Tomorrow's Railway and Climate Change Adaptation Final Report

markrssb

2016-05-T1009-final-report

Tomorrow's Railway and

Climate Change Adaptation:

Final Report


Copyright

© RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD LTD. 2016 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

This publication may be reproduced free of charge for research, private study or for internal

circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced and referenced

accurately and not being used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as

the copyright of Rail Safety and Standards Board and the title of the publication specified

accordingly. For any other use of the material please apply to RSSB's Head of Research and

Development for permission. Any additional queries can be directed to enquirydesk@rssb.co.uk.

This publication can be accessed by authorised audiences, via the SPARK website:

www.sparkrail.org.

Written by: The Arup T1009 Phase 2 Consortium (Arup, Beckford Consulting, the British

Geological Survey, CIRIA, JBA Consulting, the Met Office, TRL, the University of Birmingham and

University College London) in collaboration with the RSSB Project Team (RSSB, John Dora

Consulting Ltd and Network Rail), the T1009 Steering Group and expert stakeholders from the

GB rail industry.

Published: May 2016


Executive Summary

This is the executive summary of the final report of the T1009 Tomorrow’s Railway and

Climate Change Adaptation project. It contains a distillation of the work undertaken by

the consortium on behalf of RSSB between January 2013 and December 2015.

The overall objectives of the T1009 project are to enhance and disseminate knowledge

within the GB railway industry about:

1 How the UK climate and weather is projected to change in the future

2 The current impacts of climate change and extreme weather on the GB railway, and

the projected future impacts

3 What the GB railway industry is already doing to respond and adapt to the potential

impacts of projected climate change and extreme weather

4 What else the GB rail industry can do to respond and adapt to the potential impacts

of projected climate change and extreme weather over the short, medium, and long

term

5 What additional decision support frameworks, approaches and tools the GB rail

industry requires in order to take cost-effective action to respond and adapt to the

potential impacts of projected climate change and extreme weather.

The outcomes of Tomorrow’s Railway and Climate Change Adaptation Phase 1 provide

answers to Objectives 1-3 and go some way to answering Objective 4. Phase 2 has

focused on answering Objectives 4 and 5 in more detail.

Phase 2 has been delivered by means of the eight thematic tasks:

Task 1 Economics of climate change adaptation

Task 2 Study of comparable future climates/railways

Task 3 Metrics evaluation

Task 4 Systems modelling

Task 5 Geographic systems modelling

Task 6 Implementation support

Task 7 Review of priorities

Task 8 Funding sources

The final report provides conclusions and selected key recommendations from these

tasks. Where appropriate, the task outputs have been combined to provide integrated

reports on common themes.

i


Realised Impact of T1009

The T1009 project has already had a positive impact on the GB railway industry during

the course of its delivery. Key impacts which have been realised to date are:

• Network Rail understands “where it is” in relation to other industries and academic

research on the topic of adaptation

• An agreed methodology for how the railway industry can develop quantitative climate

change scenarios for use in modelling activities

• The railway industry can access a central repository of weather resilience and climate

change adaptation related research from the SPARK dissemination platform

• An element of Phase 2 work was brought forward to enable the outputs to inform and

support Network Rail’s procurement of a new weather information system for the rail

industry

ii


Principal recommendations and findings

The impacts of climate variability demonstrate the need to include socioeconomic

benefits when carrying out the economic appraisal of rail investment

schemes

This finding addresses the T1009 objective to investigate how the GB railway industry

can evaluate the cost and benefits of dealing with impacts of climate change and

extreme weather. The Phase 2 case studies provide powerful illustrations of how

consideration of climate change costs will change investment scenarios.

In relation to this subject:

Final Report

Section

• It is recommended that the rail industry

considers adopting the Environment Agency’s

approach to appraising investments that offer

increased climate change resilience

• It is recommended that cost benefit analysis

with sensitivity analysis is adopted as the

preferred analysis approach for assessing

climate change adaptation strategies and

options within the rail industry

• It is recommended that economic appraisals

adopt measures to deal with uncertainty and

that the boundary of the analyses are

extended to include multiple transport modes

and a wide geographic area. It is also

recommended that the analyses include

societal benefits outside of the immediate

transport arena.

• It is recommended that the industry keeps

better records from extreme weather events.

For instance, records should include damage to

rail assets and the parameters of the weather

and the associated flood event that has caused

that damage.

5.5

5.7

5.8

5.9

iii


The climate in Britain in 2080 will be similar to the current climate of central

France, which also has a broadly comparable railway

This finding addresses the T1009 objective to investigate how the UK climate and

weather is going to change in the future.

In relation to this subject:

Final Report

Page Number

• The study that derived this conclusion examined

global climates and took into account countries

with similar railway operations to the GB railway

• T1009 has produced a compendium of climate

and resilience measures which are of potential

benefit to the future operation of the GB railway

system and a series of ‘fact sheets’ for use by

practitioners

• The overall predictions point to warmer drier

summers and milder wetter winters

• Extreme weather events are likely to become

more frequent and may be more extreme

4.6

4.7

1

1

iv


GB railway is ahead of European and other national railways in terms of managing

risk due to climate variability and understanding the vulnerability of our assets

This finding addresses the T1009 objective to investigate what is being done already or

can be done about the impacts of climate change and extreme weather.

In relation to this subject we have noted that:

Final Report

Page Number

• The UK railway industry is currently considered

to be at the forefront of adaptation and

resilience of infrastructure assets by its

international peers. Consequently there are no

major ‘quick-wins’ that can be adopted from

relevant foreign railways.

• Rail industry response to extreme weather is

inconsistent across GB. The lack of a cohesive

plan is considered to be a key challenge, with

organisations within the rail industry currently

working in silos.

• Collaboration between the rail industry and

other sectors has been found to be minimal. In

order to respond more effectively to the likely

increasing frequency of extreme weather events

across the UK, the rail industry should develop

stronger links, at a variety of levels, with other

sectors. In this regard, it should replicate the

best practice that is found in Scotland

4.7

4.24

4.24

v


Prototype metrics have been proposed that can be used to assess the resilience of

the railway as part of a wider transport system. New asset vulnerability tools have

been demonstrated

This finding addresses the T1009 objective to investigate how the GB railway industry

can evaluate the cost and benefits of dealing with impacts of climate change and

extreme weather.

In relation to this subject:

Final Report

Page Number

• The research has produced a compendium of

194 metrics that aid railway operators in the

management and adaptation of the network to

cope with extreme weather impacts and climate

change

• It is recommended that enhanced reporting of

weather conditions be introduced, including

detail on cause and effect, where weather is

considered an underlying factor in fault and

incident codes

• It is recommended that the industry develops

mechanisms to share data within the railway

industry, with other transport modes and with

other interdependent infrastructure owners

• It is proposed that a new metric based upon

journey availability could provide the best

means of quantifying the benefit of adaptation

and resilience interventions

4.10

4.19

5.14

5.15.1

vi


Climate change will impact asset life, requiring changes to railway standards and

asset policies

This finding addresses the T1009 objective to investigate the impacts of climate change

and future extreme weather on the GB railway.

In relation to this subject:

Final Report

Page Number

• It is recommended that a review of standards

relevant to the consideration of weather and

climate change-related impacts and risks should

be undertaken. It should focus on reviewing

standards relating to design and strategic

planning first, because of the need to ensure

that new designs and strategies are resilient.

After that, it should review those relating to

operations and management.

• It is recommend that any reviews of technical

standards for the design and management of

infrastructure assets should be done in

collaboration with other UK national

infrastructure operators. This will ensure a

national approach can be adopted and will help

‘UK plc’ to influence the development of

relevant British Standards and Eurocodes, for

example.

• It is recommended that the industry should

account for potential reductions in asset life due

to climate change when assessing whole life

maintenance and renewal plans/costs

5.4.2

3.9

5.14

vii


Infrastructure systems are inter-dependent, requiring a multi-agency response to

climate change

This finding addresses the T1009 objective to investigate how the GB railway industry

can evaluate the cost and benefits of dealing with impacts of climate change and

extreme weather.

In relation to this subject:

Final Report

Page Number

• It is recommended that the railway industry

should develop a cohesive National Strategy and

Operational Response Plan. It is also

recommended that Network Rail continues to

lead the Extreme Weather Action Team (EWAT)

process and that the industry acquires a national

EWAT information system.

• It is recommended that the railway industry

seeks to collaborate across organisational

boundaries and encourages inter-modal shift as

a response to extreme weather and climate

change. The industry should seek to establish

multi-agency weather strategic and operational

planning and reinforce multi-agency

communication processes.

• It is recommended that the introduction of a

multi-agency communications system to

improve communication with the public and

other stakeholders should be considered. The

industry should adopt decision-making criteria

about line closure which take into account

customer preference.

5.28

5.28

5.28

viii


Final Report

Page Number

• It is recommended that the railway industry

develops an integrated systems model of the GB

Railway embracing the four levels of

consideration as found in Task 4. It should

incorporate critical operational data,

measurement, geo-spatial and climate change

risks. This would mean that appropriate climate

change adaptation strategies could be

developed and tested via computer simulation

in response to emergent changes.

• It is recommended that the railway industry

considers whether and how each level in the

various organisations as found in Task 4 can be

more effective in creating conditions in which

the next lower level can perform more

effectively

• An industry-wide knowledge-sharing mechanism

should be introduced that will include an easily

accessed global and national ‘lessons learnt’

recording process

5.15

5.17

5.17

ix


Conclusions

In conclusion, in addition to the immediate impacts described earlier, the T1009

programme has identified likely future weather scenarios resulting from climate change.

The research has identified that the GB railway industry needs to be more resilient to

the threats posed by future extreme weather events and has shown how the industry

can adapt accordingly through:

• Taking climate change into account in investment planning

• Working with other owning and managing organisations whose infrastructure impacts

the railway

• The introduction of relevant standards.

x


Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................ 1

1.1 Project team and steering group ................................................. 2

2 Scope ...................................................................... 3

3 Phase 1 summary ................................................... 4

3.1 Whole system .............................................................................. 5

3.1.1 Changes to current practice .......................................................................... 5

3.1.2 Review of relevant policies and standards.................................................... 6

3.1.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data .............................................. 8

3.1.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets ....................................................... 9

3.1.5 Recommendations for action – whole system ........................................... 10

3.2 People ........................................................................................ 13

3.2.1 Changes to current practice ........................................................................ 13

3.2.2 Review of relevant policies and standards.................................................. 13

3.2.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data ............................................ 13

3.2.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets ..................................................... 13

3.2.5 Recommendations for action – people ....................................................... 14

3.3 Rolling stock ............................................................................... 15

3.3.1 Changes to current practice ........................................................................ 15

3.3.2 Review of relevant policies and standards.................................................. 15

3.3.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data ............................................ 15

3.3.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets ..................................................... 15

3.3.5 Recommendations for action – rolling stock .............................................. 17

3.4 Operations ................................................................................. 18

3.4.1 Changes to current practice ........................................................................ 18

3.4.2 Review of relevant policies and standards.................................................. 18

3.4.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data ............................................ 18

3.4.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets ..................................................... 18

3.4.5 Recommendations for action – operations ................................................ 19

3.5 CCS (Control, command and signalling) ..................................... 20

3.5.1 Changes to current practice ........................................................................ 20

xi


3.5.2 Review of relevant policies and standards.................................................. 20

3.5.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data ............................................ 20

3.5.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets ..................................................... 21

3.5.5 Recommendations for action – CCS ............................................................ 23

3.6 Energy ........................................................................................ 24

3.6.1 Changes to current practice ........................................................................ 24

3.6.2 Review of relevant policies and standards.................................................. 24

3.6.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data ............................................ 24

3.6.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets ..................................................... 25

3.6.5 Recommendations for action – energy ....................................................... 26

3.7 Infrastructure ............................................................................. 27

3.7.1 Changes to current practice ........................................................................ 27

3.7.2 Review of relevant policies and standards.................................................. 28

3.7.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data ............................................ 29

3.7.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets ..................................................... 30

3.7.5 Recommendations for action – infrastructure ........................................... 32

3.8 Review of relevant standards .................................................... 35

3.8.1 Recommendations for action – review of standards ................................. 36

3.9 Opportunities and links with other initiatives and partners ...... 37

3.9.1 Recommendations for action – opportunities and links with other

initiatives and partners .......................................................................................... 40

4 Phase 2 summary ................................................. 41

4.1 Task 1A Economics of climate change adaptation, review of

information and data ....................................................................... 43

4.2 Task 1B Economics of climate change adaptation,

climate change emission scenarios ................................................. 46

4.3 Task 1C Economics of climate change adaptation,

assessment of risk posed by climate change ................................... 47

4.4 Task 1D Economics of climate change adaptation,

identification of ‘quick wins’ ............................................................ 49

4.5 Task 1E Economics of climate change adaptation,

Western Route case study ............................................................... 50

xii


4.5.1 Case Study: Dealing with uncertainty.......................................................... 50

4.5.2 Case Study: Extending the boundary of the analysis: scope of impacts

addressed and size of geographical area ............................................................. 51

4.5.3 Case Study: Applying different measures ................................................... 53

4.6 Task 2AB Overseas weather and railways, temporal and

spatial characteristics of future climate, and identification

of similar climates ............................................................................ 55

4.7 Task 2C Overseas weather and railways, compendium

of resilience measures ..................................................................... 58

4.8 Task 2D Overseas weather and railways, opportunities for

overseas partnerships...................................................................... 60

4.9 Task 3A and Task B Metrics evaluation, compendium

of metrics ......................................................................................... 61

4.10 Task 3C Metrics evaluation, review of metrics ........................ 63

4.11 Task 3D Metrics evaluation, how metrics can be used ........... 66

4.12 Task 3E Metrics evaluation, piloting proposed metrics,

Western Route case study ............................................................... 67

4.13 Task 4A Systems modelling, review of systems based

risk and Task 4B Systems modelling, commentary of different

organisations ................................................................................... 68

4.14 Task 4C Metrics evaluation, consideration of metrics used

in other tasks, and Task 4D Metrics evaluation, characterisation

of the railway as a system of systems ............................................. 69

4.15 Task 4E Metrics evaluation, identification of dependencies ... 69

4.16 Task 4F Metrics evaluation, Drax/Immingham case study ...... 70

4.17 Task 5A Geographic systems modelling, review of GIS

based risk and vulnerability identification and assessment

tools that are available and in use ................................................... 71

4.18 Task 5B Geographic systems modelling, consideration

of metrics used in other tasks ......................................................... 72

xiii


4.19 Task 5C Geographic systems modelling, suitability of

current and future tools or approaches - grouping assets in

relation to effects ............................................................................ 73

4.20 Task 5D Geographic systems modelling, an investigation

into how GIS-based analyses are being used and can form

decision support tools ..................................................................... 75

4.21 Task 5E Geographic systems modelling, development

of system requirements for GIS based decision support tools ........ 77

4.22 Task 5F Geographic systems modelling,

Western Route case study ............................................................... 79

4.23 Task 6A Implementation Support, identification of

relevant policies ............................................................................... 79

4.24 Task 6B Implementation Support, identification of areas

of benefit and Task 6C Implementation Support,

multi-agency working ...................................................................... 81

4.25 Task 6D Implementation Support, Humber Region

case study ........................................................................................ 82

4.26 Task 7A Review of priorities, assimilation of findings

from other tasks .............................................................................. 83

4.27 Task 7B Review of priorities, examination of best practice

methodologies ................................................................................. 83

4.28 Task 7C Review of priorities, development of a

prioritisation methodology .............................................................. 87

4.29 Task 7D Review of priorities, prioritisation of

recommendations ........................................................................... 88

4.30 Task 8A Funding Sources, review of funding sources .............. 90

4.31 Task 8B Funding Sources, example funding applications ........ 90

5 Conclusions and recommendations ..................... 91

5.1 How the UK climate and weather is projected to change

in the future ..................................................................................... 91

5.1.1 Summary and conclusions ........................................................................... 91

5.1.2 Priority recommendations ........................................................................... 92

xiv


5.2 What the impacts of climate change and extreme weather

are projected to be for the GB railway ............................................ 92

5.2.1 Summary and conclusions ........................................................................... 92

5.2.2 Priority recommendations ........................................................................... 93

5.3 What is being done already by the GB railway industry

to respond and adapt to the potential impacts of projected

climate change and extreme weather ............................................. 94

5.3.1 Summary and conclusions ........................................................................... 94

5.3.2 Priority recommendations ........................................................................... 96

5.4 What else can be done by the GB rail industry to respond

and adapt to the potential impacts of projected climate change

and extreme weather over the short, medium and long term ....... 97

5.4.1 Summary and conclusions ........................................................................... 97

5.4.2 Phase 1 priority recommendations ............................................................. 97

5.5 Task 1A – Economics of climate change adaptation,

review of information and data ....................................................... 98

5.6 Task 1B Economics of climate change adaptation,

climate change emission scenarios ................................................. 98

5.7 Task 1C Economics of climate change adaptation,

assessment of risk posed by climate change ................................... 99

5.8 Task 1D Economics of climate change adaptation,

identification of ‘quick wins’ ............................................................ 99

5.8.1 Close data gaps by sharing data .................................................................. 99

5.8.2 Wider economic effects ............................................................................. 100

5.8.3 Incorporate void days ................................................................................ 100

5.8.4 Consider whole system resilience when developing options

for intervention .................................................................................................... 100

5.8.5 Look forwards, not back ............................................................................. 100

5.8.6 Data gathering ............................................................................................ 101

5.9 Task 1E Economics of climate change adaptation,

Western Route case study ............................................................. 101

5.10 Task 2A Overseas weather and railways, temporal

and spatial characteristics of future climate, and Task 2B

xv


Overseas weather and railways, identification of

similar climates .............................................................................. 101

5.11 Task 2C Overseas weather and railways, compendium of

resilience measures ....................................................................... 102

5.12 Task 2D Overseas weather and railways, opportunities for

overseas partnerships.................................................................... 102

5.13 Task 3A and Task B Metrics evaluation, compendium

of metrics ....................................................................................... 103

5.14 Task 3C Metrics evaluation, review of metrics ...................... 103

5.15 Task 3D Metrics evaluation, how metrics can be used ......... 104

5.15.1 System based risk recommendations ..................................................... 104

5.15.2 Local or specific level recommendations ................................................ 105

5.15.3 Operational level recommendations ...................................................... 105

5.15.4 Strategic level recommendations ............................................................ 105

5.15.5 Socio political level recommendations ................................................... 105

5.16 Metrics evaluation, piloting proposed metrics,

Western Route case study ............................................................. 106

5.17 Task 4A Systems modelling, review of systems based

risk and Task 4B Systems modelling, commentary of different

organisations ................................................................................. 106

5.18 Task 4C Metrics evaluation, consideration of metrics

used in other tasks, and Task 4D Metrics evaluation,

characterisation of the railway as a system of systems ................ 106

5.19 Task 4E Task 4E Metrics evaluation, identification of

dependencies ................................................................................ 107

5.20 Task 4F Metrics evaluation, Drax/Immingham case study .... 107

5.21 Task 5A Geographic systems modelling, review of GIS

based risk and vulnerability identification and assessment

tools that are available and in use ................................................. 108

5.22 Task 5B Geographic systems modelling, consideration of

metrics used in other tasks ............................................................ 109

xvi


5.23 Task 5C Geographic systems modelling, suitability of

current and future tools or approaches - grouping assets in

relation to effects .......................................................................... 109

5.23.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 109

5.23.2 Proposals for GIS-based Vulnerability Assessments ............................... 109

5.23.3 Recommendations for GIS Applications .................................................. 111

5.24 Task 5D Geographic systems modelling, an investigation

into how GIS-based analyses are being used and can form

decision support tools ................................................................... 112

5.25 Task 5E Geographic systems modelling, development

of system requirements for GIS based decision support tools ...... 113

5.26 Task 5F Geographic systems modelling,

Western Route case study ............................................................. 113

5.27 Task 6A Implementation Support, identification of

relevant policies ............................................................................. 113

5.28 Task 6B Implementation Support, identification of

areas of benefit and Task 6C Implementation Support,

multi-agency working .................................................................... 114

5.29 Task 6D Implementation Support, Humber Region

case study ...................................................................................... 115

5.30 Task 7A Review of priorities, assimilation of findings

from other tasks ............................................................................ 115

5.31 Task 7B Review of priorities, examination of best

practice methodologies ................................................................. 115

5.32 Task 7C Review of priorities, development of a

prioritisation methodology ............................................................ 116

5.33 Task 7D Review of priorities, prioritisation of

recommendations ......................................................................... 116

5.33.1 High priority projects – pursue actively .................................................. 117

5.33.2 Other priority areas – exploit opportunities that arise .......................... 118

5.33.3 Remaining projects - monitor opportunities .......................................... 119

5.34 Task 8A Funding Sources, review of funding sources ............ 119

xvii


5.35 Task 8B Funding Sources, example funding applications ...... 119

6 Glossary, abbreviations and acronyms ............... 120

xviii


1 Introduction

This is the final report of the T1009 Tomorrow’s Railway and Climate Change Adaptation

project. It contains a distillation of the work undertaken by the Arup Consortium on

behalf of RSSB between January 2013 and December 2015.

Due to the T1009 timeline, the project has concentrated on the existing mainline railway

and does not include any analysis of HS2 in relation to climate change, although the HS2

organisation has been represented on the project’s Steering Group.

The main body of this report presents the key findings from both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of

the T1009 project. Phase 1 has been reported extensively in the RSSB report

‘Tomorrow’s Railway and Climate Change Adaptation: work package 1 final report’. The

corresponding detail for Phase 2 is included in a series of appendices to this report. Each

appendix relates to one of the eight contributory tasks:

Task One: Economics of climate change adaptation action

Task Two: Overseas comparison study

Task Three: Metrics evaluation

Task Four: Holistic system and sub-system modelling, and vulnerability tool feasibility

studies

Task Five: Geographically-based ‘Evaluation of vulnerability’ decision support tool

feasibility studies

Task Six: Benefits Realisation Programme

Task Seven: Review of Priorities

Task Eight: Funding Sources

This report represents the output of Task Nine and is supported by a corresponding

Research Brief, and Executive Report prepared by RSSB. Summary.

The overall objectives of the T1009 project (Phase 1 and Phase 2) are to enhance and

disseminate knowledge within the GB railway industry about:

1. How the UK climate and weather are projected to change in the future

2. What the potential impacts of climate change and extreme weather are projected to

be for the GB railway

3. What is already being done by the GB rail industry to respond and adapt to the

potential impacts of projected climate change and extreme weather

4. What else can be done by the GB rail industry to respond and adapt to these

potential impacts over the short, medium and long term

1


5. What the requirements of the GB rail industry are for additional decision support

frameworks, approaches and tools in order to take cost-effective action to respond

and adapt to the potential impacts of projected climate change.

The outcomes of T1009 Phase 1 presented in this report address objectives 1-3. They go

a considerable way to addressing objective 4. They also helped to refine the scope and

deliverables for Phase 2, in order to fully address objectives 4 and 5.

Based upon the UKCP09 data, predictions for the UK are for warmer, drier summers and

milder, wetter winters. In addition extreme weather events are likely to become more

frequent and may be more extreme.

1.1 Project team and steering group

The project has been guided by the RSSB Project Team, comprising members from these

organisations:

John Dora Consulting Ltd

Network Rail

RSSB

The project has also been supported by an expert industry stakeholder Steering Group

represented by these organisations:

ATOC

Defra

DfT

DfT Rail Executive

Environment Agency

First Group

HM Treasury

HS2

John Dora Consulting

Network Rail

Ofgem

ORR

Porterbrook

RIA

ScotRail

TfL

Transport Scotland

Welsh Government

2


2 Scope

The T1009 programme of research focuses on the entire railway industry. It investigates

the vulnerability of the sub-systems and their interdependencies within the whole

railway system. It considers the dependencies between rail and other transport modes,

and sectors such as energy and information communications technology.

The research programme has taken account of:

• Current and future weather and climate resilience of the GB mainline railway

network

• Time horizons out to 2100, reflecting control period reporting, railway strategy

timeframes, uncertainties in climate projections, and calls by government and

others for a longer term focus to the end of the century

• Decadal steps as appropriate for different asset/ operational life cycles

• Data and information from rail industry partners including Network Rail and RSSB,

the most up-to-date information available on future climate projections for the

UK, and relevant findings from UK-based research projects such as FUTURENET

and ITRC (Infrastructure Transitions Research Consortium)

• Co-ordination with a wide research base, such as that funded by the research

councils. Examples include EPSRC-funded Adaptation and Resilience in a Changing

Climate (ARCC) Co-ordination Network projects

• ‘Lessons learnt’ from overseas studies and railway operators, and from other

domestic railway operators

• Challenges from the perspective of systemic risks, opportunities and systemically

resilient design.

Phase 2 has used the findings from Phase 1 to inform the Phase 2 tasks.

3


3 Phase 1 summary

The work undertaken in T1009 Phase 1 is the subject of a separate report that is

supported by a number of appendices. These can be found on www.sparkrail.org.

References are provided to the final Phase 1 Report and the Phase 1 appendices in

Sections 3 and 4 of this final report.

The structure and content of the T1009 Phase 1 summary are intended to provide a

summary of key information. References to key content and links are included as square

brackets such as this [XYZ].

This section sets out recommended actions and opportunities for the GB rail industry in

order to respond and adapt to the potential impact of projected climate change and

extreme weather. It is based on the information collated and analysed within T1009

Phase 1 and summarised in Sections 1–4 of the Phase 1 report. We look at the following

systems and sub-systems:

• 3.1 Whole system

• 3.2 People

• 3.3 Rolling stock

• 3.4 Operations

• 3.5 CCS (Control, command and signalling)

• 3.6 Energy

• 3.7 Infrastructure

Recommendations and opportunities are categorised under the following headings:

Changes to current practice

• Review of relevant policies and standards

• Further analysis of weather and climate data

• Monitoring and measurement of assets

• Recommendations

Section 3.8 signposts readers to Phase 1 Appendix F. Here, we list the standards

identified and reviewed as part of T1009 Phase 1 that are relevant to weather and

climate change impacts. We also indicate which standards may benefit most from

review, additional research and/ or potential amendment in the context of projected

climate change.

Section 3.9 sets out opportunities and links with other initiatives and partners.

For each section we have distilled recommendations and opportunities for action into

short, medium and long term categories.

4


We have highlighted any Phase 1 recommendations considered a relatively ‘quick win’

for the GB railway to implement or benefit from in Section 4.

3.1 Whole system

3.1.1 Changes to current practice

The GB rail industry collects and uses vast amounts of data and information - both

weather-related and otherwise - from many different sources. However, it often ends up

in different places or ‘silos’ with varying degrees of consistency and accuracy. Given the

GB rail industry’s complex history, the existence of these ‘information silos’ and the

variations in consistency and accuracy are perhaps to some degree inevitable. However,

changing current practices to improve collation and integration of data and information

could have significant advantages in terms of assessing and increasing the GB railway

system’s resilience to weather and climate change. Examples of this principle are

included in the relevant sub-sections throughout Sections 3.1 – 3.9.

A general recommendation is to improve the monitoring and recording of local weather

conditions across the network. Alongside incident reporting requirements, this would

assist when analysing specific weather and climatic impacts on particular railway assets

and asset vulnerabilities. In particular, it is recommended that increasing the quantity

and quality (consistency and accuracy) of recorded weather condition observations at

sites where asset failures and weather-related operational delays occur.

Network Rail has previously installed a number of new weather stations along its routes

as part of a trial; however the cost of installing and properly maintaining these was

considered insufficiently beneficial when there are already readily available high

resolution, high quality weather data from commercial sources. Research is being

undertaken to assess whether there are deficiencies in the openly available dataset that

would warrant dedicated weather stations in areas where the infrastructure is

particularly vulnerable. This initiative should be continued so that comprehensive and

meaningful data is collected and collated for current operational reasons as well as

future research purposes.

Meteorological data is being combined with incident data from both Network Rail and

other parts of the railway industry, to begin to look at whole-system weather resilience

issues. This could be extended to include data from Train Operating Companies (TOCs),

suppliers and passenger attitude surveys.

Consideration should be given to consistently identifying the location of vulnerable

assets or systems within the context of the wider GB railway system. This should be

followed by analysis of critical interdependencies and any business continuity

management systems or procedures which may need to be updated.

There is extensive best practice guidance relating to the preparation for and

management of winter weather in the new RSSB Winterisation guide (GE GN 8628 -

5


Guidance on preparation and operating during winter) [549]. This is relevant to multiple

sub-systems.

3.1.2 Review of relevant policies and standards

Temperature

Many design standards for different assets include a maximum temperature. These

values may need to be reviewed to check they will still be high enough in the future. A

single yet comprehensive assessment of projected maximum temperatures could be

carried out to inform the reviews of all high temperature-related standards across

multiple sub-systems. These could include averages, extreme values and available data,

as well as new analysis, up to 2050 and 2080 for each of the GB regions. For example,

UKCP09 climate projection data has projected values for summer mean daily maximum

temperatures by 2080 under the high emission scenario at the 90% probability. These

are between 26.7°C for Glasgow (representative of the Scotland region) and 32°C for

London (representative of the London and South East regions). See Phase 1 Appendix B

for more details.

A UKCP09 Weather Generator analysis estimates that by 2050 for the UK as a whole:

• The number of heatwaves (defined as two days with a maximum daily temperature

above 29°C) would increase from less than one a year to between three and seven

• The number of days above 25°C would increase from five a year to between 22 and

58

• The number of days above 28°C would increase from less than one a year to

between 12 and 28

• Annual maximum temperatures would increase from 27°C to between 31°C and

35.9°C. See Phase 1 Appendix E1 for more details.

Rainfall

When flooding occurs, it has a large impact. Winter rainfall in particular is projected to

increase in the UK. Recent work considering rainfall over southern UK (Kendon et al.

2014) [648] also suggests an increase in summer rainfall extremes.

It has been noted during Phase 1 that there was some uncertainty about the origins (and

therefore applicability) of the new rainfall thresholds proposed following Network Rail’s

recent internal analysis. The spatial variability and impact of rainfall means that this

issue should be re-examined with particular reference to including these new rainfall

threshold values in relevant standards documents for both design and operations. The

research recommends carrying out an assessment of what the ingress protection (IP)

code of all assets should be, based on the potential increased risk of flooding. See Phase

1 Appendix F for more information.

Many design standards for a variety of assets include or are based on ‘design flood’

events. These values may need reviewing to check that they will still be sufficiently

resilient in the future. A single assessment of appropriate ‘design flood’ events, which

6


takes projected future rainfall increases into consideration, could be used across

different asset classes. This assessment would need to factor in some degree of

vulnerability mapping to take into account the different sensitivities of specific assets

and locations to particular quantities and intensities of rainfall events. This would

include the associated uncertainty in translating amounts and duration of rainfall into

flooding impacts at different locations.

High winds

High winds can increase leaf fall and bring down branches and trees. These problems

can be mitigated by more investment in vegetation management where this vegetation

is within the boundary of the GB railway.

High winds can also impact overhead line equipment (OHLE) and provide a risk of

overturning.

Given the large uncertainty in the projected changes to wind speeds in the UKCP09

projections, there is little evidence for changing the UK wind maps. The most important

wind-related actions for the railway should be about understanding present day

vulnerabilities to high winds, and how to reduce those vulnerabilities.

