A 175-year-old Perthshire railway tunnel has been given a new lease of life in a £6 million project delivered by Network Rail.
Trains travelling through Moncrieffe tunnel, south of Perth, will now be running on rails supported by recycled plastic sleepers.
More than 3,690 new plastic sleepers were laid during engineering work to renew the track which was successfully completed on Tuesday 27 February, following three short closures of the line during February.
It’s the first time that composite sleepers – which lay on top of the ballast, hold up the rails and keep them the correct distance apart – have been used at such volume anywhere on Scotland’s Railway.
Trains couldn’t run while work took place but have now returned following the £6m investment in the project, which will keep the railway reliable for years to come.
During the work, 10,860 tonnes of ballast, around 6000 metres of new rails, and 448 concrete sleepers were also laid on both lines.
At over 1000 metres long, Moncrieffe tunnel – which first opened in May 1848 – is the fifth longest and one of the oldest railway tunnels in Scotland.
Craig Barclay, operations director, said: “The work we’ve completed at Moncrieffe tunnel will keep the railway, and train services, as reliable as possible now and in the future.
“While the tunnel has had a long and very significant history, we’ve used innovative and modern technology that’ll keep trains moving on what is a vital route on Scotland’s Railway.
“We thank passengers for their patience while we carried out the work.”
The recycled composite sleepers will help Network Rail in its aim to achieve a net zero carbon target by 2035.
The sleepers also offer a significant life cycle of 50 years and when they are eventually replaced, they can be re-used, re-purposed or recycled to make new sleepers or other composite products.
On 20 February, the Government published its Draft Rail Reform Bill. This proposes the creation a new Integrated Rail Body (IRB) that brings together decisions on infrastructure and train operations. The IRB would become Great British Railways (GBR) as proposed in the Williams-Shapps report that was published in May 2021.
This report was the result of the Williams review which established in September 2018. This in turn was the Government response to the May 2018 timetable debacle which highlighted how, in England, strategic decisions about trains and infrastructure only come together at Westminster.
Reaction to this draft Bill has been largely positive as the principle of GBR being a new strategic decision-making body is welcomed throughout the industry. It is common ground that bringing infrastructure and operational decision making together will tackle misaligned incentives which are the root of many of the railway’s problems and the reason why customer needs are not always put first.
Why a draft? It is not clear why only a draft Bill has been prepared. The official reason is that:
“Given the scale and complexity of the changes being made to the sector, the draft bill will undergo pre-legislative scrutiny to provide parliamentarians and experts across industry the opportunity to review and test the legislation in draft.”
Yet surely the almost three years since GBR was first proposed should have been sufficient time to do this. Moreover, with a general election looming it could now be 2025 or even 2026 before a Rail Reform Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
This is because this draft Bill is intended to ensure that GBR maximises private sector input by giving it a statutory duty to produce an annual report on private sector involvement. In contrast, the Labour Party’s plan is for an integrated publicly owned railway. Hence an incoming Labour Government would produce its own Rail Reform Bill which would then have to wait its turn in a crowded Parliamentary timetable.
No WISP A key aspect of the Williams-Shapps report was its proposal that GBR would produce a ‘Whole Industry Strategic Plan’ (WISP) to identify key strategic priorities for the whole rail network over the next 30 years. Although the first such plan was to be published in 2022, to date no such plan has been published.
Having a WISP addresses a weakness of the current structure that no organisation has the financial, technical, and operational authority to oversee the design, investment, and management of the major changes to track infrastructure and on-train systems required for programmes such as decarbonisation and digital signalling.
Yet, in contrast to the emphasis on private finance, there is no requirement for a WISP in the draft Bill, nor does its impact analysis refer to the need for a whole system technical authority.
Hence, whilst it is good to see proposed legislation to progress the formation of GBR, producing a draft Bill which does not have cross-party consensus adds years to the rail reform timetable. It is also disappointing that the engineering benefits of a whole system technical authority do not now seem to be recognised.
Ministers yesterday (Tuesday 20 February) put forward their plan for the future of the railways, publishing a draft Rail Reform Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny.
The draft Bill sets in motion a plan to deliver punctual and reliable services, simpler tickets, and a modern and innovative railway that meets the needs of passengers and freight users. When passed, it will help deliver the biggest rail reform programme in a generation to create a simpler, more effective rail system.
The draft Bill will see the creation of Great British Railways (GBR) which will bring together responsibility for both rail infrastructure and services, providing clearer lines of accountability, helping to build a more modern and financially secure sector, and a network that is more adaptable and more efficient.
Great British Railways will aim to ensure passengers and freight benefit from industry expertise through a whole-system approach that will drive financial efficiency. When established, it will be the new franchising authority, contracting with the private sector to deliver passenger services and maximise investment, innovation, and opportunity.
The reforms will improve connectivity and choice for passengers, including by encouraging private sector open-access operators, where they add value for passengers through more direct links and more options. The Bill applies mainly to Great Britain, with Scottish and Welsh ministers continuing to exercise existing devolved responsibilities, but with an option to delegate contracting authority to GBR to enable the integration of track and train across Great Britain if they wished to pursue it.
The draft Rail Reform Bill will now undergo pre-legislative scrutiny to provide Parliamentarians and industry experts the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the legislation. This will allow for time to understand the complexities of these reforms and ensure that the final legislation is as robust as possible. Scrutiny will be led by the Transport Select Committee.
Industry reaction to the news has been largely positive. Andrew Haines, Great British Railways Transition Team Lead and CEO of Network Rail said: “Passengers, freight customers and communities are crying out for a simpler, better railway and the publication of the draft Bill is an important step on that journey. Bringing track and train together under a guiding mind is by far the best way to improve the service the railway offers, unlock the economic potential of a growing network and reduce the burden on the taxpayer.”
Jacqueline Starr, CEO of RDG, commented: “It is good news that the Draft Rail Reform Bill has been published, this is another important step in setting up Great British Railways and moving forward with the agreed reforms to improve the railway for the customer. The challenges facing the rail industry are well known, but rail is a vital service and should have a bright future if we work together. I look forward to working with the Government to further develop the reforms needed to deliver for customers.”
Rail Freight Group Director General, Maggie Simpson OBE, said: “We are pleased that Government has listened to the concerns of the rail freight sector, and has set out how the new body will be required to ‘make provisions for the carriage of goods by rail’. This will help create confidence in the new rail structure and encourage private sector investment in rail freight growth.”
But while publication of the draft bill is a welcome step, meaningful action is now required.
Darren Caplan, chief executive of the Railway Industry Association (RIA) stressed: “At a time when rail demand in the UK is showing a steady and continuing upturn, and with the RIA-commissioned Steer Report published just this week reporting that passenger numbers will grow between 37% and 97% to 2050, the Government needs to accelerate the legislative process without delay. The faster the Government pushes on with rail reform the faster we can remove uncertainty about the future structure of the industry and get on with building a vibrant and world-class railway for the future, delivering economic growth and enhanced connectivity across the UK in the decades ahead.”
