Train Services: Extreme Weather

Alex Easton Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Josh Newbury]

The hon. Member makes an interesting point about what we need from Network Rail to ensure that the particularities of each area are taken into account. He is right that such work on resilience to climate change is needed; I hope that Network Rail will take that on board. Recently, I had a meeting with Network Rail and some of the affected passengers in my constituency, and the issue of long-term planning in the face of what we know is going to get worse and worse was part of it. I hope that the hon. Member will have a similar opportunity in his constituency.

Another question is about communication, because people can make other arrangements if they know in good time that a cancellation is happening. It is much harder when they have bought a ticket and travelled to the station to discover only then that the train is not running. Furthermore, when a service is cancelled or terminated early, replacement transport must get people to where they actually need to go.

Thankfully, we already have the diagnosis and the prescription for the Chase line; we just need the fee to dispense the cure. Back when the line was electrified, about a decade ago now, the project ran over budget and the previous Government refused to allocate additional resource; therefore, corners were cut. The track circuits, which tell the signallers where trains are on the line, were bought on the cheap. A model designed for underground railways was used and, unsurprisingly, they do not fare too well outdoors, in particular in the warmer weather. In fact, typically, they trip at any point above 24°. It goes without saying that this summer we had many days when night-time temperatures were higher than that, let alone during the day. That has led to the misery that my constituents have faced on the Chase line for successive summers. Network Rail itself tells us that a full replacement is needed.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. In my constituency, passengers on the Bangor-to-Belfast line know about disruption to do with severe weather, in particular where trees grow close to railways. Does he agree that the UK Government should work to support all relevant transport agencies—and, where relevant, the devolved institutions—to audit routes at risk from falling trees and to support prevention measures and actions before the next storms?

[Josh Newbury]

I am glad that fallen trees and leaves have been raised as an issue. We have all heard about the dreaded “leaves on the line” being the reason for service disruption. The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise it. That is an issue in all four corners of the UK, particularly as budgets have been cut and maintenance work has not always been done to the previous standard. He is absolutely right that we need to look line by line to identify where the risks are and to address the most severe ones, in particular, as he said, where trees are at risk of falling before the next season. We know that we have a stormy autumn and winter ahead, so that is a particularly poignant point. He is right that we need to look at that in the longer term as well.

My constituents faced that misery on the Chase line for successive summers, and Network Rail tells us that full equipment replacement is what we need. However, I am told that that will cost in the region of £3 million. With budgets being tight, we need the Department to support us with that essential infrastructure correction. At the moment, the alternative being looked at is a coating for the circuits, which might raise their operational temperature to about 30°. That will buy us a bit more time, but will still leave us vulnerable to major disruption next summer.

I hope that the Minister will pass this on to the noble Lord Hendy: my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), and I would heartily welcome Minister Hendy to Rugeley to discuss the challenges on the Chase line. While he is there, we should also discuss the urgent need for an accessible footbridge at Rugeley Trent Valley station. The lack of a lift is a total barrier for wheelchair users and people with limited mobility. It can also make journeys difficult for older passengers, people carrying luggage and parents with young children. I heard from an older constituent who found the stairs at Rugeley Trent Valley a barrier to visiting his family. I also heard from a passenger with severely impaired knees, who had to crawl up and down the steep footbridge just to change platforms. No one should have to face that just to catch a train.

I recognise the wider challenges taking place on our railways. London Northwestern Railway and West Midlands Railway have returned to public ownership—an important step in the Government plans for Great British Railways. I welcome the move. Bringing railways closer together, with track and train working closely, should make it easier to plan services, deal with problems and give passengers clearer accountability.

The Government have also invested in new trains and stations right across the west midlands and in the midlands rail hub. That is all really welcome progress, and I want people in Cannock Chase to benefit, too. The wider issue, however, is about the condition of our railway infrastructure and its ability to cope with more extreme weather. Network Rail’s current five-year funding period, known as control period 7, runs from 2024 to 2029. Its total funding envelope is £45.4 billion in cash terms, but inflation has put that settlement under considerable pressure.

The Office of Rail and Road reports that Network Rail now expects to deliver just 83% of its original renewals programme in England and Wales by the end of that period. It has also warned that an increasingly ageing asset base has implications for reliability, performance and safety, and that that could lead to more asset failures over time. We have heard about that from hon. Members. I recognise that the railway faces financial pressures and that difficult choices have to be made, but hotter summers and wetter winters place greater demands on our network, so it is important that we keep the renewals programme under review and ensure that essential work to protect the railway’s resilience is not lost.

The Rail Freight Group has been in touch with me to raise a concern about the Railways Bill, which is currently before Parliament. At present, Network Rail pays compensation to passenger and freight operators when services are disrupted by bad weather and other incidents, which gives it a financial reason to keep services running where possible and to get them back up quickly when things go wrong. Clause 65 would remove the requirement to pay compensation for events outside Network Rail’s control. It is not yet clear whether that includes seasonal weather, but we understand that Network Rail is considering weather-related exclusions. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify—if not this afternoon, in writing—what counts as being outside Network Rail’s control and when we can expect that to be defined. If weather-related disruption is included, there is a risk that Network Rail will have less financial incentive to keep services running or restore them, which could impact the Government’s ambitious target to grow rail freight by at least 75% by 2050.

I welcome the Government’s wider ambition to build a railway that people can rely on. The Railways Bill will create a strengthened passenger watchdog that will set minimum standards on many things, such as delay compensation and accessible travel. That is a welcome step towards ensuring that operators are held to account more when things go wrong and that passengers are at the heart of every journey. That is exactly what people on the Chase line are looking for. That line is an important connection for Cannock Chase and southern Staffordshire. It links people to jobs, education and services in Birmingham and beyond, so making it reliable is absolutely part of delivering the Government’s ambition.

I have a few practical suggestions. First, we need a review of the parts of the Chase line that are most vulnerable to hot weather—particularly between Hednesford and Rugeley, as hon. Members have heard me say many times—with a clear plan and a timetable for the work needed. Secondly, we need a proper hot weather plan for passengers, with good information, replacement transport to get people to their destinations and clear arrangements when services are cancelled or cut short.

Thirdly, we need to take a serious look at the frequency and capacity of services, especially at peak times. An hourly service is difficult enough when everything is running normally, let alone when services are disrupted. Fourthly, we need an update on step-fee access at Rugeley Trent Valley, including on the work that is needed and how it can be funded.

The people who responded to my survey are asking for very simple things: Rosie wants to get to college, Jack wants to get to work without being packed on to an overcrowded train, Angela wants to get to and from the hospital she works at and Susan wants to be able to complete her journey home. We can reasonably expect a bit of sunshine in the summer—we might even look forward to it—but the people using the Chase line should not have to spend the warmer months wondering whether the train will run, whether it will get them to their destination and how they will get home if it does not. I hope the Minister takes those experiences seriously and sets out what can be done to make lines such as the Chase line more resilient before next summer. I very much look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ contributions.