It should be noted that some leaf fall is from vegetation belonging to third parties. Other

climate and non-climate variables also contribute to these risks. For example, wind

throw risk for trees is affected by the condition of the tree. This in turn is strongly

influenced by temperature and precipitation as well as the strength of the wind.

Clearing vegetation on or adjacent to the railway can create problems and this should be

taken into account. For instance, removing vegetation can mean removing shading and

this can lead to a risk of asset failure. The potential for increased flood risk caused by

heavy rainfall, and the impact on slope stability if vegetation is cleared from

embankments and cuttings, should be considered. There is also a potential increased

risk of destabilisation of earthworks if trees are removed.

It is recommended that disseminating existing good practice (such as CIRIA C712) [638]

and undertaking further research will help gain a full understanding of the most

appropriate and resilient tree species to plant and manage in different locations, taking

into account climate change.

There has been recent work on sustainable lineside vegetation management undertaken

on behalf of Network Rail by LDA Design, with John Hopkins and Peter Neal Consulting

(Sustainable Vegetation Management Strategy Overview, 2012) [655] and National

Lineside Vegetation Management Strategy, 2012 [656]. This should be revisited and

considered as part of this issue.

7


Lightning

Projections of future lightning frequencies as a result of climate change exist for the UK

(Boorman et al. 2010) [478]. These values could be used to investigate whether

lightning-related design guidance relevant to the GB railway needs updating.

3.1.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data

It is recommended that an investigation of potential changes in ‘seasonality’ as a result

of climate change is considered. There may be evidence to support the revision of the

existing relevant Railway Group Standards, Guidance Note GE/GN8628 in particular

[706]. These define ‘start and finish’ dates for the Autumn, Winter and Summer

operational seasons. These seasons are specifically defined for the GB railway industry

with start and end dates as follows: Autumn 1 October-13 December; Winter 14

December-31 March and Summer 1 April-30 September (NR/L2/OCS/021) [009].

Feedback from stakeholder workshops carried out as part of T1009 Phase 1 highlighted

the need for better understanding of:

• The projected future occurrence of different weather events. In particular, changes in

frequency and intensity of snow fall, lightning and electrical storms, high winds and

high temperatures need to be considered

• The occurrence of combinations of weather events and how the related risks could

change in the future

• Current and future changes in the ranges of different climate variables, e.g. minimum

and maximum temperature and precipitation ranges over daily, monthly, seasonal

and annual timescales.

It is recommended that that the frequency of conditions currently categorised as

‘adverse’ and ‘extreme’ should be periodically reviewed (per Control Period) to ensure

resilience and adaptation measures are focused appropriately. This will ensure that

existing and proposed new measures of performance see Phase 1 Section 4.1.1 are

being achieved within the context of a changing climate and an evolving railway system.

An analysis of the future frequency at which a range of high and low temperature

thresholds are reached or exceeded would be useful and valuable at system level and

for many sub-systems too. Comprehensive threshold analysis for a range of summer

maximum (21°C to 42°C) and winter minimum (0°C, –5°C and –10°C) temperature

thresholds has already been undertaken in T925 [92, 496] and the Network Rail annual

Weather Analysis Report. These would be useful starting points. Such analysis could be

revisited in view of understanding acceptable business risks from temperature-related

impacts. For example, it could determine the relevant threshold and the projected

changes to the frequency of threshold exceedances. It could also review whether the

extent of any changes is tolerable to the asset, sub-system and whole system.

8


Stakeholder workshops and other stakeholder engagement activities have highlighted

the need for increased spatial and temporal resolution for rainfall information in

particular. This would allow the development of better vulnerability mapping

techniques. It could potentially lead to more accurate rainfall risk assessment and

prediction tools.

An analysis for future frequency and intensity of rainfall would be a useful comparison

both at the system level and for many different asset classes. However, this would be

dependent on the baseline sensitivity of assets, sub-systems and the whole system to

rainfall first being quantified at an appropriately high resolution.

Appropriate flooding alerts will be location specific. However, flooding at a given

location will impact many asset classes at once. Therefore an understanding of how

flood risk is projected to increase across the country and beyond the land owned by

Network Rail is likely to be of benefit.

Analysis of the future frequency at which a range of wind speeds may be exceeded has

already been undertaken during T925 [92]. Whether further work would be useful both

at the system level and/ or for different sub-systems, asset classes and locations would

depend on being able to characterise existing wind sensitivities appropriately.

An analysis of the future frequency of snowfall would be useful at both the system level

and for many different sub-systems and asset classes. To some extent this is covered by

the UKCP09 technical note on snow [480]. However, appropriate consideration of the

caveats to this report would be required, as would any known sensitivities of particular

locations and assets to snow.

3.1.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets

In general, an enhanced programme of vulnerability mapping for all assets and locations

would be a useful exercise. By way of example, Network Rail holds a critical rail

temperature (CRT) register of locations which are particularly sensitive to track buckling,

and this is consulted as part of the management of track buckling risk. The development

of similar registers for other assets, sub-systems and/ or for other weather and climate

variables is encouraged.

It is recommended that the industry develops methodologies for the collection of data

relating to trees, vegetation and adjacent land. Better understanding of sites vulnerable

to high winds can then be fed into both design and operational procedures for managing

leaf, branch and tree fall.

A threshold-based approach is not necessarily the best one for lightning risk, as an

electrical storm forecast does not necessarily mean a bolt of lightning will strike the

railway or cause damage. Once impacts of lightning strikes have been studied further,

we can get a better understanding of whether a threshold based approach is relevant

and, if so, what type of analysis is needed. An appropriate use of near-real time lightning

9


information would be a good starting point for managing lightning, although this would

only address the hazard. The Met Office’s Hazard Manager product includes a layer

which shows recent lightning observations. Other approaches may include improved

procedures for locating and addressing lightning related failures.

Excess rainfall and localised flooding causes serious problems to the GB railway network,

and winter rainfall in particular is projected to increase in years to come. Therefore we

need to be able to assess the observed and projected impacts now and in the future.

These are gaps that could be addressed through increased use of telemetry and remote

monitoring at identified vulnerable asset locations, together with agreed protocols for

the consistent capture of rainfall and flood extent data post-event.

High winds tend to cause system-wide impacts, for example widespread line closures.

The lack of information on the impacts of high wind speeds should be addressed

together with the same tools as for rainfall highlighted above.

A similar process could be adopted for any climate change projections which are less

certain, in order to identify vulnerable asset types and locations. For new infrastructure,

this might involve checking potential effects and impacts. For existing infrastructure, this

might involve a system-wide strategic review of condition and exposure. Once

identified, enhanced design, monitoring or other mitigation measures can make

vulnerable assets more resilient.

3.1.5 Recommendations for action – whole system

Due to the large number of recommendations relating to the whole system, a maximum

of three recommendations for each timescale, short, medium and long term, are

included in Table 1, with wider recommendations included in Phase 1 Appendix J.

Table 1:

Recommendations for action – whole system

Timescale

Short term

(to action/

implement

before end

of CP5 i.e.

2014-2019)

Recommendations

1. Compile a database of assets, including buildings that are vulnerable to one or

more of the following: excess rainfall; drought; fluvial flooding and/ or coastal

flooding. This would be equivalent to the CRT register for stress free

temperatures (SFT). Assess vulnerabilities of assets including interdependencies

and ‘knock on effects’ (high precipitation, low precipitation, high sea levels and

storm surges).

2. Ensure that there is better recording of, and attribution to, weather conditions

alongside incident reports where relevant (all climate variables). This would

include the following:

• Capture and assess delay minutes associated specifically with rainfall-related

incidents and failures (high precipitation)

• Identify any regional variations in the exposure of assets to rainfall-related risks

(high precipitation)

10


Timescale

Recommendations

• Analyse, and then communicate, how different types of rainfall events over

different time periods (e.g. one hour and three hours) affect different assets and

systems and related alerts (e.g. 24 hour and 28 day alerts) (high precipitation).

3. Continue to develop the MetDesk approach to sourcing and providing routespecific

and relevant weather data. This would involve developing and applying

weather and climate change data to inform the management of route-specific

assets and services. It would go some way to bridging the information gap

between infrastructure and asset owners and managers, service providers and

customers (All climate variables). This would include the following:

• Explore opportunities for integrating emerging smart technologies, remote

sensing techniques and data management systems into flood risk management

for the GB railway (high precipitation, high sea levels and storm surges)

• Where appropriate install localised or micro wind stations at key locations, in

order to obtain more accurate measurements and inform more accurate wind

related risk maps and location-specific wind alerts. This would be of most value if

combined with validation work comparing with other weather station data (e.g. to

check there are no unusually high/ low wind speeds recorded in cuttings or on

particularly exposed stretches) (high winds)

• Consider trialling tools which are not currently used by the mainstream railway

industry. For instance, the Adhesion Controllers Conditions Assessment Tool

(ACCAT) and the Met Office/ ADAS wind throw risk model could be worth

exploring (high temperatures, low temperatures, high precipitation, low

precipitation, high winds)

• Consider developing more sophisticated decision support tools linked to a new

integrated asset data management system. This would be linked to strategic

business planning for ongoing maintenance forecasting and budgeting (all

climate variables)

• Improve information gathering and data management by adopting BIM (Building

Information Modelling) for major capital and remedial works, and through

integration with existing GIS (Geographical Information Systems) and other data

management systems (all climate variables)

• Investigate the potential for using real time lightning information to plan for and

manage impacts of lightning and electrical storms (lightning and electrical

storms).

11


Timescale

Medium

term

(to action/

implement in

next 5-15

years i.e.

CP6 and

beyond)

Recommendations

1. Undertake further research into how extreme weather-related risks to all subsystems

and assets will change with projected future climate (all climate

variables). This would include research to better understand:

• The extremes of high temperatures projected as a result of climate change to the

2050s and 2080s (high temperatures)

• The additional urban heat island effect on high temperatures for assets in urban

areas (high temperatures)

• How changes in storm frequency and timing may impact on wind throw events

(high precipitation, high winds)

• The future frequency of lightning and electrical storms (lightning and electrical

storms)

• The relationship between age and condition of assets and sensitivity of assets to

extreme weather conditions (all climate variables).

2. Establish how combined or sequential weather events or conditions impact asset

degradation and performance. Also consider how these events and impacts are

projected to change in the future as a result of climate change (all climate

variables). This would include, for example, impacts of:

• Soil desiccation followed by heavy rain and rapid run off (low precipitation, high

precipitation)

• High tide and adverse wind conditions (high sea levels and storm surge, high

winds)

• Multiple rainfall events (high precipitation)

• Snow melt contribution to flood risk (low temperatures, high precipitation)

Changes in multiple conditions which affect the timing and duration of the tree

growing season, leaf fall season and leaf fall patterns (high temperatures, low

temperatures, high precipitation, low precipitation, high winds).

3. Develop a business case for replacing or relocating vulnerable assets based on

lifecycle cost comparisons. As part of this, carry out research to identify options

for potential new locations and routes for the most vulnerable and costly assets

including modal shifts (high precipitation, high sea levels and storm surges).

Long term

(to action/

implement in

next 15-25

years)

1. Consider re-locating or re-routing the most vulnerable and costly assets based on

the business case developed as a short term recommendation including modal

shifts (e.g. shifting from rail to road, air or sea travel) (high precipitation, high sea

levels and storm surges).

12


3.2 People

3.2.1 Changes to current practice

Standards state that suitable personal protective equipment (PPE) should be provided to

protect workers from cold weather. However no guidance was found as to what PPE or

welfare facilities are considered ‘suitable’. It is likely that informal good practice exists in

this area across the GB rail industry. Therefore it is recommended that that this informal

good practice for PPE and welfare facilities is collected and disseminated in the form of

consistent guidance. This applies to all adverse or extreme weather conditions, not just

cold weather.

There are a number of track working instructions which refer to the safety and welfare

of workers during hot weather. However there are no specific thresholds and related

guidance for the protection of outdoor engineering workers from heat and other

extreme weather. It is recommended that that guidelines, such as those developed by

ATOC [304] [307], could be expanded to cover other relevant sub-systems of the GB

railway system. These cover safe working and travelling conditions for staff and

passengers during periods of high temperatures and other climate variables.

3.2.2 Review of relevant policies and standards

There is no GB rail industry-specific guidance for comfortable and safe indoor or outdoor

working environments based on maximum temperature or heat index (i.e. combination

of high temperatures, humidity and direct exposure to the sun). This can have

implications for heat-induced fatigue, effective performance and ultimately the health

and safety of staff and contractors. Therefore we suggest that consideration is given to

the value of developing such guidance for staff and contractors working for the GB rail

industry.

3.2.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data

An analysis of the occurrence of high temperatures in the future has already been done

in T925 [92, 496] to assess the projected future occurrence of heat stress on staff

working outdoors. It would be valuable to understand whether this metric was truly

representative of any heat stress incidents known to have occurred since this analysis.

However, T925 [92, 496] was not able to find a suitable source of incident data with

which to assess vulnerability.

3.2.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets

Although previous work in T925 [92] [496] examined the projected changes in heat

stress hazards for the GB railway, it was not able to find a suitable source of incident

data with which to specifically assess the vulnerability of staff. This knowledge gap

13


should be addressed. Heat stress is likely to be mostly a safety-related risk, so incidents

are likely to be recorded in safety incident databases. Therefore information about

performance and cost impacts relating to heat stress for staff may not be too difficult to

obtain and would be useful and valuable to analyse.

One approach suggested to explore passenger experiences during extreme weather is to

gather information from social media, such as tweets from passengers on board

stranded trains.

3.2.5 Recommendations for action – people

Table 2:

Recommendations for action – people

Timescale

Short term (to action/

implement before end

of CP5: 2014-2019)

Medium term

Recommendations

1 Review and improve weather-related staff and workforce safety standards

and procedures. This would cover the following:

• Establishing relevant thresholds and definitions of ‘appropriate’ forms of

PPE to be issued in different weather conditions. Also establishing

requirements for different working hours in different seasons/ conditions

(all climate variables)

• Better understanding of the effects of cold weather on staff health and

safety and decision making (low temperatures)

• Better recording and action to reduce cases of slips in stations from wet

and icy conditions (low temperatures, high precipitation)

• Limiting the exposure of staff working and walking in high temperatures

and high humidity. This will reduce risk of dehydration, sunburn, heat

stress and heat stroke (high temperatures)

• Establishing consistent and effective standards and procedures for staff

to deal with flood emergencies in particular (high precipitation, high sea

levels and storm surges)

2 Consider reducing the need for staff to undertake routine tasks and

inspections during adverse or extreme weather events by increasing the

use of automation or remote monitoring (all climate variables).

N/A

(to action/ implement

in next 5-15 years i.e.

CP6 and beyond)

Long term

N/A

(to action/ implement

in next 15-25 years)

14


3.3 Rolling stock

3.3.1 Changes to current practice

In terms of assessing current practice, there may be merit in reviewing the detailed

existing weather sensitivities of different rolling stock types. For example, a past

sensitivity (now remedied) is that of Class 220/221 trains to salt water ingress, as

experienced in 2002 at Dawlish. There may be other rolling stock types that are

particularly sensitive to other weather types (e.g. snow ingress to traction motors).

A further consideration is the choice of ventilation systems for trains (e.g. natural

ventilation by hopper windows versus mechanical or electrical air conditioning). This

may have implications in terms of ensuring passenger comfort during hot conditions.

Overheating of trains can occur on both non-air conditioned trains which do not provide

additional cooling and trains with air conditioning systems which fail during hot

weather.

3.3.2 Review of relevant policies and standards

There may be merit in reviewing the detailed existing weather sensitivities of different

types and ages of rolling stock. This could lead to the improvement of any relevant

policies and standards related to design and operation of existing and new rolling stock.

3.3.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data

An analysis of the likely frequencies of low temperatures in the future was undertaken

in T925 [92, 496], motivated in part by a derailment during winter conditions at

Carrbridge [237]. This could be used to assess the future likelihood of various low

temperature effects on other rolling stock. It could also be coupled with analysis of

snowfall projections using the UKCP09 technical note [480] (subject to caveats within it).

A threshold analysis of how frequently present-day wind speeds pass the speed

thresholds for rolling stock overturning incidents would be useful. However, climate

change projections for wind are relatively less certain than they are for temperature and

precipitation.

3.3.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets

A 2013 ATOC study [545] found that reliability of rolling stock starts to decrease above

25°C. We need to improve understanding of how high temperatures cause reliability

problems for rolling stock and how this can be mitigated. Due to apparent unreliability in

available on-board temperature data, there is also a lack of information about the

impact of high temperature on rolling stock. Better knowledge of this data is needed to

assess the scale of the problem and to determine effective mitigation measures.

15


Permissible use of internal temperature data recorded by passenger smartphones has

been suggested as a way of obtaining some of the necessary data.

Rolling stock is currently more affected by low temperatures than high ones and other

climate variables. Being able to quantify the impact of low temperature in terms of the

costs of mitigation measures and the effect on performance is a gap that should be

addressed.

16


3.3.5 Recommendations for action – rolling stock

Table 3:

Recommendations for action – rolling stock

Timescale

Short term

(to action/

implement

before end

of CP5 i.e.

2014-2019)

Recommendations

1. Undertake a feasibility study for installing temperature monitoring equipment both

inside and outside trains (high temperatures, low temperatures). This would

include considering how on-board temperature data recorded by passengers’

smartphones can feed into temperature data collection and decisions about

rolling stock design and operations (high temperatures, low temperatures). These

newly-monitored data streams could then be combined with sources of

meteorological and operational data already in use.

2. Examine cost-effective ways of reducing risks to trains, passengers and freight

from adverse or extreme weather. This would include consideration of:

• How on-board internal temperatures during hot weather can be reduced e.g. by

painting roofs or sides of trains with heat reflective paint or coatings (high

temperatures)

• Whether certain types of rolling stock or particular train components are more

susceptible to icicle formation during periods of low temperatures, in order to

identify mitigation options (low temperatures)

• Design and maintenance options which can increase the resilience of existing

and new rolling stock to flooding and water ingress (high precipitation, high sea

levels and storm surge)

• Whether certain types of rolling stock perform better than others during autumn

conditions (high precipitation, high winds)

3. Modelling the effects of cancelling trains versus running with delayed network

operations on the comfort and safety of drivers, passengers and freight (high

temperatures, low temperatures, high precipitation, high winds).

Medium

term

(to action/

implement in

next 5-15

years i.e.

CP6 and

beyond)

Long term

1. Examine how climate change will affect long-term thermal comfort on board trains.

For example whether adjustments need to be made to sizing and performance

criteria for heating and cooling systems (High temperatures, low temperatures).

N/A

(to action/

implement in

next 15-25

years)

17


3.4 Operations

3.4.1 Changes to current practice

We suggest reviewing existing operational practices for dealing with weather events

considered general, adverse, critical or extreme in the context of projected climate

change. There may not be a need for any significant changes. However, it would be

prudent to improve awareness of potential increased weather and climate-related risks

across the whole system and all sub-systems of the GB railway. This could inform

operational decision making. A review of the consistent use and application of

operational procedures, including communications with employees and customers on

different routes, could also be carried out.

3.4.2 Review of relevant policies and standards

We also suggest reviewing existing operational policies and standards for dealing with

weather events considered general, adverse, critical or extreme in the context of

projected climate change. As with the review of operational practices, there may be no

need for significant changes. However, increased awareness of potential increased

weather and climate-related risks would be prudent in order to inform operational

decision making.

3.4.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data

A baseline threshold analysis of the number of snow days in different locations could be

undertaken. This could then be coupled with an analysis of snowfall projections using

the UKCP09 technical note [480] (subject to caveats within it) to examine the future

likelihood of impacts from snowfall. However, we first need to understand present-day

sensitivity of the GB railway system to snow. There has been progress on this front as a

result of Network Rail’s recent work on reviewing weather thresholds (Network Rail

Weather Analysis Report, 2014). However it has not been possible to determine precise

values for snow related ‘thresholds’ due to the lack of statistically robust data. As

snowfall events are relatively rare in the UK, any analysis of failure data as a result of

snow is not statistically valid.

The likelihood of future flooding impacts on operations could be calculated from the

system-wide threshold analysis of flooding recommended in Section 5.1. This is a single

analysis of flood risk at national and route level covering multiple sub-systems.

3.4.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets

A limited number of examples were found of how high temperatures affect traffic

operations. These include increased amounts of travel to take advantage of good

weather, increased irritability of passengers on trains, platforms and within stations, and

18


how to manage disrupted services. However, there was a lack of comprehensive,

consistent and robust information and this is considered a gap in knowledge which

should be addressed.

High winds can blow debris and third party objects from outside the railway on to the

track causing traffic operation and management problems. This tends to result in

performance problems and it is recommended that more information about the

performance impacts should be obtained.

The stakeholder workshops identified the need for accurate early warning systems

linked to known flooding ‘hot spots’ (or ‘wet spots’) to inform operations.

3.4.5 Recommendations for action – operations

Table 4:

Recommendations for action – operations

Timescale

Short term (to

action or

implement before

end of CP5: 2014-

2019)

Recommendations

1. Undertake research to identify and develop ways to improve the cascade of

communication from a given meteorological forecast provider to Network

Rail and then on to TOCs and passengers. This applies before and during

hot weather, snow, rain, wind and storm surge events (high temperatures,

low temperatures, high precipitation, high winds, high sea levels and storm

surges).

2. Increase knowledge about how to improve the resilience of service planning

and operations. This includes identifying critical locations, key staff and

passenger access routes to stations and depots, as well as co-ordinating

with third parties and identifying clear responsibilities between staff (high

temperatures, low temperatures, high precipitation, high winds, high sea

levels and storm surges).

3. Identify whether there are any training exercises or drills that can be carried

out to help staff prepare for adverse and extreme weather events (all

climate variables).

Medium term

N/A

(to action or

implement in next

5-15 years: CP6

and beyond)

Long term

N/A

(to action or

implement in next

15-25 years)

19


3.5 CCS (Control, command and signalling)

3.5.1 Changes to current practice

Stakeholders raised the issue of seal quality on IP-rated equipment and how the

repeated opening of seals for equipment inspection can degrade the quality of the seal.

Inspection procedures could be reviewed to identify any changes to current practice

that could mitigate this issue. Consideration should be given to whether certain types of

seal are better designed or more easily maintained, or whether individual components

are more robust following a seal failure.

During Winter 2013/14, signalling equipment in the south of England was severely

inundated by floods, resulting in some location cases being submerged under several

feet of water. Post-event analysis has already resulted in changes to practice. It is

recommended that that further analysis of winter weather and floods continues to

inform the design, maintenance and operation of CCS equipment.

3.5.2 Review of relevant policies and standards

It was recognised at the workshops that lightning strikes can cause problems for the

railway. However, feedback from stakeholders indicated that there were limitations to

what could be done operationally to prevent the effects of a lightning strike, as these

effects are predominantly mitigated through design. It is recommended that the

industry includes reference to lightning protection in relevant design standards. There is

a lack of rail-specific design guidance on the subject of reducing impacts of lightning on

equipment and buildings. British Standard BS 6651 Protection of structures against

lightning [589] covers general non-rail related design issues. We suggest that railway

guidance is extended to apply this standard explicitly to rail-related equipment and

structures. Better mitigation of impacts can be achieved by understanding where

lightning strikes have previously occurred. This may help to identify equipment and

structures which are potentially at risk.

3.5.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data

A threshold analysis of high temperatures, similar to that already undertaken in T925

[92], [496], could be used to assess the future likelihood of CCS failures, for example

location cabinets overheating. To do this, the relationship between ambient air

temperatures and internal temperatures within lineside equipment cabinets would need

to be better understood. This could determine appropriate thresholds for the analysis.

A threshold analysis of low temperatures, similar to that already undertaken in T925

[92], [496], could be used to assess the future likelihood of points heaters and switches

failing due to snow and ice. To do this, the relationship between climatic variables and

the occurrence of failures would need to be understood. This would determine whether

temperature is the main factor in these incidents, and if so, whether appropriate

20


thresholds could be identified. Note: since the time of undertaking the Phase 1 work

Network Rail has undertaken this study and the results can be found in the Network Rail

Weather Analysis report 2015.

The only information identified about rainfall impacts on CCS assets was related to cable

route failures. If surface water flooding is the cause of these failures, there is a need to

improve the prediction and prevention of surface water flood risk related to changing

patterns of rainfall. This would be a useful mitigation for several sub-systems.

It is understood that a Network Rail analysis of asset sensitivities to weather found some

sensitivity of electronic components to humid conditions. It is recommended that

consideration is given to revisiting this analysis in order to determine the particular

weather conditions to which this equipment is perceived to be sensitive. This means

considering whether these variables are related to values for humidity, temperature or

precipitation in isolation or in combination.

A threshold analysis of the frequency of occurrence of days with low humidity now and

in the future as a result of climate change could be useful. Electronic components have

been found to be sensitive to low humidity. However, confidence in climate change

model projections of humidity is low so caution would be required in making decisions

based upon this analysis.

3.5.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets

CCS failures during periods of high temperature are likely to impact on performance and

cost. We understand that Network Rail has carried out internal studies to understand

these impacts. If this data is made available, there may be no information gap to

address. The lack of information about impacts of cold weather on CCS equipment is an

information gap, particularly in relation to point operating equipment. Note: since the

time of undertaking the Phase 1 work Network Rail has undertaken this study and the

results can be found in the Network Rail Weather Analysis report 2015.

Another issue to be considered is the impact of rapid increases or decreases in

temperature on CCS, as it is often these changes which create issues with equipment

and subsequent operations.

High winds can impact CCS assets due to fallen branches. The impacts of this are a

knowledge gap that should be addressed, although it is thought to be a lower priority for

CCS than high temperature and changes in temperature.

There were no specific thresholds found for managing high temperature effects on CCS

equipment. It is recommended that the industry carry out an analysis of the impacts of

these effects and how best to mitigate them in future. Note: since the time of

undertaking the Phase 1 work we have identified that design thresholds are provided in

BS50125 and that operational thresholds are now available in Weather Analysis Report

2015.

21


Of all the CCS assets, location cabinets have been identified as being at most risk of

overheating, particularly older assets. It is recognised that in the longer term, European

Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) level 3 radio-based signalling will remove the

need for much lineside equipment. It is recommended that the industry identify and

prioritise older location cabinets so they can be monitored in the period before an

upgrade takes place.

Network Rail has done extensive work to quantify the thresholds above which increased

asset failures occur. It has not yet reported on what the performance and cost impacts

above these identified thresholds are, but it is anticipated that this will be useful and

valuable information.

Stakeholder workshops identified that there was insufficient knowledge about the effect

of switches and crossings on the stress free temperature of rails. Further research is

needed into this area.

22


3.5.5 Recommendations for action – CCS

Table 5:

Recommendations for action – CCS

Timescale

Short term

(to action or

implement

before end

of CP5:

2014-2019)

Recommendations

1. Establish the location of all critical lineside equipment and equipment cabinets. As

part of this, undertake research to obtain data about observed temperatures at

these locations (external, internal, ambient and surface) and flood risk of all types

(high temperatures, high precipitation, high sea levels and storm surges).

2. Identify options for heat and flood risk mitigation measures based on current good

and best practice knowledge and research outputs from relevant sectors e.g. the

power and energy sector (high temperatures, high precipitation, high sea levels

and storm surges). For example, high internal temperatures are often managed

by air conditioning systems. This tends to be a high maintenance option which is

susceptible to failures. It is recommended that the industry considers passive

systems such as external shading using structures, use of vegetation, and

painting cabinets with heat-reflective paint or coatings (high temperatures).

3. Undertake analysis to determine the optimum placement of CCS equipment

cabinets to protect from flood risk of all types (high precipitation, high sea levels

and storm surges).

Medium

term

(to action or

implement in

next 5-15

years: CP6

and beyond)

1. Assess whether electronic design temperature thresholds are still appropriate

given projected climate change. As part of this, carry out research to:

• Better understand the temperature sensitivity of silver migration in signalling

electronics which is currently a problem (high temperatures)

• Better understand the temperature sensitivity of semaphore signal cables which

are subject to similar sag problems as OLE cables (high temperatures).

2. Undertake a cost benefit analysis of temperature control options for any planned

upgrades of location cases. This would include taking into account radio-based

signalling which may remove the need for lineside kit (high temperatures).

Long term

N/A

(to action or

implement in

next 15-25

years)

23


3.6 Energy

3.6.1 Changes to current practice

Wind currently causes problems with ‘blow-off’ of overhead lines (OHL). While future

projections for wind are uncertain, it is likely that more local monitoring and increased

prediction of wind conditions will be needed. Alternatively or in parallel, vulnerability

mapping of assets could reveal the most sensitive locations to wind. This would allow

more targeted use of available information and forecasts for monitoring of wind risks.

We suggest reviewing standards and management procedures for the installation of

earthing arrays and high voltage cables. The British Geological Society (BGS) has created

an earthing decision support tool for Western Power distribution and UK Power

Networks plc [647]. This provides basic ranges of resistivity, prognoses for deep-rodpenetrability

and a rating for climatic and seasonal sensitivity for near surface materials

across southern England. It also provides estimates of earthing array materials that may

be needed. The underlying data (resistivity model, penetrability model, climate

sensitivity model) are all available as licensed data or readily available background

information for the UK. This data may be directly relevant to Network Rail asset

management.

3.6.2 Review of relevant policies and standards

See Section 3.5.2 CCS for lightning and electrical storms.

3.6.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data

During T925, a threshold analysis of high temperatures assessed the projected future

occurrence of OHL sag [92], [496]. In some parts of the UK, there is a projected increase

in the number of times high temperature thresholds are exceeded. However, statistics

of exceedance are rare and so we need to be cautious when interpreting this data. It

would be of value to compare the actual occurrence of sag incidents with temperature

observations to assess whether the thresholds used in the T925 analysis were

appropriate. In addition current design standards require automated tensioning

equipment that addresses sag issues; this is embedded in Network Rail policy.

A threshold analysis of low temperatures could be used to assess the future likelihood of

conductor rail and OHL icing. To do this we would need to understand the relationship

between climatic variables and icing occurrence. This would determine whether

temperature is the main factor in these incidents, and if so, whether appropriate

thresholds could be identified.

Stakeholder feedback showed that a significant rainfall impact on energy assets was

related to traction power failures. If surface water flooding is the issue (e.g. for third rail

locations), the knowledge gap to be addressed is in the prediction of surface water

24


flooding and its relationship with contributing rainfall. This would be useful for several

sub-systems.

Projected changes to wind speed in the UK as a result of climate change are very

uncertain. Because of this, there may be limited value in assessing changes in wind

speed, direction and gustiness for particular asset classes, areas and locations. However,

the planned electrification of certain routes has the potential to increase the proportion

of the network which may be susceptible to risks from high winds. This means that a

study of current vulnerability of OHL assets to wind could be of merit as a baselining

exercise. Modern OLE designs out the vulnerability of the OLE to wind; key issue is the

interaction of the vegetation with OLE.

3.6.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets

Current performance and cost impacts have been identified but no information about

future impacts has been found. However the OHL equipment most susceptible to sag

(Mark 1) is nearing the end of its life and is due to be replaced. Some fixed termination

equipment will remain at terminal stations.

