Temperatures across western Europe hit an all-time high this summer, including in the UK where a record-breaking 38.7oC brought severe disruption to parts of the rail network.
Rail services were cancelled or run at restricted speed to prevent tracks buckling in the heat, but this anomaly was soon superseded by heavy rain that led to the Whaley Bridge dam crisis and yellow wind warnings issued across large swathes of the nation.
This volatile mix of weather, and its impact on the nation’s infrastructure, prompted last week’s poll which saw 42 per cent of respondents agreeing that there needs to be a complete overhaul of ageing infrastructure, followed by 28 per cent who think there should be more focused maintenance efforts. Of the remainder, just under a quarter (24 per cent) thought that technology – we suggested things like sensors, robotics and AI – should be used to mitigate risks, and the remaining six per cent opted for ‘none of the above’.
In the comments that followed, Chris Oates-Miller said: “If the predictions on weather are correct then basic maintenance will not be enough to stem the tide (sorry) of higher rainfall, hotter summers etc. The current housing plan for the UK should be scrapped as we will need the green space to act as flood plains and the trees to soak up CO2, houses and patios don’t do this!”
“Obviously the Best Way is a complete overhaul,” added Sandy. “Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world with endless resources. Our primary targets should always be those which put life at risk, like dams, bridges and drainage. Health issues, like the Thames Tideway and all of the local sewer and water treatment systems are essential if we are to avoid disease with increasing population pressure. Disintegrating transport systems should also be sorted out, e.g. Victorian tunnels. These issues should always take precedence over vanity projects like ‘slightly quicker ‘railways and extra runways for luxury holidaymakers.”
Looking to our politicians, Another Steve said: “What we really need to see is a rolling, all party agreed, fully funded, five year and ten [year] plan aimed at maintaining our strategic infrastructures. Of course, this will never happen because the Tories believe that the private sector will do this out of the goodness of their hearts and our democratic systems precludes any planning of more than four years. So, we are cursed with continually repeating the errors of the past and limping from one disaster to another – depressing?”
What do you think? Keep the conversation alive in Comments below but be aware that contributions to the discussion will be moderated. Our guidelines for comments can be found here.
All of the above not none…. No silver bullet
As Brian states ‘all of the above’. If the predictions on weather are correct then basic maintenance will not be enough to stem the tide (sorry) of higher rainfall, hotter summers etc. The current housing plan for the UK should be scrapped as we will need the green space to act as flood plains and the trees to soak up CO2, houses and patios don’t do this!
The question was- “what is the best way to address these issues”. Obviously the Best Way is a complete overhaul. Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world with endless resources. Our primary targets should always be those which put life at risk, like dams ,bridges and drainage. Health issues, like the Thames Tideway and all of the local sewer and water treatment systems are essential if we are to avoid disease with increasing population pressure. Disintegrating transport systems should also be sorted out, e.g. Victorian tunnels.
These issues should always take precedence over vanity projects like ‘slightly quicker ‘ railways and extra runways for luxury holidaymakers.
Locally, there are many massive drystone walls which rely on Victorian building skills , but are not maintained. It is just as important to look after them as their failure could lead to huge problems.
Infrastructure problems could be funded well if not for tax cuts for the already comfortable.
Weren’t we fortunate to have good old British Engineers like Brunel ( French father) and Bazalgette ( grandson of French immigrant) !
As Brain says it should be all of the methods. There is no single fix’all cure for most issues, infrastructure is a diverse system of many parts, players and risks. All methods should be applied to provide risk reduction.
Complete overhaul of ageing infrastructure = most expensive disruptive solution, to be used on targetted areas. Victorian & younger infrastructure was mostly overengineered but need assessing with modern techniques and considering current requirements.
More focused maintenance efforts = Govt should encourage focus on this and the current checks should have identified this on the Whally Dam if this was an issue. Again engineers should assess and present the technical issues and risks.
Use technology to mitigate risks = perhaps the most cost effective and quick method to reduce infrastructure risks. Cloud Computer applications using modern sensors/techiques more real time processing and alarming should help detect threats, identify weaknesses and find solutions.
Again local and national government, local companies and charities should work together to ensure the above is focused and funded correctly.
As per many disasters or close calls, this may be the wake up call about dams that the UK needed and luck with speedy actions seems to migrated a disaster. As it is the recent Brasilian mine tailing dam disaster with great loss of life should have resonated to people in the UK who have responsibility for dams.
Photos show clearly that the 180 year old dam wall has suffered a likely lack of maintenance, possibly unnoticed during recent inspections.
All ageing infrastructure needs maintenance. This ought not to be a “new” burden for any civilised society but a routine requirement, universally acknowledged.
At https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2019/08/04/the-whaley-bridge-flood-of-1872/ we learn that more excessive rains have happened in the past, so no part of the current drama can be attributed to “climate change”.
I therefore fully agree with foregoing remarks by Brian Collins and Mark Wallace!
Focussing maintenance is just a version of what is done (or not) already!
It really has to be all of the above (excluding none of the above !).