Silviya Barrett from charity Campaign for Better Transport added: “We welcome the publication of this draft bill, which is a much-needed step towards long-awaited rail reform, now we need to see it move swiftly through to the next stage. In the meantime, we urge the Government to move forward with changes that do not require legislation, including meaningful reforms to ticketing that deliver actual benefits and better value for passengers.”
However, the reaction from other quarters was less sympathetic.
“The draft Rail Reform Bill is completely inadequate,” said TSSA General Secretary Maryam Eslamdoust.
“It does not address the damage that privatisation has done to our railways and infrastructure. It does not offer the fundamental changes that we need to deliver a fair deal for passengers and transport workers. The Conservative Government are simply on the wrong track.”
The full version of the draft Bill can be viewed here.
Our editorial recently posed the question “Where’s the plan?” in respect of train procurement. Five thousand vehicles were ordered between 2014 and 2019 though since then there has been no substantial mainline train orders except for HS2. As a result, Alstom’s Derby factory has run out of work and over 1,300 employees face redundancy. As this plant supports 15,000 jobs in the wider supply chain, many more jobs will be lost.
As our feature ‘Unplanned Rolling Stock procurement’ explains, Derby is the UK’s only integrated train manufacturing facility. When new trains are eventually ordered, this is likely to have become a plant assembling imported components. Hence, funding for future trains will be largely spent outside the UK.
As new trains are procured with private finance, the only reason for the current train order hiatus is Government inaction. Such ‘boom and bust’ procurement increases costs due to reduced productivity and the loss of a skilled workforce. It also increases railway costs as increasingly elderly trains become more expensive to maintain.
The Rail Network Enhancement Pipeline (RNEP) was set up in 2018. It was to be updated annually to show enhancement projects approved for Development, Design, or Delivery. Yet despite Government commitments, RNEP was only updated once in 2019. Instead of providing the supply chain with clarity, the resultant uncertainty makes it difficult for businesses to invest for the future, particularly in their people.
The plan for HS2 enjoyed strategic cross-party support for over a decade. Indeed, on a visit to Japan, its benefits were extolled by Transport Secretary Mark Harper only three months before HS2 phase 2 was abruptly cancelled. As our HS2 update shows, the competence of those making this decision is questionable as it resulted in significant abortive costs, loss of benefits, and leaves the capacity problem that HS2 phase 2 was to solve unresolved.
There was certainly no consultation with key stakeholders, in particular the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC), which is a government body set up to provide impartial, expert infrastructure advice. Abruptly cancelling a major strategic project in this way also negates years of planning by city regions and undermines the confidence of international investors in future UK projects.
NIC noted that there is now a major gap in the UK’s rail strategy as Network North offers little clarity about its proposed new rail schemes. There is now no plan to address West Coast Main Line (WCML) capacity constraints south of Crewe for which the Government response includes an unrealistic claim that HS2 phase 1 will provide 250,000 seats per day (i.e. 18 x Pendolino trains per hour, 24 hours a day). Few in the industry would agree with the Department for Transport’s claim there won’t be a WCML capacity problem until the mid-2030s.
Despite the decarbonisation imperative, the Westminster government still has no overall plan to electrify intensively used unelectrified lines. Yet as our ‘Electrifying Scotland’ feature describes, there is a plan north of the border where it is recognised that electrification is a profitable investment that offers cheaper, higher performing, and more reliable trains, as well as decarbonising the railway.
Although it is good to see a 75% target to increase freight growth by 2050, this is only a 2.1% annual increase. There is no supporting capacity enhancement plan to support this target which was announced two months after HS2 phase 2’s cancellation which eliminated opportunities to increase paths on Britain’s busiest freight route.
In May 2021, the Williams-Shapps report recommended the creation of Great British Railways (GBR). This also committed to the production of a 30-year ‘Whole Industry Strategy Plan’ in 2022. There is as yet no such plan and the GBR transition team is unable to advise when it will be produced.
There are thus no (Westminster) Government strategic plans for the nation to get the best from its railways. With nothing likely to change before the election, it is to be hoped that a new Government will take a more enlightened approach.
Yet this needs the industry to advise a prospective new Government how the railway can best contribute to economic growth and transport decarbonisation. This must surely include the elimination of ‘boom and bust’ procurement of trains, projects, and electrification for which a rolling programme is required. The ill-informed decision to cancel HS2 phase 2a should also be reversed. As this already has an Act of Parliament, any credible alternative will take five years longer to deliver at significant additional cost.
In contrast to Government inaction, the industry is doing much to resolve the problems it faces. In two features, Malcolm Dobell describes initiatives on the mainline railway and Transport for London to reduce train fleet whole-life cost. We also explain how the innovative iWagon was developed without any innovation funding. This could significantly reduce wagon maintenance costs and freight train derailments. However, it could not have prevented the unusual freight train derailment at London Gateway on which we report.
Paul Darlington has been finding out about the Trilink programme, the large-scale multi-discipline WCML North renewals programme. He explains how this is taking a cross functional, innovative approach to provide an efficient railway, tailored to the needs of the customers.
The four-year programme to renew the iconic Barmouth Viaduct also required an innovative approach. Bob Wright describes the complex logistics and novel techniques required. Far less complex structures are the legacy railway bridges that are the topic of Graeme Bickerdike’s feature. In this, he explains his concern that National Highways might demolish or infill these structures instead of finding alternative uses for them.
We also feature stations in this issue. An article on improving their accessibility includes initiatives for British Sign Language travel announcements. Scotland’s station re-opening record is also covered as is the complex integrated information management and control system to be provided at HS2’s stations.
David Fenner was at SIGEX, the recent Railway Industry Association’s signalling innovation event, and reports on the initiatives that support the target to reduce signalling costs by 40% by 2029. Much signalling and other work was done over the festive season as Matt Atkins describes. We should be grateful to those who work in all weathers to make this happen.
How Network Rail Scotland determines the required mitigation during severe weather is described in another feature. This includes the role of the professional meteorologists employed in its control room.
Finally, all at Rail Engineer were saddened to learn of the passing of our founder, Tom O’Connor whose life we describe. He was a fervent supporter of both the UK railway and its people. Tom’s vision was of a quality railway engineering magazine, “written by rail engineers for rail engineers.” I, and my fellow writers, are proud to be a part of his legacy.
Rail Engineer is saddened to hear of the passing of Tom O’Connor, founder and owner of Rail Media, which publishes the RailStaff and Rail Engineer magazines.
Tom was a fervent supporter of both the UK railway and its people.
Hailing from Clones, County Monaghan in Ireland, Tom moved to Derby in the late 1960s. Tom’s professional journey began with a career in a laboratory, working with chemicals, but a chance encounter with a newspaper advertisement offering a sports car for a computer salesman altered the course of his life. His success in sales led him to form lasting friendships, and form international businesses producing publishing software. The first, LaserMaker was followed by NTG2000 a company that became iStudio Publisher which is still producing desktop publishing software for Apple Macs.