Performance and cost impacts due to snow and ice on third rails can be significant. This

is because most third rail routes are located in London and the southeast of England,

which has a high concentration of commuter routes. Therefore spending large amounts

mitigating the impacts of snow and ice in these areas can be justified. The potential

changes in cold weather in the future may mean that current mitigations need to be

adapted as they may no longer be cost effective. This means it is important to ensure

these impacts are fully understood. It should be noted that RSSB research project T950

(Investigating the economics of the third rail DC system compared to other

electrification systems) [693] proposed the long-term replacement of the third rail

network. Weather resilience was one of several reasons given.

Localised flooding tends to impact many sub-systems and asset classes at once, so

addressing system level gaps will cover traction assets as well. Particular attention

should be paid to flood-related impacts to track in third rail areas as the low elevation of

the assets means they are likely to be at higher risk than OHL.

The impact of high winds on OHL can cause both safety and performance problems, and

these impacts should be assessed further. Post 2006 there has been a programme to

upgrade OHL at vulnerable locations. It is important to ensure that the impact of high

winds on performance following this upgrade is understood and retained in the

‘corporate memory’.

Low temperatures and ice also cause more problems for third rail areas than OHL.

Operational guidance is in place to mitigate the effect of icing on the third rail. A

conductor rail icing forecast is produced, but there are no studies into how often this

happens or how this will change in the future. It is recommended that the industry

captures better incident data relating to performance and cost impacts from delays due

25


to iced third rail, building on studies carried out in 2011 (Department for Transport,

2011) [581].

Network Rail has done extensive work to quantify the weather-related thresholds above

which increased asset failures occur. This work has not yet reported on the performance

and cost impacts of exceeding these thresholds, but it is anticipated that this will

provide useful and valuable information for the design and management of OHL.

3.6.5 Recommendations for action – energy

Table 6:

Recommendations for action – energy

Timescale

Short term

(to action or

implement

before end

of CP5:

2014-2019)

Recommendations

1. Examine OHL failures due to high temperatures according to whether the OHL is

fixed or auto tensioned type (high temperatures) and to better understand OHL

problems due to ice build-up (low temperatures).

2. Undertake research to better understand whole life costs of third rail strip heating

and determine whether the cost benefit analysis adds up and/ or whether there

are better options (low temperatures).

3. Review standards and management procedures for the installation of earthing

arrays and high voltage cables in collaboration with the BGS (high temperatures,

low temperatures, high precipitation, low precipitation).

Medium

term

(to action or

implement in

next 5-15

years: CP6

and beyond)

1. Explore how changing from diesel to electric power generation and from AC to DC

energy transmission will affect future temperature-related risks given climate

change projections (high temperatures, low temperatures).

2. Review the current vulnerability of OHL assets to wind including the impact of

trees, branches and third party objects which cause OHL shorting through

contact. As part of this, explore whether pantograph wind risks might be reduced

by considering OHL and rolling stock as a combined system rather than two

separate ones (high winds).

3. Undertake a study to improve the resilience and structural integrity of OHL

supports due to high winds combined with soil movement. As part of this, identify

alternative design options for OHL cable posts to reduce wind risks (high winds,

high precipitation, low precipitation).

Long term

N/A

(to action or

implement in

next 15-25

years)

26


3.7 Infrastructure

3.7.1 Changes to current practice

An overall recommendation for the infrastructure sub-system is to develop resourceefficient

methods (in terms of capital costs, data collection and analysis time) to assess

the current condition and resilience of existing infrastructure to weather events. The

development of a comprehensive database of infrastructure assets, use of remote

condition monitoring and GIS may be methods to consider. The value of GIS based tools

has been examined in Task 5 of T1009 Phase 2.

Recommendations for improving high temperature management of track and track

support include integrating databases of high risk locations with automated weather

stations, remote condition monitoring and developing strain based track stress

monitoring.

Other railway systems (such as high-speed lines in Germany) use continuous concrete

slab track as an alternative to ballasted track with sleepers. Although slab track

generates more noise, it requires less maintenance than ballasted forms and has better

whole life cost as the maintenance issues associated with ballast are removed. However,

a comprehensive replacement programme is likely to be expensive. Feasibility studies

could examine (for example) whether slab track is a solution that can be implemented at

particularly heat-sensitive locations.

It is recommended that the industry maintains a database of assets, including buildings

which are affected by fluvial or coastal flooding. The authors also recommend carrying

out an assessment of the vulnerability of particular assets including knock-on effects

both from and to third party assets. Consistent recording of flooding events should be

carried out in order to capture the necessary data that can be used in more detailed

flood risk modelling. Recommendations contained in Section 8 of CIRIA C714 ‘Transport

infrastructure drainage: condition appraisal and remedial treatment’ [583] should also

be reviewed and actioned where appropriate.

Feedback obtained at stakeholder workshops suggested a need for increased and

improved underwater inspections of structures such as bridges following floods to

confirm the conditions of submerged elements. This is already standard practice for

structures already identified as vulnerable to scour, but can be problematic when train

services need to be interrupted along stretches of track with structures pending

underwater inspections. The CIRIA document ‘Manual on scour at bridges and other

hydraulic structures’ [251] is a commonly used source of guidance for design and

management of structures that are vulnerable to scour. This could be developed further.

There are opportunities to increase the use of remote sensing observations including

radar, LiDAR and satellite imagery. These include land surface temperature observations

during hot weather or aerial photography during and following floods. This type of

27


information would improve understanding of spatial and temporal patterns of impacts

affecting the GB railway to inform appropriate responses. The authors therefore

recommend exploring such opportunities in more detail. Directly monitoring assets

using remote sensors would allow resources to be used more efficiently. This would

reduce the need for watchmen looking for track buckles or earthworks failures. It would

give quicker knowledge of the state of assets than trying to infer it from rainfall or

temperature forecasts or observations from meteorological data providers post-event.

3.7.2 Review of relevant policies and standards

The authors recommend carrying out a study of the cost-effectiveness of maintaining or

increasing the stress free temperature for continuously welded, pre-stressed track. This

is in light of projections for milder winters and hotter summers on average, although

natural variability means cold weather events are still projected to occur.

The earthworks examination process NR/SP/CIV/065 [525] supports engineers to

identify rock cuttings at higher risk of freeze-thaw effects, such as those where the rock

is highly fissured. However, there is a lack of information about specific thresholds or

trigger levels for procedures to manage freeze-thaw effects for earthworks. This may be

due to a wider lack of understanding of the weather conditions and thresholds that

trigger earthworks failures. As understanding of this develops, the relevant standards

and processes should be updated.

Given future projected rainfall changes, there needs to be a review of appropriate

design standards for drainage, earthworks, buildings, track and structures. Further work

is needed to investigate the effects of rainfall on groundwater, in the context of

earthworks. Earthworks as an asset class require careful management during wet

weather and therefore opportunities to further refine management procedures should

be examined. Network Rail already has work underway to improve asset management

procedures in wet weather across routes. An example is the ‘Western Route –

Earthworks Weather Mitigation Plan’ (2013) [709].

Recommendations for further work relating to transport infrastructure drainage were

captured in Section 8 of CIRIA C714 (2014) [583] and the DfT’s Transport Resilience

Review (July 2014) [662]. It is recommended that these are reviewed and the identified

actions considered.

Lack of precipitation can have an impact on drainage, structures, buildings and civil

engineering assets. It also causes desiccation of earthworks. Desiccation and movement

of earthworks can in turn affect structures and OHL. The lack of guidance on desiccation

in existing standards is a gap that should be reviewed.

Guidance on the risks of high winds to buildings, as well as OHL, should be reviewed. Of

particular note is the death of a pedestrian in Leeds, who was crushed by an overturned

HGV vehicle. This has highlighted the need to assess wind risk at the planning stage for

building developments (including stations) which may create an unsafe (wind tunnel

28


effect) wind environment. See http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/update/2013-12-

05/people-blown-over-around-bridgewater-place/ [657].

Very little information was found on local risk assessments for OHL, but it is understood

that they do take place. Guidance on how climate change will impact these local risk

assessments for OHL should be considered. This could potentially take advantage of

research underway in the power and energy sector including projects such as RESNET

funded by EPSRC.

3.7.3 Further analysis of weather and climate data

No clear guidance on the future frequency of drought is currently available. This

information is needed particularly for earthworks.

Soil moisture deficit (SMD) is an important indicator in some earthworks failures. Work

by TRL for Network Rail [548] has examined this for three case study sites in the Anglia

region. Historical SMD data was used to build relationships between SMD and delay/

maintenance data. Estimates of future SMD were calculated using UKCP09 (via the

UKCP09 Weather Generator). Historical relationships were used in conjunction with

these estimates to establish potential future delays/ maintenance requirements. It is

recommended that further work is undertaken to understand SMD as it has implications

for soil desiccation risks, the role of planting regimes in managing earthworks and

effective management of drainage systems.

Performing a low temperature threshold analysis could help develop understanding of

the future frequency of rail breaks, tunnel icing and other risks. This would extend the

work already undertaken in T925 [92], [496]. To do this, the relationship between

climatic variables and the occurrence of failures would need to be understood. This

would determine whether temperature is the main factor in these incidents, and if so,

whether appropriate thresholds could be identified.

Flooding frequency analysis could be used to assess risks to earthworks, bridges and

other infrastructure assets. Some work was done under T925 [92] to examine projected

changes in both pluvial and fluvial flooding. However this was a preliminary investigation

with the potential for enhancing the methodology in a further study.

Two workshops highlighted freeze-thaw effects on rock cuttings as an issue that needed

addressing. It is recommended that the industry develop a better understanding of the

weather conditions that cause rock fall. This will mean that accurate alerts can be

produced and appropriate monitoring systems installed at sites identified as being high

risk.

29


3.7.4 Monitoring and measurement of assets

In the medium to long term, it is recommended that the industry establishes a better

understanding of more complex track buckling mechanisms. This could include, for

example, the way large changes in temperature impacts the number of track buckles

and how temperature gradients affect bridges and structures as well as track buckling.

The major low temperature risks are broken rails and ice build-up in tunnels. The lack of

information on safety impacts as a result of these risks is an information gap that should

be addressed. Collecting data on the condition of tunnels and rails before, during and

after cold weather, as well as the causes of incidents in tunnels and on tracks as a result

of cold weather, would assist in this.

High winds can also damage track structures, mainly due to the impact of trees,

branches and third party objects falling or being blown on to the line. However, there is

an apparent lack of information about these impacts and this should be addressed.

Collecting data on the condition of track structures and adjacent land, vegetation and

drainage systems before, during and after high wind events would assist in filling this

gap. Data should also be collected about causes of incidents related to track structures

as a result of high winds.

Earthworks are affected by freeze-thaw cycles in low temperatures. Before the

frequencies can be found, we need a better understanding of the triggers for

earthworks failures at low temperatures. This is a gap that should be addressed.

Potentially, more research is needed into appropriate warnings to take this into account.

There has been no study of the impact on performance, cost or safety of freeze-thaw on

earthworks. Such a study would provide the justification for developing warning systems

or implementing mitigation work.

Earthworks failure due to flooding is a major risk. The effect of excess rainfall on

earthworks and being able to quantify the impacts in a systematic manner is a gap that

should be addressed. No thresholds have been identified and therefore no current or

future frequencies of exceedance. This analysis may be linked to reviewing assumptions

about acceptable levels of soil saturation at the design stage and whether these could

be exceeded if earthworks are submerged due to flooding.

High winds are associated with an increased number of failures of earthworks, often

caused by trees being blown over and uprooted. High winds during storms are often

accompanied by high rainfall. Being able to quantify the impacts of damage from trees

during storms is a gap that should be addressed.

The lack of information on impacts from drainage failures is considered a gap. The

recommendations outlined in Section 8 of CIRIA C714 Transport infrastructure drainage:

condition appraisal and remedial treatment [583] should be reviewed and taken on

board.

30


There is a need to increase understanding of the long-term vegetation strategies that

should be adopted to ensure the stability of earthworks and soil structure. It is

recommended that monitoring to measure desiccation and rapid run-off effects is

undertaken. This would improve understanding of how a lack of precipitation could

impact the growth of particular species and in turn influence earthwork stability.

Thresholds are required for de-icing actions. Potentially, thresholds should be used for

checking unheated buildings. The cost of heating stations and other buildings in cold

weather, and the safety impact from slips, trips and falls, are gaps that need to be

addressed.

Damage to buildings could be a problem in high winds. However, there is not a simple

weather/ impact relationship as the vulnerability will be related to design and condition.

Information about this is likely to be held at a local level. Consideration should be given

as to whether to obtain and collate this local information at a national level.

In general, there is a lack of information on the cost, performance and safety impacts of

high temperatures on railway buildings. There is extensive research on adaptation of

buildings to climate change from outside the railway sector. Therefore, improvements

could potentially be made to protect railway buildings from future high temperatures

and excess rainfall. Rainfall was highlighted as the cause of a number of problems for

buildings ranging from slippery surfaces to overflowing guttering.

A key question is what is different or unique about a railway building compared to any

other type of building that performs a similar function. The demonstration of particular

safety, performance or cost reasons for developing railway-specific building design and

operation measures will be required. More information on impacts specific to GB

railway buildings (e.g. stations, depots and larger lineside cabinets) would enable a

better understanding of the adaptation measures that can be effectively deployed by

the railway industry.

High winds can cause problems for track by changing the timing and degree of leaf fall in

a given season. The impact of leaf fall on the railway is well documented. It is not known

how climate change will impact on the types of vegetation and timing of leaf fall in the

future. This is a gap in knowledge that needs to be addressed before any assessment of

how climate change will affect leaf fall impacts on the railway.

Network Rail has done work to quantify the thresholds above which increased asset

failures and related incidents occur due to high and low temperatures, wind and rainfall

(Network Rail Weather Analysis Report (2014)). This has considered the following assets:

signalling, track, electrification and plant, telecoms, buildings and civils, signalling and

telecoms, electrification and plant, and earthworks. The work also estimates the

performance and cost impacts of these asset failures and provides useful information for

design and operational management.

31


It is recommended that the industry investigates and trials new ‘smart’ technologies for

non-invasive monitoring of infrastructure assets. This will identify hidden defects and

provide a better understanding of the associated risk from weather events. It could take

advantage of existing research by centres such as the Cambridge Centre for Smart

Infrastructure and Construction (CSIC). It could include monitoring of metallic structures

to improve understanding of brittle fracture risk, as well as monitoring of earthworks

and rock cuttings to better understand failure modes.

3.7.5 Recommendations for action – infrastructure

Due to the large number of recommendations relating to infrastructure, three

categories of selected recommendations for each timescale, short, medium and long

term, are included in Table 7. Wider recommendations are included in Phase 1

Appendix J.

Table 7:

Recommendations for action – infrastructure

Timescale

Short term

(to action/

implement

before end

of CP5 i.e.

2014-2019)

Recommendations

1. Consistent, comprehensive and accurate data capture about asset conditions,

weather conditions and resource use

This includes recommendations to:

• Investigate the use of MeteoGroup HydroCast thresholds (or similar) to trigger

operational actions (all climate variables)

• Undertake work to identify topographic and geographical characteristics (e.g.

orientation, exposure to direct sunlight) of sections of the GB railway network so

that these factors can contribute to more accurate site-specific risk assessments

(high temperatures)

• Introduce monitoring and metering of heating, electricity and water for rail

buildings (e.g. stations, depots and larger equipment cabinets) and concessions

(e.g. shops in stations). This will help to manage energy, water usage and carbon

emissions, and the targeting of efficiency measures (high temperatures, low

temperatures, low precipitation).

2. Focus on lineside management issues which affect infrastructure

This includes recommendations to:

• Use GIS to support the identification and mapping of earthworks located in

flooding sensitive hot spots (or ‘wet spots’) (high precipitation, high sea levels and

storm surges)

• Continue and extend existing work on causal analysis of earthworks and

infrastructure slope failures. As part of this, seek to improve the robustness of

Earthworks Watch (high temperatures, low temperatures, high precipitation, low

precipitation)

• Obtain a better understanding of off track slope and drainage problems, including

32


full hydraulic modelling of drainage including impacts from third party land (high

precipitation, high sea levels and storm surges).

3. Further work on ‘weather and climate resilient’ design and management

options with multiple benefits

This includes recommendations to:

• Evaluate which local mitigation options are most effective for vulnerable sites.

These could include using sprinklers or targeted planting of vegetation around

track at risk of overheating to reduce air and surface temperatures of track. These

options may also have benefits for local drainage issues. For example [658]

http://www.urbantrack.eu/images/site/publications/FinalConference/presentations/

07_ASP_Grassed%20Track.pdf (high temperatures, high precipitation)

• Carry out a study of thermal comfort in stations. This would include both major

urban terminus stations and smaller regional route stations. It would consider cost

effective, energy efficient measures to improve it (high temperatures)

• Develop a station canopy design which ensures passengers and staff have

adequate cover and protection from a full range of weather conditions while also

reducing delays in train boarding and increasing passenger safety. Implement

systems to record the quantity and intensity of rainfall that causes asset failures

and which also record the extent to which asset condition is a factor in failure

relative to rainfall (all climate variables).

Medium

term

(to action/

implement

in next 5-

15 years

i.e. CP6

and

beyond)

1. Consistent, comprehensive and accurate data capture about asset conditions,

weather conditions and resource use

This includes recommendations to

• Review the latest temperature design ranges for information and communication

technologies (ICT) and electronics equipment, as well as those for the buildings

which contain them. Establish whether buildings maintain the temperatures

required by the equipment (high temperatures, low temperatures)

• Study trends from existing local weather stations, and new ones to be installed in

key locations, to get better temporal and spatial granularity for rainfall triggers

(high precipitation)

• Explore opportunities for increased use of radar, LiDAR and/ or satellite

observations to manage weather and climate-related risks. For example use of

LiDAR that can provide 1km 2 resolution rainfall data (high temperatures, low

temperatures, high precipitation, low precipitation, high sea levels and storm

surges).

2. Focus on lineside management issues which affect infrastructure

This includes recommendations to:

• Develop and implement research options for long-term vegetation strategies to

ensure the stability of earthworks and soil structure and reduce risks from high

winds, leaf fall and flooding of all types given projected climate change. This can

be considered as taking a green infrastructure approach to the design and

33


operation of the GB railway (all climate variables)

• Review available machinery and equipment that can install drainage at the same

speed and volumes as the other track installation equipment to achieve

efficiencies (high precipitation)

• Study the effect climate change might have on the occurrence of lineside fires

(high temperatures, low precipitation, lightning and electrical storms).

3. Further work on ‘weather and climate resilient’ design and management

options with multiple benefits

This includes recommendations to:

Long term

(to action/

implement

in next 15-

25 years)

• Influence potential revisions to structural assessment codes to include

consideration of temperature ranges. Early consideration could help to influence

development of the next round of British Standards and Eurocodes (high

temperature)

• Identify technologies for waterproofing of earthworks to keep water in, preventing

soil desiccation, or out, preventing soil saturation (high precipitation, low

precipitation).

• Explore innovative approaches for new types of post-flood remedial work with

other benefits e.g. using earthworks for enhanced flood risk mitigation (high

precipitation, high sea levels and storm surge).

• Take an adaptive pathways approach, such as that developed by the Thames

Estuary 2100 project [032], to the long term management of the GB railway to

improve resilience of infrastructure to flood risk and storm damage (high

precipitation, high winds, high sea levels and storm surge).

34


3.8 Review of relevant standards

Appendix F of the Phase 1 report contains three tables (Phase 1 Appendices F1, F2 and

F3). These summarise the standards used to inform design and operational decision

making within the GB railway industry, with relevance to the consideration of weatherrelated

impacts and risks. Projected changes to the UK’s climate could have implications

for the ongoing applicability of these standards.

Phase 1 Appendix F1 lists standards used predominantly to inform decisions about the

design of systems and sub-systems which comprise the GB railway. These refer to, or are

based on, some kind of stated weather-related threshold. Depending on the varying

design lives and replacement schedules of assets, systems and sub-systems (indicated by

Table 2 in Section 3 in the Phase 1 report), some design decisions based upon these

standards in the short term could potentially have implications many decades in the

future. They could affect performance, cost and the safety of the GB railway in years to

come when climate change impacts are projected to be greater. Therefore, it is

important to review these standards with climate change projections in mind. This will

establish whether the thresholds referred to within the standards are still appropriate

and fit for purpose.

Phase 1 Appendix F2 lists standards used predominantly to inform decisions about the

operation and management of systems and sub-systems which comprise the GB railway.

They generally cover the immediate weather impacts on the railway. This means that

decisions based on these standards have shorter term implications than those listed in

Phase 1 Appendix F1. However the climate variable parameters and weather thresholds

addressed in these standards are likely to need reviewing in the context of projected

climate change. They also need to be relevant to the operational railway today.

Therefore reviewing and updating these standards, based upon experiences of extreme

weather events as and when they occur, could be considered an ongoing process which

is part of business-as-usual activities.

A preliminary quantitative assessment of the need to review the weather-related

thresholds for the standards listed in Phase 1 Appendices F1 and F2 has been

undertaken. Suggestions have been made for other research that may be required. The

corresponding T1009 Compendium of Research (CoR) reference number for each

standard is provided in the last column.

Phase 1 Appendix F3 lists other standards which were reviewed as part of the T1009

project. These standards are relevant to weather and climate-related design and

operational decisions and responses. However, they do not include any specific

weather-related thresholds or parameters that could be quantitatively reviewed and/ or

adjusted if necessary to take projected climate change impacts into account. It would be

prudent to consider the impacts of projected climate change on the management

processes set out in these standards in a qualitative way, with a view to potentially

establishing relevant thresholds and parameters if appropriate.

35


Each standard has been considered separately, and it is noted that each applies a

currently suitable mitigation for identified risks. It is recommended that that a systemic

or ‘whole system’ review is undertaken. This needs to ensure that a consistent approach

to climate change projections is considered within relevant design and operational

standards, and that design and operational standards are aligned. This would identify

any design standards that could limit operational performance under future climate

change scenarios. Alternatively, operational responses to mitigate individual weatherrelated

risks to assets or sub-systems could potentially impact on performance under

future climate change scenarios or extreme weather events. Therefore a different risk

mitigation approach or response may be required.

3.8.1 Recommendations for action – review of standards

Table 8:

Recommendations for action – review of standards

Timescale

Short term

(to action/

implement

before end

of CP5 i.e.

2014-2019)

Medium

term

(to action/

implement in

next 5-15

years i.e.

CP6 and

beyond)

Long term

Recommendations

• All standards relating to the design and strategic planning of the GB railway to

be reviewed in context of extreme weather and climate change. See Appendix

F1 for further details

• Any lessons learnt from recent experiences of extreme weather events to be

captured and fed into ongoing revisions and enhancements of standards relating

to operation and management of the GB railway. See Phase 1 Appendix F2 for

further details.

• All standards relating to the operation and management of the GB railway to be

reviewed in context of extreme weather and climate change. See Phase 1

Appendix F2 for further details.

N/A

(to action/

implement in

next 15-25

years)

36


3.9 Opportunities and links with other initiatives and

partners

It is recommended that that any reviews of technical standards for the design and

management of infrastructure assets should be done in collaboration with other UK

national infrastructure operators. Examples could be the Infrastructure Operators’

Adaptation Forum, and other stakeholders where possible. This will ensure a national

approach can be adopted and will assist ‘UK plc’ to influence the development of

relevant British Standards and Eurocodes, for example.

The railway sector as a whole, through groups such as the Railway Industry Association

(RIA), Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) and CIRIA, should engage with UK research

councils to help shape future funding calls. The Natural Environment Research Council

(NERC) is currently consulting industry on the development of a new programme on

environmental risk to infrastructure, with the intention of developing calls for proposals

for academic research. This could provide an opportunity to address specific knowledge

gaps identified in T1009 Phase 1.

Linked to the above is a recommendation to engage with ongoing research via the

Adaptation and Resilience in a Context of Change Network (ARCCN) and its associated

projects. For example the RESNET project led by the University of Newcastle is currently

working with organisations in the energy sector to investigate climate change impacts.

This includes potential changes in the occurrence of high winds and high temperatures

and how this will affect the energy transmission network. It is possible that outcomes

from this research could be transferable to the rail sector, particularly with regard to

lineside signalling and communications equipment as well as overhead power lines.

It is recommended that learning is captured and transferred, where possible, from the

work being undertaken on climate risks, smart infrastructure and information

communication by other national infrastructure operators. These include the highway,

aviation, energy and utility sectors. This can be done by engaging with groups such as

the Infrastructure Operators Adaptation Forum, the Infrastructure Security and

Resilience Industry Forum and CIRIA’s National Infrastructure Client Leadership Group.

It is recommended that organisations within the UK rail sector actively explore

opportunities to engage in European research. This could include engagement in existing

research such as the MOWE-it project (includes researchers from University of

Birmingham) and MAINLINE project (includes the involvement of researchers from

University of Surrey). The rail industry is also exploring opportunities for new European

research collaborations through Horizon 2020.

Flood and coastal erosion risk management is recognised as requiring a multi-agency

and multi-disciplinary response and collaborative effort. An important recommendation

here is for organisations within the GB rail sector to collectively engage with the joint

Environment Agency and DEFRA Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM)

37


Research and Development Programme. This needs to be done at both policy and

delivery levels.

At policy level, the Construction Industry Council is currently leading a cross-institutional

response to the recent floods. Opportunities exist for the rail industry to influence the

outcome of this review via input through the Institution of Civil Engineers, CIRIA, CIWEM

and other bodies. At delivery level, an Environment Agency-led study into local flood risk

management currently has the Highways England engaged. There are opportunities for

Network Rail route drainage engineers to engage and provide valuable knowledge on

cross-asset impacts.

It is recommended that the industry improves protocols for communicating likely delays

to the public. We also advocate better communication and collaboration with local

authorities to co-ordinate road clearing. This will ensure that staff can get to work,

passengers can get to stations and freight can get into and out of terminals.

Aligned with recommendations for multi-agency co-ordination of flood risk

management, the authors also recommend that the use of earthworks for flood

mitigation is investigated, particularly where such assets are already used for flood

mitigation.

Two workshops highlighted freeze-thaw effects on rock cuttings as an issue that needed

addressing. It is recommended that the industry develop a better understanding of the

types of weather that can affect rock fall. This will mean that accurate alerts can be

produced and appropriate monitoring systems installed at sites identified as being high

risk. CIRIA is developing new collaboratively-funded good practice guidance on the

management of rock cuttings, with the support of members of the Geotechnical Asset

Owners Forum. It is recommended that weather effects are considered within this

project and that representatives from the rail sector support and provide input.

Cranfield University is currently carrying out research on the impacts of lack of

precipitation on earthworks linked to the ITRC. It was recommended that outputs from

this work are incorporated into the T1009 Phase 2 work, together with engagement with

the EPSRC-funded iSMART project led by the University of Newcastle. Network Rail,

RSSB and London Underground are currently engaged in this research.

Previous work by the Met Office (McColl et al 2012) [544] has examined climate impacts

on the UK electricity transmission and distribution network. Although this work focuses

on the energy sector, it is relevant to the railway in the context of overhead line

infrastructure.

Leaf fall mitigation measures have often been concentrated on the infrastructure (track

adhesion issues). However it is recommended that the industry explores options for new

rolling stock design to mitigate leaf fall problems. This could include traction and braking

demand, and aerodynamic design to prevent leaves being pulled into the wheel/rail

interface.

38


The major sensitivities to high winds identified at the stakeholder workshops concerned

overhead lines and the pantograph as a system. Work to mitigate the risk has tended to

look at the wires or slowing the train down. It is recommended that the industry

considers risks to the whole railway system from high winds, and taking account of key

learning from research done in other sectors.

39


3.9.1 Recommendations for action – opportunities and links with

other initiatives and partners

Table 9:

Recommendations for action – opportunities and links with other initiatives and

partners

Timescale

Short term

(to action/

implement

before end

of CP5 i.e.

2014-2019)

Medium

term

(to action/

implement

in next 5-15

years i.e.

CP6 and

beyond)

Long term

Recommendations

• Identify the appropriate representatives of the GB rail industry to

engage and collaborate with local authorities and local resilience

forums on extreme weather resilience plans (all climate variables)

• Identify opportunities for funding of adaptation and resilience work,

including collaboration across the GB railway industry, international

railway industries and with other sectors (all climate variables)

• Identify appropriate representatives of the GB railway industry to

engage and collaborate with ARCCN research projects and

stakeholders (all climate variables)

• Identify appropriate representatives of the GB rail industry to engage

and collaborate with cross-railway industry (and wider transport

system) knowledge forums such as www.futurerailway.org, RIA,

Transport KTN, CIRIA and Rail Champions (all climate variables)

• Relevant people within Network Rail and the wider GB rail industry

should continue to engage and collaborate with the Environment

Agency’s FCERM programme (high precipitation, high sea levels and

storm surges).

• As climate science develops, relevant stakeholders representing all

systems and sub-systems need to engage with key providers of

weather/ climate data and information. This will improve

understanding of the impacts on the GB railway and allow data to be

applied in the railway context. ‘Pure’ or ‘non-GB railway specific’

weather and climate research is unlikely to be funded by the GB rail

industry (all climate variables)

• Identify opportunities for shared learning and collaboration with

highways, aviation, electricity and other sectors relating to intelligent

infrastructure and information communication technologies. This will

help prepare for and respond to extreme weather and changes in

average or expected climate conditions (all climate variables).

N/A

40


4 Phase 2 summary

A summary of the work undertaken in Phase Two is provided in this report. Detailed

reports from Phase 2 are provided as a series of appendices which accompany this

report. The work was delivered in a series of tasks as detailed below:

Task 1 Economics of climate change adaptation

Task 1A Review of information and data

Task 1B Climate change emission scenarios

Task 1C Assessment of risk posed by climate change

Task 1D Identify quick wins

Task 1E Western Route Case study

Task 2 Study of comparable future climates / railways

Task 2A Temporal and spatial characterisation of future climate

Task 2B Identification of analogous climates

Task 2C Compendium of resilience measures

Task 2D Opportunities for overseas partnerships

Task 3 Metrics evaluation

Task 3A/B Compendium of metrics

Task 3C Review of metrics

Task 3D How metrics can be used

Task 3E Piloting proposed metrics (Western Route combined case study)

Task 4 Systems modelling

Task 4A Review of systems based risks

Task 4B Commentary of different organisations

Task 4C Consideration of metrics used in other tasks

Task 4D Characterise the railway as a system of systems

Task 4E Identification of dependencies

Task 4F Immingham/Drax combined case study

Task 5 Geographic systems modelling

Task 5A Review of GIS based risk and vulnerability identification and assessment

tools that are available and in use

Task 5B Consideration of metrics used in other tasks

Task 5C Suitability of current and future tools/approaches - grouping assets in

relation to effects

Task 5D An investigation into how GIS-based analyses are being used and can

form decision support tools

Task 5E Development of system requirements for GIS based decision support

tools

Task 5F Western Route and Immingham/Drax combined case studies

41


Task 6 Implementation Support

Task 6A Identification of relevant policies

Task 6B Identification of areas of benefit

Task 6C Drafting of outline implementation programmes

Task 6D Case studies

Task 7 Review of priorities

Task 7A Assimilation of findings from other tasks

Task 7B Review of methodologies

Task 7C Development of prioritisation methodology

Task 7D Recommendations for further research

Task 8 Funding Sources

Task 8A Review of funding sources

Task 8B Drafting of applications

Task 9 Evaluation of findings

The RSSB Project Team has identified a number of key conclusions from the T1009 Phase

1 and Phase 2 work. These are:

• The impacts of climate variability demonstrate the need to include socio-economic

benefits when carrying out economic appraisal of rail investment schemes

• The climate in Britain in 2080 will be similar the current climate in central France

and its railway is most comparable to that in this country

• GB railway is ahead of European and other national railways in terms managing

risks due to climate variability and understanding the vulnerability of our assets

• Prototype metrics have been proposed that can be used to assess the resilience of

the railway as part of a wider transport system. New asset vulnerability tools have

been demonstrated

Climate change will impact asset life, requiring changes to railway standards and

asset policies

• Infrastructure systems are inter-dependent, requiring a multi-agency response to

climate change.

