Rail Infrastructure Resilience: Storms and Floods Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateLord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
Main Page: Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham (Bishops - Bishops)Department Debates - View all Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham's debates with the Department for Transport
(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Lords ChamberI absolutely recognise that. The prolonged closure after the recent flooding has meant that Network Rail’s attention has been very sharply drawn to the need for both the structures and the earthworks to be more resilient, and for the inspection process for bridges, which I referred to earlier, to be done in a more expeditious way. I entirely recognise that many communities in north Devon rely solely on that railway, and that it must perform better in the future.
My Lords, in light of the repeated flooding of key routes operated by East Midlands Railway in the area that I serve, particularly the Erewash flood plain near Ilkeston, as well as the Trent Valley, what assessment have the Government made of the cost effect on businesses from loss of trade and overall productivity, and the wider social costs that arise, when railways are not functioning properly due to persistent flooding?
The right reverend Prelate is completely right that the real costs of an interruption to the train service are suffered by individuals and businesses. This Question has so far concentrated largely on the south-west, but the right reverend Prelate reminds us that this is prevalent throughout the country. The adaptation plans that I referred to in my original Answer cover the whole of Great Britain, including the railway in Scotland and Wales. They are designed to reduce, as far as possible, the risks posed by flooding and other weather events to the whole railway on a continuing basis, precisely because of the effects of an interrupted service, as the right reverend Prelate says.