Future of the Railways in Global Climate Change Conditions

[whole diary]

[Electric train]

Thanks trainer, I must admit I'm very confused about the financial state of our railways, and their ownership.  Has Network Rail never had any shareholders/private investors?  I thought that's what privatisation was all about - attracting investment for the 'product' and apparently improving the service through competition.

Anyway, I'm still not entirely sure I feel confident about the future of the railways in the face of worsening climatic events, if the Exchequer is paying the bills!

Network Rail is a company limited by guarantee. It has members who have a role to hold the Directors to account, but they do not have a finaicial stake in the company.

Network Rail latter this becomes a Government Agency doing away with the pretence that it is a "private" company; very little will change in how it operates on a day to day bases also the 5 year control periods will remain as the main vehicle to funding.  It also fits in with HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) future operation.

One of the things that David Higgins stated in his leaving article in Railnews was the need for Government to make greater investment into the resilience of the railways against the effects of the weather particularly flooding.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Somerset flood pumps turned off after riverbank damage


Eight high-capacity Dutch-supplied pumps have been installed beside the river near Bridgwater

High capacity water pumps which were installed on the Somerset Levels have had to be switched off because of damage to the riverbank.

The pumps at Dunball, which have been brought in from the Netherlands, were installed by the Environment Agency.

A spokesman said the River Parrett's bank had been damaged due to the volume of water being discharged from the King's Sedgemoor drain.

Engineers are working on a plan to get pumping started again, he added.

A total of 13 Dutch pumps were brought in by the Environment Agency to be used to divert water in a bid to reduce levels in the River Tone and River Parrett. Eight of them were installed at Dunball and five at Beerwall, near Bridgwater.

The original plan had been to run the pumps at Dunball for a few days before levels had been reduced enough for the ones at Beerwall to be turned on.

The agency spokesman said the pumps were switched off on Saturday evening. "We will be working round the clock on alternative options so that pumping can start as soon as possible," he said. "In the meantime we expect levels in the drain to continue to drop naturally."

Agency engineers were due to meet Dutch engineers on Sunday to look at alternative options.

Up to a million tonnes of water has already been pumped out, the spokesman added.

About 65 sq miles (41,600 acres) of the Somerset Levels have been flooded for several weeks.

[trainer]

The above report about the Dutch pumps shows that there may be a reason why the 'simple' solution wasn't acted on earlier.  As has been said before, simple solutions are great for those who don't understand how all the engineering, geological, meteorological, agricultural and sociological pieces fit together.  Many people know a lot about each of the above and they need to talk to each other if we are to survive these natural phenomena.  No doubt transport planners will need to be a part of the dialogue.

[Phil]

Interesting article from BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website underlining the fact that all this is nothing new:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26153241

The date was 7 January 1928. There was no early warning system to wake householders, no Thames Barrier to protect the city from tidal surges.

A modern observer would not find the aftermath entirely unfamiliar, however. As the waters were drained from Tube lines and debris cleared from the Embankment, there were political rows about dredging and whether local or central government should take responsibility.

[ellendune]

Interesting article from BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website underlining the fact that all this is nothing new:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26153241

The date was 7 January 1928. There was no early warning system to wake householders, no Thames Barrier to protect the city from tidal surges.

A modern observer would not find the aftermath entirely unfamiliar, however. As the waters were drained from Tube lines and debris cleared from the Embankment, there were political rows about dredging and whether local or central government should take responsibility.

What is new is the duration of the floods and the fact that they still happened despite huge investment in flood defences since 1928.

[Cynthia]

What is new is the duration of the floods and the fact that they still happened despite huge investment in flood defences since 1928.


[/quote]
What is also significant is mention of the fact that surrounding areas had been built on - a lesson we still haven't learned from history!

[Cynthia]

One of the things that David Higgins stated in his leaving article in Railnews was the need for Government to make greater investment into the resilience of the railways against the effects of the weather particularly flooding.
[/quote]

In that case I can't help but wonder whether the rail network will lose out to the road transport lobbyists, considering the damage flood water does to road surfaces.

[Cynthia]

Interesting article from BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website underlining the fact that all this is nothing new:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26153241

The date was 7 January 1928. There was no early warning system to wake householders, no Thames Barrier to protect the city from tidal surges.

A modern observer would not find the aftermath entirely unfamiliar, however. As the waters were drained from Tube lines and debris cleared from the Embankment, there were political rows about dredging and whether local or central government should take responsibility.

"Nothing new" indeed, as floods have affected various parts of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) for decades, either due to prolonged rainfall or sudden, very heavy storms:
1952

What is new is the duration of the floods and the fact that they still happened despite huge investment in flood defences since 1928.

