all of it, therefore we will have to close some routes".

The reality is that large parts of the Victorian network aren't particularly susceptible to climate change and won't need replacing, therefore its not an acceptable excuse to start closing lines.

It is economically hopeless though, especially with the upcoming end of freight traffic to Sellafield.

It would be very difficult to justify such a decision politically though.

The area is already quite remote, and economically deprived. Short of abandoning settlements such as Workington and Whitehaven.

It's also interesting that the NR person mentions Holes Bay near Poole. Not only is this a main line, but its also in the middle of a very wealthy area of real estate that would be unlikely to be abandoned to the sea. Why abandon the railway if you're going to be maintaining the surrounding land anyway ?

Perhaps we're being softened up for some bad policy decisions.

 

[AndrewE]

I'm not sure I buy the line "we have a big Victorian railway and we can't afford to replace all of it, therefore we will have to close some routes".

I don't think I accept “We have to progressively invest in better drainage, drainage engineers. We probably can’t do that in a generation”
either.

Perhaps we're being softened up for some bad policy decisions.

"bad" meaning unwelcome / unpopular. I don't think anyone likes having to change from a train to a bus when they are used to a through rail journey. If it comes to pass then the powers-that-be really will have to ensure through ticketing, coordinated timetables and a much better level of control to make multi-mode public transport journeys much more reliable than they are currently!

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think I accept “We have to progressively invest in better drainage, drainage engineers. We probably can’t do that in a generation”
either.

"bad" meaning unwelcome / unpopular. I don't think anyone likes having to change from a train to a bus when they are used to a through rail journey. If it comes to pass then the powers-that-be really will have to ensure through ticketing, coordinated timetables and a much better level of control to make multi-mode public transport journeys much more reliable than they are currently!

It's interesting.

A few years ago we had the landslip at Eden Brows, no doubt accelerated by climate change and the gap was rebuilt stronger than before.

Now we've got NR apparently contemplating the permanent abandonment of electrified main lines. I wonder what has happened to bring about this unwelcome policy change. Is it just another facet of Sunak's anti-rail, anti-passenger fixation.

 

[HSTEd]

It's interesting.

A few years ago we had the landslip at Eden Brows, no doubt accelerated by climate change and the gap was rebuilt stronger than before.

Now we've got NR apparently contemplating the permanent abandonment of electrified main lines. I wonder what has happened to bring about this unwelcome policy change. Is it just another facet of Sunak's anti-rail, anti-passenger fixation.

No, I think it is more likely the fact that they are now expecting to have several of these incidents a year. Possibly more than that.

Dealing with one is one thing, but if its going to keep happening over and over again and again.
Indeed at some point Network Rail's resources to respond will simply be swamped.

 

[yorksrob]

No, I think it is more likely the fact that they are now expecting to have several of these incidents a year. Possibly more than that.

Dealing with one is one thing, but if its going to keep happening over and over again and again.
Indeed at some point Network Rail's resources to respond will simply be swamped.

Presumably all sorts of other infrastructure will come under threat from climate change. Government will have to have its feet held to the fire to prevent our already moth-eaten network becoming an easy target.

 

[AndrewE]

It's interesting.

A few years ago we had the landslip at Eden Brows, no doubt accelerated by climate change and the gap was rebuilt stronger than before.

Now we've got NR apparently contemplating the permanent abandonment of electrified main lines. I wonder what has happened to bring about this unwelcome policy change. Is it just another facet of Sunak's anti-rail, anti-passenger fixation.

I think it's just their obsession with shrinking the state, regardless of the extra costs of failing infrastructure, abandonment and congestion.

No, I think it is more likely the fact that they are now expecting to have several of these incidents a year. Possibly more than that.

Dealing with one is one thing, but if its going to keep happening over and over again and again.
Indeed at some point Network Rail's resources to respond will simply be swamped.

It's time to get over the fetish of a low-tax third-world economy (with similar levels of pollution, disease, etc) and steadily build up investment until we have a resilient country that works properly.

Whatever the Small Business Federation might say, secure professional jobs (in which I include traincrew, post-people, dustmen etc) underpin the economy because they can afford to take on spending commitments with the multiplier effect across the whole economy.
And infrastructure which works efficienly pays dividends by removing wasted time and hence money.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it's just their obsession with shrinking the state, regardless of the extra costs of failing infrastructure, abandonment and congestion.