A rail industry trailblazer
In the mid-1990s, through his railway contacts in Derby, Tom became increasingly aware that the railway unfairly suffered from a bad press. He felt the need to do something about this and, ever the entrepreneur, saw the creation of a new magazine as a business opportunity. Hence 1997 saw the launch of RailStaff Select magazine to keep managers and staff up to date with developments on the then newly fragmented railway, to report everything that was good and to make sure that best practice, particularly in terms of safety, was reported fairly and promptly.
With the success of RailStaff an opportunity arose to partner in the creation of the recruitment website railwaypeople.com in 2001, just before widespread use of the internet.
In 2004, Tom attended a Permanent Way Institution (PWI) seminar in Austria with Colin Wheeler, who produced RailStaff’s monthly safety feature. He joined the PWI to attend this event. Around this time, Tom decided that another magazine was needed to highlight and explain railway engineering achievements. He felt that this should be written by rail engineers for rail engineers, and so suitably experienced engineers were persuaded to become engineering writers.
Thus, Rail Engineer was launched at Railtex in November 2004 with Colin Wheeler as its first editor. Tom’s vision was that Rail Engineer should be a free magazine with high quality content that would attract advertisers. Rail Media was founded around this time to bring together both its magazines, RailwayPeople.com, and other initiatives and give them a common brand.
A positive force for good
The industry also has Tom to thank for the RailStaff Awards which started in 2007. This event showcases and recognises the great work of the people who deliver the railway – from drivers to cleaners, and engineers to station staff – whose stories are not often heard. It is still the only awards evening in the industry that recognises people, not companies.
In 2017, Tom was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. When he gave this devasting news to a meeting of Rail Engineer’s writers he did so in a matter-of-fact manner. He fought the disease bravely and continued to support the magazine for as long as he could. I was invited to become an engineering writer for Rail Engineer in 2010 and can well remember my first visit to the Rail Media office when Tom spent the whole day with me offering much useful advice. After that he frequently contacted me with ideas and suggestions as he did for other writers.
Tom’s warm and caring nature made him many friends. He was always ready to help someone in need, sometimes going to extreme lengths to do so. He inspired all who were fortunate to work with him. His innovative spirit and relentless passion created Rail Media which does much to support the industry for which he was always a positive and passionate advocate.
One writer remembers an occasion when Tom took a prominent rail figure to task. “I remember Tom as someone who was always positive and passionate about the rail industry. Indeed, soon after I first met him after joining the Rail Engineer ranks, I was at the CPC table at a YRP dinner. A senior rail executive had just delivered a speech which included a section about media types constantly complaining about the rail industry. Tom enquired if I knew the individual and if I could make an introduction. I replied that I did and that I would make the introduction. Upon meeting this person, Tom proceeded to give the senior rail executive a telling-off – in his own awfully nice way – explaining that not all rail commentators are like that! I will always remember that interaction with Tom, someone who was always warm and positive.”
Tom will be sadly missed. Rail Engineer, “written by rail engineers for rail engineers” is Tom’s legacy. I, and my fellow writers, are proud to be a part of this.
Readers who may wish to do something to remember Tom are invited to make a donation to Alzheimer’s Research UK.
Three months on from the decision to cancel HS2, three parliamentary committee hearings provided further information on how this decision was taken, along with its implications.
Liaison Committee 19 December
The liaison gives the chairs of the various parliamentary select committee the opportunity to question Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. At this hearing, Sunak answered 108 questions. This included one from transport select committee chair, Iain Stewart who asked what the Government is doing to address the long-term capacity on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) north of Birmingham, which will soon be at capacity.
Sunak responded that HS2 phase 1 will provide space for about a quarter of a million passengers which will handle triple the current demand. He accepted there are options to focus on pinch points which the Government will look at though, some of those are being addressed by HS2 phase 1.
As can be seen, his response did not answer the question asked about capacity north of Birmingham. It also repeated an oft-quoted figure that HS2 phase 1 will provide a daily capacity of 250,000 WCML. As this is equivalent to 18 Pendolino trains running 24 hours per day, it is difficult to see how this claim can be true. Its credibility is further diminished by the refusal of the Department for Transport (DfT) to provide Rail Engineer with the assumptions and calculations from which this claim is derived.
Transport Select Committee 30 November
This committee heard evidence from Huw Merriman, Minister for Rail and HS2, and Alan Over, DfT’s Director General, High Speed Rail Group.
At this hearing, Merriman also mentioned the dubious claim that HS2 phase 1 would provide 250,000 seats a day. With the cancellation of HS2 phase 2, Manchester will not have a station that can accept the previously planned 2 x 200-metre HS2 trains. The city will now get single 200-metre-long trains which provide less capacity than the current 265-metre Pendolinos. To make best use of scarce WCML train paths north of Birmingham, Merriman advised that the DfT was considering 2 x 200-metre trains potentially splitting at Crewe with one then going to Manchester and the other to Liverpool.
He also advised that the DfT is looking at the digital signalling being provided on the East Coast Main Line. He felt that: “digitisation allows us to put more trains on without delivering more track.” Railtrack thought the same 20 years ago and, as a result, the company went into administration. Our feature ‘Digital Delusion’ published in issue 167 (September 2018) explains why. This also showed that on a mixed traffic railway such as the WCML, infrastructure is the main capacity constraint.
Table from 1999 WCML report shows that whilst digital signalling offers capacity improvements for Metros, on a mixed traffic railway like the WCML the main capacity constraint is infrastructure configuration.
In response to concerns that WCML capacity was very constricted north of Birmingham, Alan Over advised that modelling had shown that: “even a return to previous trend growth would leave sufficient capacity such that there wasn’t a problem until the mid to late 2030s.” Yet the line is already at capacity, and HS2 was the result of serious concerns about WCML capacity in 2010, after which traffic increased at a far greater rate than expected.
Over also advised that to make the best use of capacity, the DfT, HS2, and Network Rail were looking at infrastructure interventions, rolling stock, and train service specifications. He considered that we should have some preliminary views in the coming months.
Transport Select Committee 10 January
This hearing heard evidence from Sir Jon Thompson, HS2’s executive chair and was a continuation of its meeting on 30 November.
He advised the committee that HS2 had not been party to the decision to cancel phase 2 and that the level of detail provided by those developing policy to cancel phase 2 “lacked some specificity”. Hence the DfT has asked for detailed analysis on six areas: Handsacre junction, rolling stock, Euston tunnelling, Old Oak Common, Curzon Street, and the phase 2a eastern stub.
In respect of costs, he noted that construction inflation over the past three years has been 27% (e.g. steel 47%, rebar 53%, and concrete 48%). In current prices this has added between £8 billion and £10 billion to the 2019 estimate. He also advised that the cost of a green tunnel (a cutting covered by concrete sections and earth) is three times that of the cutting.