What we really need to see is a rolling, all party agreed, fully funded, five year and ten plan aimed at maintaining our strategic infrastructures. Of course this will never happen because the tories believe that the private sector will do this out of the goodness of their hearts and our democratic systems precludes any planning of more than four years. So, we are cursed with continually repeating the errors of the past and limping from one disaster to another – depressing ?
It is concerning that the inspection did not reveal any defect, so better diagnostics and maintenance focus seems the way to go, not blanket replacement of good and bad alike. By fortune and hard work it seems the incident has not resulted in loss of life, injury or damage to property other than the dam itself, so we need to weigh how much finite resources to expend on this type of infrastructure repair compared to – say – improving dangerous roads with a known accident record
I’d vote for changing the design criteria substantially to withstand wetter, windier and hotter. Plus assuming that design criteria will be stepped up again later.
And then having a programme to upgrade or replace infrastructure that doesn’t comply (including considering reduced performance over time).
No infrastructure lasts forever. We need a sensible system to get things upgraded and replaced, including building up cash reserves, because enforced capital cost to replace a dam might bankrupt the owner.
That might well mean:
– adding cable tensioners to overhead rail power cables.
– converting auxiliary spillways to solid concrete with ski jumps.
– replacing bridges with insufficient abilty to expand and contract.
– replacing infrastructure early if critical parts are hidden from inspection.
and many more.
Also a few design features need to be required to be changed based on learnings (such as the Genoese bridge supports, and we wait to see whether the angle of Whaley Bridge’s North side of the spillways is considered a serious flaw). It’s common in the process industries but not always so easy to do with civil engineering.
I lived for over 20 years in the Netherlands, and also in Germany and Belgium for several years. It occurs to me having returned to the UK about 11 years ago that this country has suffered for decades with a totally insufficient and, dare I say it , an incompetent approach to the country’s infrastructure. There is no long term plan and never has been for roads, railways, rivers and the environment which leads to short term sticking plaster remedies.
Building houses on known flood plains is a an example, coupled with a lackadaisical attitude to the prevention of flooding. I lived in Limburg in the mid 1990s and the village was subject to flooding twice in 14 months by the River Maas; the second time the mayor had a plan to evacuate the centre of the village and no homes were flooded. It was very serious, supposedly only once in every 400 years; after that the Dutch government introduced a national plan for alleviating flooding. The village where I lived had raisable metal dykes installed along the river banks, similar scheme were implemented along the Maas and other rivers, and all dykes throughout the country were checked, as many were old like the dam near Whaley Bridge. Farms and houses were moved off flood plains and all were rehoused; there was no choice for the farmers and inhabitants – they were moved fast a fair price for their properties and were moved as near as possible to where they had lived.
You could argue that well its only the Dutch, and make jokes about. Yes it is, though it is not a joke, is i?. They developed a plan like they did after the 1950s floods in Zeeland with the barriers that were built there and then implemented it.
There are alternative approaches to the ones that various British governments have enacted since WW2. and other countries in Europe take long term planning of their infrastructure seriously. In my view we don’t, and with climate change it will become much more of a problem than it is now.
I live in Livingston have been here since the summer of 1976. I have seen many Scottish Dams and I don’t think I have seen any like the one in the news. Scottish Dams have all got overflow races to maintain a water level that the Dam can hold safely. Like all new towns no flooding is significant I live within 20 metres of a culvert that holds a burn that empty’s into a reed bed to clean it up then it goes to join another burn that leads to the river Almond
Reminds me of what was termed a ‘reduced/third–gear’ inspection of properties by estate agents in the Grocer’s daughter era. They slowed down just enough to be sure of putting the right house number on their Poll tax report! I have no doubt that all the boxes were ticked and the ‘i-s’ dotted and ‘t-s crossed in these inspections and still major issues result. I spent many years practising and indeed teaching so-called Quality management: the ‘box’ i encouraged colleagues NOT to tick was the one that said “I know I have missed something, and I am professionally responsible for continuing my work until I find it!”
It used to be said of that lovely nation that whenever they saw a swamp, they felt the need to drain it! Fellow bloggers might recall that I spent a year teaching and practising Engineering on VSO in B Guiana, S America. Several of my students worked in the water management industry, either directly or attached to the many sugar estates. The original swamp drainage schemes were instituted by the Dutch when they ‘owned’ what was later ‘split into BG and Surinam.
The system(s) of canals, dykes, Kookers (locks, etc) in the country and the many earth-works and sea walls actually cost 10% of the Government expenditure.
I presume that this type of effort is readily copied here. Soonest?
MMGW can be used as an excuse for inaction. When roads flooded after heavy rain, a few years back, the council bleated “not our fault gov, its global warming, innit”. In reality, the ditches by the road, had not been cleaned out in decades. Councils, water companies, land owners, highways, all pass the buck.
I have been watching various videos on YouTube, on how many schemes worldwide there are to re green degraded land. From China, Australia, Himalayan India, Jordan, the process is similar. Hold back the water in the higher ground, with mini dams, not to stop the water, but to slow its release. That stops flooding further downstream & also keeps at least some water flowing in drought conditions.