It's time to get over the fetish of a low-tax third-world economy (with similar levels of pollution, disease, etc) and steadily build up investment until we have a resilient country that works properly.

Whatever the Small Business Federation might say, secure professional jobs (in which I include traincrew, post-people, dustmen etc) underpin the economy because they can afford to take on spending commitments with the multiplier effect across the whole economy.
And infrastructure which works efficienly pays dividends by removing wasted time and hence money.

Indeed.

I note that the country seems to manage several fairly large road projects every year. Fixing a few land slips should not be beyond the capacity of a developed country.

 

[HSTEd]

I think it's just their obsession with shrinking the state, regardless of the extra costs of failing infrastructure, abandonment and congestion.

It's time to get over the fetish of a low-tax third-world economy (with similar levels of pollution, disease, etc) and steadily build up investment until we have a resilient country that works properly.

But we don't really have a low-tax economy !
The problem Britain has is that it is fundamentally unwilling to make any kind of difficult choices. Whether it be on the railway, on pensions, on public services, on defence or on any number of other matters.

It's all very well just screaming for more money to be provided, but we don't have unlimited industrial capacity and people with which to buy goods and services.

Whatever the Small Business Federation might say, secure professional jobs (in which I include traincrew, post-people, dustmen etc) underpin the economy because they can afford to take on spending commitments with the multiplier effect across the whole economy.

This is treading awfully close to the broken window fallacy.

And infrastructure which works efficienly pays dividends by removing wasted time and hence money.

The argument then is, why should we spend infrastructure money sustaining Victorian relics?
This infrastructure is woefully unfit for purpose and will never be otherwise, no matter how much money is spent on it.

If your objective is to improve the efficiency of the economy, you would abandon a large part of the railway system and build a new one.

 

[renegademaster]

But we don't really have a low-tax economy !
The problem Britain has is that it is fundamentally unwilling to make any kind of difficult choices. Whether it be on the railway, on pensions, on public services, on defence or on any number of other matters.

It's all very well just screaming for more money to be provided, but we don't have unlimited industrial capacity and people with which to buy goods and services.


This is treading awfully close to the broken window fallacy.


The argument then is, why should we spend infrastructure money sustaining Victorian relics?
This infrastructure is woefully unfit for purpose and will never be otherwise, no matter how much money is spent on it.

If your objective is to improve the efficiency of the economy, you would abandon a large part of the railway system and build a new one.

Politically it's basically impossible to build substantial lengths of new train lines in this country , so preserving what we got is what we are going to have to put up with fore the next few decades

 

[yorksrob]

But we don't really have a low-tax economy !
The problem Britain has is that it is fundamentally unwilling to make any kind of difficult choices. Whether it be on the railway, on pensions, on public services, on defence or on any number of other matters.

It's all very well just screaming for more money to be provided, but we don't have unlimited industrial capacity and people with which to buy goods and services.


This is treading awfully close to the broken window fallacy.


The argument then is, why should we spend infrastructure money sustaining Victorian relics?
This infrastructure is woefully unfit for purpose and will never be otherwise, no matter how much money is spent on it.

If your objective is to improve the efficiency of the economy, you would abandon a large part of the railway system and build a new one.

None of this is true though.

The country has been primarily cutting benefits and services from austerity onwards

The only reason that the country doesn't have industrial capacity is that it has chosen to close most of it down on the basis of laissez-faire ideology. That can always change.

The railways are Victorian infrastructure. The roads are Anglo-Saxon, sometimes older infrastructure. We still use them.

 

[HSTEd]

None of this is true though.

The country has been primarily cutting benefits and services from austerity onwards

I'm nervous even discussing this here because of its political connotations, but I will try to avoid outright partisan references.

Cutting a handful of minor benefits to non photogenic groups is one thing, but none of the major systematic challenges (the ones actually requiring hard decisions) facing the UK have been faced.
Defence spending wastes tens of billions trying to maintain capabilities or nominals strength levels that are far beyond our means.
Triple locked pensions and universal pension age benefits continue to bleed the state to death
Infrastructure spending continues to be woefully dysfunctional, whilst the 1970s inheritance slowly disintegrates.
House prices continue to climb due to lack of housing construction, sucking ever more money out of the pockets of a large part of the population.