Thompson also noted that a key learning from Crossrail was the need for system integration of the track, signals, power, trains, and other systems. Hence HS2 has appointed a chief railway officer whose role is to integrate these together. To do so it is important that this role has significant power and authority across the whole of the organisation.
He said that HS2 was advising the DfT that the rolling stock contract should not be changed. However, he recognised that the views of Network Rail and others needed to be considered.
Rail Engineer has learnt from other sources that the order for HS2 trains was based on HS2 phase 2a services. With the cancellation of this phase, these trains will now be slower north of Birmingham. Hence this may result in more trains being required rather than fewer trains, as seemed to the case when the phase 2 cancellation was announced.
He provided an interesting explanation of what closing down phase 2a involves. It requires: (i) closing down, making safe, and restoring 41 early works sites and 1,184 boreholes; (ii) ensuring compliance with the 1,500 undertakings and assurances in the Act; (iii) closing down and transferring to Network Rail their HS2 work at Crewe which will become their responsibility; and (iv) finalising data and records of what HS2 has done on the land.
He noted that HS2 has spent £728 million on phase 2a early works and that: “Now we need to clean up and reverse what we’ve done.” With the additional cost that entails, the abortive cost of cancelling phase 2a will be well over £1 billion.
These Parliamentary committees are a rich source of information about the Government’s HS2 decision. They show that this decision was not thought through, is supported by dubious information, that the WCML capacity problem is ignored or downplayed, and the significant abortive costs are associated with this decision.
The MPs on these committees who ask the right questions are to be commended.
Scotland’s railway gets a lot of weather. Although it is only 10% of the UK network, the region is 32% of the UK mainland and has the majority of its mountainous terrain.
The challenge of responding to severe weather events was tragically highlighted by the August 2020 Carmont derailment. As part of its response to this derailment, Network Rail set up weather advisory and management of earthworks task forces which were respectively led by Dame Julia Slingo and Lord Robert Mair. The reports from these task forces were summarised in issue 190 (May-June 2021).
The weather report considered how Network Rail could obtain the best possible weather forecasts and make best use of them. It noted that due to the chaotic nature of climate systems, best practice is to produce an ensemble of forecasts to assess the probabilities of a range of outcomes which are continually reviewed to provide increasingly narrower spread closer to the time of the forecast.
Both the earthworks and weather reports considered how weather forecasts need to be translated into infrastructure hazards to enable timely operational decisions to be taken.
At the time of the Carmont derailment, Network Rail’s weather advice used a 10km weather model that could not capture local extremes. Since then, there has been a rapid development of the company’s weather services.
Dame Slingo’s report considered that, prior to the Carmont derailment, Network Rail’s Extreme Weather Action Teleconferences (EWAT) were a static process, with limited capability to adjust alerts in an evolving weather situation. Furthermore, the weather thresholds for operational decisions, needed a major overhaul to reflect variations in exposure across the network.
Her report recommended that Network Rail should have access to a full range of weather forecasts and respond to them within the company’s existing (pre-Carmont) ‘Awareness – Preparedness – Response – Recover’ weather management framework which is shown below:
Awareness – possible regional red weather alerts are recognised four to five days out.
Preparedness – route controls assign red weather alerts two days out using kilometre-scale forecasts and begins to take preparatory action.
Response – monitoring and alerting by nowcasting during extreme weather events.
Recover – establish priorities and provide weather forecasts for recovery.
Implementing this framework requires both competent personnel and effective systems that clearly present relevant data to support effective decision making. The weather task force found that there was a gulf in expertise between those creating weather information and those receiving it. Hence it recommended that Network Rail should have a ‘weather academy’ to ensure its staff are well-informed users of weather services.
Dame Slingo’s report noted that, after Carmont, Network Rail has acted swiftly to improve preparedness for extreme weather events and their impact on earthworks, with the development of a Convective Alert Tool.
AIWP has plans for specific areas such as this regular flood area at Dalguise.
Scotland’s weather desk
To find out how weather response works in practice, Rail Engineer was glad of the opportunity to visit Scotland’s control to speak to Karl Grewar, head of integrated control for Scotland’s railway, and Weather Operations Delivery Manager (WODM) Camilla Taylor.
Karl explained how Scotland has an integrated control with both Network Rail and ScotRail’s control teams reporting to him. Caledonian Sleeper and British Transport Police also have personnel in the control room. He advised that Scotland is the first Network Rail control to have an embedded weather desk staffed by professional meteorologists such as Camilla. This was originally set up in August 2021 and has been gradually established, partly because meteorologists are generally not available in Glasgow. The first meteorologists arrived in February 2022. To date, six have been recruited out of the full establishment of seven.
The importance of having weather professionals as part of the control has proved useful in enabling Scotland to have a targeted, rather than a blanket approach to weather mitigation. Karl explained that this had been done by moving away from number thresholds to take a more nuanced view of the mitigation required.
In the event of severe weather Karl advises that a system wide approach is needed that considers the ability to rescue trains and the risk to personnel called out to rescue trains. Lines will always be closed in the event of a Met Office red warning.
The weather plan
The extreme weather response specified in Scotland’s Adverse and Integrated Weather Plan (AIWP) follows the process recommended in Dame Slingo’s report (i.e. Awareness, Preparation, Response, Recovery and Review).
Awareness requires key stakeholders to be advised if the five-day forecast may warrant the issue of a red alert status when extreme weather thresholds are breached. These include: rainfall – daily above 40mm or hourly above 20mm; wind gusting over 60 mph; temperature exceeding 29°C; or snowfall exceeding 15cm. The required mitigation is finalised 24 hours beforehand and communicated to all concerned. This is the minimum period needed for the required mitigation to be put in place.
Customers also need to be given sufficient advice of the impact on their planned journey.
Preparation happens when a red alert may be warranted three days out on the five-day forecast or if the Control Manager has assigned a red alert two days out. This requires the convening of an Extreme Weather Action Teleconference (EWAT) to consider, amongst other things, the required mitigation. Infrastructure maintenance delivery managers are also required to convene a conference to review the potential weather impact and allocate resources accordingly.
Response requires the service and weather conditions to be monitored, the communication of developments to all concerned and action to be taken as required. If necessary, this includes further EWAT conferences if the weather deteriorates or affects unexpected areas.
Recover requires the control manager to convene recovery conferences to determine priorities and establish robust timescales for recovery of the network.
Review is done at a conference convened by the control manager to learn lessons from the response to the weather event and identify good practice.
Weather desk in Scotland’s control.
The AIWP considers the risks and mitigations for all types of extreme weather as well as seasonal arrangements for summer, autumn, and winter. It specifies weather precautions at specific locations which include structures at risk of scour and coastal defences. A section on tree management requires that, during extreme weather, the WODM shall review the impact of wind speed and direction on known hazardous trees recorded on the lineside tree survey.