Key conclusions from the Phase 2 tasks are outlined below. Full details of the

conclusions can be found in the individual task reports which have been provided as

appendices to this report.

42


4.1 Task 1A Economics of climate change adaptation,

review of information and data

The purpose of Task 1A was to develop an approach for appraising the investment of

adaptation measures in the UK rail industry, focusing on the economic aspects. It is

broken down into three sub-tasks:

• Sub-task 1Ai – reviewing prior work on T1009 and comparable tasks (including a

literature review)

• Sub-task 1Aii – defining principles and objectives for economic analysis of climate

change adaption options

• Sub-task 1Aiii – providing a framework model for investment appraisal.

The Task 1A literature review of the economic issues identified a variety of different

approaches to assessing climate change resilience measures. It also highlighted the main

shortfalls in the existing approaches, both in the UK and internationally. The review

found that there is no standard approach to investment appraisals for resilience

decisions. In addition, it found that the use of appraisal methods, discount rates and

analysis time periods varies considerably across industries and countries. The scope of

analysis (where the boundary of the analysis is drawn) also varies. This issue is being

addressed in Task 4 of this research project by developing a ‘system of systems’

perspective.

The literature review highlighted the importance of key factors in investment appraisals

for resilience projects including the following:

• Selection of an appropriate discount rate

• Choice of time periods for the analysis

• Level of uncertainty and missing information

• Difficulties in monetising the value of misaligned markets (“public goods”)

• Difficulties associated with budget constraints

• Identification of who is responsible for making decisions and consideration of the risk

appetite of different stakeholders and their priorities

• Equity of impacts distribution.

A review of the rail industry’s current approach found that Network Rail has made good

progress in considering climate change impacts. It has developed a climate change and

weather resilience plan for the Great Western route and is developing plans for all other

routes. (Note: Network Rail has now developed and published climate change

adaptation plans for all routes). It has also established a weather and climate change

resilience steering group to strengthen governance and adaptive capacity, and recruited

a range of specialists to serve that group. The organisation announced that it had

43


eviewed standards and specifications for critical assets and was altering the asset

management policy for those assets as a result.

Climate change adaptation works to rail infrastructure can be considered as part of an

enhancement programme, a renewals and maintenance programme, or in the setting of

rail industry standards. The current approach to allocating funding within the rail

industry follows the guidance in the UK Treasury Green Book five case model. This

considers the strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management case for any

investment.

The rail industry employs the WebTAG process to carry out much of the economic

analysis required to develop the economic case. WebTAG is a cost-benefit analysis

appraisal tool, developed by the DfT’s economics team over a number of years. It is now

widely used in the field of transport investment appraisal in the UK. Similar approaches

to economic appraisal in investment decision making are used by transport authorities

worldwide.

Our review of the UK industry’s current approach to investment appraisal found the

framework is well structured. Stakeholders acknowledge that it identifies the major

costs and benefits relevant to the rail industry, including the value of travel time and

delay. We therefore suggest that a future climate change resilience appraisal framework

is based upon the existing comprehensive WebTAG and Green Book frameworks. The

principal areas of discussion, including some suggestions for improvements, include the

following:

The discount rate. The return on climate change resilience projects is most likely to be in

conventional benefits, principally the impact on the reliability of the network. This

means that we do not see a case for treating these projects differently to any other

investment. We therefore suggest maintaining the HM Treasury discount rate guidance.

Time period of analysis. Given that much appraisal modelling is based on extrapolating

past trends, longer appraisal periods may increase uncertainty. We suggest that the

WebTAG guidance on limiting the appraisal period to the useful economic life of the

investment is appropriate.

Uncertainty (unquantifiable risk) and missing information. In accordance with a

‘system of systems’ approach, it is recommended that encouraging the development of

integrated solutions on a cross-sector basis, covering all modes of transport is

undertaken. This would account for the possible changes (and resulting low or high

demand) to rail services during extreme weather.

The main resulting recommendation is that the rail industry considers adopting the

Environment Agency’s approach to appraising investments that offer increased climate

change resilience. This uses the level of protection to define the scheme being

appraised. The appraisal itself is carried out on the basis of a move from an existing

system-wide level of protection of ‘1 in X years’ to a greater level of protection of ‘1 in Y

years’ (e.g. by building a higher sea wall or having sturdier bridge supports).

44


Determining the weather events that lead to protection requirements is expected to

place increased burdens on the metrics work stream in T1009. We expect that this could

be significant at first, but note that the Environment Agency and the Met Office now

have a well-established relationship when defining flood risk and carrying out flood

appraisals using this process.

Budget constraints. Value for money and budget constraints are usually managed by

using a hurdle benefit cost ratio (BCR), in conjunction with consideration of the five case

model business case and socio-political situation. The DfT no longer has formal BCR

hurdle rates (the economic case forms part of the wider five case model business case to

decision makers). We might infer from published data that there remains an informal

hurdle of at least 2:1 for rail projects. We suggest that if a hurdle is in place, it should be

the same for conventional projects and climate change resilience investments.

Identifying responsibility for decision-making. Localising standards, as prescribed by

T1009 Phase 1, appears to be a robust approach to help with consistent decision

making. However, not all standards can be localised in a straightforward way. Where

this is the case, we suggest that an investigation into new national standards should not

be tackled in the same level of detail as local schemes. Instead, it could be done by

taking averages and extremes from the data set. This would build an analysis of the

national variance and assist decision-making. It would be likely to encompass some of

the WebTAG approach to uncertainty through employing sensitivity tests to understand

the likely range of results that might be expected.

The equity impacts of distribution. Given the spatial nature of the spread of costs and

benefits of climate change resilience, we suggest considering an assessment of spatial

impacts. This is particularly relevant to flooding, where one area might need to suffer to

protect another. Nevertheless, we note that even when these types of assessments are

in place and are fully taken into account by decision makers, equity issues might remain.

Current generations could effectively be paying for benefits that will be enjoyed by

future generations. These issues might be addressed by adopting a phased approach to

resilience.

We suggest that a new framework should be applied to climate change resilience

projects in the first instance. It can then be applied to regulatory settlements and

standards relating to climate change later.

These changes to the current investment appraisal framework require testing on a series

of case studies for practicable use. They also need to be tested to ensure they fit in with

existing regulatory and appraisal tools.

45


4.2 Task 1B Economics of climate change adaptation,

climate change emission scenarios

The purpose of Task 1B is to understand how to approach defining a baseline for an

adaptation strategy, whether for a single project or a portfolio of projects.

Uncertainty is a barrier to change. Currently the “risk” of over-investment in

unnecessary resilience is seen as greater than the risk of failure. However, some

disruption to transport may be unavoidable. A risk/reward profile will be needed

to assess an acceptable level of disruption and it may be necessary to accept

increases in journey times in order to increase reliability. (Royal Academy of

Engineering, 2013).

The above quotation addresses the main appraisal issue: how to assess what level of

intervention is required when the risks, rewards, costs and benefits of the intervention

are uncertain?

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has compiled a toolkit for

practitioners who are designing climate change adaptation initiatives. It states that

‘making medium- to long-term decisions today, under conditions of imperfect

information, is one of the greatest challenges’ (UNDP, 2010). It identifies six steps for

designing an adaptation initiative. The first of these is ‘defining the problem’.

The Task 1B report provides a high-level outline of how to approach preparing a baseline

for a climate change adaptation project or plan.

The analysis has shown that the existing scale and scope of the DfT’s WebTAG tool is

fairly comprehensive in valuing the direct and indirect economic costs of severe weather

on the rail network. At present it does not include wider economic costs such as the

effects on the UK’s competitiveness, economic output and economic welfare. More

analysis could be done to attempt to quantify these effects, or if this is not feasible, to

include them in the overall business case for the project or plan.

The issue of uncertainty remains. At the beginning of the report, Arup identified the

three ‘layers of uncertainty’ involved in the climate change resilience of the railway.

The first concerns the uncertainty surrounding the choice of emissions scenario and is

relatively simple to address. It is recommended that appraisers use the high emissions

scenario from UKCP09, as used by Network Rail in its adaptation plans. This will address

the ‘worst case’ scenario which is suitable for critical infrastructure.

The second focuses on the uncertainty about the impact of a specific emissions scenario

(and the projections within it) on weather events. This will need to be developed by

experts including the Met Office. Transport agencies will need to meet regularly with the

Met Office and other stakeholders to determine the range of potential impacts on

individual routes.

46


The third, the uncertainty relating to the impact of weather events on the railway, will

need to be tackled through data collection and analysis as well as extensive stakeholder

engagement. The latter is of utmost importance due to the limitations of data in both

valuing all the potential impacts of weather events and assessing their relative

significance. Arup recommends that the baseline process should be heavily influenced

and guided by stakeholder consultation at all stages.

Finally, it is recognised that the T1009 Phase 2 project itself is advancing the

understanding and the methods available for effective economic appraisal of climate

change mitigations. In particular, the Task 3 (metrics) task is suggesting improvements to

the way that data is gathered (through use of ‘journey availability’, for example). The

Task 4 (systems) task suggested new boundaries for the appraisal process itself. These

were incorporated into the economics task as time progressed.

4.3 Task 1C Economics of climate change adaptation,

assessment of risk posed by climate change

Task 1C aimed to:

• Identify economic analysis and investment appraisal techniques used in the public

and private sectors

• Review the use of those appraisal techniques in relation to climate change adaptation

across infrastructure sectors and geographies

• Evaluate various appraisal tools in terms of their suitability for climate change

adaptation in the rail sector specifically

• Provide best practice examples which will feed into the provision of a framework

model of appraisal approach.

Many working in the area believe that traditional transport economic appraisal

methodologies are unable to adequately assess spending decisions related to adaptation

and resilience. In particular, they fail to capture many of the economic and social costs

of transport disruption due to extreme weather, and therefore the costs avoided by

adaptation action. The Brown Review (DfT, 2014) highlights these inadequacies and

recommends that the DfT works with transport operators to develop better

methodologies for the economic assessment of transport resilience actions.

There are many uncertainties involved in the appraisal of transport adaptation actions,

making the development of a comprehensive methodology challenging. It is difficult to

identify the probability of extreme weather occurring in a particular location. In

addition, the systemic nature of transport and the complex socio-economic

contributions it makes to society means that assessing the full consequences of

transport disruption is challenging. As a result, it is also difficult to assess the benefits of

improving resilience.

47


A number of economic analysis and investment appraisal techniques used in the public

and private sectors were identified through a review of international literature. These

were found to include cost benefit analysis (CBA), cost effectiveness analysis (CEA),

multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and real options analysis (ROA). In addition, methods of

addressing uncertainty within appraisals were reviewed. These methods included

sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo simulation 1 , expected value and the use of risk

premiums.

The use of these techniques in relation to climate change adaptation across

infrastructure sectors and geographies was reviewed. This review identified a number of

examples where the techniques have been successfully applied to appraise climate

change adaptation at global, national and city, sector, asset and project levels.

However, the review yielded only a few examples from the transport sector, with the

majority of studies focusing on the water and agriculture sectors. In part, this is likely to

be due to the basic importance of water and food, and the vulnerability of these sectors

in developing countries. It is also perhaps because transport is a complex sector to

appraise, since it supports and enables many of society’s functions. Transport

contributes to economic, social and environmental wellbeing and this can be difficult to

monetise. This complexity makes it difficult to estimate the true consequences of

transport disruption, and so establish the benefit of adaptation.

Studies which do attempt more detailed appraisal of transport adaptation generally cite

problems in obtaining sufficient data and the requirement to make large assumptions as

part of the methodology. The most successful appraisals adopted more than one

economic appraisal technique, either in combination or as separate analyses. For

example, both CBA and MCA have been used in conjunction to compensate for the

relative weaknesses of the individual techniques.

When appraisal tools were evaluated in terms of their suitability for climate change

adaptation in the rail sector specifically, it was found that each had strengths and

weaknesses. Implementing the different techniques presented a number of challenges.

CBA needs significant amounts of data for a robust appraisal of options, in particular

cost data. In addition, it is difficult to monetise many of the wider socio-economic

impacts which are incurred outside of the rail industry. Multi-criteria analysis is well

suited to assessing more qualitative aspects. However, implementing MCA effectively

requires a significant level of stakeholder engagement. This makes it relatively onerous

for routine appraisals.

Task 1C concludes that the use of CBA, which is already used within the rail industry,

represents a sensible starting point for the appraisal of climate change adaptation, using

appropriate sensitivity analysis. However, going forward it needs to be augmented by

1

Monte Carlo simulation is a computerised mathematical technique that allows people to account for risk in

quantitative analysis and decision making. Monte Carlo simulation furnishes the decision-maker with a

range of possible outcomes and the probabilities they will occur for any choice of action.

48


other techniques such as MCA to better include the wider impacts associated with

transport disruption. ROA is also useful for large, long-term projects, where decisions

are able to be staged.

Therefore the recommended approaches to feed into a framework model of appraisal

for assessing climate change adaptation strategies and options within the rail industry

are:

• CBA with sensitivity analysis as the initial analysis approach

• Augmenting CBA with MCA and Monte Carlo analyses going forward.

Finally, within the framework model, the effort employed on appraisals should be

proportionate to the investment. This means that more involved and resource-intensive

techniques should be applied to larger schemes.

4.4 Task 1D Economics of climate change adaptation,

identification of ‘quick wins’

Task 1 identifies and examines the appraisal and decision making tools used by a

selection of organisations. It explores decision-making challenges and examines and

recommends how best to deal with uncertainty.

Task 1D was focused on identifying ‘quick wins’ and builds on the three Task 1 sub-tasks

that were completed earlier in the study (Tasks 1A –C). This task is also informed by the

other T1009 tasks within Phase 2, including Task 3 (Metrics Evaluation) Task 4 (Systems

modelling) and Task 5 (Geographic systems modelling).

The Task 1 work suggests a number of ways in which the current processes for making

climate adaptation investment decisions can be improved, although some of the

proposed changes may take some time to implement. This task (1D) therefore highlights

improvements and changes which we suggest can be made relatively quickly and at low

cost.

The quick wins we identify include:

• Closing data gaps by sharing data

• Consideration of wider economic effects

• Incorporation of void days

• Consideration of whole system resilience

• Looking forwards not backwards (whilst taking account of past performance)

• Data gathering.

49


4.5 Task 1E Economics of climate change adaptation,

Western Route case study

This case study “road tests” recommendations for improving the approach to climate

change adaptation in the rail sector in reports from three of the tasks (1E Economics, 3E

Metrics and 5F Use of GIS). To do so, it re-examines a previous analysis of options for

climate change adaptation to flooding at Cowley Bridge Junction (CBJ) carried out by

Network Rail in 2013. We found that applying a more complete set of costs and benefits

to an appraisal of the options to relieve flooding has a significant positive impact on the

net present value and benefit-cost ratio of the schemes.

Following recommendations in previous T1009 reports, the case study focuses on the

following issues:

• How to deal with uncertainty in climate and weather forecasting in assessing the

future vulnerability of rail infrastructure and services

• Where the boundary of the cost-benefit analysis used to evaluate the options for

adaptation should be drawn. We looked at this in terms of a) the nature of impacts

that should be considered and b) the scale of geographical area the analysis should

cover. We referred to this as taking a “system of systems” approach (which is also

recommended by Task 4)

• Which measures should be used to reflect the costs and benefits of adaptation? Also,

how a larger set of relevant data and more sophisticated metrics could help inform

decisions.

This case study focuses on the impact of flooding at CBJ. However the techniques used

(largely those based on the method described in Tasks 1A and 1B) could be applied to

other hazards and in other locations.

The case study focused on three key issues: dealing with uncertainty, scope of the

evaluation (the nature of impacts addressed and the scale of geographical area) and the

choice of measures used.

4.5.1 Case Study: Dealing with uncertainty

We observed in previous tasks that the uncertainty inherent in forecasting climate

change and the frequency and severity of incidents of extreme weather itself could lead

to issues in developing robust investment appraisals. In our practical application of the

T1009 method, we found a number of factors triggered the need for more “workarounds”

than had been originally anticipated.

These included the lack of congruence of the events forecast within UKCP09 with the

extreme weather events and the geographical scope of UKCP09 with the very localised

nature of flooding events. There was also a lack of data held by Network Rail on the

effects of previous floods. In part because of this, the simple ‘1 in X’ years’ event that

defines the level of protection offered (an approach that was imported from the

50


Environment Agency’s more standard flood appraisal work) was difficult to apply to the

rail industry. Hazard and modelling uncertainty are more difficult to improve

significantly, as there are limits to what can be managed from the input data and also

due to the nature of the hazards. It is much easier to develop strategies for uncertainty

over assets (their location, condition, vulnerabilities and value). This means we can make

better decisions about them when looking at the impact of the uncertainty surrounding

weather and environment.

Steps can be taken to reduce the level of uncertainty. This can be done by, for example,

establishing a closer working relationship between Network Rail, the Environment

Agency and the Met Office. This would help us understand the specific local

circumstances that lead to rail line flooding, and, eventually, enable us to define the

water level and duration of flooding at locations such as CBJ. This could be carried out in

phases, starting with a deeper understanding of the ‘weather-to-flooding’ relationships

observed at key flooding sites. It could eventually lead to the definition of flood events

according to a simple ‘1 in X’ years event label.

We noted that a substantial amount of work is now being done to relate weather

forecasting to hydrological models in specific locations. These approaches may be

particularly useful for the rail industry as a means of establishing the flood hazard in

particular areas. They would need to be combined with an approach that can establish

which assets will be vulnerable to flood hazard, and that can also estimate the likely

extent of the damage. We commented on the apparent lack of data from past events

that logged damage to rail assets while also recording the parameters of the weather

and the associated flood event that caused that damage.

4.5.2 Case Study: Extending the boundary of the analysis: scope of

impacts addressed and size of geographical area

Scope of impacts

The case study explored the implications of extending the scope of impacts addressed

beyond the financial impacts considered in the 2013 report on Cowley Bridge Junction to

include other economic impacts. In particular, it considered the effects on passenger

journey times and wider economic impacts on businesses.

Our case study approach used “work-around” methods for this, in the absence of the

data required and modelling that would enable a more systematic approach. (Reasons

included unavailability of long-run time series data and some data being commercially

confidential).

For a number of reasons, we did not apply the WebTAG approach for wider economic

impacts. Our desktop analysis found no discussion or practical application of the

WebTAG wider economic impacts method on resilience. We also note that there is no

accepted method for the wider economic impacts of the disruption to freight services.

Given the magnitude of wider economic benefits in previous transport cost-benefit

51


analysis, as well as the importance of the rail freight industry to the wider economy,

there is scope for further work in these areas.

Work on the wider economic impacts of improved resilience of the transport sector

should be considered for further development. Specifically, the use of WebTAG wider

economic impact techniques to resilience projects should be investigated, alongside the

wider economic impacts of disruption to rail freight services. EA Flood and Coastal

Erosion Risk Management appraisal guidance on indirect impacts of flooding could also

be considered.

Notwithstanding the concerns about availability of robust data, a full cost-benefit

analysis in the context of resilience is more data-hungry and uses additional resources

when compared with the whole-life whole-system cost minimisation approach. Using a

multi-modal model such as PLANET may be desirable in determining the effect of

disruption on other modes of transport but would make a true “system of systems”

approach (at least in the transport context) even more expensive to implement. This is

especially the case when it is coupled with a traveller behavioural overlay to model the

lack of perfect information in the case of disruption. In addition, we would have some

concerns that additional data from other sectors (e.g. impact of flooding on highway

journey times) may not be available. A wider appraisal may also include the impact on

road and rail freight.

Finally, we identified earlier that taking a wider societal approach to investment

decisions is likely to lead to increased spending overall. This is in addition to the costs of

the appraisal itself – although this may be small in proportion to the overall scheme

cost.

As such, in Task 1A, we advocated a proportional approach (in recognition of the need

for the level of resources devoted to addressing the problem to be appropriate to the

scale of the impacts). We suggested that WebTAG could be used more widely for

appraisal purposes where there is anticipated to be a significant societal impact. This

would effectively make it the default tool for cost-benefit analysis of resilience

initiatives.

We would suggest using cost-benefit analysis where there is both an anticipated high

societal impact and a high project cost. An even higher project cost may be required to

justify the use of a multi-modal model. Network Rail should consider the impacts of

moving to a full cost-benefit analysis framework before moving from a cost minimisation

approach in its asset management.

If a wider use of cost-benefit analysis is implemented quickly, there are opportunities for

more resilience-related projects to feed into the long term planning process for Control

Period 6. The Western Route Study (Long term planning process, Network Rail, 2015)

provides an initial view of this.

52


Cost-benefit analysis may be best suited to projects with a higher cost and with a

higher anticipated societal impact

Size of geographical area

The 2013 report on CBJ did not look at the flood risk in the wider river catchment areas

around CBJ or take a wider systems approach to developing the climate adaptation

options for the evaluation. It could be argued that a wider geographical perspective on

the flood hazard, coupled with more detailed information on different groups of assets,

could lead to consideration of different climate adaptation options.

We were not able to incorporate this approach into the case study of the cost-benefit

analysis or use it to develop alternative climate change adaptation options for

addressing the challenges at CBJ. This is clearly an important area for further study.

4.5.3 Case Study: Applying different measures

Vulnerability metrics

We noted the shortcomings in the extent and type of information recorded in delay

minutes for carrying out robust appraisals. There is a high degree of uncertainty even

when this is supplemented with rail demand data from LENNON. Task 3 described the

possibility of supplementing delay minutes with a journey availability metric that would

serve as a vulnerability metric. We also note that the current approach within the rail

industry is that assets are assumed to be equally vulnerable to extreme weather events.

This is not the case in reality.

The rail industry could therefore start clearly defining its asset groups (track, power,

communications, structures, staff, rolling stock and others) in terms of their spatial

53


extent (in three dimensions) and connectivity as well as vulnerability to specific hazards.

This could be done based on the T1009 PHASE 1 information (Phase 1 Task 1B).

Coupling asset monitoring with vulnerability metrics

For this case study analysis, we have had to make simple assumptions to represent the

success of the investment options and their impacts. Doing anything more realistic will,

we believe, require a change in the underlying assumptions on hazard, vulnerability and

risk to service.

If the risk chain is explicitly formed with a vulnerability metric such as journey

availability, there would be a basis on which to specify what a project was meant to

achieve in terms of reduced vulnerability. It would also provide a baseline against which

it could be monitored in the long term. Such monitoring would be able to exclude the

variation of weather on an annual basis and changes in the timetable which current

‘delay minute’ systems cannot. This would then inform a forward-looking modelling of

hazard events which could enable systematic event response plans, such as those

implemented by Extreme Weather Action Teams (EWATs) to be tested and staff training

to be improved. In addition, the T4 levels approach would allow larger scale

technological changes (such as priority introduction of in-cab signalling on this route) to

be considered as an adaptation option for CBJ. This is because it would remove some of

the vulnerable assets from the site.

54


4.6 Task 2AB Overseas weather and railways, temporal

and spatial characteristics of future climate, and

identification of similar climates

Task 2 has identified the regions in Tables 10 and 11 as having comparable climates for

different parts of GB (for mid-21st century and end of the 21st century respectively).

From these tables it can be observed that the majority of comparable regions are found

elsewhere in Europe. However, other regions in southern South America, north-western

North America, and Oceania were also identified.

Task 2 has additionally identified regions with broadly comparable railway systems to

the GB railway. This analysis recommends that the following nine countries be

considered as potential overseas analogies for the UK rail system. In Europe: Austria;

Belgium; Denmark; France; Germany; Italy and the Netherlands, and outside Europe,

Morocco and Japan.

In principle, these results allow the search for adaptation options and resilience

measures which could be applied to GB to focus primarily on these regions. However,

railway stakeholders must decide whether a particular option or measure is appropriate

for the GB railway network. As such, no option or measure has been intentionally

excluded from the compendium which has been provided in Task 2.

The simplest way to combine the complementary climate and railway system

perspectives is to assess which countries appear on the lists of both comparable

climates and comparable railway systems. The countries thus identified are:

• France

• Netherlands

• Belgium

• Germany

• Denmark

Of the above countries, the only country which appears as both a mid-21st century

analogue and an end-21st century analogue is France. There are no countries outside

Europe which are both climate and railway analogues according to the above

methodologies.

55


Table 10: Locations of comparable areas for the mid-21st century UK climate. The ‘Best

Locations’ are those regions ranked in the top 50 comparisons by the majority of the

models. The other regions (‘Also Consider’) were identified by fewer models.

Region Best Locations Also Consider

Southern England Northern and western France Northern Spain

South of France

Southern Argentina and Chile

Coastal strip of Australia around

Melbourne

North Island of New Zealand

Western USA (between San

Francisco and Portland)

Central England

Scotland and

northern England

Southern England

Northern France

Netherlands and Belgium

Central and southern England

Wales

Ireland

Coastal strip of Germany

Denmark

South Island of New Zealand

Southern Argentina

Southern Chile

South Island of New Zealand

Southernmost parts of Argentina

and Chile

Western USA (between San

Francisco and Portland)

Wales

Southern England

Northern France

Netherlands, Belgium,

Northern Spain,

South Island of New Zealand,

Southern Argentina and Chile,

Western USA (between San

Francisco and Portland)

56


Table 11: Locations of comparison countries for the end of the 21st century UK climate.

The ‘Best Locations’ are those regions ranked in the top 50 comparisons by the majority

of the models. The other regions (‘Also Consider’) were identified by fewer models but

could still be worth considering.

Region Best Locations Also Consider

Southern England

Central England

Scotland and

northern England

(western parts)

Scotland and

northern England

(eastern and central

parts)

Wales

France (excluding south-east

quadrant)

Portugal

Northern and western Spain

Coasts of Croatia and Bosnia

South-east Australia

North Island of New Zealand

South-west England

North and western France

North coast of both Spain

and Portugal

Wales

South-west England

Ireland

Western coast of France

South Island of New Zealand

Ireland

Western coast of France

Southern England and Wales

Western France

Northern Portugal

Northern Spain

Southern England

North Mediterranean coasts

Chile (between Santiago and Puerto

Montt)

Western USA (between San

Francisco and Portland)

New Zealand

Coasts of Croatia and Bosnia

Southern Argentina and Chile

Western USA (between San

Francisco and Portland)

Northern Spain

Chile (between Santiago and Puerto

Montt)

Coastal parts of Japan

Western USA (between San

Francisco and Portland)

Northern Spain and northern

Portugal

Chile (between Santiago and Puerto

Montt)

New Zealand

Western USA (between San

Francisco and Portland)

New Zealand

Southern Argentina and Chile

Western USA (between San

Francisco and Portland)

57


4.7 Task 2C Overseas weather and railways,

compendium of resilience measures

Task 2C provides a compendium of climate and weather resilience measures of potential

benefit to the future operation of the GB railway system. The compendium is provided

in the appendices to this report.

Finding comparable railway systems is not just about finding locations with present-day

climates that are similar to those projected for the UK. It is also about finding locations

with similar railway operating characteristics. Our approach to determining comparable

railway systems has involved both a climate and railway system perspective. This

explains the identification of five ‘combined comparable countries’ - France, Germany,

Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands. While we have not limited our search for

measures to these countries alone, we have chosen to focus our stakeholder

engagement primarily on representatives of the railways in these countries.

We have summarised the position of various regions/ countries with regards to climate

change adaptation, and examined the existence (or not) of country and/ or sector-level

plans and guidance. We have also examined the status of implementation of those

plans, the level of engagement of the transport sector with the plans, and the perceived

responsible entity for management of various weather and climate hazards.

In identifying these measures we also make the following observations:

• The UK is currently considered at the forefront of adaptation and resilience of

infrastructure internationally. Major stakeholders such as Network Rail and TfL have

been active in this field for some time. Therefore in taking forward overseas

analogies, it is recommended that the rail-systems-approach is emphasised. This may

highlight operational procedures and maintenance levels rather than ‘technical’

solutions, but is likely to be more applicable and effective in long term adaptation.

• It is tempting to believe that adaptation can easily be achieved by importing

technology, strategies and practices from other railway undertakings that are

experiencing the climate/ weather that the UK will experience in future. International

supply chains, conferences and electronic sharing of information etc. mean that, if a

revolutionary idea was being used in another country, it is likely to be known to the

GB industry.

• Previous studies, although limited, have shown that ‘technical’ adaptation strategies

for extreme weather are generally well known in the rail industry and are being

transferred across regions where appropriate. This is largely because the rail industry

now has a global supply chain. However, these technologies alone are often not the

‘magic bullet’ first imagined and failures are seldom simple in complex rail systems.

Additionally such global transfers may be more the norm to the rolling stock and

shorter lifecycle rail sub-systems than to infrastructure.

58


• Often, potential engineering solutions are known but not implemented because of

cost, approval processes and risk-averse culture. It can be the application and

governance that is lacking, rather than the technological solution itself.

• The search for solutions should consider more than just the rail sector:

o

It may be more appropriate to work with environment agencies (e.g. EA

in England and SEPA in Scotland) to protect an entire area or work with

Local Authorities on green infrastructure, rather than solely focusing on

making the rail infrastructure more resilient. Flooding is an issue

affecting more than just the railway.

• Comparisons between road and rail infrastructure are useful:

o

o

o

o

Rail has less redundancy than road

The material construction of rail infrastructure tends to be older than

that of major road infrastructure (e.g. motorways)

The geological composition of rail embankments is often unknown

A strategy combining a number of different approaches is normally

more effective at reducing risk than one ‘solution’.

• A ‘what if’ approach can sometimes be used to point to solutions. For example: what

if one had to design a railway system to operate in 40°C? How would this differ from

the current situation? This advocates a ‘scenario’ approach, which is being used

elsewhere in T1009 Phase 2, such as Task 1.

• There could be merit in assessing in more detail the relevance of particular weather

or climate resilience measures in particular places. For example, there was relatively

little information gathered in this exercise on the topic of landslides and slope

stability. It is not clear, however, whether this was simply due to under-sampling of

the problem in the analysis which we undertook, or whether the issue is genuinely

not a large problem in GB.

• With regard to this specific example, the extent to which similar geological issues are

present in other countries should be investigated (for example over-consolidated

clays). This would assess whether there is knowledge elsewhere, or whether the

problem is peculiar to the GB railway.

The Task 2C compendium has sought to summarise all the information gathered during

Task 2 which is pertinent to comparable overseas railway systems’ management of

weather resilience and climate change adaptation measures. The compendium is highly

unlikely to be exhaustive. However, it provides substantial material for consideration by

GB railway stakeholders in terms of what can be learned for the GB railway’s future

management of, and resilience to, weather in a changing climate.