Next to that, the cuts to universal credit, or bus subsidies barely register.
Despite the hardships caused by said cuts. state spending continues to increase, just slightly more slowly than before, and no meaningful attempt has been made to meet the demographic challenge

The only reason that the country doesn't have industrial capacity is that it has chosen to close most of it down on the basis of laissez-faire ideology. That can always change.

Industrial capacity in this context means more than just steel manufacturing or whatever.
That is not the issue (steel and cement products are proportionally cheaper than they have ever been and available in greater quantity), the issue is people.
Choices society has made and continues to make means we have nowhere near the number of people necessary to do the work that needs doing, and this situation is going to get worse.

Demographics are pretty clear on this, population decline beckons, and working age population is already starting to outright fall.

The railways are Victorian infrastructure. The roads are Anglo-Saxon, sometimes older infrastructure. We still use them.

A large fraction of road traffic travels on roads built after 1950.
Indeed, something like 20% travels on the motorway network alone. For HGVs that fraction rises to more like 60.
It's not really sensible to say that the road system is Anglo Saxon, any more than it is sensible to say that the railway system dates to the plateway era.

EDIT:
In 1923 the road system was only ~72% as long as it is now, despite a large fraction of the urban/town road system already having been built.
Britain's first dual carriageway doesn't open until 1925.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm nervous even discussing this here because of its political connotations, but I will try to avoid outright partisan references.

Cutting a handful of minor benefits to non photogenic groups is one thing, but none of the major systematic challenges (the ones actually requiring hard decisions) facing the UK have been faced.
Defence spending wastes tens of billions trying to maintain capabilities or nominals strength levels that are far beyond our means.
Triple locked pensions and universal pension age benefits continue to bleed the state to death
Infrastructure spending continues to be woefully dysfunctional, whilst the 1970s inheritance slowly disintegrates.
House prices continue to climb due to lack of housing construction, sucking ever more money out of the pockets of a large part of the population.

Next to that, the cuts to universal credit, or bus subsidies barely register.
Despite the hardships caused by said cuts. state spending continues to increase, just slightly more slowly than before, and no meaningful attempt has been made to meet the demographic challenge


Industrial capacity in this context means more than just steel manufacturing or whatever.
That is not the issue (steel and cement products are proportionally cheaper than they have ever been and available in greater quantity), the issue is people.
Choices society has made and continues to make means we have nowhere near the number of people necessary to do the work that needs doing, and this situation is going to get worse.

Demographics are pretty clear on this, population decline beckons, and working age population is already starting to outright fall.

A large fraction of road traffic travels on roads built after 1950.
Indeed, something like 20% travels on the motorway network alone. For HGVs that fraction rises to more like 60.
It's not really sensible to say that the road system is Anglo Saxon, any more than it is sensible to say that the railway system dates to the plateway era.

EDIT:
In 1923 the road system was only ~72% as long as it is now, despite a large fraction of the urban/town road system already having been built.
Britain's first dual carriageway doesn't open until 1925.

Whilst I agree with some of your points regarding the structural problems of the country, I would say the following:

Defence spending, like transport is only a slither of national spending, and more than proportional to its importance.

The cost of housing is indeed a problem. To housebuilding, I would add that other measures, such as restricting residential property sales to domestic residents, restricting mortgage rates on primary residences to a capped percentage, as in France, and more controls over the size of the private rented sector are also necessary.

Universal pension benefits are indeed very large, however they do at least generate consumer demand, which as we all know is vital to the economy.

The point about workforce and a declining population is an interesting one. However, if some are to be believed, the coming age of automation will leave people twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do. This should generate more than enough labour capacity to manage industrial tasks (I say "manage" because in all likelihood, the machines will be doing the labouring).

In terms of roads, yes a large fraction of traffic travels on roads built after 1950, but equally a large fraction travels on roads that weren't. Their way and structures are maintained and will continue to be. The railway is no different.

The problem is that society needs to get used to the idea of actively directing and planning some of these changes, rather than relying on markets to sort things out.