A key aspect of the weather response is the use of Operational Route Sections (ORS). These are small route sections that are deemed to be at risk in severe weather which start and finish at clearly distinguishable points for drivers and signallers. During extreme weather, Blanket Emergency Speed Restrictions (BESR) are imposed on the affected ORSs. There are generally 40mph or 50mph restrictions which is the speed at which a train is most likely to remain upright if it strikes an obstruction. They can be as low as 20mph in the most challenging railway terrain areas.
The WODM
Camilla Tayler became an operational meteorologist in 2012 and had spent some years working in the aviation sector. She joined Network Rail Scotland as a WODM in October 2022. In our discussion it became clear that there is a significant distinction between assessing weather impacts on trains and planes. Whereas aviation meteorology is primarily concerned with the direct impact of the weather on aircraft, for rail the requirement is to assess how the infrastructure will be affected to assess the mitigation required to safely run trains.
For example, she notes how the impact of wind on trees has to consider wind direction and the season. In summer, when they have leaves, trees are more vulnerable at the same wind speeds that would be considered ‘normal’ at other times of year. This might, for example require a 40mph BESR when national thresholds don’t require any action. The risk of floods is related to run off which is depends on previous weather as run off is generally less when the soil is dry. However, after a period of hot weather when soils are baked dry, runoff can be very high particularly during intense rainfall when the rain doesn’t have time to sink in.
Camilla advises she uses her experience as a meteorologist to produce a forecast from Network Rail’s weather services together with various open source weather forecasts. At times of extreme weather, the WODMs are kept busy, frequently reviewing the forecast, and supporting EWATs. When there are no alerts the WODMs review previous extreme weather responses and help develop various mitigation measures. One such is a snow melt rate of flow model to predict flooding. Another is reviewing the risk from tunnel icicles.
Another aspect of the WODM’s role is monitoring the 80 earthwork sites where tilt monitoring has been installed. These transmit an alarm when there is a five degree movement though this may be due to disturbance by animals. If there is an alarm from two sensors, the line is closed pending an inspection. There are about 300 high-risk earthworks in Scotland.
She also mentioned Network Rail’s Weather Academy, the creation of which was one of the recommendations in Dame Slingo’s report. This has been established to provide operators and engineers with core skills for weather-based risk management and ensure that practitioners and meteorologists can understand each other. It has hosted a number of workshops and has its own homepage.
At the time of our discussion Camilla was updating the forecast and likely operational impacts for the weekend of 16-17 December for which the Met Office had issued a Yellow rain warning for north west Scotland. This presented a significant risk of flooding, potential for earthworks failures with risk of winds gusting over 50 mph on the West Highland line, Highland Mainline, Kyle, and Far North lines.
A wet weekend
The weekend of 6-8 October was Scotland’s wettest two-day period since 1891, with an average rainfall of 64mm. This caused major rail disruption. It is understood that this was the first time that Scottish rail lines were pre-emptively closed due to forecast rainfall. In all such cases the resultant flooding would have closed these lines with the risk of trains being stranded.
This weather event was first forecast on Monday 1 October, and by Tuesday the weather model was forecasting widespread rainfalls of over 50 mm with some local rainfall of over 100 mm. On Wednesday, the WODM issued provisional BESR recommendations. With increased confidence in this forecast, following the EWAT conference on 5 October, key stakeholders were advised of the likelihood of pre-emptive line closures and widespread blanket speed restrictions. The plan for these closures and BESRs were finalised by 11:15 on Friday 6 October. Network Rail Scotland and ScotRail social media desks then used this information to pass on the ‘don’t travel’ message where lines were closed and ‘only travel if absolutely necessary’ on other lines.
The lines closed were the West Highland Line to Oban and Mallaig, the Highland Mainline between Perth and Inverness, and the North Clyde line between Dalmuir and Helensburgh. During the weekend, these lines were flooded and there was significant flooding in Glasgow and the central belt. The weather was closely monitored by the WODMs who issued three-hourly updates. During the weekend, the most severe impacts were not necessarily at locations with the highest rainfall but were related to river basin flooding in the Perth and the Fife areas due to high rainfall in their mountainous catchment areas.
In the West Highlands, where 100mm of rain fell during the day, the trunk road network was affected by seven landslips. The railway, which shares the same corridor, was pre-emptively closed due to the risk of landslips and was relatively unscathed.
By late Saturday it became clear that it would not be possible to open some of the closed lines on Sunday 8 October as planned, as more rain than forecast had fallen in eastern Scotland. This led to further BESRs being required and resulted in a landslip near Cupar and washaway between Stirling and Perth where the line was blocked until Wednesday 11 October.
Blown down tree blocks the line to Orban.
Changing climate
The Slingo report makes it clear there is no doubt that the UK is affected by climate change with increasing frequency of high-impact weather events. Records show that the earth is continuing to warm, with the decade to 2020 being the warmest on record. As warmer air holds more moisture (7% per 1°C change) there has been an increase in rainfall. In Scotland there has been an 8% increase in rainfall over the past decade compared with the long-term average.
Storm Henk in early January was the UK’s eighth since the start of the storm season in August. Furthermore, these storms are not the only extreme weather events. For example, the extreme rainfall experienced in Scotland on the weekend of 6-8 October was not the result of a storm. Neither was the high rainfall on the weekend of 15-17 December when the widespread BESRs were imposed.
Hence, infrastructure that had shown itself to be resilient to the UK’s past weather may now no longer be so. While much is being done to improve the UK rail network’s weather resilience, with much of its infrastructure being over 150-years old it is not possible to ensure that there will be no failures. Hence pro-active extreme weather mitigation such as line closures and BESRs is essential. Network Rail Scotland has shown how the effectiveness of this mitigation is enhanced by having embedded weather professionals in its control room.
Postscript
During storm Gerrit on 27 December, a ScotRail HST hit a tree at Broughty Ferry, north of Dundee on the line to Aberdeen. Fortunately, the driver was unharmed. Photographs on social media show this was a pine tree about 30 metres tall and around 15 metres outside Network Rail’s boundary. It was located on the esplanade and so was directly exposed to Gerrit’s southerly winds off the Firth of Tay which were gusting at up to 60mph.
Weather related earthworks failures at Auldgirth, near Dumfries.
As the tree fell, it pivoted around its root system and was supported by the ground around it which was slightly above rail level so that its trunk lay across the track suspended at cab height. In this particularly unfortunate circumstance, it was not surprising that the cab sustained significant damage when it hit this tall tree. The driver is reported to have escaped injury as he had time to leave his seat and move to the back of the cab.
This incident shows the importance of minimising this risk by imposing BESRs. At the time, a Network Rail press release advised that speed restrictions were planned for some sections of the line between Dundee and Aberdeen.
Preventing vulnerable trees that are well outside Network Rail’s infrastructure from falling onto the railway during extreme weather events is a significant challenge which, ideally, requires the adjacent landowner’s co-operation.