[Cynthia]

Oh, flippin' laptop    I was in the middle of typing another reply (because I can't get the hang of doing multiple replies on one posting,)

and the screen suddenly went back to the home page.

Where was I? The Thames flooding being nothing new; interesting that between the 17th and 19th centuries the Thames had frozen solid 23 times, to the extent they used to hold trade fairs on the ice.

Interesting also that we were told the storm at Boscastle was a once-in-200-year event, yet it had happened not that far up the coast at Lynton and Lynmouth in 1952, and again just a year later in East Anglia.  But apart from 1946 and 1962/63 we haven't had any really bad freeze-ups.  Drought in 1976, hurricane in 1987 and 2014 is already looking like the wettest winter for 250 years.  That's only in this country.  Lots of strange weather events going on globally too.

[stuving]

Interesting article from BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) website underlining the fact that all this is nothing new:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26153241

... and neither is this kind of journalism:

It was the highest levels the Thames had witnessed for 50 years.
...
The 1928 flood was certainly a once-in-a-lifetime event

Of course that's true, in the sense that every flood is unique. But broadly similar floods are common enough - you could reasonably call them "normal". After all, a 1-in-100 per year event has a better than evens chance of occurring in your lifetime (70 years is enough).

Another storm surge, of course, happened in 1953, and both didn't go far upstream. The snow melt flood of 1928 was a smaller version of 1947, still everybody's reference point further up the Thames. Some parts of London (Wey, Mole and Lea valleys) had worse flooding in 1968. And before the war there's a wide choice of Thames floods, back to 1894 which is the biggest one there are usable volume and level estimates for. In most cases the main source for these earlier floods is newspapers - which can or course be misleading.

After 1947 the Thames was deepened by a foot and its weirs widened. So it can carry a lot more water now without flooding more than a few houses. Mind you, there are questions about whether that has been compromised by no longer dredging. At Reading we have twice been close to 2003 peak, about a foot below street level in Lower Caversham, which has no flood protection at all. It may still go a bit higher, depending on the rain already on its way and yet to fall.

But the differences between flood patterns do matter if you want to predict them. This time does seem to be over a longer period than previous ones. Clearly something led to the present more serious floods below Maidenhead, which the Environment Agency didn't predict until very late. Obviously there will be a lot of screaming and shouting about the Jubilee River, and it must have some effect. If it is significant, and it becomes politically necessary to extend it to Teddington, finding a route for that would be a mini-HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) of a task.

[ellendune]

Oh, flippin' laptop    I was in the middle of typing another reply (because I can't get the hang of doing multiple replies on one posting,)

and the screen suddenly went back to the home page.

Where was I? The Thames flooding being nothing new; interesting that between the 17th and 19th centuries the Thames had frozen solid 23 times, to the extent they used to hold trade fairs on the ice.

Interesting also that we were told the storm at Boscastle was a once-in-200-year event, yet it had happened not that far up the coast at Lynton and Lynmouth in 1952, and again just a year later in East Anglia.  But apart from 1946 and 1962/63 we haven't had any really bad freeze-ups.  Drought in 1976, hurricane in 1987 and 2014 is already looking like the wettest winter for 250 years.  That's only in this country.  Lots of strange weather events going on globally too.

I was only a 1 in 200 year event at that location. So a in in 200 year event at a different location doesn't lead to questions as to whether it is really 1 in 200.

[mjones]

An excellent, balanced argument (which I have to say up-front does rather chime with my own views, so it may not be as "balanced" as I'm making out!)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/10639819/UK-weather-its-not-as-weird-as-our-warmists-claim.html

....

Hmm. I'm afraid the use of the word 'warmist' in the title gives a good indication of where the supposed 'balance' lies, and I'm afraid Christopher Booker has a long track record of writing uninformed nonsense about climate change, a subject on which he has no expertise...

[Cynthia]

Oh, flippin' laptop    I was in the middle of typing another reply (because I can't get the hang of doing multiple replies on one posting,)

and the screen suddenly went back to the home page.

Where was I? The Thames flooding being nothing new; interesting that between the 17th and 19th centuries the Thames had frozen solid 23 times, to the extent they used to hold trade fairs on the ice.

Interesting also that we were told the storm at Boscastle was a once-in-200-year event, yet it had happened not that far up the coast at Lynton and Lynmouth in 1952, and again just a year later in East Anglia.  But apart from 1946 and 1962/63 we haven't had any really bad freeze-ups.  Drought in 1976, hurricane in 1987 and 2014 is already looking like the wettest winter for 250 years.  That's only in this country.  Lots of strange weather events going on globally too.

