Tomorrow's Railway and Climate Change Adaptation: Final Report

Transcription

1 Tomorrow's Railway and Climate Change Adaptation: Final Report

2 Copyright RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARDS BOARD LTD 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: 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: June 2016 Minor updates made after feedback from the MetOffice. ( )

3 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 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

4 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

5 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 iii

6 By the end of the 21 st century, the climate across Britain is projected to be similar to the current climate across parts of NW and SW Europe. There are parts of NW Europe that have railway that is broadly comparable with that in Britain. 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 Section 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 projections point to warmer drier summers and milder wetter winters on average, through year-to-year climatic fluctuations mean that there will still be variability in individual seasons. In future, there could be changes to the frequency and/or intensity of various extreme weather events that affect the UK iv

7 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 Section 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 potentially changing nature of various 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 v

8 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 Section 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 vi

9 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 Section 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 and costs vii

10 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 Section 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 viii

11 Final Report Section 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 ix

12 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

13 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Project team and steering group Scope Phase 1 summary Whole system Changes to current practice Review of relevant policies and standards Further analysis of weather and climate data Monitoring and measurement of assets Recommendations for action whole system People Changes to current practice Review of relevant policies and standards Further analysis of weather and climate data Monitoring and measurement of assets Recommendations for action people Rolling stock Changes to current practice Review of relevant policies and standards Further analysis of weather and climate data Monitoring and measurement of assets Recommendations for action rolling stock Operations Changes to current practice Review of relevant policies and standards Further analysis of weather and climate data Monitoring and measurement of assets Recommendations for action operations CCS (Control, command and signalling) Changes to current practice xi

14 3.5.2 Review of relevant policies and standards Further analysis of weather and climate data Monitoring and measurement of assets Recommendations for action CCS Energy Changes to current practice Review of relevant policies and standards Further analysis of weather and climate data Monitoring and measurement of assets Recommendations for action energy Infrastructure Changes to current practice Review of relevant policies and standards Further analysis of weather and climate data Monitoring and measurement of assets Recommendations for action infrastructure Review of relevant standards Recommendations for action review of standards Opportunities and links with other initiatives and partners Recommendations for action opportunities and links with other initiatives and partners Phase 2 summary Task 1A Economics of climate change adaptation, review of information and data Task 1B Economics of climate change adaptation, climate change emission scenarios Task 1C Economics of climate change adaptation, assessment of risk posed by climate change Task 1D Economics of climate change adaptation, identification of quick wins Task 1E Economics of climate change adaptation, Western Route case study xii

15 4.5.1 Case Study: Dealing with uncertainty Case Study: Extending the boundary of the analysis: scope of impacts addressed and size of geographical area Case Study: Applying different measures Task 2AB Overseas weather and railways, temporal and spatial characteristics of future climate, and identification of similar climates Task 2C Overseas weather and railways, compendium of resilience measures Task 2D Overseas weather and railways, opportunities for overseas partnerships Task 3A and Task B Metrics evaluation, compendium of metrics Task 3C Metrics evaluation, review of metrics Task 3D Metrics evaluation, how metrics can be used Task 3E Metrics evaluation, piloting proposed metrics, Western Route case study Task 4A Systems modelling, review of systems based risk and Task 4B Systems modelling, commentary of different organisations 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 Task 4E Metrics evaluation, identification of dependencies Task 4F Metrics evaluation, Drax/Immingham case study Task 5A Geographic systems modelling, review of GIS based risk and vulnerability identification and assessment tools that are available and in use Task 5B Geographic systems modelling, consideration of metrics used in other tasks xiii

16 4.19 Task 5C Geographic systems modelling, suitability of current and future tools or approaches - grouping assets in relation to effects Task 5D Geographic systems modelling, an investigation into how GIS-based analyses are being used and can form decision support tools Task 5E Geographic systems modelling, development of system requirements for GIS based decision support tools Task 5F Geographic systems modelling, Western Route case study Task 6A Implementation Support, identification of relevant policies Task 6B Implementation Support, identification of areas of benefit and Task 6C Implementation Support, multi-agency working Task 6D Implementation Support, Humber Region case study Task 7A Review of priorities, assimilation of findings from other tasks Task 7B Review of priorities, examination of best practice methodologies Task 7C Review of priorities, development of a prioritisation methodology Task 7D Review of priorities, prioritisation of recommendations Task 8A Funding Sources, review of funding sources Task 8B Funding Sources, example funding applications Conclusions and recommendations How the UK climate and weather is projected to change in the future Summary and conclusions Priority recommendations xiv

17 5.2 What the impacts of climate change and extreme weather are projected to be for the GB railway Summary and conclusions Priority recommendations 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 Summary and conclusions Priority recommendations 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 Summary and conclusions Phase 1 priority recommendations Task 1A Economics of climate change adaptation, review of information and data Task 1B Economics of climate change adaptation, climate change emission scenarios Task 1C Economics of climate change adaptation, assessment of risk posed by climate change Task 1D Economics of climate change adaptation, identification of quick wins Close data gaps by sharing data Wider economic effects Incorporate void days Consider whole system resilience when developing options for intervention Look forwards, not back Data gathering Task 1E Economics of climate change adaptation, Western Route case study Task 2A Overseas weather and railways, temporal and spatial characteristics of future climate, and Task 2B xv