59


4.8 Task 2D Overseas weather and railways,

opportunities for overseas partnerships

The Task 2D work has made a preliminary assessment of the extent to which knowledge

is shared between GB railway stakeholders and their overseas counterparts.

In this task we have considered the mechanisms by which the findings from previous

research in Task 2 should – and could – be shared with overseas stakeholders. The Task

2C compendium collated weather resilience and climate change adaptation (WR/CCA)

measures across a range of countries, often by drawing together the results of previous

research projects. As such, it is recommended that caution regarding the mechanisms

for engagement and the messaging around these conversations, to avoid any

inadvertent implications that some of these findings are ‘new’.

The research has found that some knowledge-sharing mechanisms do exist already, and

that these typically operate on an informal/ ad hoc basis. Evidence for specific

committees on relevant topics was limited, though. Only a few stakeholders were able

to be contacted for detailed responses, which may be a limitation of the sampling. The

researchers attempted to follow up engagements with overseas stakeholders, but were

only successful with one (ProRail). However, ProRail was very positive and receptive to

the idea of more collaborative working with the GB railway (and Network Rail in

particular) on CCA-related projects. This respondent also highlighted a new European

Rail Infrastructure Managers (EIM) led group on resilience, which may well be a useful

avenue of enquiry.

With regard to the limitations of the evidence gathered, if more robust conclusions

would be of value, further engagement with industry stakeholders and bodies will be

required. This may be more successful if it can be carried out by a senior industry figure,

or directly by an industry organisation.

GB railway stakeholders should be encouraged to undertake their own engagement with

their overseas counterparts, or enhance existing levels of engagement. Indeed, direct

engagement between relevant stakeholders is likely to have more favourable and

productive outcomes than any attempts at ‘prescriptive’ engagement by parties external

to the railway.

In particular, further direct engagement with ProRail is clearly of potential value.

To support GB stakeholders in undertaking their own conversations with their overseas

counterparts, Task 2 has provided the following engagement materials which can be

found in the appendices to this report:

• A three-page summary of the Task 2C compendium.

• This outlines T1009 in general, and provides a high level handout-style overview

of the activities undertaken in Task 2 and its findings

• The script for a proposed audio presentation about Task 2.

60


• This is similar to the three-page summary, though with slightly more detail, with

proposed presentation in the style of an interview

• Three themed Task 2 fact sheets focusing on measures identified in the Task 2C

compendium, for each of winter management, flooding and heat.

• The fact sheets acknowledge that some measures are collated from other

research projects. This addresses the potential risk of ‘telling stakeholders what

they already know’

• They also highlight a few examples of specific measures used in GB and other

countries. This (a) demonstrates that GB is already using a range of measures

which could be useful to others and (b) identifies other particular countries as

users (and perhaps pioneers) of other measures of possible use to GB

• Another benefit of these fact sheets is that they demonstrate some commonality

between the management of certain issues in certain countries. Where common

management techniques are used across countries, there is an implication that

‘no other countries are doing a better job’ (at least, as far as Task 2 was able to

determine). This provides a level of reassurance across these countries.

[Conversely, of course, there may be opportunities for improvement if the

recommendations arising from T1009 are implemented.]

4.9 Task 3A and Task B Metrics evaluation,

compendium of metrics

The aim of Task 3A and Task 3B was to develop a compendium of metrics which are

used across various sectors. These are the metrics that aid railway operators in the

management and adaptation of the network to cope with extreme weather impacts and

climate change. Such metrics are therefore also linked to critical areas of network

function, such as the safety and performance of the railway network. The purpose of

this compendium within Task 3 is to assist in recommending/ developing one or more

metrics which will be useful for monitoring resilience/ performance and to aid decision

making for adaptation.

The compendium has been developed through T1009 consortium partners’ contribution

of relevant information into the collation process.

The compendium of metrics is provided as an appendix to this report in the form of an

MS Excel® document. It is divided into four sections, provided as separate worksheets

which allow the user to easily search/ browse for metrics:

• GB rail

• UK non-rail

• International rail

• International non-rail.

61


Within the non-rail sections of the compendium, each of the metrics has been allocated

into the most relevant sector in which they are used. The sectors are:

• Buildings

• Energy

• Highways

• Transport (numerous modes combined)

• Water.

Where possible, for each of the metrics included in the compendium, information has

been provided on the reason for the metric being produced, who it is produced by and

for, the data or publication frequency, a description of the metric, where it is available

from, and any additional notes. Where this information is not known this has been

stated in the spreadsheet. As would be expected, more information is available for some

of the metrics than others.

One area in which there are a large number of studies and metrics is economic

‘benchmarking’ (in which metrics are known as KPIs). These include work done directly

for DfT or ORR (such as DfT 2011), ORR or NR (such as LEK 2007), TfL (such as TfL 2012),

transport stakeholder groups (such as Credo 2013) and academic development of the

subject (such as Anderson et al 2003). This activity is also carried out by many overseas

and international organisations (including SNCF, Transport Canada, OECD).

The overriding aim of such studies is to compare ‘efficiency’ (within or between railway

undertakings) and improve such cost-efficiency within the rail network in terms of broad

performance per unit cost or per unit of government support (subsidy). They are

explicitly ‘neutral’ concerning both environmental and technical matters. Given that

economic matters are within the scope of T1009 Phase 2 Task 1, and that such metrics

do not directly concern physical or environmental network performance, they have

been excluded from the compendium.

This is not to conclude that such metrics are irrelevant, but rather to allow their

consideration within the proper context, which is economic and therefore within the

scope of Task 1. Should Phase 2 Task 1 recommend the consideration of one or more of

these metrics (of which there are many) in the later stages of Task 3 (such as the case

study) then they can be included. However, to include them at this stage, given their

prevalence and peripheral consideration of environmental factors, would risk giving

them undue prominence.

A final point of note is that several benchmarking studies (including LEK 2007 and TfL

2012) have identified that benchmarking of maintenance costs, particularly in ‘civils’

(infrastructure) has been hampered by a lack of reliable data about infrastructure

condition and maintenance activity.

In total 189 metrics are currently within the compendium: 38 for GB rail, 38 for UK nonrail,

nine for international rail and 104 for international non-rail. Within the non-rail

62


sectors, the majority are for highways and transport, with just a few for the buildings,

energy and water sectors.

Few of the metrics are directly related to weather and climate change and helping

railway operators manage these issues. The metrics included are predominantly for

measuring performance and safety issues, such as trains arriving on time, signalling

failures, road condition, fatalities and accidents. It should be noted that ‘performance’

could be taken to cover many areas including punctuality, fleet reliability, carbon

emissions and resource usage. Within the compendium, a focused view has been taken

which does not include metrics that would cover performance in terms of

environmental issues related to GHG mitigation, e.g. direct carbon emissions by vehicles.

It only includes those specifically related to climate change (impact on transport) and

weather. This is again to avoid being drawn out-of-scope into issues of rolling stock

performance, the comparison of energy sources or fuels for rolling stock etc.

Although the specific list of international rail metrics is currently small, a number of

other overseas rail undertakings have been investigated, including SNCF, DB, SBB, VTS

(Australia) and JCR. These all appear to have metrics which perform the same function

as the GB Public Performance Measures in whole or in part. There are typically

punctuality statistics, cancellation statistics and in some cases ‘delay minutes’ or

‘passenger-weighted delay minutes’. It may therefore be of limited value to list all of

these individually.

Of those metrics that are directly related to weather and climate change, there appears

to be a focus on issues with regards to flooding. Metrics include ‘probability of flooding

of transport assets at risk’ and ‘identify and treat locations on the network that are

vulnerable to flooding or where there is a risk of pollution to the receiving water

environment’. There are also some metrics related to winter weather, e.g. ‘tonnes of

salt used in winter maintenance’ and ‘weather incidents with snow and drifting snow’,

both of which are related to highways.

As well as direct application, some of the performance-related metrics may be

underpinned by data that could provide railway operators with information that would

help them cope with extreme weather and climate change. For instance, metrics cover

topics such as delays, cancellations, asset failures, earthwork failures or train incidents.

When disaggregated, the data may provide underlying reasons for these. It may be able

to identify them as related to weather or climate change. Previous work, e.g. the

FUTURENET project, highlighted that the quality of such data is a critical issue.

4.10 Task 3C Metrics evaluation, review of metrics

The process of compiling and analysing the compendium of metrics has considered a

total of 194 metrics with significant underlying data. It shows that the largest group

relate to safety and performance (82 metrics), with few related to climate change,

customer satisfaction and impact of environment on rail systems. In terms of similarities

63


etween metrics that have been identified for the different modes, safety, and in

particular accident statistics, appear to be key for both rail and highways. The majority

of data collection is quantitative (78) by incident (54), network-wide or national (46) and

routinely collected (58). The publication of measures predominantly occurs annually (51)

on a national basis (72) for external (e.g. government or regulator) use.

From the analysis, public performance measure (PPM), cancellations and significant

lateness (CaSL) and delay minutes were identified as key quantitative metrics. The

National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS) was identified as a key metric of customer

satisfaction. The rail and highway sectors both report metrics related to customer

satisfaction and certain aspects of the road sector approach may be useful. Some other

‘single-issue’ metrics such as earthwork failures were also noted as relevant, primarily

because of the underlying data in TRUST. The stakeholder workshop also raised these

same key metrics.

It was noted in the analysis that for the majority of metrics, there seems to be little link

between ‘condition’ and ‘cause’ of the condition, even where such data might be

available. Stakeholders also questioned whether existing information was being used

consistently throughout the cycle from control period preparation and franchising

through to local operations. However it was also noted that timescales for safety,

performance, adaptation and customer satisfaction may not be compatible with the

timescales for ‘action’ in control periods and franchising.

It was identified that better use of some data could be made but that there are

significant data gaps. There is a perception that ‘lots of data’ exists but questions remain

over whether it is being used appropriately for climate change adaptation. Stakeholders

highlighted such aspects as asset management and business continuity management.

The stakeholders also questioned whether local knowledge was sufficiently captured

and whether the attribution of liabilities associated with delays or incidents actually

captures proper attribution of larger system-wide causes. It was suggested that it might

be worth investigating the approaches used by the insurance industry for assessing risk.

The stakeholder workshop found that uncertainty associated with long term climate

change effects makes it difficult to attribute roles and responsibilities. However, no

single organisation can drive the required changes across all of the industry.

Stakeholders identified that key characteristics for any resilience or adaption metrics

must include being robust, reliable and consistent in the long term. Some stakeholders,

particularly at the strategic or policy level, wished for consistent multi-modal metrics

and emphasised the need for collaboration of groups working across modes. All sources

appear to agree that such metrics are of vital importance across all sectors of the

industry.

Detailed analysis of key metrics suggests that economic benchmarking approaches such

as partial factor productivity (PFP) and multi-PFPs are commonly used in the rail industry

for what were identified in the compendium as ‘single-issue’ metrics. Stakeholders feel

64


these are well understood but limited. More complex benchmarking techniques such as

total factor productivity (TFP) struggle to encompass a complex system such as rail

transport. In doing so, they simplify it so much that it is only useful at very broad scales

and may lack sufficient flexibility to assist in managing adaptation processes. Graphical

and combinatorial aspects of data envelopment analysis (DEA) may, however, be useful

to consider.

Existing qualitative metrics, such as the National Rail Passenger Survey (NRPS), which are

subjective, may be helpful in deciding what aspects of service are critical and what level

of resilience is required. However they probably cannot elucidate more specific

adaptation issues. Quantitative metrics such as PPM, CaSL and ‘delay minutes’ were

found to be fit for their current purpose. However they focus on issues which do not

match adaptation requirements, or fail to capture vital information. Other sectors, both

nationally and internationally, may provide ideas for development but do not appear to

have found solutions for these issues and are largely using local versions of GB metrics.

The stakeholders raised many issues which coincide with recommendations from the

Transport Resilience Review (DfT 2014). The Review is part of ongoing work within

Network Rail to improve asset information and associated decision making processes. A

key issue which underpins this is the broadening of high-quality data, particularly about

assets, their condition and meteorological data. Linkage between all these systems and

developments is therefore seen as critical. Combining this with operational data such as

that held in TRUST and broadening the interpretation of the Delay Attribution Board

(DAB) remit may be a route which maintains the necessary openness about data which

stakeholders believe is valuable in achieving progress.

65


4.11 Task 3D Metrics evaluation, how metrics can be

used

At the request of the client, Task 3D was undertaken and reported as an integrated

exercise with Tasks 4C - Consideration of metrics used in other tasks , 4D –

Characterisation of the railway as a system of systems and 5B - Consideration of metrics

used in other tasks. The integrated report is based upon an embedded systems

perspective of the GB railway which is described in more detail in the Task 4 report,

provided as an appendix to this document.

This provides a useful framework and considers the whole system at four levels (which

were introduced in Task 4AB). The four levels considered in the integrated report are:

• Local/ Specific

• Operational

• Strategic

• Socio/ Political

The four tasks which have been integrated were primarily focused upon metrics from

the perspectives of metrics evaluation (Task 3), systems modelling (Task 4) and

geographic systems, modelling (Task 5). Specifically the integrated tasks are:

• Task 3D – How metrics can be used

• Task 4C – Consideration of metrics used in other tasks

• Task 4D - Characterisation of the railway as a system of systems

• Task 5B – Consideration of the metrics used in other tasks.

66


The overall finding of the integrated task is that the current approach to performance

metrics and geo-spatial considerations will not give the GB Railway the capability to

adapt to climate change. It is apparent from the first ‘Network Rail Monitor CP5 Report

(November 2014) that in the short term some aspects of performance, e.g. safety, are

improving. However it is clear that other aspects are not yet achieving the expectations

of the current period, let alone a capability for long term climate change adaptation. The

industry is working together strenuously to address the challenges.

The industry’s capability is currently limited and perhaps inhibited by a relatively short

term focus. Its reward/ penalty system is driven by the use of delay minutes as a proxy

for performance, which is how the industry was set up on privatisation. Such a

measurement system is necessarily short-term, historic and of limited value in dealing

with prevention and prediction of future issues beyond the financial constraints of

control periods. Challenges associated with climate change impacts on the rail system

create an opportunity for the industry to reappraise how it could organise itself to deal

with the challenges of the future.

This research is suggesting that a more appropriate measure is the notion of Journey

Availability which is a compound function of Infrastructure Availability and Service

Availability (Crewed Vehicles). The asset management processes of the GB Railway for

infrastructure and vehicles are the activities that will primarily drive Journey Availability.

These assets include artefacts, interdependencies, external dependencies and people

(skills and behaviours).

Managing performance through Journey Availability would guide the things that need to

be measured and reported in relation to the assets, the geo-physical conditions and,

critically, the impact of climate change and specific extreme weather events on all parts.

Any performance evaluation will therefore necessarily need to be capable of including a

significant time horizon.

This would be enabled by the ‘system of systems’ view which could help to determine

what information is required at each organisational level and over what time periods in

order to generate an effective Journey Availability management strategy. It would help

to inform when future interventions will be required for adapting to the effects of

climate change. In particular the concept of Journey Availability is not limited to railway

transport; development of the concept across all modes of transport would enable an

integrated assessment of climate change adaptation.

4.12 Task 3E Metrics evaluation, piloting proposed

metrics, Western Route case study

Task 3E was undertaken and reported as a combined case study with Task 1E and Task

5F. The conclusions from this case study are provided as the Task 1E Conclusions.

67


4.13 Task 4A Systems modelling, review of systems

based risk and Task 4B Systems modelling,

commentary of different organisations

This task provides a review of systems-based risk and vulnerability. From published

literature, it identifies a range of systems-based assessment methodologies that are

available and in use. The task provides a background for the subsequent tasks. When

Task 4A was undertaken the project consortium was still developing contacts with

stakeholders therefore, the review work is predominantly based on published works,

systems paradigm literature and the experience and sector knowledge of the

researchers. Subsequent review has tested and developed the thinking and approaches

through further engagement with stakeholders.

Although the necessity of a whole system approach has been advocated, we have found

very limited evidence that a ‘system of systems’ representation of a railway has

previously been attempted. This has been a challenge during this task. While we have

found several partial representations, we have found no prior examples of ‘whole

railway system’ modelling for railway infrastructure. The resulting representation is

complex and non-linear and does not lend itself to the types of problem analysis

traditionally adopted. The representation included here will need to be iterated and

developed in conversation with the other researchers and stakeholders.

Task 4A and Task 4B conclude that the application of ‘system of systems’ thinking at a

national scale and applied to major infrastructure networks is in its infancy. This is in

contrast to the extensive application at the level of individual organisations. The review

shows that application of this thinking to the whole of organisations, their processes,

people and systems has potential to:

• Realise substantial cost savings

• Realise substantial performance gains

• Deliver increases in system level resilience

• Enable adaptation to be designed into GB railway as ‘business as usual’ rather than as

a ‘bolt-on’ extra.

Looking ahead, if these potential gains are to be achieved, there will be a need to align

GB Railway around ‘systemic thinking’. This will challenge some of the established

norms, standards, processes and practices and help understand how best to help

government formulate policy which enables the railway to deliver.

68


4.14 Task 4C Metrics evaluation, consideration of

metrics used in other tasks, and Task 4D Metrics

evaluation, characterisation of the railway as a system

of systems

Tasks 4C and 4D were undertaken and reported as an integrated exercise with Task 3D

and Task 5B. The conclusions from the integrated report are provided in Task 3D.

4.15 Task 4E Metrics evaluation, identification of

dependencies

Task 4E has aimed to understand the dependencies of railway assets on other external

systems, such as road and public transport systems. The operation and maintenance of

various railway sub-systems depend on these. For example, local roads facilitate the

movement of railway personnel, materials and goods to stations, depots and

maintenance sites.

The methods used by existing studies to undertake interdependency analysis were

found to be inappropriate for this study. This is because the nature of the dependencies

of railway subsystems (for example on control centres) on external systems cannot be

captured by macroscopic (economic) indices or geographical proximity. Task 4E first

developed an analysis framework, which considers the channels of flows/ interactions

between railway sub-systems and external systems. These channels included people,

material, machinery/ devices, power/ fuel, communication/ information/ data, and

other flows.

The railway sub-systems considered included tracks, civil engineering infrastructure (e.g.

bridges and tunnels), signalling and control systems, electrical power supply systems and

rolling stock systems. The external systems considered were electrical power supply

systems, water-related systems (such as flood defences, run-offs, sewerage and ground

water), transport systems (such as road networks and public transport systems), fuel

supply systems and natural environments.

A desktop study was carried out using the analysis framework. The task identified key

dependencies and found that further investigations can use the dependency analysis

method developed in this study. Because it would require considerable efforts to

compile a complete list of dependencies, we suggest that further investigations should

focus on key subsystems (e.g. electrical power supply and water systems) in key

geographical areas (e.g. certain sections of railway).

69


4.16 Task 4F Metrics evaluation, Drax/Immingham

case study

Task 4F illustrates system dependencies found in the previous Tasks 4A to 4E, and

discusses the feasibility of utilising a systems approach to develop climate change

impact evaluation tools. The underlying theme for Task 4 is system dependencies

between the railway system and other systems which are outside the traditional

boundaries of the railway. These include, for example, dependencies between the

National Grid and the railway system.

It was suggested by the Project Team that the case study 1) uses the freight routes to

transport coal and biomass from Immingham Port in North Lincolnshire to power

stations and 2) considers the impacts of railway disruptions on the national economy

and society, suggesting ways to consider these impacts in terms of a cost/ benefit

analysis of railway projects.

The Project Team also asked Task 4F to focus primarily on underbridges (where a railway

bridge goes over a road or waterway) on the section between Brocklesby Junction and

Barnetby Station.

Through the case study (Tasks 4F and 5F) and the previous sub-tasks, the research team

has identified the challenges and opportunities in relation to systems analysis and the

development of a potential decision support tool.

Task 4 has introduced a classification model based upon four levels of organisational

environments: socio-political, strategic, operational and local/ specific. This four-level

model can also be used for dependency analysis.

At the operational and local or specific levels, the research team found that the

relationships between railway sub-systems and external systems are less well known

than the dependencies between railway sub-systems. (An example of the latter is how a

drainage system failure would affect signal equipment and therefore railway

operations.) This may be relevant to the proposed decision support tool.

This research found that the key external systems which the railway system depends on

are electrical power supply, fuel supply, water systems (including managed water

networks, surface and groundwater), other transport systems and supply chains, and

the natural environment.

Among these key external systems, there are Geographic Information System-based

databases of electrical power supply, water and sewer systems, and road networks.

Using such datasets, it may be possible to analyse the direct impact on railways of some

of the external systems where a system contains a single type of flow (e.g. electricity,

water) which is controlled by infrastructure owners. The interaction between these

systems and the railway sub-system may be simple and can be modelled because of the

simplicity of the flow. As long as databases have good resolution, it may be possible to

conduct such analyses on a large scale.

70


However we conclude that we need to know more about:

• How the railway system interacts with the external systems in which there are

multiple types of flows and the flows are not owned or controlled by a single

organisation. For example, this Task 4F found that interactions between the railway

and road traffic are complex and that different geographical areas would have

different forms of interaction

• How long-term gradual condition changes for all the external systems, (e.g. water

leakage) would affect the railway system in the long-term (and vice versa). Such longterm

changes could induce or be induced by interactions between the railway system

and external systems at the socio-political and strategic level.

Because of the complex nature and scarcity of the knowledge/ data, investigations into

these interactions might need to take place at a local level.

It is also important to have knowledge and data sharing mechanisms between

infrastructure owners and providers. Although a problem in electricity supply to the

railway system would greatly affect railway operations, for example, it would be difficult

for a railway infrastructure owner/ operator to understand potential environmental risks

to the National Grid.

Such research should be led by the National Grid, but results could be passed to other

infrastructure owners/ operators so that they can be aware of potential risks and

prepare for potential events where electricity is not supplied. Equally, railway operators

should inform stakeholders of the risks they are aware of.

As for a potential decision support system, provided that a data sharing mechanism with

other major infrastructure operators is established, it would be possible for such a

system to include the information regarding other infrastructure. A GIS-based flood risk

prediction model developed within the London Underground Comprehensive Review of

Flood Risks (LUCRFR) is an example of such a system. However, in order for a system to

properly predict the impact on the railway system, it is important to increase knowledge

of (and to develop models for) interactions relative to how the railway system interacts

with other infrastructure.

4.17 Task 5A Geographic systems modelling, review of

GIS based risk and vulnerability identification and

assessment tools that are available and in use

The Task 5A report reviews the range of GIS tools and systems that are currently used by

Network Rail and other industries to assess the impact of climate change on

infrastructure assets. It reviews an extensive diversity of potential climate change

impacts on Network Rail assets and summarises environmental data that is available to

facilitate vulnerability modelling.

71


This report has been compiled by the British Geological Survey with support from Arup,

JBA, the Met Office, TRL and Network Rail. Its content draws on expertise from the

environmental sector and also key Network Rail personnel who have provided valuable

assistance.

Climate changes over operational (1-5 years) and strategic (5-30 years) periods will, and

are, impacting Network Rail’s assets. Network Rail has invested in the prediction of asset

vulnerability, and progress is on par with similar industries. This task provides an

overview of the progress made and recommendations required to further climate

change preparedness for the railway sector.

Current tools used by Network Rail range in complexity from those concerned with data

collection and trend analysis of asset failures (what is happening), to susceptibility

(where it might happen) and hazard modelling (when and where it might happen).

Network Rail has significant data holdings in terms of both data and expert knowledge.

This may allow improved understanding of asset vulnerability and may facilitate

prediction of when and where failures may occur. Initial short term benefits could be

found in applying nationally-available susceptibility maps to determine key vulnerable

areas. In combination with data on failures, investigations may lead to rapid

improvements in preparedness.

Network Rail has undertaken a degree of hazard modelling for those critical assets

where it is essential to understand how likely a failure is and when it may occur.

Significant experience is available. Hazard modelling could be progressed further,

particularly as greater quantities of real-time weather data are collected and available

for real-time prediction of asset condition.

This report compiles more than 200 vulnerabilities that may be imposed on Network Rail

assets due to climate change. Only a sub-set of these has been considered in detail by

Network Rail. To facilitate planning, the vulnerabilities have been prioritised. For each,

recommendations for appropriate tools and systems are provided both for operational

and strategic implementation. In order to progress with the assessment of these

vulnerabilities, engagement with Network Rail personnel is essential to ensure that the

prioritisation is reasonable and that system/ tool developers are fully aware of Network

Rail data holdings and expert knowledge.

4.18 Task 5B Geographic systems modelling,

consideration of metrics used in other tasks

At the request of the client, Task 5B was undertaken and reported as an integrated

exercise with Tasks 3D, 4C and 4D. The conclusions from the integrated report are

provided in Task 3D.

72


4.19 Task 5C Geographic systems modelling, suitability

of current and future tools or approaches - grouping

assets in relation to effects

Task 5C has reviewed a selection of in-use systems that are directly relevant to resolving

climate change impacts on the rail industry. It has also reviewed a selection of research

projects where systems approaches have been considered or developed and where

some form of spatial informatics have been indicated as relevant.

This review has identified that when resolving the use of GIS in climate change

adaptation, mitigation and resilience, the following elements are key, especially the first

point:

• Location and spatial coincidence/ connectedness of assets and events

• Timing and frequencies of incidents and natural phenomena

• Magnitude and scope of incidents

• Impact and consequences of events upon assets and resilience.

Location considers the exact location, topography, topology, connectivity,

interdependency and criticality (to connected assets) of something. Its spatial location

defines its relevance to different stakeholder groups and systems-of-systems (in

conjunction with is value). ORBIS and GEORINM will provide a consensus of ‘location’ for

multiple end users. Other spatial informatics tools (current or future) will be able to

leverage that agreed understanding.

What will vary is the way the various users visualise the ‘location’. Spatial informatics

allows users to recast data in numerous ways so that it is appropriate to the scope and

scale they need. A single source of knowledge served to multiple users from differing

spatial perspectives will allow better understanding of the performance of those

systems. It will also allow better sharing of knowledge across and between systems

levels.

However, users need to be aware that GIS computes and visualises ‘physical’

connectivities and places much more easily than ‘fuzzy’ concepts. This means that

systems need to be defined by their physical space where possible, and the ‘easy’

proximity /network path/ cost types of research should be progressed as a priority. All

forms of modelling depend on complete, current, clean data. Poorly resolved location

data will hamper spatial analysis. When considering location data, stakeholders needs to

consider information in three dimensions (GIS tends to be 2D focused).

All UK infrastructure authorities have or are conducting some form of climate change

adaptation assessment. As a result, the generic use of spatial informatics to identify

vulnerable systems should be well understood and accepted.

73


However, as indicated by the DfT Infrastructure resilience review (2014), industries may

not have mutually compatible minimum-service-level asset management plans, or levels

of climate change susceptibility or impact across the entire infrastructure sector. It

would be prudent for the rail industry to consider joint research and development

opportunities to harmonise understanding and identify mutually critical zones of

interaction with the water, power, communications and gas sectors.

The DfT review of transport resilience (2014) makes further specific recommendations

to improve ‘systems of system’ approaches. These are:

• Recommendations 7, 16 and 43 (neighbouring land responsibilities and contact

checklists)

• Recommendations 11, 12, 33, 41, 44, 45 and 51 (enhanced forecasting for weather

and flooding, and collective improvements to shared infrastructure such as drainage

management, vegetation management and power supply).

Ideally, third party land and activities should be assessed continually to identify

emerging vulnerabilities and classify them in terms of their potential for causing

impacts. Mapping of information such as changes in land use or supporting third party

infrastructure could be integrated into asset surveys, or led from techniques such as

earth observation (e.g. laser/ radar scanning, photo/ scene comparison). Better spatial

understanding of third party land and operations is critical at local and operational

systems levels.

Similarly the Task 5A review highlighted the expectation that critical assets should be

identified across the rail network and their key dependencies. Critical nodes and

connecting systems could be elicited from route asset managers by expert knowledge,

or some form of spatially enabled network analysis/metric (e.g. graph-theory). This was

demonstrated by recent ITRC research strands concerning GIS as a tool for modelling

and visualising failure modes (http://www.itrc.org.uk/real-time-coupled-networkfailure-modelling-and-visualisation/

and

http://leeds.gisruk.org/abstracts/GISRUK2015_submission_30.pdf).

Task 5A further recommended prioritising these critical assets in terms of their climate

resilience. It also recommended that they should become a focus for funding of

resilience research/ mitigation, preferably in conjunction with other infrastructure

providers (identification of nationally important infrastructure networks). The DfT

review of transport resilience (2014) similarly recommended that the UK infrastructure

sector identified single points of failure (recommendation 4), appropriate indicators of

asset condition (recommendation 25), critical networks comprising routes of national

economic significance (recommendation 5), contingency plans to cope with extreme

events (recommendation 10, 35 and 45) and participation in wider cross-sector forums

(recommendation 17).

The Weather Resilience and Climate Chance Adaptation (WRACCA) reports, published by

the Network Rail routes during October 2014, highlighted that the process of route-level

74


analysis was well underway. Designed to address some of the issues above, they offered

a ‘strategic’ systems level of understanding.

Further development of spatial understanding at this level will act as a good example of

how GIS can deliver informatics at operational systems level. This includes improved

granularity of issues and clearer integration of the report’s findings into a live or

interactive spatial dataset. With specific metrics to address weather and climate impacts

and incurred costs, the Baselines Capability and Extreme Weather Action Team (EWAT)

projects (see Appendix 3 of the Task 5C report) will roll out further integrated metrics

over the next 12 months.

These will show weather and environment hotspots and will be valid at operational to

socio-economic systems levels. This project will also establish a level of understanding to

assess resilience to certain weather inputs at route level. It is unclear how much

granularity of information will become available. Ideally all assets, particularly critical

ones, will have some ranking or designation to show their resilience to a range of

expected vulnerabilities.

4.20 Task 5D Geographic systems modelling, an

investigation into how GIS-based analyses are being

used and can form decision support tools

This task contributed to the assessment of GB rail system’s resilience to climate change

by demonstrating the relationships between the key scales and frequencies of natural or

anthropogenic hazard processes and the data available to assess it. This includes a

discussion about how physical dimensions of assets (and their environment) are

described by data, and the challenges and opportunities for comparing the hazard data

with asset data.

Task 5D has highlighted critical data issues. It has proposed areas where improvements

to data-resolution (or mitigation of limitations) may enhance the understanding of

processes that could affect the rail system’s resilience to climate change. It has

identified more areas where spatial analysis can be developed or implemented.

There will be some challenges concerning the understanding and identification of

thresholds for environmental data. These have been discussed at length in T1009 Phases

1 and 2. However, the scope and resolution of weather/ environmental data is a

significant factor in resolving susceptibilities of assets to potential environmental

impacts. In turn, the extent and resolution of data about assets are critical to

understanding their resilience.