I was only a 1 in 200 year event at that location. So a in in 200 year event at a different location doesn't lead to questions as to whether it is really 1 in 200.

Sorry Ellendune, I have to disagree with you there; Lynton being less than 70 miles from Boscastle does I think put both places in the same area of vulnerability to weather systems approaching from the Atlantic.

[ellendune]

Oh, flippin' laptop    I was in the middle of typing another reply (because I can't get the hang of doing multiple replies on one posting,)

and the screen suddenly went back to the home page.

Where was I? The Thames flooding being nothing new; interesting that between the 17th and 19th centuries the Thames had frozen solid 23 times, to the extent they used to hold trade fairs on the ice.

Interesting also that we were told the storm at Boscastle was a once-in-200-year event, yet it had happened not that far up the coast at Lynton and Lynmouth in 1952, and again just a year later in East Anglia.  But apart from 1946 and 1962/63 we haven't had any really bad freeze-ups.  Drought in 1976, hurricane in 1987 and 2014 is already looking like the wettest winter for 250 years.  That's only in this country.  Lots of strange weather events going on globally too.

I was only a 1 in 200 year event at that location. So a in in 200 year event at a different location doesn't lead to questions as to whether it is really 1 in 200.

Sorry Ellendune, I have to disagree with you there; Lynton being less than 70 miles from Boscastle does I think put both places in the same area of vulnerability to weather systems approaching from the Atlantic.

Sorry, I was speaking from a professional point of view.  The strict definition of a 1 in 200 year event is one that falls in the same location and has an impact on the same properties. This is the definition that hydrologists and meteorologists use when they give out these numbers. Neither event hit Boscastle on both occasions and neither event hit Lynmouth on both occasions.  On both occasions the events were highly localised thunderstorms so they did not extend over an area anything like as large as 70 miles. They can both therefore be justifiably called 1 in 200 year events.

Incidentally, calling it 1 in 200 year event is a bit misleading.  We are moving towards describing it as an event with a probability of occurrence of 0.5% in any year.  So there is a small probability (0.0025%) that you could have two in one year in the same place. However this is all based on our understanding of past weather (measured over many decades).

However, I agree there is a lot of strange weather about. The difficulty the scientists have is there is a small probability each time that that it could be the normal variation withing the existing climate.  Of course the more weird weather that happens the less likely that is.  Hence the statement from the chief scientist at the Met Office a few days ago. 

[Cynthia]

Oh, flippin' laptop    I was in the middle of typing another reply (because I can't get the hang of doing multiple replies on one posting,)

and the screen suddenly went back to the home page.

Where was I? The Thames flooding being nothing new; interesting that between the 17th and 19th centuries the Thames had frozen solid 23 times, to the extent they used to hold trade fairs on the ice.

Interesting also that we were told the storm at Boscastle was a once-in-200-year event, yet it had happened not that far up the coast at Lynton and Lynmouth in 1952, and again just a year later in East Anglia.  But apart from 1946 and 1962/63 we haven't had any really bad freeze-ups.  Drought in 1976, hurricane in 1987 and 2014 is already looking like the wettest winter for 250 years.  That's only in this country.  Lots of strange weather events going on globally too.

I was only a 1 in 200 year event at that location. So a in in 200 year event at a different location doesn't lead to questions as to whether it is really 1 in 200.

Sorry Ellendune, I have to disagree with you there; Lynton being less than 70 miles from Boscastle does I think put both places in the same area of vulnerability to weather systems approaching from the Atlantic.

Sorry, I was speaking from a professional point of view.  The strict definition of a 1 in 200 year event is one that falls in the same location and has an impact on the same properties. This is the definition that hydrologists and meteorologists use when they give out these numbers. Neither event hit Boscastle on both occasions and neither event hit Lynmouth on both occasions.  On both occasions the events were highly localised thunderstorms so they did not extend over an area anything like as large as 70 miles. They can both therefore be justifiably called 1 in 200 year events.

Incidentally, calling it 1 in 200 year event is a bit misleading.  We are moving towards describing it as an event with a probability of occurrence of 0.5% in any year.  So there is a small probability (0.0025%) that you could have two in one year in the same place. However this is all based on our understanding of past weather (measured over many decades).

However, I agree there is a lot of strange weather about. The difficulty the scientists have is there is a small probability each time that that it could be the normal variation withing the existing climate.  Of course the more weird weather that happens the less likely that is.  Hence the statement from the chief scientist at the Met Office a few days ago. 

I will bow to your superior knowledge, ellendune, as you are obviously better informed than me, on this subject!  We can agree, at least, that there's some strange weather about.