Switching to rail. I was told that Japanese track does not buckle in the heat, because the rails are made from higher quality steel & the sleepers are placed closer together. Is that true?
With respect to all of the older dams there is surely an opportunity on these and other water systems such as weirs to install many small, but effective power generation systems during a regular overhaul programme. We may not have the infrastructure or geology for massive dams, but for small investment over an extended period we could create a very comprehensive contribution to our energy needs.
As Sandy said total panic “overhaul” will do nothing. The question rather should be is the cause climate change or decades of neglect. Rail bed should be maintained by the companies that use it, and how many time has Whaley Bridge dam been fully repaired in its 150 years of operation??
Now we are really getting to the root of the issue: placing aside ‘capital’ as a percentage of profits for exactly this reason was called amortisation and/or a depreciation allowance: building up a fund to replace items and facilities that gradually wear out! And what do the clerks (*) do with this. There are even tax-allowance to encourage it! They have used such for decades to create additional dividends for shareholders.
There should be a full high level risk assessment of all legacy infrastructures particularly the dams built many years ago using old technologies perhaps prioritising the dams that are above residential areas and those that are built earliest.
When I saw the layout of where the Whaleybridge was sited above the town and how the dam was built I have to say I was shocked that concerns regarding this site hadn’t been raised before.
I see nationalisation is being proposed (again) by some respondents as a panacea for all these infrastructure woes. Well, there was a recent TV series about the safe and efficient operation of a state run utility, power generation in this case and based … I think … in Ukraine
So Soviet mismanagement of its nuclear facilities more than 30 years ago should preclude nationalisation of all infrastructure in every country today? Perhaps France’s EDF would serve as a better example. Largely state-owned, 40 million customers worldwide, €80bn in revenue and operating (relatively) safely in the nuclear market for half a century.
Andrew – I’m neither in favour of laissez-faire capitalism nor state-runs-everything, rather effective government regulatory oversight, agreeing with the industry capital investment programs, targets and priorities whilst ensuring consumers get value and the companies get a reasonable rate of return – very much the system we already have for the water sector.
In the case of Toddbrook Reservoir it is run by a charity, the Canal & River Trust so perhaps greedy profiteering wasn’t to blame after all … ? case
Any society where everyone is a civil servant (call them what you like, but anyone ultimately paid by the State: well that is what they are!) almost by definition will be incompetent, wasteful, and short-sighted. Bound by procedures, systems, rules -not there to maintain standards but to be used to beat the heads of any who question lunacies…and we now see the results. More so, our grandchildren will be paying for the effect and any possible correction.
I gain the impression from most posts (and throughout our illustrious organ’s scope) that Engineers time and again cannot understand how so much is so wrong. Let me enlighten you?
As Engineers we manipulate Nature’s Laws to the value and benefit of all elements of society: Indeed if we get it wrong and break any, both detection and punishment are immediate! Others making decisions, whether they are right or wrong, do not use the same criteria. “What’s in it for me, or us, or our party, or our financial interests?” And to hell with the public good. Criteria I hope we never stoop to match?
Water Reservoirs – I have copied and pasted below from a previous “Engineer” survey but still relevant for consideration
Should we even be storing such large quantities of water in reservoirs on land ?
Should they not be offshore, when the weight of water on either side of the reservoir walls would be balanced.
Perhaps smaller i.e. safer reservoirs could be on high land feeding downhill to the offshore larger reservoirs
Of course there are other associated concerns ie safeguarding, contamination, transportation to name a few , However with modern materials and technology could it be possible .
It could prevent a catastrophic loss of life , buildings and land.
I am unsure what happened with the Whaley Bridge dam; it has obviously brought to prominence the dangers of dams – and issues of environmental impact (not necessarily as ecologically benign as some might have).
Looking at dam failures (WIKI) it seems UK has been fortunate fore nearly a century. The age of the dam might mean that the failure mode might have been a slow undermining of the flood channel , and so evaded inspection.
On a more general view of infrastructure it could be said that much of the redundancy the Victorians built into our (transport) infrastructure has been eliminated (either through overuse or through deliberate destruction, such as by Beeching or Barbara Castle).
And so an approach to improve capacity by recreating that redundancy (which implies low cost, or affordable, technology to so do). The overuse seems mainly to do with commuting – so technology to reduce the need for that would help -possibly coupled with a broader distribution of jobs throughout the UK
Other aspects of infrastructure – such as flood defence would need a more subtle approach – such as reinstatement of water meadows and flood plains or waterproofing buildings {Interestingly enough London is particularly vulnerable to flooding issues}.
Electricity, Gas and water networks might all benefit from being more robust – possibly by having localised storage/generation (including water recycling) spread across the country (as long distance network connections could be vulnerable)
But the all require the development of technology and affordable technology at that
But when a sensible approach as STEM educated folk might apply clashes with the ability to make money, (by the clerks?) guess which wins! What a joke? Messers Sue, Grabbit and Runne ?