Tomorrow's Railway and Climate Change Adaptation Final Report

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