Network Rail is formally investigating the incident with its industry partners. The Rail Accident Investigation Board have also announced that they are to investigate this accident which occurred when the train was travelling at 84mph.
Rail Engineer would like to thank Karl Grewar and Camilla Tayler for their support with the production of this feature.
The West Coast Main Line (WMCL) is arguably the most important long-distance railway trunk route in Britain. The line was developed in the mid-1800s, to connect London and Glasgow with connections to the cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and Edinburgh. It does not just connect north and south of the country though, as it also serves key towns and cities along the route – and not just for passenger traffic, as the WCML carries a significant amount of freight. The Government has set a target to grow rail freight by at least 75% by 2050 to boost economic growth and deliver environmental benefits by taking lorries off roads.
The route from Preston Brook tunnel south of Warrington to Gretna, located to the north of Carlisle, was last significantly renewed 50 years ago when overhead electrification was provided. Dozens of absolute block mechanical signal boxes with semaphore signalling were also replaced with colour light track circuit signalling, controlled from Warrington, Preston, and Carlisle power signal boxes. Carlisle power signal box alone replaced over 40 mechanical signal boxes.
Now, 50 years later, TriLink is the name of the programme to ‘intelligently’ renew the route and to provide a more reliable timetable for passengers and freight services. The objective is to renew the assets so they are safer, easier to maintain, and more reliable, to keep passengers and freight moving while reducing the volume of costly signalling work.
The WCML of today is a different railway to that of the 1970s. Passenger trains are no longer locomotive hauled, freight trains are longer, and trains have far better acceleration and braking capabilities. European Train Control System (ETCS) is finally being rolled out, which will remove the restrictions of fixed signalling, and provide features such as bidirectional working and with far better train protection.
The route north of Preston is essentially a two-track railway with passing loops, and trains need to be able to leave and join the main line as quickly as possible – something the existing layouts do not facilitate. The loops also need to be long enough to accommodate modern longer intermodal (container) freight trains. So, if loops cannot be extended and made faster, they ideally need to be recovered, subject to the formal network change process.
Intelligent renewal
Rail Engineer was delighted to be invited by Network Rail’s principal programme sponsor, David Gordon, to learn more about the TriLink programme and the intelligent renewal of WCML north.
David explained that the programme involves a scale of investment of multi-discipline renewals that doesn’t often take place. Traditionally, the default approach of a renewals project is to replace an old asset ‘like for like’ with a new and, at best, modern equivalent with the same functionality. These renewals are sponsored and specified by the discipline asset owner and generally there is little scope to improve the overall train network service.
Intelligent renewal takes a more cross functional, pragmatic approach with the objective of finding ways to provide an efficient modern railway, tailored to the needs of the customers. A key element with the development of TriLink and its intelligent renewal objective is to seek a wide, diverse range of views from the network’s customers, and to achieve and maintain a cross-industry, collaborative, industry partnership approach. The TriLink name, for example, represents the Department of Transport, Network Rail as the infrastructure manager, and all the train operators.
The development of the programme looked at the ability to operate the railway far better in the future, balancing freight and passenger services requirements with access for engineering trains, and to provide infrastructure that can be managed and maintained far more efficiently. Renewing all the major assets in a single programme, and intelligently, creates the opportunity to really make a difference and to make carbon friendly rail travel even more appealing.
To do that means looking for areas of the network that can be improved and to create efficiencies, not just for today but also for future generations. The key is to identify how assets can be replaced differently and to maximise the opportunities to rationalise the infrastructure and deliver a more capable railway.
The programme is committed to providing the right things in the right place to allow trains to go at the right speed at the right time, and evaluating the need to renew assets that were designed for a different era.
To some this may sound like enhancement rather than a renewals project, but David explained how the programme has identified how it can deliver better functionality with fewer assets by placing them in the optimum location. Another factor in the intelligent renewal objective is to future proof the changes and to ensure that, so far as reasonably possible, any additional enhancements or changes to the network can be considered and will not be frustrated by the TriLink works.
Cross rail industry communication and collaboration are key. The rail industry has a habit of working in silos and not looking at the bigger picture. A railway is a system of systems, which must all work together seamlessly and like clockwork. TriLink therefore invited a diverse mix of railway people with vast local and industry experience to be involved with the planning of the programme. This included those operating every type of train, the people planning the timetable, and those managing and maintaining every type of asset. The scope of the TriLink renewals is fundamentally track, signalling and telecoms (with ETCS), and overhead line electrification assets. However, there are likely to be track blockades required which will allow other work, such as for structures and station works, to also be undertaken.
Traffic flows
Every part of the TriLink programme has been subject to a ‘clean sheet’ intelligent renewal analysis and proposals drawn up and costed, such as the changes at Warrington.
There are several such locations on the route where currently the traffic flow must cross the WCML from east to west / west to east on flat crossovers. Traffic from Morecombe to Lancaster currently crosses the WCML ‘at grade’ twice within two miles. At one of the project’s optimisation workshops, an operator suggested that the proposed layout could be further improved if the Down Line was made fully bidirectional between Lancaster and Morecombe South Curve alleviating existing timetable constraints. Other similar examples exist elsewhere along the length of the project.
To the north of Preston, the loops will be adjusted and occasionally extended to accommodate long intermodal freight trains. Layout alterations throughout the length of the project will result in a net saving of Signalling Equivalent Units (SEUs). An SEU is defined as a single trackside output function controlled by an interlocking and is a way of simplifying the complexity of signalling so that planning and budgeting can be expressed at a simple common level. In total, the TriLink programme believes it can save over 300 SEUs and provide a better more flexible and cost-effective railway.
Faster ‘turn outs’ in and out of loops is another area which will benefit from intelligent renewal to reduce journey times. Trains normally have to slow down to enter a turnout and loop, whereas they can continue at the same speed on the main track. Turnouts are always a critical point, and they very often condition the speed of trains. There are loops on the route which have an entrance speed of 25mph, a track speed of 20mph, and an exit speed of 10mph. The route is busy, so it’s important that trains can get off and back onto the main line as soon as possible; therefore, TriLink is looking to harmonise loop entry/exit and line speed to typically 50mph if possible.
David Gordon explains intelligent renewals to stakeholders.
A major benefit of ETCS is that it is a cost-effective bi-directional signalling system, as no expensive signal structures and signals are required, and intelligent deployment of ETCS and track renewals will allow simpler and more efficient train paths. So, for example, simplified bi-directional working could be deployed for the whole route using pre-existing crossover pairs for planned single line working to allow maintenance activities to take place more easily.
At Carnforth, a potential option subject to enhancement funding could be to provide a cord to allow local trains to access the station via the line to Barrow-in-Furness and return to the WCML to travel north. This would not only provide a passing loop at Carnforth, but also the ability for main line trains to stop at Carnforth station once again.
