SVR General Discussion

Was that the Severn Estuary, or the Somerset Levels? I recall the latter causing some angry criticism of the Environment Agency's withdrawal of dredging (at that time, held not to affect the risk) following a serious inundation, about 15 years ago, if memory serves.

 

I can't see dredging or lack of it down in the estuary having any effect as far upstream as the SVR.

 

There was a lot of similar talk about dredging a few years ago during the flooding of Tewkesbury. As was pointed out by several people/sources at the time, deepening the river channels doesn't really increase the speed of flow of water* only the slope of the land can affect that.
(* obviously this is only true if there are no actual blockages).

 

Dredging I'm afraid is red herring, all it does is move water onto the next community more quickly, increasing the risk for them. The same with flood barriers. Both items are also exceptionally expensive and take a big commitment. Dredging is also environmentally damaging. I'm not saying these measures shouldn't be considered for some communities, but they should be last resorts, not first.

What needs to be done is some serious research into how water can be held for longer in the uplands and released more slowly into rivers. With climate change these events will become more common.

As someone who has the Wye at the bottom of their garden, the speed in which it came and visited the garden on Sunday was quite incredible. The following day it had dropped to half it's height and you would think nothing had happened. This suggests these peaks and troughs need to be smoothed. Nature can do that naturally via wet grassland, scrub and peat bogs around here, but we have lost a lot of that in the last 70 or 80 years.

What's worrying is that the amount of rain we have had in the last couple of weeks wasn't exceptional for Mid - Wales in winter, yet it appears to have caused a very serious event for those downstream. We will get far more serious rainfall events in years to come. A serious debate therefore needs to be had on how we manage land not only better for both bio-diversity & food, but also water. None of those items need to be conflicting areas, but it will require a shift away from intensive food production to prioritising land management. The new farm subsidy system gives an opportunity for this, but I am not sure anyone is brave enough to have the vision to tackle these issues, as it necessitates viewing our landscapes in quite different ways to what we have become accustomed to.

 

It's not really necessary to do more research. The remedies are now well understood and you allude to some of them. The problem is that the remedies are unpopular with a range of vested interests.

 

This is about London, but applies equally to other locations.
https://www.thames21.org.uk/natural-flood-management/

 

This is the flood profile for the nearest measuring station for me North of York on the River Foss.
https://check-for-flooding.service.gov.uk/station/8235

It can be seen how quick it rises and falls.
No worry for me even though it does come into the garden in the peaks above 2.5m, it still has another 15ft to get near the house.
I also have a dam in the river, just up stream,to stop it getting too high, it's called the York North Ring Road A1237

Pick a spot near where you live and check the result.

 

These are issues we (i.e. humanity, including our little corner of it) certainly need to address, though perhaps the "Global Warming" thread may be a more appropriate place to discuss the wider issues?

 

The problem isn't security (you could always put a gate on it) the pro6is, it's not our bridge.

 

A large number off our rivers have had the bends taken out and the channel made deeper. The water needs space in the upper catchments to be able to spread out of the channel there was a good section on this on the BBC show on the lake district detailing a scheme to return a river to its more natural condition.
Climate change is another issue with its affect on weather with more rain and the affects are only going to get worse.

 

The SVR have decided on the new name for the purple version of 34027 Taw Valley.

Elizabeth II

No surprises there…
From their Facebook page:

 

Just having a look at Instagram earlier and several rather charming photo’s of 7714 stood out a little, they show an SVR based machine being used on another railway, to make money and pay the hire fees whilst being used by that railway, and the images used could well be used in the future for PR for that railway.
I appreciate this isn’t the best place to ask this question but I hope this gets a few people asking a few questions to those in the know.
Why is there a still a blanket ban on charters, and why is it not considered bloody stupid that an SVR loco can go elsewhere and then be used on a charter on that railway?
Is it not just a massive PR own goal?
I appreciate that the SVR isn’t running at the moment so the counter argument will be something along the lines of the hire fees being bought in.
But to myself it does seem rather strange that a railway that has a loco based on it, has publicly stated it won’t entertain charters anymore yet one of it’s machines does so on another railway. It’s a little strange isn’t it?

 

I don't believe the SVR have said nobody else should run charters, just that they do not see a viable business case to host them themselves (unless you happen to be a film/TV company who wants to hire the line for photographic purposes, in which case they may consider it). If somebody else wishes to hire the SVR's property (or somebody else's property that's normally based at the SVR) and then take it elsewhere to a location that does host charters, why would SVR object - its use will be covered by the terms of the hire agreement, and it doesn't impact on the running of the SVR's own railway, which was the reason they decided to stop hosting such events themselves.

 

Charters got a brief mention at the HRA conference. I can’t remember the exact words but along the lines of these people ask for smoke which is a non-starter so they can forget it.

 

Quoting the SVR's General Manager Helen Smith:

So basically, the SVR have weighed up the benefit vs risk and decided that it's not worth it to them. If another railway wants to hire their assets to hold their own charters, the SVR get the money without the risk - it makes sense to them.

 

Alas, Smith not Jones

 

Thank you - corrected! No idea where I got Jones from; I don't know of any Helen Jones!

 

The March Branch Lines newsletter is available at https://www.svrlive.com/blmar22