Train Services: Extreme Weather

Richard Holden Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship yet again, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) on securing the debate.

The challenges posed by extreme weather on our railways are not new. After all, in the early days of British railway innovation, plans could be repeatedly derailed by bad weather. For instance, one of the many challenges with Brunel’s infamous attempts to introduce an atmospheric railway in south Devon was that they repeatedly fell foul of the weather. That part of the country is still acutely impacted by such extremes today, as we have heard from many Members across the House.

Unfortunately, the problems posed by those extremes are not a thing of the past. After a spring and summer in which the performance of our railways has worsened, I commend the hon. Member for proposing this debate. As the Conservatives have repeatedly said—I hope this goes for all sides of the House—the approach to the railways must be evidence-based. Our railways should not be run according to a dogmatic ideology, but according to what serves the travelling public best.

Although Britain has one of the safest railways in the world, we cannot remain complacent. As we recently saw in Spain, rail accidents can have the most tragic consequences and we must do everything possible to avoid them. One approach we need to take involves improving the resilience of our railways—making them much more effective at coping with whatever weather conditions we experience. Given that the railways are performing worse now under almost every metric, that issue is all the more important.

Data for the first six ORR periods of the 2026-27 financial year showed a deterioration in performance across the vast majority of operators. That included delays on services such as South Western, London North Eastern Railway, Southeastern, c2c and Greater Anglia, many of which were performing much better under previous operators. That is reflected in the cost to the taxpayer. According to the DFT’s own numbers, South Western Railway spent £8.25 million on payouts to rail users under its delay repay scheme, despite the fact that fewer than half of eligible passengers actually claim compensation, meaning that that figure should be at least twice as high.

Possibly most worryingly, given the terms of this debate and the importance of addressing extreme weather, Network Rail-attributable delay minutes increased across every region of the UK except Scotland. That means that more delays for passengers were directly attributable to the organisation that manages infrastructure and which is likely to play a leading role within Great British Railways once it is fully established.

As the hon. Member for Cannock Chase mentioned, the impact that this issue can have on the freight sector is incredibly important. We need to fully understand some of the clauses in the Railways Bill and the impact they could have on what we want to see, which is greater numbers of freight trains taking lorries off the road where appropriate. However, freight companies need to have certainty that that will happen and that they will get properly compensated if there are issues with the network.

The changes we have seen are not small; they are significant. In the southern region in the last few time periods, Network Rail was responsible for over 50% more delays in minutes per 1,000 train miles than during the first few months of 2024. It is worth noting that, considering Network Rail’s comments about the challenges it faced this summer. If the governing manager of our rail infrastructure is facing severe problems with the weather, how can we have confidence that it will be a core part of GBR and manage the process of full nationalisation effectively?

I recognise that a number of these concerns have been raised previously and reiterated today. For example, I understand that some of the Lib Dem Members who spoke today have raised the need to reconsider the current rail stress temperatures, given the much wider range of temperatures we are now experiencing across increasingly hot summers. Furthermore, more modern railway electrification infrastructure is much needed. It needs to be more resilient than the older and, as hon. Members have pointed out, sometimes inappropriate equipment installed over the decades. Given the Government’s cancellation of projects such as the midland main line electrification, it is unclear how they will effectively upgrade the older, less resilient infrastructure. We all acknowledge the costs involved in making significant changes to increase stress temperatures, but the Government must explain how we can maintain our railway in a cost-effective and targeted way. The previous reviews of extreme weather highlighted a clear need to better establish where the problems are and to target the root causes. However, to achieve that, Network Rail must embed cost control into its approach so that its resources are used as effectively as possible across what is a large network.

I share other Members’ love for our environment and acknowledge the need to protect it, but we must ensure that money is allocated to our railways properly and used as effectively as possible. The question is whether Network Rail’s current projects make the best use of such funds. Ministers have unfortunately given less than clear answers to some of my written parliamentary questions about biodiversity projects, so it is sometimes hard to understand how the money allocated to biodiversity is being directed, and whether it is being used in the best way to protect the infrastructure that our constituents across the country rely on.

We have heard from Network Rail about its innovative use of technology to achieve its aims of managing such projects, but does the Minister think that that technology and investment would be better directed towards ensuring that our infrastructure continues to operate successfully during periods of extreme weather? For example, Network Rail uses technology such as thermal imaging to examine issues around earthworks. East Midlands Railway reported savings of about £100,000 from doing that. However, the priority must surely be to ensure that those tools are always directed to improving resilience when facing weather conditions such as those we saw this summer.

Furthermore, in adapting to the changing causes of weather-related delays, we must consider how to build and maintain our infrastructure more cost effectively. Wherever possible, that means removing unnecessary regulations that make it more difficult to carry out the enhancements needed to make our railways more resilient. We cannot allow unnecessary bureaucratic regulations to stand in the way of measures designed to improve the railway’s resilience to the extreme weather conditions we are increasingly facing.

That can be achieved only with funding. The Government’s responses to written parliamentary questions on this matter as recently as September referred to £2.6 billion. However, the official control period 7 delivery plan, published in spring 2024, set out a

“step change in our approach to mitigating the impact of extreme weather…targeting £2.8bn of investment to protect our most susceptible assets, in particular earthworks and drainage to support reliability.”

Will the Minister explain the discrepancy between those numbers? If he cannot do so today, will he write to me?

The summary of regional plans for 2024 to 2029 set out clear spending commitments across all regions amounting to £2.79 billion. Is the discrepancy due to different classifications of maintenance spending, or have cuts to the resilience budgets led to a reduction in the allocated spending? Given that £2.6 billion is obviously less than £2.8 billion, that we have seen significant inflation in the rail sector and that the majority of the spending was earmarked for earthworks and drainage, is the Minister confident that all the necessary money for those projects is being delivered? That is what Members have been asking about today on behalf of their constituents.

The Government’s decision to indefinitely pause phase 5 of the south west rail resilience programme is directly linked to funding and the priorities that they have chosen to pursue. Although we obviously recognise that there are tough decisions to be made on spending, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify precisely how much the Government are spending and whether they expect other significant projects in this space to be halted.

To reiterate the points that were made at the start of the debate, when dealing with extreme weather the Government must focus all their efforts on works that are most cost-effective and deliver for our constituents. Having wasted money on GBR signage, obscure bureaucratic projects and other ideologically driven activities, the Government need to demonstrate that they are prioritising things that matter to our constituents. We understand that our railways are experiencing a different set of challenges resulting from extreme weather conditions, but the Government must adapt accordingly. Otherwise, they will fail to deliver on the targets that are there to support our constituents.