These are only a few examples of the intelligent renewals that the TriLink programme is planning in order to provide a more efficient railway.
Implementation
A programme of works such as TriLink is likely to require a series of blockades. There are those who may question why Network Rail cannot deliver schemes “like we used to” with fewer ‘no train’ periods. Since the route was last renewed 50 years ago, safety requirements have vastly improved and there are now several items of legislation to manage safety risk. These include The Work at Height Regulations 2005, Electricity at Work Regulations 1989, and The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974; so things cannot be implemented as they once were and the priority has to be ‘Everyone Home Safe Every Day’.
The rail industry wants everyone to get home safely, including colleagues, passengers, suppliers, lineside neighbours, communities, and anyone who lives, works, or goes near a railway.
However, the key to good implementation is to maximise the work content of every ‘no train’ period and manage the work programme efficiently, and to do as much work as possible in the shortest period of time. Customers soon get very upset if a railway is not available and no work is taking place, and, just as important, train diversions and bus replacement services must be very well organised and efficient. The work must also be done properly, so that the railway is not disrupted to the same extent for at least another 50 years.
There are a huge number of factors that could determine where the best location is to start implementing a programme such as TriLink, and these will differ depending on the asset type. However, with ETCS deployment the fixed infrastructure is relatively easy to provide compared to ETCS train fitment, training, route familiarisation, and system configuration (making sure that everything works together). Therefore, when taking ETCS train fitment and training into account, the best place to start will be in the north and in the Carlisle area, with fewer drivers to train, trains to fit, and less system testing compared to other parts of the route.
TriLink legacy
The result of TriLink for the WCML will be a more reliable timetable for passengers, longer freight services to improve economic growth and the environment, and to provide a solution that will be easier to maintain, while reducing the volume of costly signalling and track work.
This ‘intelligent renewal’ approach should be applied to any future route-wide projects, and is very relevant as the ETCS plan moves forward and re-signalling happens nationally over the next 20 years. The overall TriLink programme renewal scope is not-optional for a lot of the assets – they are, or soon will be, life expired so something has to happen. So why not make a better railway, intelligently, at the same time?
Graeme Bickerdike offers his personal reflections on the efforts of campaigners to ensure the social value of legacy railway structures is recognised in asset management decision-making.
When I joined a group of like-minded folk to highlight and challenge the impending loss of 130-plus legacy railway structures to National Highways’ (NH) infilling and demolition programme, we could not have imagined that then Prime Minister Boris Johnson would intervene to save them. But that’s what he did – if you believe the Daily Mail – in late July 2021. Since then, infilling has been paused whilst priority schemes were put through a newly-developed process involving stakeholder review, Ministerial approval, and planning permission.
As we transition to greener forms of transport, the corridors vacated by the not-so-permanent way in the 1950s and 60s are becoming ever more valuable for active travel or restoration of their railways. Many have already been reclaimed by nature for wildlife transit and foraging. However, the selling-off and redevelopment of trackbeds post-closure has diminished their repurposing potential, and further blockages serve only to increase the cost and difficulty of piecing them back together. The imperative of maintaining alignment continuity is clear to anyone with an eye on a positive future.
Queensbury Tunnel has been blocked in two places despite proposals for it to be repurposed as part of the Bradford-Halifax Greenway.
The road to intervention
National Highways, the state-owned roads company, assumed responsibility for the Department for Transport’s Historical Railways Estate (HRE) in September 2013 following the loss of British Railways Board (Residuary) to the Conservatives’ ‘quango cull’. More than 3,000 structures feature in total, with 152 tunnels, 101 viaducts and aqueducts, and 1,906 bridges. Each one of these historical assets stands as a monument to the tenacity and ambition of those who created them – mostly in the 19th century – in conditions we can’t begin to imagine. Custodianship comes with the moral responsibility to respect those endeavours and the sacrifices that came with them.
By the time of the Government’s pause, at least 52 structures had been subject to infilling over eight years, including sections of West Yorkshire’s 1.4-mile-long Queensbury Tunnel which connects two of the county’s largest conurbations. It remains the centrepiece of plans for a Bradford-Halifax Greenway despite National Highways blocking it beneath two ventilation shafts as £7.2 Million was spent on localised strengthening works whilst the contractor fought to overcome flooding difficulties caused by NH’s failure to pay the £50 annual rent on a pumping station. To no avail, Bradford Council issued a Planning Contravention Notice to stop one phase of the work; meanwhile, over 8,000 people have objected to NH’s undetermined planning application for a larger-scale abandonment scheme.
In late 2020, plans were revealed to expand the infilling programme from an average of seven bridges per year to 23. National Highways (then named Highways England (HE)) claimed that: “Around 200 of the public road bridges managed by HE/HRE have failed their most recent structural assessment but haven’t had any restrictions implemented. Therefore, our planned infilling is the safest and most appropriate option and will maintain access across the structure.” But some of the bridges had passed or never been subject to a capacity assessment, and there had been no meaningful consideration of their heritage or landscape value; little dialogue had taken place with community stakeholder groups whilst a Sustrans study from January 2022 found that two-thirds of the 75 affected structures within its scope had the potential to be incorporated in future walking and cycling routes.
The final straw came when Great Musgrave bridge in Cumbria was infilled without any consultation with the two heritage railways who needed it for their longstanding reconnection plans and despite a request from the local planning authority for works not to start. An outpouring of frustration from engineers and members of the public accompanied the masonry arch’s loss. Meanwhile, politicians voiced their concerns about the impact on active travel opportunities and accused NH of “cultural vandalism” during a House of Lords debate.
A bridge too far
Cumbria’s Great Musgrave bridge presented “no significant risk” when it was infilled under emergency permitted development rights.
As a result of open joints, the bridge at Great Musgrave had been assessed as having a capacity of just 17 tonnes in 1998, but repointing works 14 years later restored full live loading capacity (40/44 tonnes). Although some mortar loss occurred from 2017, an inspection in 2020 found only modest defects and National Highways’ engineer recorded the bridge as presenting “no significant risk” to public safety.
Despite this, the bridge was infilled 16 months later, a different engineer having invoked Class Q permitted development rights – which only apply to temporary works in emergency situations – claiming: “the bridge was being overloaded and that works were required to prevent the failure of the bridge and avert a collapse.” A subsequent review of the available engineering evidence by Bill Harvey Associates (BHA), a firm of masonry arch bridge specialists, condemned this claim as “preposterous”.
As, by default, Class Q rights required removal of the infill within 12 months, Eden District Council (EDC) asked NH to submit a retrospective planning application for retention of the 1,600 tonnes of stone and concrete. This was unanimously rejected by the Council’s planning committee on 16 June 2022 due to conflicts with local and national heritage and landscape policies, after which Helene Rossiter, NH’s head of the HRE Programme, asserted that NH would: “no longer consider the infilling of any structures as part of our future plans, unless there is absolutely no alternative.”