In terms of data use, accuracy and purpose, the following issues should be considered:

• An appropriate resolution of data for the systems level of analysis could be defined

and aligned to industry practices/ hierarchy. The integrated metrics report and Task

75


5C outlined how spatial scope could be applied to the recursive levels. In practice this

would need some refinement for current rail industry stakeholders

• It would be advantageous if the rail industry considered some form of benefit analysis

of the granularity of available data relative to the wider data requirements of

vulnerable assets. This would involve defining the industry need and specification for

what is ‘best available resolution’ (granularity) and how they should be delivered for

specific data stakeholders. The options and timing for adopting higher/ lower

resolution data for specific asset groups, vulnerabilities, or for communication

between the recursive levels could then be clarified

• To communicate between the systems levels, data needs to be presented with

common terminology and a common understanding of location and relevance. This

terminology needs to be composed, agreed and distributed to all users. NR has

already demonstrated GIS based systems that enable multiple stakeholders to share

knowledge that is appropriately aggregated

• Temporal spatial data requires robust management as it is both a large data and GIS

issue. Sensor streams and dynamic data will need large storage capacity and high

processing power. Technically this data can be managed in many ways, but is the

demand for the data being led by one or more of the recursive levels? What are the

best ways to aggregate this data if trying to resend an overview?

• Scale/ resolution/ granularity of hazards needs to be matched to scale/ resolution/

granularity of assets. A full assessment of hazards and their impact scale needs to be

itemised. This can then lead to a programme of identifying methodologies to ensure

the best use of hazard data with the appropriate asset.

In terms of the system of systems approaches to the spatial analysis of vulnerabilities,

the strategic level of analysis needs to consider:

• Identifying the national or regional distributions of threats. It should consider a

national analysis as an overarching assessment of what is happening at route level. In

some cases, these have specific regional threats due to their landscape

• Carrying out a national screening of key threats as a starting point for operational

level analysis

• Utilising data at ELR and 5-chain length resolutions for some hazards in order to

determine network criticalities in particular routes

• Location accuracy issues when developing cost or susceptibility models that are site

specific (but set in a national context)

The operational level of analysis needs to consider:

• The workload and need for creating spatial data analysis. What are the priorities and

needs?

• Whether inventories of assets as individual objects or aggregated as collections (e.g. 5

chain lengths) best convey their vulnerability

76


• The availability of better information about individual asset vulnerabilities and extents

(footprints in 3D). Is this information available and if not how could it be acquired?

• The criticality of every asset for its role in the local/ route network should be

identified

• A database of the availability of hazard data and its limits should be created

• The regional susceptibility to spatially constrained threats (e.g. sinkholes) should be

analysed and fully described

• A methodology for taking national screening data forward should be developed

• How to summarise event data and model findings in a way that conveys vulnerability

in a consistent manner. Terms and glossary descriptors should be agreed, established

and put into universal use.

The local level of analysis needs to consider:

• How best to communicate location or place to the other systems levels. Again, a

glossary of universal terminology should be created and put into use

• How to summarise assets into collections/ proxies. This has already been done, but

are the current classifications the most relevant for assessing hazards, impacts and

future change?

• How to capture impacts from threats for future analysis (place/ time/ causal factors).

A future scenario model should be developed to ensure that multi-hazards are taken

into account

• The availability of better information about individual asset vulnerabilities and extents

(footprints in 3D). This information is critical to a robust vulnerability model

• Availability of better alternative hazard data and its limits. This is an ongoing task as

new developments and research are being introduced regularly

• Local circumstances that may influence whether to model or measure vulnerabilities

• How to communicate trends to the other (but dominantly operational) levels. What

are the priorities, what trends need to be highlighted, what are the most important

changes/ issues?

4.21 Task 5E Geographic systems modelling,

development of system requirements for GIS based

decision support tools

Task 5E has reviewed the data requirements for GIS-based decision support tools, with

particular focus on weather resilience and climate change. Any GIS decision support

system will need to support tools for a wide range of users across the GB rail industry.

This review considers the possible future data requirements for the Network Rail

Integrated Weather Information System and the options for utilising GIS data standards

77


and open data systems. The user scope for this assessment is broad and includes local/

specific (maintenance workforce, RAMs and REMs), operational (Network Rail, RAMS),

strategic (ORR, DfT) and socio-political (public, government) users.

Delivering capability through technology requires an integrated approach that

incorporates other factors. These include technical infrastructure (hardware and

software), process, standards and education throughout any organisation to fully realise

the benefits of spatially enabled WRCC decision support tools.

Early adoption of technologies should help the industry make a significant shift in

increasing resilience to climate change, aided by investments in staff competencies,

organisational structure and embedded processes and standards. This will drive a more

informed response to daily weather and climate change.

Data interoperability presents challenges and opportunities in delivering future weather

and environmental hazards assessment. Deployment of data technologies outside the

rail industry will make it necessary to adopt new techniques. Ingesting data from

multiple sources (interoperably) will form a core activity in future.

Dissemination of information across Network Rail IM assets is expected. Currently this

comprises a combination of desktop and mobile platform use, with stakeholders

engaging with data via textual and spatial interfaces. Integrated system(s) for delivering

the information via intranet and internet services are proposed. These are in line with

the current trend towards web service-provision of spatial informatics, as well as web

enabled visualisation and analysis tools.

The growth of data services is expected to continue and this has ongoing implications for

the costs behind how the rail industry sources its data. The use of open data formats is

recommended. This should help to stem rising costs associated with data ingestion,

translation and management.

The most significant expected change for rail industry stakeholders will be the need for

individuals’ user skills to develop in line with the changing nature of data services and

analytical opportunities. The user experience at the different systems-of-systems levels

is likely to require a degree of expertise not previously considered. The availability of

data relating to Network Rail assets will require users to make more expert judgement

based decisions. In turn, these require a clearer understanding of what the data is

capable of. We expect that as data availability and quality continues to increase, users

will generate the skills and confidence to query and analyse the data in a far more

proactive and interrogative manner. To enable this, the rail industry requires tools that

will offer a robust analytical platform as well as visualisation capabilities.

78


4.22 Task 5F Geographic systems modelling, Western

Route case study

Task 5F was undertaken and reported as a combined case study with Tasks 1E and 3E.

The conclusions from this case study are provided as the Task 1E Conclusions.

4.23 Task 6A Implementation Support, identification

of relevant policies

Task 6A provides an overview of relevant policies, standards, procedures and practices

of relevance to climate change and weather, and to railway system resilience, across the

rail industry in Great Britain.

Numerous relevant sources have been identified, including

• More than 100 Network Rail standards

• 14 Railway Group Standards (RGSs)

• 40 Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) standards and policy documents

• 35 Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs)

• 36 London Underground standards

• 38 CIRIA guidance publications

• 20 TRL publications

• 20 independent, government or industry reviews

• British and International Standards and other sources of information.

The following conclusions have been drawn from this study:

• The current process for developing, reviewing and updating organisational standards

(e.g. Network Rail standards), and common standards (e.g. RGSs) is complex.

Although transparency of the process exists, information regarding timescales for

updates and mechanisms to contribute to standards reviews is sometimes hard to

find

• Due to the sheer number of standards involved and the systemic nature of climate

change effects, it will be difficult to prioritise and co-ordinate a review of standards.

There is an aspiration to create International Railway Standards that allow for

interoperability. There is also a need to develop consistent standards with

organisations from other transport modes (e.g. Highways Agency) and even with

organisations from other sectors (e.g. National Grid)

• While they are useful and important exercises, more could be done to maximise the

impact and effectiveness of independent reviews such as the DfT Transport Resilience

Review to facilitate change in the rail industry. It should be ensured that

recommendations from previous reviews (such as Pitt Review of the Summer 2007

79


Floods) are carried forward and actioned, with updates published at set times

following periods of consultation. This study has highlighted how certain

recommendations can be taken forward through the T1009 programme (or

otherwise). These formed part of the Task 7 ‘Review of priorities’.

• As no single organisation can drive the required changes across all of the industry,

collaboration will be essential. We have given examples of how a collaborative crossmodal

and cross-sectorial approach, working with relevant government departments

and agencies, has been successful in creating common understanding of issues

associated with climate change impacts. The approach helped identify collaborative

solutions, creating agreed good practice guidance. Further study into mechanisms for

bringing about change through collaboration was taken forward in subsequent subtasks

of T1009 Phase 2 Task 6

• In future, standards will need to be performance-based, developed with passengers

or other transport users in mind, and enshrine a risk-based approach

• It is recommended that that the process for development and review of RGSs is

reviewed and that climate change adaptation is considered as a key criterion of the

Industry Standards Co-ordination Committee. This will help bring about this change. It

will also help overcome inertia during periods when there are no extreme weather

events to raise public, political and industrial consciousness (or if there’s a lack of one

particular natural hazard while there is an abundance of another). Schematic 7 in

Appendix 2 of the Task 6 report (which itself is provided as an appendix to this report)

is an initial attempt to present the way the process could be changed to encompass a

cyclical standards review that can transcend political and regulatory timescales. It also

shows how the process could inform and receive input from European and

International standards development

• A more complex issue is the sharing of knowledge and best practice across the rail

industry, and with other operators of critical national infrastructure. It is

recommended that that the knowledge compendium developed in T1009 Phase 1 is

widely disseminated. Groups such as the Infrastructure Operators Adaptation Forum,

Cabinet Office-led Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Industry Forum, the

CIRIA-led National Infrastructure Client Leadership Group, and the Infrastructure UK

(HM Treasury)-led Client Working Group should be used to raise the profile of the

sources of information identified in T1009. Knowledge sharing aligned with the

‘nested levels’ outlined in Schematic 3 of Appendix 2 could offer a mechanism to

overcome complexities in knowledge sharing

• For example, Network Rail embracing IEMA guidance on building the business case for

climate change adaptation alongside engagement through the Infrastructure and

Projects Authority (HM Treasury)-led Client Working Group could help develop a

better business case at the ‘strategic’ level in developing a submission to Control

Period 6. In parallel, engagement with the Cabinet Office-led Critical Infrastructure

Security and Resilience Industry Forum, the CIRIA-led National Infrastructure Client

80


Leadership Group and the Infrastructure Operators Adaptation Forum, could enable

better knowledge sharing at an ‘operational’ level.

• Local resilience forums (LRFs) and the development of more formal information

sharing agreements (ISAs) could then provide the mechanism for sharing knowledge

and best practice at a local level. The authors also recommended engaging with new

knowledge-sharing groups that are formed in this ‘space’, for example the Innovate

UK funded Knowledge Transfer Network and the Transport Systems Catapult.

However the preference should be towards engaging with groups and mechanisms

that have a proven sustainable model for continuity, such as CIRIA and professional

institutions. At the point where new railway standards are recommended or required,

this should be taken forward by the Industry Standards Co-ordination Committee as

noted above.

4.24 Task 6B Implementation Support, identification of

areas of benefit and Task 6C Implementation Support,

multi-agency working

The Task 6BC report summarises the findings of a study exploring the involvement of the

GB railway in multi-agency working, in scenarios of extreme weather events. It

represents the output of a stakeholder engagement process to determine current ways

of working (the ‘As Is’ scenario), and potential improvements (the ‘To Be’ vision).

Stakeholders contributing to the report represented a wide variety of organisations

within and beyond the rail industry including Network Rail, train operating companies,

the Environment Agency, Highways England, BT, and the Canal and River Trust, as well

as local authority representatives.

Stakeholders’ perspectives about the ‘As Is’ and ‘To Be’ of multi-agency working were

explored, including looking at how response to extreme weather events is planned,

executed, and evaluated. The report also looks at where greater alignment and

collaboration between the railway and other organisations could be beneficial when

coping with weather-related crises or issues.

Five main information themes emerged from the data analysis:

• Collaboration within the rail industry. Extreme weather responses by the rail

industry have been noted as being inconsistent across the UK. The lack of a cohesive

plan is considered to be a key challenge, with organisations within the rail industry

currently working in an isolated manner, as opposed to joining up and supporting one

another

• Collaboration across organisational boundaries. There is no transport-wide plan

across the UK in terms of responding to extreme weather. The railway tends to work

in isolation from other transport organisations. Snippets of best practice are evident

81


in Scotland, with some work being undertaken in England to move towards multiagency

working

• Evidence-based decision making. Extreme weather thresholds do not currently exist

at a national level within the railway industry, or in a multi-agency manner. There is

little trust in the accuracy of weather predictions, though relationships exist in the

weather forecasters’ contribution to EWAT telephone calls. (Note: Extreme weather

thresholds do exist at a national level within the rail industry; they form part of

Standard 7.1 'Managing the Weather' and are also part of the 'National Control

Instructions' (NCIs) which activate the Extreme Weather Action Team (EWAT)

procedure

• Lessons learned. A challenge exists around sharing learning from extreme weather

events internally within organisations, as well as both regionally and nationally.

Largely, learnings do not feed into future strategies to improve the resilience of the

railway, rather they relate to the response and recovery phase than any systematic

long term improvement.

• Public communications. There is a lack of consistency when it comes to

communication between agencies. This causes a risk of exposure for reputational

harm.

Each of these themes is explored in more detail in the full Task 6BC report and its

associated appendix.

Three specific examples of multi-agency practice were then evaluated using the

BS11000 Collaborative Business Relationships standard. A high-level implementation

plan was developed to explain how the rail industry might approach the implementation

of these practices. The examples explored, with an implementation plan developed,

were:

• Rail industry involvement in Local Resilience Forums/ Local Authority Response

planning

• Collaborative agreements for chainsaw resource sharing

• Encouraging inter-modal shift in times of extreme weather impact.

The conclusions drawn by this report show there is potential for much improved

collaboration between the rail industry and other organisations, sectors and

infrastructure owners/ maintainers.

4.25 Task 6D Implementation Support, Humber Region

case study

Task 6D involved a case study which focused on understanding and assessing

collaboration and lessons learned practices within the Humber Region. The study tested

and evaluated the Task 6B&C recommendations based on a regional case study and

reports on the value of these recommendations.

82


The basis of this study was formed by interviews with key stakeholders and desktop

analysis, which reviewed previous research and policies within this area. The interviews

tested the recommendations and sought to discover the current ‘as is’ state on how the

agencies respond operationally and collaboratively to extreme weather events. It also

sought their thoughts and opinions. The desktop analysis identified initiatives, policies,

lessons learned and best practices to support the recommendations provided in Task

6B&C and information provided from the interviews.

As the Task 6B&C analysis indicated, there is either a lack of collaboration within the

agencies or collaboration occurs on an ad-hoc basis. This could be attributed to data

confidentiality concerns, especially for the ports in the region. On the other hand, there

are a number of initiatives that encourage multi-agency collaboration within the

Humber Region (e.g. local resilience forums).

A similar pattern of results was seen for the ‘lessons learned’ practices. This showed that

lessons within the industry and across organisational boundaries are not shared

effectively and there are no formal mechanisms established to do that. On the other

hand, some of the recommendations from Task 6B&C can be applied in the industry by

using the existing channels (such as RSSB’s “SPARK” platform).

The policy analysis indicated that even though collaboration practices are encouraged,

these are done in a limited manner. They would benefit from establishing greater

collaboration practices before and after the extreme weather incidents and by being

extended to wider stakeholder audiences.

Thematic analysis indicated that greater collaboration is difficult to achieve in the light

of current challenges within the region e.g. conflicting demands, financial constraints,

research constraints and confidentiality of the data.

4.26 Task 7A Review of priorities, assimilation of

findings from other tasks

Task 7A provides an assimilation of findings from other Phase 2 tasks. Task 7A identified,

collated and categorised the research needs arising from Tasks 1 to 6, and from the

previous project T1009 Phase 1. These have been provided in an accompanying Excel

Workbook. There are no specific conclusions related to this particular task.

4.27 Task 7B Review of priorities, examination of best

practice methodologies

Task 7B gathered information on research methods from:

• Examples of research strategies, industry roadmaps etc. from different organisations

• Published papers and reports on methods of research prioritisation

83


• Consortium experience from: (a) the development of their own organisation’s

research strategy, (b) involvement in developing industry body research strategies

and (c) research projects which have involved prioritising research or different

options.

The review focused on methodologies used by rail and transport organisations, but also

included approaches used in other sectors if they illustrated a different approach which

could be relevant to rail. The benefits and disadvantages of different methodologies for

prioritising research were evaluated and the findings summarised in the report.

The findings from Task 7B suggest that in order to identify and prioritise research topics,

it is necessary to:

• Understand the research objectives and context of the research programme

• Decide on the scope and type of research to be supported

• Review existing knowledge and practice to identify research gaps

• Define the required attributes for research topics and prioritisation criteria

• Apply evaluation techniques to assess research topics

• Produce a list of priority research topics

• Plan how to take these forward

• Review and update priorities regularly.

The importance of understanding the reasons for research

When identifying research priorities, it is important to understand the reasons behind

the research and be clear on the objectives and type of research that will be funded. It is

also necessary to understand the context and external influences in which research

prioritisation is being carried out.

Some aspects to consider are:

Research benefits. What does the research programme hope to achieve and should the

research focus on attaining particular benefits? Take as an example addressing topics

related to the highest risks from climate change (most probable climate impact x largest

consequence in terms of economic costs and passenger disruption). This could make use

of the bow tie risk assessment methodology used by Network Rail and others to identify

actions to prepare and recover from weather-related hazards 2 . Also should it include

benefits that cannot easily be monetised or measured, such as keeping customers

informed of weather related delays?

2

The bowtie method is a risk evaluation method that can be used to analyse and demonstrate causal

relationships in high risk scenarios. The method takes its name from the shape of the diagram that is

created in the process, which looks like a bowtie. A bowtie diagram provides a visual summary of all

plausible accident scenarios that could exist around a certain hazard and by identifying control measures

the bowtie displays what is being done to control those scenarios. The bowtie diagram provides a simple,

visual explanation of a risk that would be much more difficult to explain otherwise

84


Degree of specification. This includes how detailed the research topics will be. Is it a

broad area of research suitable for a research call, or a specific research project for an

invitation to tender?

The level of ambition. Research programmes have different levels of ambition and

funders are willing to accept different levels of risk. The US Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) states that its research programme will focus on funding long

term, high-cost, high-risk research, as this type of research cannot be funded through

other programmes. The available budget and timeframe also influence the level of

ambition. A research programme may support novel research aimed at producing a

step-change which could be more costly and risky. Alternatively it could support projects

aimed at gradual improvement with a greater probability of success. The baseline

knowledge (completely new area or improving existing knowledge) also has to be

considered. Climate change adaptation is a relatively new area of research. This means

many research projects will not be able to build on existing knowledge, but will be

ground-breaking.

Topic area. Climate change adaptation is a broad area of research and it can be difficult

to set topic boundaries. For example, improvements to climate modelling are likely to

fall outside the scope of any future research programme. This is because the research is

not directly related to rail, although the results might inform actions within rail.

However, the modelling of the impacts of climate changes on different rail assets is

within scope. Research to improve the durability of materials to weathering may be

considered in scope by some, but not directly related to climate change by others. The

boundaries can be difficult to identify.

Implementation. Should future research programme support research that can be

implemented quickly, or longer term research that could require several years before

the benefits are realised? The HA research strategy states that it aims to balance short,

medium and long-term research and that 5 to 10% of the budget is used for longer term

research.

Timescale and budget. Is there a limit on project timescale and budget? Should there be

a mix of small and larger projects?

Techniques for identifying and prioritising research gaps

There are a range of different techniques and combination of techniques used to

identify and prioritise research gaps, each with benefits and disadvantages. The

techniques used will depend on the type of research programme. In the case of T1009 it

will need to be appropriate for an industry-led, cross-industry, interdisciplinary research

programme which seeks to address the needs of the British rail industry.

Techniques used to identify research gaps include:

• Visioning and back casting

• Stakeholder workshops

85


• Research calls requesting project ideas

• Industry need statements

• Systematic literature reviews and gap analysis

• Reviewing research roadmaps on related topics

• Futuring and scenario planning.

In T1009 Phase 2, research gaps were identified by:

• The project team as part of Tasks 1-6

• The overseas stakeholder questionnaire and interviews carried out in Task 2, which

include questions on research and information gaps

• Feedback from the T1009 Steering Group on the Task 7A report

• Stakeholder workshop held as part of Task 7D.

Phase 1 also identified some research gaps.

The stakeholder workshop incorporated some of the techniques identified in the review,

such as visioning and back casting.

All the research gaps identified have been collated in the Task 7A report, which forms an

appendix to this report.

Techniques for prioritising research topics include:

• Discussion of research ideas in a workshop with participants voting on priorities

• Devising a scoring system based on set criteria to rank topic areas, and requesting

selected assessors to rate research topics based on these

• An internet poll to enable individuals to vote on the top priorities

• Appointing an expert panel to discuss and come to a consensus on priorities.

The top ranking priorities could be discussed at a Steering Group meeting and a specific

number selected to be developed in to research projects or calls. It should be noted that

there will be external influences, especially for jointly funded projects, and that other

funders’ objectives may not totally align with those of the rail industry.

As an industry-led research programme, obtaining stakeholder input will be a vital part

of the identification and prioritisation of research topic. This is obtained through the

feedback of the T1009 Steering Group, where representatives of all the key stakeholders

are represented. It is also obtained through wider industry involvement, for example via

workshops, questionnaires and interviews.

This process has been initiated via Task 2 for the international stakeholders, by including

questions on research gaps in the questionnaire and interviews. It is also taking place

through the other tasks when consortium partners speak to stakeholders. The project

team members are also getting feedback through their activities as they speak to

industry, attend conferences etc. as part of their general activities in this area. The

86


perspectives and information they gain all helps to provide understanding of the

research gaps and needs which relate to weather resilience and climate change

adaptation. However, Task 7 will need to include more involvement by stakeholders.

The original proposal included a joint workshop with Task 8. This will need to be planned

carefully to optimise stakeholder input.

The NZ Transport Agency report (Gardiner, 2008) found that the majority of

stakeholders were often unable to identify knowledge gaps. Those that did highlighted

uncertainties in the future climate in terms of the nature, timing and scale of the

changes expected. This finding is reflected in the experience with the Task 2 survey and

interviews. In unguided requests for people to identify knowledge gaps, stakeholders

are either unable to suggest gaps or only identify them in general terms. Therefore Task

7C considered how best to elicit the experience and knowledge of the stakeholders in a

way which could be utilised in Task 7D. It was considered that wider industry input could

help shape the priorities and objectives of the research programme, and that the more

detailed knowledge of selected industry experts and researchers would be needed

identify more specific topic areas. This input was sought at a workshop in Task 7C.

4.28 Task 7C Review of priorities, development of a

prioritisation methodology

Within Task 7C, an approach was developed to prioritise climate change adaptation

research needs based on the findings of Task 7B and tailored for T1009. A multi-step

approach was developed, as shown:

Identify and collate future research needs. This was carried out by Task 7A. T1009

outputs were reviewed and interviews held with Task Leads to identify research

needs. These were collated and categorised in an Excel worksheet.

Consolidate and categorise by theme. In Task 7D, the research areas were

consolidated where overlaps or synergies between areas were identified. The list

was categorised by six themes:

i) Improving data quality and management

ii) Specific technology to improve resilience

iii) Better understanding of weather/ climate change impacts and their

consequences

iv) Warning and monitoring systems

v) Response and recovery

vi) Systems and interdependencies.

Division by type of knowledge generation activity. The list was divided by type of

knowledge generation activity. These are defined as:

87


vii) Fundamental research

viii) Proof of concept

ix) Development for implementation

x) Embedment/ spread/ enhancement of proven technology.

Identify/ review assessment criteria. Criteria for assessment have been

developed. Criteria have been proposed in this Task 7C report and were be

validated in Task 7D.

Stakeholder validation of future research needs and assessment criteria. A

stakeholder workshop was held to validate the identified research needs and

gather feedback on the proposed assessment criteria.

Assessment of potential benefits. An online survey was developed. Workshop

participants were invited to complete this after the workshop to score the

research activities using the assessment criteria.

Ranking and deliverability checking. The average scores were used to rank the

activities in each list. The top three from each list were be taken forward for a

deliverability check by the consortium and the RSSB Project Team.

The techniques used in this approach were:

• Visioning. Visioning is a top down approach used in an exercise at the start of the

workshop. It helps participants to identify objectives in terms of future resilience to

climate change. This is part of stakeholder validation

• Futuring. This is the use of divergent but plausible future scenarios to explore how

future changes could affect objectives. This technique is used in a workshop exercise

in combination with back casting, as part of stakeholder validation

• Back casting. This technique involves assessing the current situation and comparing it

with future objectives to identify the gaps. Workshop participants use this to identify

the research required to support their objectives, as part of stakeholder validation

• Rating and ranking research topics. The research topics were prioritised based on the

average scores. This is the assessment of potential benefits.

4.29 Task 7D Review of priorities, prioritisation of

recommendations

In Task 7D, the prioritisation methodology developed in Task 7C was implemented. This

involved consolidating research needs into potential projects, scoring projects based on

their respective benefits, and discussing the highest scoring projects at a stakeholder

workshop. The workshop attendees identified seven high priority areas:

• Economic modelling and investment strategy based on whole life asset value –

research that supports decision-making based on the wider benefits of assets and

88


long-term considerations, in addition to initial repair and delay costs. This is a

strategic topic, likely to involve multiple rail organisations and the Department of

Transport

• Development of system metrics - research which facilitates better measurement of

the impact that climate change has on the transport system as a whole. This is a

strategic topic likely to involve Network Rail and TOCs/FOCs

• Identification of coastal risks and evaluation of options – research to identify areas at

risk from coastal erosion, sea level rise and storm surge, and evaluate adaptation

options including re-routing. This is a strategic topic that is likely to involve

participation from Network Rail, Department for Transport, Environment Agency and

local authorities

• Improvements to data systems and how data is transformed into useable knowledge

– research to identify how existing data management systems and data sets used by

the industry could be improved to support climate change adaptation. Examples

could be new data sets, sharing data with other parts of the industry and carrying out

additional analysis. This is an operational topic which is likely to involve Network Rail

and TOCs/FOCs

• Slope stability including the influence of vegetation management – additional

research to support better management of slope stability, in particular increasing

understanding of the interactions of vegetation and other factors. This is an

operational topic, which could include participation from Network Rail, TOCs/FOCs

and adjacent landowners

• Pro-active maintenance strategies - predict and prevent – research to facilitate the

development of pro-active maintenance strategies, for example through the better

understanding of failure thresholds/ triggers, development of prediction models and

optimising the proportion of budgets spent on pro-active and reactive maintenance.

This is an operational topic, likely to involve Network Rail, TOCs/FOCs and ORR

• A holistic review of standards taking into account the railway as a whole system and

interdependencies with external organisations/factors – research which supports a

holistic approach to standards and operational issues such as managing extreme

weather events, taking into account interdependencies within and external to the rail

industry. This is an operational topic, likely to involve Network Rail, RSSB, TOCs/FOCs

and other sectors such as energy and road.

These areas were selected by the workshop attendees, but it was recognised that other

areas such as improving resilience to flooding and extreme heat are also valid and

important areas of knowledge needed. The areas listed above are strategic and

operational research areas which involve multiple organisations; individual organisations

will have additional specific/local priorities. In some cases the workshop participants

were aware of on-going work in these areas, but considered it important to build on or

89


expand this work. In developing a detailed case for support, it would be important to set

the proposed research in the context of current and previous initiatives.

4.30 Task 8A Funding Sources, review of funding

sources

Task 8A examines the potential funding sources for climate change adaptation research

in the rail industry. These have been described in terms of the type of research they

support and application process. Different organisations will fund work in different

technical areas and at different TRLs, recursive levels etc. Many of the funding sources

identified are already utilised for rail research and could be used to address issues

around climate change adaptation. Others are not traditional sources of funding for the

rail industry and may be useful, particularly for topics related to social impacts.

4.31 Task 8B Funding Sources, example funding

applications

Task 8B provides three generic proposals to access funding. These were developed

based on projects selected as priorities by stakeholders at the October 2015 workshop

and subsequently refined in discussions with the Project Team. These examples will

assist relevant organisations in developing proposals to secure support and resources

for carrying them out. They could also subsequently be used as a basis for developing

the documents for a tender competition.

The generic proposals are included in the appendix which accompanies this final report.

There are no specific conclusions arising from Task 8B.

90


5 Conclusions and recommendations

More specifically, the requirements for Phase 1 were to summarise the findings of the

review, collation, analysis and assessment of relevant knowledge undertaken during

Phase 1 to address the following:

• Provide an analysis of the utility and suitability of the reviewed data and information

for use by the GB rail industry

• Identify knowledge gaps across the GB rail industry and academia

• Identify further research and development needs including proposals for decision

support tools at various levels e.g. policy, route, fleet and local levels

• Provide proposals for further research and/ or development where research needs

are identified

• Prioritise this research.

Based on the work undertaken as part of the T1009 Phase 1, a summary, conclusions

and suggested priority recommendations for the GB rail industry to respond to are set

out in Sections 5.1 – 5.4 below.

These sections have been written based on the assumption that the reader is familiar

with the content of the tables in Section 4 of the Phase 1 final report.

5.1 How the UK climate and weather is projected to

change in the future

5.1.1 Summary and conclusions

T1009 Phase 1 has provided a summary of the projected changes in the UK climate,

based on the UKCP09 probabilistic climate change projections. This is presented in the

form of projected changes in the main climate variables (e.g. temperature and

precipitation) for the UK regions. It covers low, medium and high greenhouse gas

emissions scenarios, with projected changes generally quoted at the 10%, 50% and 90%

probability levels.

We have made reference to examples of previous work which have analysed return

periods for certain types of extreme weather. This type of analysis is essentially

complementary to the information provided by the UKCP09 probabilistic projections.

One of the most important aspects of understanding climate change is appreciating the

difference between weather and climate. ‘Weather’ describes the meteorological

conditions which we experience on a day-to-day basis. ‘Climate’ is generally used to

characterise the long-term averages, extremes and variations in weather. Since it is the

weather, rather than the climate, that we experience and perceive, it can be challenging

to understand how projected changes to the climate relate to weather events in the

91


short term. It can also be difficult to appreciate that apparently small projected changes

to the average climate can result in changes to weather extremes.

The division of information about the impacts of climate change and extreme weather

into the categories used for this report (whole system, sub-system and weather impact)

is for the purposes of clarity and ease of reading. It is also important to recognise that

there are interactions and linkages between many of the climate variables and therefore

such categories are necessarily somewhat artificial. In addition, the impacts on the GB

rail network may be linked to the rapid changes (sub-daily) in such variables rather than

simply high or low extreme values. This level of information is not available in the

UKCP09 probabilistic projections, and other methods must be used to explore these

particular sensitivities.

5.1.2 Priority recommendations

Some of the recommendations relating to better understanding of how the UK climate

and weather are projected to change in the future are naturally generic to the UK as a

whole. Therefore the authors do not suggest that addressing these recommendations

are priorities for the GB rail industry in isolation. Rather, we suggest that these are areas

of meteorological and climatological research and analysis which are in the national

interest in terms of contributing to a more resilient national system of critical

infrastructure. However, it is recommended that that the GB rail industry should work

with other critical infrastructure owners and operators. Working in partnership, they

should lobby, influence and request further collection, analysis and dissemination of

relevant weather or climate data and information.

Some recommendations are more specific to the impacts of extreme weather and

climate change for the GB rail industry, as opposed to other critical infrastructure or UK

plc more widely. There may be a case for the GB railway industry to address some of

these itself and these are set out in Section 4.2.

5.2 What the impacts of climate change and extreme

weather are projected to be for the GB railway

5.2.1 Summary and conclusions

This report has qualitatively stated the types of weather sensitivities evident in the GB

railway system, its sub-systems and related assets. It has also discussed the potential

ways in which climate change could affect the nature of the weather impacts

experienced.