18 Overseas weather and railways, identification of similar climates Task 2C Overseas weather and railways, compendium of resilience measures Task 2D Overseas weather and railways, opportunities for overseas partnerships Task 3A and Task B Metrics evaluation, compendium of metrics Task 3C Metrics evaluation, review of metrics Task 3D Metrics evaluation, how metrics can be used System based risk recommendations Local or specific level recommendations Operational level recommendations Strategic level recommendations Socio political level recommendations Metrics evaluation, piloting proposed metrics, Western Route case study Task 4A Systems modelling, review of systems based risk and Task 4B Systems modelling, commentary of different organisations 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 Task 4E Task 4E Metrics evaluation, identification of dependencies Task 4F Metrics evaluation, Drax/Immingham case study Task 5A Geographic systems modelling, review of GIS based risk and vulnerability identification and assessment tools that are available and in use Task 5B Geographic systems modelling, consideration of metrics used in other tasks xvi

19 5.23 Task 5C Geographic systems modelling, suitability of current and future tools or approaches - grouping assets in relation to effects Introduction Proposals for GIS-based Vulnerability Assessments Recommendations for GIS Applications Task 5D Geographic systems modelling, an investigation into how GIS-based analyses are being used and can form decision support tools Task 5E Geographic systems modelling, development of system requirements for GIS based decision support tools Task 5F Geographic systems modelling, Western Route case study Task 6A Implementation Support, identification of relevant policies Task 6B Implementation Support, identification of areas of benefit and Task 6C Implementation Support, multi-agency working Task 6D Implementation Support, Humber Region case study Task 7A Review of priorities, assimilation of findings from other tasks Task 7B Review of priorities, examination of best practice methodologies Task 7C Review of priorities, development of a prioritisation methodology Task 7D Review of priorities, prioritisation of recommendations High priority projects pursue actively Other priority areas exploit opportunities that arise Remaining projects - monitor opportunities Task 8A Funding Sources, review of funding sources xvii

20 5.35 Task 8B Funding Sources, example funding applications Glossary, abbreviations and acronyms xviii

21 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 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

22 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, projections for the UK are for warmer, drier summers and milder, wetter winters on average, though natural climatic fluctuations mean that there will still be variability in individual seasons. In addition, there could be changes in the frequency and/or intensity of various extreme weather events affecting the UK. 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

23 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

24 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 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

25 We have highlighted any Phase 1 recommendations considered a relatively quick win for the GB railway to implement or benefit from in Section Whole system 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 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

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

27 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

28 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 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 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

29 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 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

30 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 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 ) 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

31 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

32 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 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

33 3.2 People 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 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 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 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 should be addressed. Heat stress is likely to be mostly a safety-related risk, so incidents 13

34 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 Recommendations for action people Table 2: Recommendations for action people Timescale Short term (to action/ implement before end of CP5: ) 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 years) 14

35 3.3 Rolling stock 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 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 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 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

36 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

37 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 ) 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 years) 17

38 3.4 Operations 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 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 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 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 how to manage disrupted services. However, there was a lack of comprehensive, 18

39 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 Recommendations for action operations Table 4: Recommendations for action operations Timescale Short term (to action or implement before end of CP5: ) 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 years) 19

40 3.5 CCS (Control, command and signalling) 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 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 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

41 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 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 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 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

42 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

43 3.5.5 Recommendations for action CCS Table 5: Recommendations for action CCS Timescale Short term (to action or implement before end of CP5: ) 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 years) 23

44 3.6 Energy 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 Review of relevant policies and standards See Section CCS for lightning and electrical storms 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

45 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 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

46 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 Recommendations for action energy Table 6: Recommendations for action energy Timescale Short term (to action or implement before end of CP5: ) 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 years) 26

47 3.7 Infrastructure 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

48 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 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

49 effect) wind environment. See 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 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

50 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

51 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

52 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 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 ) 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) 32

53 Obtain a better understanding of off track slope and drainage problems, including 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] 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 33

54 be considered as taking a green infrastructure approach to the design and 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 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

55 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

56 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 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 ) 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 years) 36

57 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 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

58 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

59 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

60 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 ) 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 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

61 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

62 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 By the end of the 21st century, the climate across Britain is projected to be similar to the current climate across parts of NW and SW Europe. There are parts of NW Europe that have railway that is broadly comparable with that in Britain 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

63 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

64 reviewed 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

65 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

66 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

67 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

68 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

69 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

70 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 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 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

71 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 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

72 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

73 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 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

74 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

75 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

76 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 Southern England Northern France Netherlands and Belgium South Island of New Zealand Southern Argentina Southern Chile Scotland and northern England Central and southern England Wales South Island of New Zealand Ireland Southernmost parts of Argentina and Coastal strip of Germany Chile Denmark 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

77 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

78 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 and 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 or 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

79 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

80 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

81 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

82 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

83 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 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

84 between 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

85 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

86 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