An enforcement notice was issued, requiring removal of the infill by 11 October 2023. A 13-week closure of the road – which caused great inconvenience to the local community – was lifted on 13 October.
A question of strength
If support from the stone and concrete beneath its arch was withdrawn, NH made clear that Great Musgrave bridge would require strengthening. It continued to do so until Week 10 of the infill removal project when a post on its website revealed that: “despite the bridge’s capacity being previously limited, our refurbishment work and resurfacing of the deck will remove the need for a weight restriction, restoring the bridge to full capacity.”
No strengthening had been installed, just localised repointing and modest repairs to stonework damaged when the concrete was broken out. A new assessment had found the bridge to have a capacity 3.4 times greater than that needed for 40/44 tonne HGVs and, as BHA indicated in its report, it almost certainly had similar reserves of strength prior to infilling. This further undermined the credibility of an organisation that had previously claimed it was needed “to avert a collapse”. At the time of writing, the cost of the removal scheme has still not been revealed; the original infilling set back the taxpayer £124,000.
Photos published by NH in Weeks 2 & 4 of the project suggested that settlement of the infill had caused a gap of perhaps 10mm to open between the concrete and the arch. As BHA said, “Lack of contact is an extreme case of lack of stiffness. If there is no contact, there is nothing to stop the movement of the existing structure.”
160,000 tonnes of stone and concrete were removed from Great Musgrave bridge after councillors rejected a retrospective planning application to retain it.
National Highways denied the campaigners’ assertion that the gap prevented load being transferred into the infill – thus making it ineffective – and instead pointed out that uncertainty over retention of the material meant that the contractor had not undertaken investigative coring and ‘top-up’ grouting after 12 months, as it normally would. However, the company has not said what the minimum gap size is for such grouting or what would happen if settlement occurred afterwards.
Heritage loss
St Andrew’s Lane bridge at Congham, Norfolk, spanned the former King’s Lynn to Fakenham railway and was rebuilt in 1926 using a system of modular concrete products and blockwork first introduced by the eminent engineer William Marriott. It was the only surviving complete example of its kind, substantially comprising concrete brick and more elaborate in plan than two others in the county.
In 2019, the structure was assessed as having a capacity of 7.5 tonnes due to its edge girders carrying the parapets; the carriageway-supporting girders could bear 40 tonnes. An inspection recorded 14 structural elements to be in ‘Fair’ condition, with only the east abutment – which was cracked at its ends – described as ‘Poor’. Spalling to the bridge’s seven concrete-encased girders affected approximately 3.6% of their visible surface area, although cracking was more extensive. Two patch mortar repairs had been completed.
The lane is narrow, with encroaching trees and foliage. The bridge ‘hump’ and a bend at its west end restrict visibility and hence speeds. A vehicle typically crosses every 10 minutes. There is no apparent collision damage to the parapets or flattened vegetation on the verges.
Against this picture of modest risk, NH told the Borough Council of King’s Lynn & West Norfolk that it intended to infill the bridge under Class Q permitted development rights in October 2019. Planners expressed no objection, given the implied emergency and temporary nature of the works. A contractor was mobilised 17 months later, and the bridge was buried in spring 2021.
National Highways’ failure to remove the infill within 12 months – as required under Class Q – prompted the Council to ask for a retrospective planning application if retention of the material was intended. A committee of 14 councillors unanimously rejected it due to conflicts with heritage and landscape policies on 2 October 2023. One of them, Vivienne Spikings, protested that there was no need to “obliterate our past with this cheap infill”, bemoaning the loss of “a shining example of architecture”.
The bridge, asserted NH, was in “very poor condition” – contradicting its own evidence – and repairs to it would have been difficult. Infilling was the most cost-effective option, it said, although no costs for any other options were ever provided for comparison. Helene Rossiter insisted: “This work was essential to ensure the bridge can carry traffic safely. We do not feel the Council’s decision adequately reflects the safety concerns raised, which is why we are lodging an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.”
The elegant bridge at Congham in Norfolk was rebuilt in 1926 using a system of modular concrete products and blockwork first introduced by engineer William Marriott.
An enforcement notice for removal of the infill was issued by the Council, with a compliance deadline of 10 April 2024. However, at the time of writing, it is understood that an appeal has been submitted and the notice has not therefore taken effect.
A better way
So where do we go from here? In October 2023, permission to move ahead with the infilling of six structures and demolition of a seventh was granted by Ministers, with a range of options having previously been considered by NH’ Stakeholder Advisory Forum which has been set up to review the wider social value of any such affected structures. Work is expected to begin in Summer 2024, subject to the relevant planning consents being obtained.
Infilling of the handsome bridge accommodating Limekiln Road in Ayr is already on pause as the local council has identified its potential value for a future active travel route. This highlights a point made by Sustrans in its study, that: “An argument could be made for all the structures that, one day, they may be useful”. While events at Great Musgrave demonstrate that infilling is reversible, the costs of removal are unsustainable for heritage railways and charities building cycling infrastructure on a shoestring. So, isn’t it time to view viable legacy structures as assets by default?
To counter negative perceptions, NH has launched a PR campaign, promoting its positive interventions at many HRE structures. In December, it won the National Railway Heritage Structures Award for its £2 million refurbishment of Westfield Viaduct near Bathgate, delivered by Balfour Beatty. And there’s some proactive engagement with those seeking to repurpose structures for social benefit, notably greenway developers in the south-west. There remains uncertainty, however, as to whether the Department for Transport will allow this to happen under licence, rather than insisting on ownership transfers to other cash-strapped bodies.
What remains unclear are NH’s long-term intentions regarding the 130-plus structures that were facing “the most appropriate option” of infilling or demolition when the Government stepped in to halt the programme, and to what extent the company’s outward enthusiasm for the Historical Railways Estate is percolating inwards to those making asset management decisions.
Safeguards should prevent any repetitions of Great Musgrave and Congham – high-value losses where the risks were respectively invented and over-egged. But what about the culture that drove those schemes? Has the inclination to infill been tamed?
Ministrial authority has been given to infill Limekiln Road bridge in Ayr, but the scheme is paused as the structure may be useful for an active travel route.
Editor’s comment
To seek NH’s response to this article I spoke to its head of Historical Railways Estate, Helene Rossiter. She advised that, although she did not agree with some of it, NH completely supports its main message that alternative uses should be considered for these old structures.
She emphasised that alongside NH’s primary priority of safety, the social value potential of structures, including possible reuse for active travel, is now fully considered when making decisions. National Highways also works closely with its Stakeholder Advisory Forum which Graeme Bickerdike attends as the representative of The HRE Group, to help inform the company’s plans.
Over the last 10 years NH has invested over £50 million to ensure tunnels, bridges, and viaducts can be used safely and enjoyed by future generations.
The Department for Transport’s protocol for the management of these structures is also being updated to reflect government policies on active travel. Helene says she looks forward to sharing this more widely in due course.