There are a wide range of climate change and extreme weather-related impacts that

could potentially affect the GB railway as a whole system, or one or more of its subsystems

and related assets. Additionally the same impacts could potentially affect other

systems on which the railway depends. Where possible, and based upon the available

92


literature and information, these potential impacts have been summarised qualitatively

or quantitatively.

From the literature reviewed, and recent experiences of extreme weather events, the

most frequently identified and potentially significant impacts appear to be related to

high temperatures and high precipitation. These are projected to increase in frequency

and intensity. However some of the most significant impacts for the GB railway may also

be related to low precipitation, low temperatures, high winds and storm surges. Data for

these is less conclusive in terms of an increase or decrease in intensity or frequency.

5.2.2 Priority recommendations

As with some of the recommendations relating to better understanding of how the UK

climate and weather are projected to change in the future, some weather sensitivities

identified for the GB railway are also relevant to other aspects of the UK infrastructure

system. For example, those for electric and/or electronic railway assets are also relevant

for analogous assets of this type in other sectors. Therefore recommendations for the

GB railway will have benefits for the UK as a whole.

The authors therefore recommend undertaking further work in order to understand and

analyse return periods and threshold exceedance for selected critical or extreme

weather events. This needs to be done in particular locations and for specific assets

relevant to the GB rail industry. This will help to inform decision making and

prioritisation of resources to respond to extreme weather and climate change.

It is important to note that the impact of weather on a given sub-system or asset may be

related to other factors too. Therefore, as well as assessing present and future risks to

the railway from weather and climate change, it is recommended that further

assessment of the vulnerability of assets to weather is undertaken. This can be done by

analysing impact data from databases such as TRUST. Faults and failures related to

weather should be examined closely to determine whether they occurred purely due to

adverse or extreme weather or (for example) due to the condition of the sub-system or

asset which failed.

A further consideration is the potential for present day vulnerability to change in the

future. Indeed, it might be hoped that knowledge of such changes would be elicited as

weather/ impact relationships become better understood and mitigation strategies

evolve. The specification of, and adherence to, maintenance processes are essential

factors in minimising the vulnerability of assets to weather-related faults or failure.

Many studies of future impacts necessarily assume no change in the vulnerability of

assets and sub-systems into the future, as there is often little or no information available

about this. It would be useful to try to gain a better understanding of the effect of

particular mitigation strategies on future vulnerability of assets and sub-systems.

93


In summary, suggested priority recommendations for understanding the potential

impacts of projected climate change and extreme weather for the GB railway are as

follows:

• Undertake further relevant analysis to obtain a better statistical understanding of the

potential risks posed to the GB railway by extreme weather events projected to

increase in frequency and intensity. These are distinct from but related to changes in

average climatic conditions

• Put further measures in place for more effective collection, collation and integration

of information and data relevant to reducing the risks from extreme weather and

climate change between different stakeholders within the GB rail industry. This also

needs to be done between the rail industry and third parties such as the Environment

Agency and Local Resilience Forums

• Create a database which contains information about the condition and vulnerability

of sub-systems and assets which can be integrated with locations of ‘high weather

risk’ and linked to remote condition monitoring.

5.3 What is being done already by the GB railway

industry to respond and adapt to the potential impacts

of projected climate change and extreme weather

5.3.1 Summary and conclusions

It is clear that climate change is recognised by the GB rail industry. It features in the

Technical Strategy Leadership Group’s (TSLG) Rail Technical Strategy document

published in 2012 [585] and is reflected in Network Rail’s Technical Strategy document

published in 2013 [661]. It is also included in the updated Rail Sustainable Development

Principles (May 2016).

The T1009 project itself evidences the fact that the industry is aware of and responding

to the challenges of climate change. Further examples of this include previous RSSB

research projects such as T643 (Assessing the impact of climate change on transport

infrastructure) [180]. This led to improvement of the early warning system for storm

surges affecting train operations in the Dawlish area. Its effectiveness was demonstrated

during adverse weather conditions in February 2014.

Additionally, Network Rail used T925 (Adapting to extreme climate change) [221] to

form the fundamental input into its report to government for the statutory adaptation

report required by the Climate Change Act 2008 [063]. Notable Network Rail initiatives

include the work of its strategic Crisis Management Team following the events of recent

winters, the Weather Resilience and Climate Change Group and the development of

Route Resilience Plans by the devolved teams responsible for operational management

of the infrastructure.

94


T1009 Phase 2 comprises nine research tasks which are summarised in Table 12. Phase 2

has reviewed the recommendations from Phase 1 and highlighted those areas which

were not addressed within the scope of Phase 2.

Phase 2 Task

Table 12:

Summary of T1009 Phase 2 research tasks

How is the task addressing relevant recommendations and

actions from Phase 1?

Task 1

Economics of

climate

change

adaptation

Task 2

Overseas

comparison

study

Task 3

Metrics

evaluation

Task 4

System and

sub-system

modelling

Task 5

Geographically

based tools

Task 6

Benefits

realisation

• Defined the principles and objectives for the economic

consideration of climate change adaptation

• Established a framework for investment appraisal, decisionmaking

and operations

• Identified ways to assess the change in risk posed by climate

change, whether by monetising risks or by using other methods.

• Highlighted railway systems worldwide which are currently

operating within similar conditions to those projected for future GB

operations

• Produced a compendium of climate and weather resilience

measures which could benefit the design and operation of the GB

railway system in future decades (and possibly in the present)

• Identified opportunities and confirm beneficial knowledge-sharing

partnerships with overseas railways.

• Produced a compendium of metrics used in various railway

organisations and by stakeholders, both in the UK and overseas,

to manage the impacts of weather and climate change

• For the metrics identified, summarised their characteristics,

robustness and fitness for purpose within context

• Produced a guidance document for new or modified metrics that

can improve the effectiveness of investment decision-making and

the quality of resilience, research and development activities.

• Reviewed systems-based risk and vulnerability, and identify

appropriate assessment tools that are available and in use

• Provided a commentary on how different organisations assess

systemic vulnerability. Will also provide recommendations as to

how this can best be achieved for the railway

• Reviewed ways of characterising the railway as a system of

systems in relation to vulnerability to weather effects.

• Reviewed GIS-based risk and vulnerability, and identify

assessment tools that are available and in use

• Reviewed ways to characterise the railway as a system of

systems in relation to vulnerability to weather effects and

geographical features

• Outlined the system requirements for GIS-based decision support

tools to develop an in-depth understanding of current asset

systems for a range of users.

• Identified policies, standards, procedures and practices of

relevance to climate change and weather, and to system

resilience across the rail industry

• Identified areas of potential benefit throughout the project,

95


including the timescales of the benefits linked to specific policies,

standards, procedures and practices

• Outlined programmes of change for policies, standards,

procedures and practices tailored to individual beneficiaries and

identifying cost implications for those organisations.

Task 7

Review of

priorities

Task 8

Funding

sources

Task 9

Evaluation of

findings

• Assimilated findings from other tasks

• Developed a research prioritisation methodology for T1009

• Made recommendations for further research and development

priorities.

• Reviewed the different sources of research funding available in

the UK and Europe that might potentially provide funds for the

T1009 Programme

• Drafted relevant funding applications.

• Summarised findings and recommendations from T1009 Phases

1 and 2.

All the Phase 2 tasks have engaged with relevant stakeholders and identified additional

‘quick wins’ throughout the project programme. These are actions or solutions which

can be implemented in the short term (before the end of CP5 in 2019) with immediate

benefit to the GB rail industry.

5.3.2 Priority recommendations

It is recommended that that where relevant and feasible, the outputs from T1009 Phase

1 should be integrated into Phase 2. The GB rail industry should continue to prioritise

the understanding of adverse and extreme weather events and climate change impacts.

The industry needs to develop appropriate responses at strategic, design and

operational levels. Certain stakeholders within the industry, such as Network Rail and

TfL, can be considered good practice leaders in terms of developing strategic and

operational responses and further collaboration. Sharing best practice between Network

Rail, TfL and other stakeholders within the GB rail industry, as well as between the

industry and third parties, is to be encouraged.

It is also recommended that the findings and recommendations of the DfT Transport

Resilience Review (July 2014) [662] are considered in conjunction with the findings and

recommendations of this report.

96


5.4 What else can be done by the GB rail industry to

respond and adapt to the potential impacts of

projected climate change and extreme weather over

the short, medium and long term

5.4.1 Summary and conclusions

Section 3 of this report presents recommendations and opportunities for action to

address the impacts of each climate variable for each system and sub-system of the GB

railway. These recommendations are largely based on suggestions made by GB rail

industry stakeholders in the three workshops held in November 2013 and from the

outcomes of the literature review.

It should be remembered that the overall goal of this project is to help the rail industry

prepare for climate change and its effects on the railway in the longer term. It is

therefore outside the current scope for the project to react to changing priorities

brought about by recent extreme weather events. However, the opportunity to take

these priorities into account within the constraints of the current project has been

considered.

5.4.2 Phase 1 priority recommendations

In summary, suggested priority recommendations for understanding what else the GB

rail industry can do to respond and adapt to the potential impacts of projected climate

change and extreme weather over the short, medium and long term are as follows:

• Undertake a review of standards relevant to the consideration of weather and climate

change-related impacts and risks. Focus on reviewing standards relating to design and

strategic planning first, because of the need to ensure that new designs and strategies

are resilient. After that, review those relating to operations and management. Many

of these are updated on an ongoing basis following particular experiences of extreme

weather

• Carry out further analysis of the cost, performance and safety implications of different

weather and climate change-related risks for different assets in order to prioritise

action and investment

• Further research the options for what a weather and climate change resilient railway

system with multiple benefits would look, feel and work like.

It is worth highlighting that there are potential differences in attitudes to extreme

weather and climate change in different parts of the rail industry. For example, TOCs

focus on shorter term planning and operational resilience in line with the duration of

their franchise agreements. For infrastructure planners, the focus is on longer-term

design and engineering resilience. This could result in different degrees of perception of

97


climate change as an issue requiring action. For TOCs in particular, the possible advent

of longer franchises may go some way towards convergence of views on climate change.

Equally, the issue of climate change effects on TOCs may be under consideration by

ATOC on behalf of the TOCs as a whole group.

5.5 Task 1A – Economics of climate change

adaptation, review of information and data

In accordance with a ‘system of systems’ approach, it is recommended that

encouragement is given to the development of integrated solutions when considering

large-scale investments, such as major adaptation initiatives, on a cross-sector basis,

covering all modes of transport. This would account for the possible perturbation (and

resulting low or high demand) for rail services during times of extreme weather.

The main recommendation from the work undertaken in Task 1A is that the rail industry

considers adopting the Environment Agency’s approach to appraising investments that

offer increased climate change resilience. This approach uses the level of protection to

define the scheme being appraised. The appraisal itself is carried out on the basis of a

move from an existing system-wide level of protection of ‘1 in X years’ to a greater level

of protection of ‘1 in Y years‘ (e.g. by building a higher sea wall or having sturdier bridge

supports).

5.6 Task 1B Economics of climate change adaptation,

climate change emission scenarios

In Task 1B, recommendations are provided for each of the three ‘layers’ of uncertainty

which we have identified as being involved in the climate change resilience of the

railway,

The first, the uncertainty surrounding the choice of emissions scenario is relatively

simple to address. It is recommended that that appraisers use the high emissions

scenario from UKCP09, as used by Network Rail in its adaptation plans. This will address

the current ‘worst case’ scenario which is suitable for critical infrastructure.

A response to the second, the uncertainty about the impact of a specific emissions

scenario (and the projections within it) on weather events, will need to be developed by

experts including the Met Office. Transport agencies will need to meet regularly with the

Met Office and other stakeholders to determine the range of potential impacts on

individual routes.

The third, the uncertainty relating to the impact of weather events on the railway, will

need to be tackled through data collection and analysis as well as extensive stakeholder

engagement. The latter is of utmost importance due to the limitations of data in both

valuing all the potential impacts of weather events and assessing their relative

98


significance. It is recommended that the baseline process is heavily influenced and

guided by stakeholder consultation at all stages.

5.7 Task 1C Economics of climate change adaptation,

assessment of risk posed by climate change

Task 1C recommends that cost benefit analysis (CBA) with sensitivity analysis is adopted

as the preferred analysis approach for assessing climate change adaptation strategies

and options within the rail industry. CBA is already used by the rail industry and can be

augmented with additional techniques such as multi-criteria analysis (MCA) and Monte

Carlo analyses, as appraisal for climate change adaptation matures.

Appraisal techniques such as cost effectiveness analysis (CEA) and real options analysis

(ROA) may be effective for particular projects, but they do not have the broad

applicability of CBA. The effort employed on appraisals should also be proportionate to

the investment. More involved and costly techniques should be reserved for larger or

more strategically important schemes, where a more in-depth analysis is required.

The authors further recommend that the industry undertakes an economics-based case

study, focusing on potential strategic interventions to prevent a reoccurrence of the

recent damage to the Dawlish sea wall. This would aim to prevent a repeat of the

widespread disruption caused by events at Dawlish in 2014.

5.8 Task 1D Economics of climate change adaptation,

identification of ‘quick wins’

Task 1D identifies a number of ‘quick wins’ that have been identified as Phase 2 of the

T1009 work has been progressed. A ‘quick win’ is defined as a change which can be

implemented quickly, has immediate benefit and leads to a visible improvement for the

rail industry.

The authors make the following recommendations for ‘quick wins’:

5.8.1 Close data gaps by sharing data

Network Rail collects a vast amount of data throughout the network. There is likely to be

data which is used by certain parts of Network Rail that other teams within Network Rail

are not aware of or do not have access to. This data should be identified and used to

facilitate investment appraisal decisions across the sector. It should minimise the need

for investment in additional data gathering exercises as part of climate change

adaptation investment decisions. For instance, data on weather conditions that lead to

unreliability could be more widely shared.

99


5.8.2 Wider economic effects

Although significant enhancement decisions are often partially based on economic

appraisals, many of Network Rail’s investment decisions are based on minimising whole

life cost. The industry appraisal framework should incorporate an appraisal on the wider

benefits to the economy from any investment decision. This will help gain a more ‘true’

cost and benefit calculation, allowing for options that provide a higher level of resilience

over those that do not. Many climate change adaptation projects will lead to

improvements (or avoided costs) to other sectors within the economy. These should be

incorporated within the investment appraisal process – even if only on a qualitative

level. This means beginning with the conventional transport costs and benefits, and

eventually bringing in wider economic benefits.

5.8.3 Incorporate void days

As per the findings of Task 3, it is suggested that delay minutes should be supplemented

with another metric that can incorporate the number of days when the rail timetable is

not in use because of extraordinary circumstances (e.g. extreme weather events). These

‘void days’ don’t currently trigger Schedule 8 payments. The costs and effects of these

events should however be captured.

5.8.4 Consider whole system resilience when developing options for

intervention

Although the rail industry co-ordinates efforts on resilience with other transport

organisations such as the Highways England and local authorities, we suggest that

increased co-operation when developing resilience strategies could be beneficial. For

example, DEFRA plans are currently developed on a sector by sector basis (rail

developed independently of road). In addition, Weather Resilience and Climate Change

Adaptation (WRCCA) plans are developed by reference to the rail sector only, rather

than to the complete transport offering. As we highlighted in our work, it is the

resilience of the whole transport system that matters to users (a resilient rail system is

no use without resilient roads to access the stations etc).

5.8.5 Look forwards, not back

UKCP09 provides projections that would allow climate change and extreme weather

events to be incorporated into decision making on a forward looking basis. We

understand that this is now widely used in determining impacts over a long asset life,

but suggest that there may be benefits from an even wider use of the forward looking

UKCP09 projections. These would be used alongside a backward looking assessment on

past failure rates to develop a forecast for the future changes in those rates.

100


5.8.6 Data gathering

The specific weather and other circumstances leading to erosion of performance did not

appear to us to be universally recorded by Network Rail. A requirement to record these

would lead to a better understanding of how the assets perform, and therefore better

decision making on how performance might be improved.

5.9 Task 1E Economics of climate change adaptation,

Western Route case study

The following recommendations are made based on the case study work:

Dealing with uncertainty

• Combine hydrological models with an approach that can establish which assets will be

vulnerable to flood hazard, and can estimate the likely extent of the damage

• Update the underlying assumptions on hazard, vulnerability and risk to service by

formation of a risk chain, with a vulnerability metric such as journey availability.

Monitor the impacts of the assets on the vulnerability metric.

Extending the boundary of the analysis

• Use a full cost-benefit analysis that extends the nature of impacts addressed where

there is an anticipated high societal impact. Consider using a multi-modal model (and

a system of systems approach, including the impact on freight) for significant

resilience investments. It is also important to address problems and solutions over a

wide geographical area. Such appraisals, if carried out quickly, could feed into the

current work on Network Rail’s CP6 investment plan

Applying different measures

• Keep better records from previous events including damage to rail assets, and the

parameters of the weather and the associated weather event that has caused that

damage. Start clearly defining asset groups (track, power, communications,

structures, staff, rolling stock and others) in terms of their spatial extent (in three

dimensions) and connectivity, as well as vulnerability to specific hazards. This could be

done based on the T1009 Phase 1 information (Task 1B).

5.10 Task 2A Overseas weather and railways, temporal

and spatial characteristics of future climate, and Task

2B Overseas weather and railways, identification of

similar climates

Task 2A and Task 2B recommend that the following nine countries be considered as

potential overseas analogies for the UK rail system. In Europe: Austria, Belgium,

Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands, and outside Europe, Morocco

101


and Japan. Beyond these, Korea and Switzerland may be considered as partial analogies.

It is important to note that this recommendation does not imply that any appropriate

climatic analogy exists with any of these countries; this is a purely a railway systems

viewpoint.

Tasks 2A and 2B have concluded that the UK is currently considered at the forefront of

adaptation and resilience of infrastructure internationally. Major stakeholders such as

Network Rail and Transport for London have been active in this field for some time.

Therefore in taking forward overseas analogies, it is recommended that that the railsystems-approach

be emphasised. This may highlight operational procedures and

maintenance levels rather than ‘technical’ solutions alone but is likely to be more

applicable and effective in long-term adaptation.

5.11 Task 2C Overseas weather and railways,

compendium of resilience measures

Task 2C provides a compendium of climate and weather resilience measures that are of

potential benefit to the future operation of the GB railway system. The compendium has

been provided as an appendix to the Task 2C report. The following recommendations

are the top three ranked recommendations from Task 2C, based upon the

characterisation derived in Task 7A.

It is recommended that that the industry reviews and adapts technical standards for the

construction, maintenance and operation of transport networks (infrastructures and

equipment). This work could include determination of appropriate design and

operational thresholds for different weather variables and assets.

It is recommended that the industry should determine the effect of climate change on

the life of assets. This would identify where asset replacement cycles need to be

adapted, and/ or maintenance routines re-planned.

It is recommended that further work on climate and rain analogues is carried out when

new information and predictions become available. This will enable improved targeting

of future working conditions on a region by region basis.

5.12 Task 2D Overseas weather and railways,

opportunities for overseas partnerships

Task 2D has investigated opportunities for co-operation and the formation of knowledge

sharing partnerships. Stakeholder engagement was an important element. The

compendium of climate and weather resilience measures presented in Task 2C collated

measures from a range of countries, some of which draw together findings from

previous research projects.

102


Consequently caution is recommended regarding the mechanisms for engagement and

the messaging around these conversations. This will avoid any inadvertent implications

that all of the findings from T1009 are ‘new’.

5.13 Task 3A and Task B Metrics evaluation,

compendium of metrics

Tasks 3A and 3B resulted in a compendium of metrics, delivered in the form of an Excel

spreadsheet. The output from Tasks 3A and 3B has been presented as an appendix to

this report.

No recommendations arise from these tasks.

5.14 Task 3C Metrics evaluation, review of metrics

Task 3C has considered and categorised the metrics provided in Task 3A and Task 3B,

and provides a review of the key metrics which reflects the view of industry

stakeholders. The following recommendations are the top three ranked

recommendations from Task 3C, based on the characterisation derived in Task 7A.

It is recommended that that the Delay Attribution Board (DAB) reviews the Delay

Attribution Guide (DAG) to enhance the recording of weather conditions where weather

is considered an underlying factor in fault and incident codes. This will provide a

knowledge base towards the contribution of weather on causes of failures. It will enable

‘predict and prevent’ approaches in asset management.

It is recommended that that the ongoing development of the Network Rail asset

information system Offering Rail Better Information Systems (ORBIS) could investigate

linkage to fault/ incident information recorded in the TRUST database. Potentially, it

could also investigate linking to local weather information from weather stations or

external providers. This will add to the understanding of the relationship between

climate/ weather and asset life.

It is recommended that the industry should account for potential reductions in asset life

due to climate change when assessing whole-life maintenance and renewal plans/costs.

It is recommended that the industry develops mechanisms to share data within the

railway industry, with other transport modes and with other interdependent

infrastructure owners. This will help to develop a rich picture and will enable

identification of the interactions between systems and modes.

103


5.15 Task 3D Metrics evaluation, how metrics can be

used

At the request of the client, Task 3D was undertaken and reported as an integrated

exercise with Tasks 4C, 4D and 5B. The integrated report is based upon an embedded

systems perspective of the GB railway. This provides a useful framework and considers

the whole system at four levels (which were introduced in Task 4AB). The four levels

considered in the integrated report are:

• Local/ specific

• Operational

• Strategic

• Socio/ political

The four tasks which have been integrated were primarily focused upon metrics from

the perspectives of metrics evaluation (Task 3), systems modelling (Task 4) and

geographic systems, modelling (Task 5). Specifically the integrated tasks are:

• Task 3D – How metrics can be used

• Task 4C – Consideration of metrics used in other tasks

• Task 4D - Characterisation of the railway as a system of systems

• Task 5B – Consideration of the metrics used in other tasks.

A summary of the main recommendations provided in the integrated report is provided

below.

5.15.1 System based risk recommendations

It is recommended that that the industry develops an integrated systems model of the

GB Railway embracing the four levels of consideration. It should incorporate critical

operational data, measurement, geo-spatial and climate change risks. This would mean

that appropriate climate change adaptation strategies could be developed and tested

via computer simulation in response to emergent changes.

It is recommended that that the industry considers whether and how each level can be

more effective in creating conditions in which the next lower level can perform more

effectively.

It is recommended that that the industry considers ‘Journey Availability’ as the

performance requirement against which both short and long term adaptation (and

potentially operational activities) can be assessed as well as comparisons with other

journey solutions.

104


5.15.2 Local or specific level recommendations

It is recommended that that the industry combines accurate ‘place’ and ‘time’ data with

systems interaction data and captures of knowledge held by individuals to inform both

local and corporate decision making.

It is recommended that that the industry ensures that all modelling is undertaken at an

appropriate level of resolution for the challenge being addressed.

5.15.3 Operational level recommendations

It is recommended that that any future GIS system should consider the GB Railway as an

integrated system perspective at the higher levels and as infrastructure assets at the

lower level. The higher level should address climate change while the lower considers

extreme weather event impacts.

It is recommended that that the industry moves towards integrating data from asset

condition, faults, delays and weather conditions so that a systemic picture can be drawn

upon in decision making.

It is recommended that that the industry ensures that any metric framework has the

capability to express the failure risk at individual asset level in terms of prevailing

weather conditions.

5.15.4 Strategic level recommendations

It is recommended that that the industry explores ‘Journey Availability’ as the critical

measure of GB Railway performance in guiding adaptation and asset management.

It is recommended that that the industry focuses attention on the long term adaptation

requirement within infrastructure policy.

It is recommended that that the industry develops a framework for integrated risk to

address performance from individual asset level through route level to national level

and makes assessments against a range of future weather conditions to show likely

performance.

5.15.5 Socio political level recommendations

It is recommended that that the industry establishes with government clear

expectations for performance, adaptation, resilience and reliability on all sides by:

• Establishing at the socio-political level a clear purpose and performance standard for

GB Railway connected to a commensurate funding regime; or

• Developing at the strategic level, possibly through RSSB, a deliverable strategy for

adaptation. All stakeholders would need to subscribe and commit to this through

their business plans and performance regimes and incentives.

105


It is recommended that that the industry employs scenario based modelling techniques

to develop the most robust overall performance strategies under a range of different

assumptions about the future.

5.16 Metrics evaluation, piloting proposed metrics,

Western Route case study

Task 3E was undertaken and reported as a combined case study with Task 1E and Task

5F. The conclusions from this case study are provided as the Task 1E Conclusions.

5.17 Task 4A Systems modelling, review of systems

based risk and Task 4B Systems modelling,

commentary of different organisations

Task 4A and Task 4B provide a review of systems-based risk and vulnerabilities.

It is recommended that that the GB Railway should be aligned around ‘systems thinking’,

to challenge some of the established norms, standards, processes and practices. This will

allow the railway sector to understand best how to help the government formulate

policy which enables the railway to deliver.

This has the potential to:

• Realise substantial cost savings

• Realise substantial performance gains

• Increase system level resilience

• Enable adaptation to be designed into GB railway as ‘business as usual’ rather than as

a ‘bolt-on’ extra.

It is recommended that the industry considers whether and how each level in the

various organisations as found in Task 4 can be more effective in creating conditions in

which the next lower level can perform more effectively

An industry-wide knowledge-sharing mechanism should be introduced that will include

an easily accessed global and national ‘lessons learnt’ recording process.

5.18 Task 4C Metrics evaluation, consideration of

metrics used in other tasks, and Task 4D Metrics

evaluation, characterisation of the railway as a system

of systems

At the request of the client, Tasks 4C and 4D were undertaken and reported as an

integrated exercise with Task 3D and Task 5B. The recommendations from the

integrated report are provided in Task 3D.

106


5.19 Task 4E Task 4E Metrics evaluation, identification

of dependencies

Task 4E provides an understanding of the dependencies of railway assets and operations

on other external systems. It also provides a framework for further holistic railway

system and sub-system analysis on a large scale.

It is recommended that that the external electricity supplies that lead to key railway

facilities should be identified and investigated in collaboration with the electricity

providers. Although they are not owned by the railway infrastructure owner or

operation companies, the impact of their failure on railway operations is huge. This

means that the railway industry should have great interest in this issue. In addition, as

the electrically powered generators rely on the railway to transport coal and biomass

from ports to them, it is recommended that consideration be given to setting up a forum

between the rail and electricity (generation and supply) industries. This will cultivate a

better understanding of interdependencies between them. Such an understanding can

improve the resilience of each industry.

The authors also recommend that ground water should be regarded as a potential risk

to the railway infrastructure and railway operations. Changes in the ground water level

and movements may be subtle in a short period of time. However, if changes build up,

they can affect the stability of geotechnical structures and cause landslips. We suggest

that the ground water level and movements around key geotechnical structures should

be monitored. It should be noted that it would take a long time to repair or reconstruct

geotechnical structures once they fail, so the impact of a failure could be enormous.

More attention should be paid to this issue.

Access transport systems (e.g. road networks and public transport systems) are

important to ensure the railway system is appropriately staffed. Each operational

department (e.g. drivers and control centre) may have a contingency plan, but it is

recommended that there should also be a cross-department system. This would

consolidate contingency plans and come into action in the case of the minimum turn-out

in each department. For example, this would enable the creation of a contingency

timetable based on both the desired service frequency and the possible/ required rates

of attendance of key staff including drivers, station staff and signal controllers. This in

turn would provide a railway system more resilient to disruption caused by extreme

weather conditions.

5.20 Task 4F Metrics evaluation, Drax/Immingham

case study

Based on the knowledge obtained through the series of sub-tasks in Task 4, we make

some recommendations for further knowledge-building work in order to realise a

107


potential T1009 decision support tool. We suggest that further work should

quantitatively investigate:

• The interactions between the railway system and other external systems in which

flows in the system are complex and not managed by a single organisation (e.g. road

transport)

• How gradual changes in external systems would affect the railway in the long term. It

is also suggested that the railway and other infrastructure operators, such as utility

providers, should have data sharing agreements. This would help the railway industry

understand how external systems, such as the National Grid, would be affected by

climate change and how it would impact the railway.

The Task 4F and 5F case study has applied the approaches derived in Tasks 4 and 5.

Based on this, it is recommended that the areas needing longer-term knowledge

building include:

• Quantified information and evidence of interactions and/ or flows between systems,

especially for roads, ports, etc., which do not own flows on them

• How long-term gradual degradation or condition change (e.g. water leakage) would

affect the railway system (and vice versa).

These interactions would vary depending on the geographical area, so local level

investigations would be required.

5.21 Task 5A Geographic systems modelling, review of

GIS based risk and vulnerability identification and

assessment tools that are available and in use

Task 5A reviews the geographical information system-based (GIS-based) risk and

vulnerability identification and assessment tools that are available and used by Network

Rail and other industries to assess the impact of climate change on infrastructure assets.

The recommendations presented here are the top three ranked recommendations from

Task 5A, based on the characterisation derived in Task 7A.

It is recommended that that Network Rail adopts a GIS approach to link real time rail

temperature data to the Critical Rail Temperature Register, using forecasted

temperatures to provide alerts and warnings. This action will improve predictions of

potential rail buckling or cracking, enabling investigation and/ or remedial measures to

be carried out.

It is recommended that that a GIS approach is used to record third-party asset data

where such data may affect Network Rail’s assets.

The authors also recommend that Network Rail considers how to liaise with other asset

owners at local and strategic levels. These actions will provide a better understanding of

how Network Rail assets affect or can be impacted on by third-party assets. This

108


understanding will enable Network Rail to work together with other asset owners and

managers to improve resilience.

It is recommended that that Network Rail investigates the linking of asset data to its

emergency plans in a geographical information portal. This will provide a better

understanding of which assets are likely to be affected and what actions are likely to be

required.

5.22 Task 5B Geographic systems modelling,

consideration of metrics used in other tasks

At the request of the client, Task 5B was undertaken and reported as an integrated

exercise with Task 3D, Task 4C and Task 4D. The recommendations from the integrated

report are provided in Task 3D.

5.23 Task 5C Geographic systems modelling, suitability

of current and future tools or approaches - grouping

assets in relation to effects

5.23.1 Introduction

This section proposes short, medium and long-term goals for using GIS-based

vulnerability assessments to assess the rail industry’s main vulnerabilities at key

interfaces between the railway system and other externally managed systems. The

general ethos for deploying spatial informatics follows that recommended in Task 5A:

• Understand the location of the network assets (topography) and their relationship

with neighbouring networks/ assets (topology)

• Understand the asset function (what it does, how important it is in that role and as

part of the wider network) and its condition (condition indexing via a measure of its

performance) or analyse its failure (principal factors)

• Understand the potential environmental impacts (susceptibilities) by spatial/

temporal comparison with measured events or modelled environments

• Prioritise all assets for their network criticality against specific threats from their

environs to determine resilience

• Establish how to maintain or improve climate change resilience going forward

(consider forecast/ risk modelling).

5.23.2 Proposals for GIS-based Vulnerability Assessments

The following suggestions are derived from Task 5A report recommendations, the T1009

Phase 1 Task C gap analysis exercise, and the relevant general recommendations of the

DfT Transport Resilience Review. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of

109


suggestions, but a starting point around which stakeholders and researchers can

develop extensible avenues of research, development or integration of related ideas.

Each of the following is discussed further in Task 5C Appendix 4 (Section 9). This

provides: a summary of the potential research (listed below); the issues to be resolved;

the role of any current tools available; an overview of the recommended solution;

possible short, medium and long terms goals (and limitations) and the likely impact of

the research.

Potential research topics might include:

1. How groundwater mapping can be used to assess infrastructure vulnerability to

seepage in cuttings and tunnels

2. Strain cycling effects on earthworks slope stability

3. Thresholds for serviceability fluctuations of engineered earthworks

(embankments)

4. Spatial distribution of temporal changes in the stability of the shallowsubsurface

in affecting infrastructure corridors

5. Evaluating the potential synergies of multiple hazards affecting transport

infrastructure assets

6. Forecasting coastal flood risk vulnerability

7. Forecasting river flood risk vulnerability

8. Frost ‘heave’ and freeze-thaw impacts

9. Soil depth as a contributing factor to vegetation incursion and soil moisture

deficit

10. Terrain domains as a mechanism for identifying water and wind effects.

Potential development topics might include:

1. Natural slope failure assessment

2. Assessment of third party land for potential vulnerabilities

3. Identifying sites at risk from complex landslides and constructing appropriate

ground models

4. Sensors for ground movement

5. Rock fall modelling for railway corridors

6. Ground movement due to shrink-swell clays

7. Prediction of coastal vulnerability

8. Impact of geogenic sulphate-sulphide on concrete infrastructure

9. Impact of ground conditions on the potential for corrosion of ferrous assets

110


10. Network Rail flood risk map

11. Network inventory of critical systems intersections (where third party

infrastructures coincide/ interact with rail network assets)

12. Ground movement due to Karst (groundwater-induced)

13. Ground movement due to reactivated mining (groundwater-induced)

14. Big data, real time data and open source data feeds delays and weather feeds.

5.23.3 Recommendations for GIS Applications

Deployment of GIS to resolve asset management and environmental impacts is well

underway within Network Rail. This is evident from the Task 5A review and the recent

roll out of systems and projects such as ORBIS, METEX, the Baseline Capabilities Project

and most recently the Network Rail Weather Services. As the roll-out of systems is

already happening, and data specifications have already been established, many aspects

of platform, interoperability, basic functions and user scope have already been

addressed. It is perhaps appropriate that T1009 focuses on specific environmental

issues, specific environmental data interoperability requirements and research trends/

practices that are not already integrated into current GIS roll-out.

Quick wins were identified in Task 5A and are updated as follows:

Visualisation: Simple online ‘view services’ such as web mapping services and web

feature services (WMS/WFS) showing spatial distribution of known threats (or

susceptibility/ hazard models) relative to small scale (overview) mapping of the rail

network. This would be relevant to local and operation systems levels, and delivered

by ORBIS/GEORINM/METEX via open geospatial consortium (OGC) web standard

compliant standard WMS/WFS capabilities from source parties (e.g. Environment

Agency, British Geological Survey). The use of mobile services from data providers is

now commonplace, and aligns with the roll-out of mobile devices to frontline rail

industry staff.

Hotspot modelling: Simple ‘proximity’ assessment of critical assets to observed

hazards, or susceptibility/ hazard models. (This means that each asset is identified as

being within x of a known threat/ forecast). METEX and other asset-specific analyses

are developing these capabilities. The ability to visualise the outputs at varying scope/

resolution by the four system levels needs to be clarified. Use of clear source-pathreceptor

models may clarify the specific vulnerabilities of key asset groups.

Threshold rating: comparison of rail industry fault data with known threats (and

susceptibility/ hazard models). This will establish whether key or common faults can

identify a spatial/ temporal correlation with known environment conditions.

(Corporate knowledge of sites/ sequences that regularly require intervention and can

be mitigated by automated notifications of exceedance). T1009 Phase 1 Task 1B has

undertaken significant research work on this. Deployment of findings from this

111


esearch is only relevant to certain systems levels, and needs to be appropriately

leveraged. Threshold analysis requires a stricter degree of visibility and a clearer

visualisation of uncertainty. This means users must take responsibility to ensure they

fully understand the meaning of the information and their resultant behaviours.

Monitoring: monitoring key environmental metrics for highest value/ critical network

assets is clearly already in hand via several systems. Again, the degree of

interoperability required of the systems depends on the need to share the live data

with the different recursive levels described in Task4. Using real-time data is known to

have specific resource demands for systems. Its use should be targeted to high-value

and high-criticality parts of the network.

5.24 Task 5D Geographic systems modelling, an

investigation into how GIS-based analyses are being

used and can form decision support tools

Task 5D aims to contribute to the assessment of GB rail network’s resilience to climate

change. It will demonstrate the relationships between the key scales and frequencies of

natural or anthropogenic hazard processes and the data available to describe them.

A range of exemplars are provided including high temperatures, an example of a

spatially extensive, complex and short frequency hazard; sink-hole formation, an

example of a spatially confined, complex and temporally unpredictable hazard; coastal

inundation, an example of a spatially confined, complex and short-medium frequency

hazard; and soil moisture deficit, an example of a spatially extensive, locally complex

and long frequency hazard.

It is recommended that the industry considers the resolution of key datasets in terms of

their cost benefit to each of the recursive system levels. This will help define appropriate

levels of use and wider awareness of any data limitation or uncertainty. This will

facilitate communication of the issues between the recursive systems levels by using

data and analyses at appropriate resolution and scope.

The authors further recommend that the best available data (for assets and hazards) is

used for local analyses, to ensure parity in data scales. Mismatches can arise, for

example, from the differences between the spatial resolution of the hazard and the data

used to assess it, or the differences between the data and asset resolution. The user

should be made aware of these limitations and potential inaccuracies in order to

accurately calculate the hazard, vulnerability and risk.

112


5.25 Task 5E Geographic systems modelling,

development of system requirements for GIS based

decision support tools

Task 5E has reviewed data requirements for GIS-based Weather Resilience and Climate

Change (WRCC) decision support tools that satisfy the needs of a range of users. The full

task reports can be found in the appendices to this report.

Requirements are proposed for decision support tools covering:

• Data interoperability

• The use of data visualisation tools.

• Data provision across multiple platforms

• Approaches to data provision in multiple formats

• Security of data access and sharing

There are no specific recommendations for further research arising from this task.

5.26 Task 5F Geographic systems modelling, Western

Route case study

Task 5F was undertaken and reported as a combined case study with Task 1E and Task

3E. The conclusions from this case study are provided as the Task 1E Conclusions.

5.27 Task 6A Implementation Support, identification

of relevant policies

Task 6A provides an overview of relevant policies, standards, procedures and practices

of relevance to climate change and weather, and to railway system resilience, across the

rail industry in Great Britain. The following recommendations are the top three ranked

recommendations from Task 6A, based upon the characterisation derived in Task 7A.

It is recommended that that the GB Railway industry determines mechanisms to work

collaboratively across sectors and disciplines to have consistent, performance-based

infrastructure standards. This action will enable a ‘system of systems’ approach to

resilience to be adopted, with rail as one of the systems with critical infrastructure. It

will enable more consistent and streamlined standards and sharing of good practice

within and across different sectors.

It is recommended that that the GB railway engages with Local Enterprise Partnerships

(LEPs). The industry should encourage LEPs to consider the need for funding to ensure

the resilience of the existing transport network, which supports businesses in their

areas. This action could provide an alternative source of capital funding for railway

resilience investment.

113


It is recommended that the GB railway investigates the time horizons for change and the

associated decision points for the review or updating of standards, policies and

procedures. Developing guidance on these time horizons will help reduce the

complexity and difficulty for organisations to take the long-term view that is required for

climate change adaptation.

5.28 Task 6B Implementation Support, identification of

areas of benefit and Task 6C Implementation Support,

multi-agency working

Task 6BC explored the involvement of the GB railway in multi-agency working, using

scenarios based upon extreme weather events. The work was conducted using a

stakeholder engagement process to determine current ways of working (the ‘As Is’

scenario), and potential improvements (the ‘To Be’ vision).

The conclusions drawn by this task show that collaboration between the rail industry

and other organisations, sectors and infrastructure owners/ maintainers is minimal. In

order to respond more effectively to the likely increasing frequency of extreme weather

events across the UK, the rail industry should develop stronger links, at a variety of

levels, with other sectors. In this regard, it should replicate the best practice that is

found in Scotland.

In exploring each of the above subjects with stakeholders, various ideas for

improvements emerged. When combined with the T1009 team’s desktop analysis of

existing information on the subject, this led to the following recommendations:

• Collaboration within the rail industry

• Develop a cohesive national strategy and operational response plan

• Network Rail to continue to lead the EWAT process

• Acquire a national EWAT information system.

• Collaboration across organisational boundaries

• Encourage inter-modal shift

• Establish multi-agency weather strategic and operational planning

• Reinforce multi-agency communication processes.

• Public communications

• Introduce unified multi-agency communications system

• Adopt decision-making criteria about line closure which takes into account

customer preference

• Strengthen communications plan.

114


• Lessons learned

• Establish industry-wide knowledge-sharing mechanisms

• Establish national lessons learned process

• Share global learnings.

• Evidence-based decision making

• Define the extreme weather threshold

• Identify a single weather forecasting agency to be utilised at a national rail

industry level.

Three specific examples of multi-agency practice were then evaluated using the

BS11000 Collaborative Business Relationships standard. A high-level implementation

plan for the rail industry was developed to explain how the industry might approach the

implementation of these practices. The details of this plan are included in the main Task

6BC report, which forms an appendix to the T1009 Final Report.

5.29 Task 6D Implementation Support, Humber Region

case study

Task 6D tested and evaluated the recommendations from Task 6B&C, based on a

regional case study and reports the value of these recommendations.

Conclusions from Task 6D are included in this report, but there are no specific

recommendations from this element of the T1009 programme.

5.30 Task 7A Review of priorities, assimilation of

findings from other tasks

Task 7A provides an assimilation of findings from other Phase 2 tasks. Task 7A identified,

collated and categorised the research needs arising from Tasks 1 to 6, and from the

previous project T1009 Phase 1. These are provided in an accompanying Excel

workbook. There are no specific recommendations related solely to Task 7A.

5.31 Task 7B Review of priorities, examination of best

practice methodologies

Task 7B presented a review of different methodologies used to prioritise research

topics, based on data from a range of industries where research is regularly undertaken.

The review consisted of:

• Identifying the methodologies used by organisations in the rail sector and in other

sectors in the UK and internationally to identify and prioritise future research needs

• Assessing literature which evaluates different methods of identifying and prioritising

research needs

115


• Input from the project consortium on their experience of different methodologies.

The results of the review are provided in Appendix DD. Task 7B provides some initial

recommendations from Task 7.

It is recommended that that the T1009 Client Project Team produces a published

research strategy, setting out its objectives and priority areas for the industry and

researchers to refer to. This would help facilitate a strategic approach to the next phase

of adaptation research, as the scope expands and builds on the foundation projects. A

strategy would add coherence as separate research projects are commissioned instead

of one large multi-task project. It would also help with dissemination.

The authors also recommend identifying synergies with other research programmes and

initiatives. For example The RSSB Innovation Programme is about enabling innovation

and improving the rail industry as described in the Rail Technical Strategy (RTS).

Adaptation requires doing something different. Improving resilience is part of the RTS,

so links with the RSSB Innovation Programme could be useful.

5.32 Task 7C Review of priorities, development of a

prioritisation methodology

In Task 7C, a research prioritisation methodology was developed that incorporates some

of the most useful techniques identified in Task 7B, tailored specifically for T1009. It

reflects the industry-led nature of the research, the topic area and the whole systems

theme that has run throughout T1009 Phase 2. It has been designed so it can be

completed within the timeframe of T1009 Phase 2, and can be repeated periodically.

There are no specific recommendations from this task.

5.33 Task 7D Review of priorities, prioritisation of

recommendations

Task 7 identified a large number of diverse research needs arising from T1009. A

methodology was developed to prioritise these research needs based on a literature

review and evaluation of approaches used by different organisations. After revision to

incorporate feedback from the client project team and stakeholders, this methodology

was applied to the T1009 research needs and a number of priority areas for future

research were identified.

All the research needs collated in Task 7 are valid and have potential benefits to the

industry. It is recommended that that they are taken forward according to the priority

level assigned to them as a result of this process. Those that the Steering Group agreed

were the highest priority should be actively pursued, for example by developing

business cases for funding. Those that are in the second tier of priority should be

explored further, for example by regularly reviewing calls from potential funders.

116


Opportunities for lower priority research areas should be taken as they arise. Potential

actions for each priority level are provided in the sub-sections below.

In order for the benefits of this work to be realised once T1009 has come to an end, the

list of research needs should be considered a live document or tool. The list needs to be

regularly reviewed as priorities and technology change over time and a reassessment

could move priority areas up and down the list. It is recommended that that someone is

assigned responsibility for the list, overseeing regular reviews and ensuring it is

consulted when appropriate funding opportunities arise. We suggest that the T1009

Steering Group meets regularly e.g. every six months (perhaps with researchers) after

the end of the project to review the priority projects and any opportunities to pursue

them.

5.33.1 High priority projects – pursue actively

The following seven projects were identified as high priority as a result of the

prioritisation process described. It is recommended that that funding for these is actively

pursued:

• Economic modelling and investment strategy on whole life asset value (CP8) -

research that supports decision-making based on the wider benefits of assets and

long-term considerations, rather than solely initial repair and delay costs. This is a

strategic topic, likely to involve multiple rail organisations and the Department of

Transport.

• System metrics - research that facilitates better measurement of the impacts climate

change has on the transport system as a whole. This is a strategic topic likely to

involve Network Rail and TOCs/FOCs

• Coastal risks – research to identify areas at risk from coastal erosion, sea level rise and

storm surge, and evaluate adaptation options including re-routing. This is a strategic

topic that is likely to involve participation from Network Rail, Department for

Transport, Environment Agency and local authorities.

• Improvements to data systems and how data is transformed into useable knowledge

(520) – research to identify how existing data management systems and data sets

used by the industry could be improved to support climate change adaptation. For

example this could be done by including new data sets, sharing data with other parts

of the industry and carrying out additional analysis. This is an operational topic which

is likely to involve Network Rail and TOCs/ FOCs.

• Slope stability including the influence of vegetation management (37, 222 and 527) -

additional research to support better management of slope stability, in particular

increasing understanding of the interactions of vegetation and other factors. This is an

operational topic, which could include participation from Network Rail, TOCs/ FOCs

and adjacent landowners.

117


• Pro-active maintenance strategies - predict and prevent (CP10) – research to support

the development of pro-active maintenance strategies, for example through the

better understanding of failure thresholds/ triggers, development of prediction

models and optimising the proportion of budgets spent on pro-active and reactive

maintenance. This is an operation topic, likely to involve Network Rail, TOCs/ FOCs

and ORR.

• Holistic review of standards taking into account the railway as a whole system and

interdependencies with external organisations/factors (CP4) – research which

supports a holistic approach to standards and operational issues such as managing

extreme weather events, taking into account interdependencies within and external

to the rail industry. This is an operational topic, likely to involve Network Rail, RSSB,

TOCs/ FOCs and other sectors such as energy and road.

Examples of actions that could be taken to develop projects in these areas include:

• Developing business cases for them in order to support funding applications

• Influencing research programmes such as those run by Research Councils to include

these topics in their calls

• Lobbying through Shift2Rail or more generally via EC National Contacts Points for

European projects in these areas

• Identifying researchers active in these areas and developing partnerships which can

work together to explore funding sources for collaborative projects (e.g. expanding

the NR research partnership programme) so there is a collaborative partnership

rather than ad hoc projects. This could build on the relationships established through

T1009.

• Publish industry need statements and work together with interested researchers to

find potential funding sources

• Carry out an initial scoping/feasibility study before seeking external funding to carry

out the main research.

5.33.2 Other priority areas – exploit opportunities that arise

The operational group identified potential actions for other areas in the first stage of

prioritisation and the first 10 in the strategic group’s prioritised list. These are:

• Reviewing the list of topic areas when funding programmes e.g. Horizon 2020 are

published to see if any would be relevant

• Encourage research partners to apply for funding in these areas and offer support if

they do so

• Discuss with other organisations to identify common topics of interest and potential

joint funding or collaboration.

118


5.33.3 Remaining projects - monitor opportunities

It is recommended that opportunities for pursuing the remaining projects are

monitored. Example actions could include:

• Providing letters of support if requested by researchers for projects in this area.

• Identifying any opportunities to incorporate further T1009 research in existing

research programmes or planned projects.

5.34 Task 8A Funding Sources, review of funding

sources

Task 8A has identified potential funding sources for climate change adaptation research.

It is recommended that that the rail industry could consider exploring some of the less

traditional sources of funding for adaptation research. It could also influence national

and European funding sources to tailor outputs towards the needs of the railway

industry.

It is recommended that that the industry supports adaptation research by working more

closely with researchers. It could, for example, provide letters of support, sit on steering

groups and provide data. This would help take advantage of opportunities to exploit the

latest thinking in this fast changing area of work.

5.35 Task 8B Funding Sources, example funding

applications

Task 8B provides three generic proposals to access funding which were developed based

on projects selected as priorities by stakeholders at the October 2015 workshop. They

were subsequently refined in discussions with the Project Team. These examples will

assist relevant organisations in developing proposals to secure support and resources

for carrying them out. They could also subsequently be used as a basis for developing

the documents for a tender competition.

The generic proposals are included in the appendix which accompanies this final report.

There are no specific recommendations arising from Task 8B.

119


6 Glossary, abbreviations and acronyms

365WM

A/C

ACCAT

Adaptation

Adaptation to

climate change

Adaptation to

climate variability

Adaptation

measures

365 Weather Management series of documents

Air conditioning

Adhesion Controllers Conditions Assessment Tool

Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or

expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or

exploits beneficial opportunities (UKCIP, 2009))

Actions to reduce the vulnerability of a system to the negative

impacts of anticipated human-induced climate change (UKCIP,

2009)

Involves taking action to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather

events or short-term climate ‘shocks’. Often, adaptation to climate

variability will also result in adaptation to climate change. The

objective of adaptation is to reduce vulnerability to climate change

and variability, and enhance the capability to capture any benefits

of climate change (UKCIP, 2009).

Refer to actual adjustments, or changes in decision environments,

which might enhance resilience or reduce vulnerability to observed

or expected changes in climate (UKCIP, 2009).

ADAS

Agricultural Development Advisory Service (now simply known as

ADAS)

Anthropogenic Caused by human activity. Anthropogenic climate change refers to

the changes caused by increased greenhouse gas emissions (UKCIP,

2009).

AR5 IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014)

AR4 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007)

ARRC

ARCCN

ATOC

ATP

AWS

baseline

BCR

BGS

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council funded

Adaptation and Resilience in a Changing Climate

Adaptation and Resilience in a Context of Change Network

Association of Train Operating Companies

Automatic Train Protection

Automatic Warning System

The baseline (or reference) period defines the climatology against

which future changes are projected (UKCIP, 2009).

Benefit cost ratio

British Geographical Survey

120


BIM

BRE

BREEAM

C&WR

CARRS

CaSL

CBA

CEA

CCA

CCRA

CCS (TSI

definition)

CIBSE

CIRIA

CIWEM

Climate

Climate change

Climate

projection

Building Information Model

Building Research Establishment (now simply known as BRE)

BRE Environmental Assessment Method

Network Rail’s Climate and Weather Resilience team

Civil Asset Register and Reporting System

Cancellations and significant lateness

Cost benefit analysis

Cost effectiveness analysis

Civil Contingencies Act

UK Climate Change Risk Assessment

Control, Command and Signalling: refers to all sub-systems of the

GB railway system related to control, command and signalling.

The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

Construction Industry Research and Information Association (now

simply known as CIRIA)

Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

Typically defined as the average weather in a given location (or

more rigorously a statistical description of the average in terms of

the mean and variability) over a relatively long period of time,

usually 30 years. The quantities used to define climate are most

often variables such as temperature and precipitation. Climate in a

wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the

climate system (UKCIP, 2009 and IPCC AR5 WGII, 2014).

Refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified

by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and

that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.

There is a distinction between climate change attributable to

human activities which alter the atmospheric composition, and

climate variability attributable to natural causes such as solar cycles

and volcanic eruptions (IPCC AR5 WGII, 2014).

A climate projection is the simulated response of the climate

system to a scenario of future emission or concentration of

greenhouse gases and aerosols, generally derived using climate

models. Climate projections are distinguished from climate

predictions by their dependence on the

emission/concentration/radiative-forcing scenario used, which is in

turn based on assumptions concerning, for example, future

socioeconomic and technological developments that may or may

not be realized (IPCC AR5).

121


Climate variability

Climate change

impact

Climate change

risk

CoR

Refers to variations in the mean state and other statistics (such as

standard deviations and the occurrence of extremes) of the climate

on all spatial and temporal scales beyond that of individual weather

events. Variability may be due to natural internal processes within

the climate system (internal variability), or to variations in natural

or anthropogenic external forcing (external variability) (IPCC AR5

WGII, 2014).

A specific change in a system caused by its exposure to climate

change. Impacts may be harmful (threat) or beneficial (opportunity)

(UKCIP, 2009).

An additional risk to assets (such as buildings and infrastructure)

and activities from potential climate change impacts (UKCIP, 2009).

Compendium of Research

CP

Network Rail Control Period

CP4 Network Rail Control Period 4 (2009-2014)

CP5 Network Rail Control Period 5 (2014-2019)

CRT

Critical rail temperature

CSIC

Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction

CWR

Continuously welded rail

DAB

Delay Attribution Board

DB

Deutsche Bahn

DCLG

Department for Communities and Local Government

DEA

DECC

DEFRA

DfT

E&P

EA

ECML

EIM

Emissions

scenario

ENA

Date envelopment analysis

Department for Energy and Climate Change

Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Department for Transport

Electrification and power / plant

Environment Agency

East Coast Main Line

European Rail Infrastructure Managers

A plausible representation of the future development of emissions

of substances that are potentially radiatively active (e.g.,

greenhouse gases, aerosols) based on a coherent and internally

consistent set of assumptions about driving forces (such as

demographic and socioeconomic development, technological

change) and their key relationships. (IPCC AR5)

Energy Networks Association

122


ENE (TSI

definition)

EPBD

EPSRC

ERA

ERTMS

ESR

EWAT

EWENT

Extreme weather

event

FCERM

Energy: refers to all sub-systems of the GB railway system related

to electric traction including overhead lines, third rail systems and

power supply.

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Extreme Rainfall Alert

European Rail Traffic Management System

emergency speed restriction

Emergency / Extreme Weather Action Team

Extreme Weather impacts on European Networks of Transport

An event that is considered rare in a particular place and at a

particular time of year. Definitions of ‘rare’ and ‘extreme weather’

vary, however the statistical definition normally means an event

beyond the 10th or 90th percentile of a probability density function

curve of observations. When a pattern of extreme weather persists

for some time, such as a season, it may be classed as an extreme

climate event (e.g. drought or heavy rainfall over a season) (IPCC

AR5 WGII, 2014).

Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management

FHWA

The US Federal Highway Administration

FOC

Freight operating company

FMS

Fault Management System

FUTURENET FUTURENET is a multi-partner, multi-disciplinary research project,

investigating the development of a methodology to assess the

resilience of the United Kingdom (UK) transport network to climate

change.

FWDB

Flood Warning Database

GB

Great Britain

GCM

global climate model OR general circulation model

GEORINM Geographic information system based railway infrastructure

network model

GIS

Geographical Information System

GLA

Greater London Authority

HA

Highways Agency – UK strategic roads agency now Highways

England

H&S

Health and safety

HS1 High Speed 1

HSE

Health and Safety Executive

123


IBJ

ICT

IEC

INS (TSI

definition)

IP

IPCC

ISA

iSMART

ITRC

Insolation

JBA

JCR

kt

LAWS

LCLIP

LEP

LiDAR

LNW

LOC

LOCIP

LRF

LUCRFR

LUL

MAINLINE

MCA

insulated block joint

Information and communication technologies

International Electrotechnical Commission

Infrastructure: refers to all sub-systems of the GB railway system

related to track and track support including: bridges, structures

(including earth retaining structures) and drainage; earthworks;

buildings, and coastal defence.

Ingress Protection

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Information sharing agreement

Infrastructure slopes Sustainable Management And Resilience

Assessment an EPSRC funded research project

Infrastructure Transitions Research Consortium

A measure of solar radiation striking an area

JBA Consulting

Central Japan Railway

knot (nautical mile per hour)

low adhesion warning system

Local Climate Impact Profile

Local Enterprise Partnership

Light Detection And Ranging is a surveying technology that

measures distance by illuminating a target with a laser light.

London North Western (Network Rail route region)

Location case

London Overground Capacity Improvement Programme

Local resilience forums

London Underground Comprehensive Review of Flood Risks

London Underground Limited

The MAINLINE project is a European project with an objective to

develop methods and tools contributing to an improved railway

system by taking into consideration the whole life of specific

infrastructure – tunnels, bridges, track, switches, earthworks and

retaining walls.

Multi-criteria analysis

124


METEX

MORECS

MOWE-IT

mph

m.s –1

MTIn

NCI

NERC

NMT

NOC

NR

NRPS

NSWWS

OECD

OGC

OHL

OHLE

OLE

OPE (TSI

definition)

ORBIS

ORR

pa

PDF

PFP

Network Rail’s GIS based asset vulnerability tool

Met Office Rainfall and Evaporation Scheme

Management of weather events in the transport system. A

research project to identify existing best practices and to develop

methodologies to assist transport operators, authorities and

transport system users to mitigate the impact of natural disasters

and extreme weather phenomena on transport system

performance.

miles per hour

metres per second

minutes per technical incident

[Network Rail’s] National Control Instructions

Natural Environment Research Council

New Measurement Train

[Network Rail’s] National Operations Centre

Network Rail

National Rail Passenger Survey

[Met Office] National Severe Weather Warning Service

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),

global organisation whose mission is to promote policies that will

improve the economic and social well-being of people around the

world.

Open geospatial consortium

Overhead line

Overhead line equipment

Overhead line equipment

Operations (Traffic Operation and Management): refers to all subsystems

of the GB railway system related to operational activities

and procedures.

Offering Rail Better Information Systems – a Network Rail project

Office of Rail and Road (formerly the Office of Rail Regulation)

per annum

probability distribution function

Partial factor productivity

125


PLANET

PPE

PPM

PRIME

ProCliP

RAIB

RAM

RCM

RCM

RCP

REM

Resilience

RESNET

Return Period

RGS

RIA

RINM

RMT

ROA

ROSCO

RSSB

RTS

SBB

S&C

The Planet Suite is a set of network assignment models consisting

of morning and inter-peak South and North models used for the

forecasting and appraisal of rail schemes in the UK. PLANET covers

the whole of the GB railway

Personal protective equipment

Public Performance Measure

Proactive Infrastructure Monitoring and Evaluation

Probabilistic climate profile

Rail Accident Investigation Board

Route Access Manager

regional climate model

Remote condition monitoring

Representative concentration pathway

Route Enhancement Manager

The ability of a social or natural system to absorb disturbances

while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning,

the capacity of self-organisation and the capacity to adapt to stress

and change (UKCIP, 2009).

Resilient Electricity Networks for Great Britain (RESNET) Newcastle

University led research to develop a systems-level approach to

analysing the resilience of existing and future electricity networks

The average time between events of a given magnitude. A 100-year

return period is the equivalent of the event that has a 1 per cent

probability of occurring in any given year. (UKCIP)

Railway Group Standards

Railway Industry Association

Railway Infrastructure Network Model

National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers

Real options analysis

Rolling stock operating company

Rail Safety and Standards Board

Rail Technical Strategy

Schweizerische Bundesbahnen (Swiss railways)

Switches and crossings

126


Scenario

SCP

SEPA

SFT

SBP

SEPA

SMD

SMT

SNCF

SPAD

SPM

SRM

Storm Surge

SuDS

TFP

TGV

T925

T1009

TOC

TOPS

TPWS

TRaCCA

TRL

TRUST

TSB

A description of a plausible future state which is not associated

with an ascribed likelihood. UKCP09 uses emissions scenarios to

underpin probabilistic climate projections (UKCIP, 2009)

Spatially coherent projection

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Stress-free temperature

Strategic Business Plan

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

soil moisture deficit

Seasons Management Team

Société National des Chemins de Fer Français

Signal passed at danger

Summary for Policymakers

RSSB Safety Risk Model

The temporary increase, at a particular place, in the height of the

sea due to extreme meteorological conditions (low atmospheric

pressure and/or strong winds). The storm surge is defined as being

the excess above the level expected from the tidal variation alone

at that time and place (UKCIP, 2009)

Sustainable Drainage Systems

Total factor productivity

Train à Grande Vitesse

RSSB project T925 Adapting to extreme climate change (TRaCCA)

RSSB project T1009 Tomorrow’s Railway and Climate Change

Adaptation

Train operating company

Total Operations Processing System

Train Protection & Warning System

Tomorrow’s Railway and Climate Change Adaptation project

Transport Research Laboratory

Train Running System TOPS, a computer system used to track

delays on the rail network. (Train Running Under System TOPS).

Technology Strategy Board

127


TSIs

Technical Specifications for Interoperability

TSLG

Technology Strategy Leadership Group

TSR

Temporary Speed Restriction

TWI

Track Work Instruction

UK

United Kingdom

UKCIP

UK Climate Impacts Programme

UKCIP02 UK Climate Projections 2002

UKCP09 UK Climate Projections 2009

UNDP

Vulnerability

WCML

Weather

Weather

Generator

WebTAG

WERM

WFS

WMO

WMS

WP1A

WP1B

United Nations Development Programme

Vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and

unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including

climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the

character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to

which a system is exposed, its sensitivity, and its adaptive capacity.

(UKCIP)

West Coast Main Line

Refers to the state of the atmosphere in a given location with

regard to variables such as temperature, precipitation, wind,

cloudiness, humidity and other meteorological conditions (UKCIP,

2009) over a relatively short period of time, usually hourly, daily

weekly or monthly.

A Weather Generator is a statistical method of creating projections

of future daily (or sub-daily) climate that are consistent with

climate change projections for longer temporal averaging periods

(e.g. monthly or seasonal) (UKCIP, 2009). N.B. It does not generate

weather forecasts for specific future dates.

UK Department for Transport's web-based multimodal guidance on

appraising transport projects and proposals. Web-based Transport

Analysis Guidance.

Washout and Earthflow Risk Mapping

Web feature service

World Meteorological Organisation

Web Mapping Service

Work Package A of RSSB project T1009-01 Further research into

adapting to climate change – Tomorrow’s Railway and Climate

Change Adaptation (TRaCCA Work Package 1)

Work Package B of RSSB project T1009-01 Further research into

adapting to climate change – Tomorrow’s Railway and Climate

Change Adaptation (TRaCCA)

128


WP1C

Work Package C of RSSB project T1009-01 Further research into

adapting to climate change – Tomorrow’s Railway and Climate

Change Adaptation (TRaCCA)

WP2 RSSB project T1009-02 (TRaCCA Work Package 2)

WRACCA

WSP

WSTCF

XRWIS

Weather Resilience and Climate Chance Adaptation

wheel slip protection

wrong-side track circuit failure

Next Generation Road Weather Information System

129


RSSB

Floor 4, The Helicon

1 South Place

London

EC2M 2RB

enquirydesk@rssb.co.uk

http://www.rssb.co.uk

Similar magazines