If trains had continued to run, even if at a reduced level and at lower speed, there would have been far greater disruption: Sooner or later, trains would have struck trees or debris, and electric trains would have become stranded with the overhead wires (OLE) down. Then staff would have to be sent to attend to those incidents and, in still horrendous conditions, either make the trains fit to move, or more likely evacuate passengers onto the ballast and somehow get them, safely, to somewhere onward transport can, somehow, be arranged.
I can absolutely appreciate the particular complexities that OHLE electric traction introduces. I think, however, a route by route approach is more appropriate, as the complexity of resolving this type of disruption depends heavily upon this.
For example, a unit stranded on the ECML, half way between Grantham and Peterborough, creates far bigger headache than a 323 stuck between Heald Green and Gatley. In my kneck of the woods, it's perhaps an interesting quirk that throughout all this disruption (of all 3 storms that have hit in the last 3/4 months), we've lost electric routes (OHLE), yet not had to evacuate other than onto another unit on one occasion. We certainly haven't had a unit tangled in the wires, in all other cases units have been able to coast to safety. Yes, this left trains at random locations, but actually, the problem area was isolated and the remainder of the network kept running, with a handful of units requiring rescue at a later stage.
Secondly, the one benefit of OHLE in these types of circumstance is tripping. It's very rare indeed for a tree to come down on the OHLE and not cause a loss of power. The subsequent loss of line light tells drivers to coast to a suitable location, but also alerts the ECO, and in turn, signaller, to the potential issue - in part being responsible for the relatively rare occurance, even within a stormy day, of OHLE units actually hitting fallen trees, especially when blanket ESRs are taken into consideration. Of course, when a tree falls infront of a unit, that's a different and unavoidable matter.
Finally, I'd like to highlight an easy and simple mitigation to these potential issues - diesel unit substitution. Again, this is highly dependent upon TOC and fleet availability, but a simple and sensible precaution is to run bi-modes on diesel, and thin out timetables (which does, to my mind, make perfect sense) and sub now surpluss DMUs for EMUs. Certainly within the realms of possibility for most UK TOCs, perhaps with the exception of TL and some of Scotrails routes.
Then, removing an electric train which has struck say a tree and got its pantograph entangled with the OLE is a complex operation, requiring staff to go on top of the train to secure the pantograph down and make the OLE fit to run trains under. Something has to be sourced to haul the stricken train away, most likely a diesel loco which will require a Driver with route knowledge, firstly to go to the depot where an emergency coupling can be fitted, and then to get to the train, which may well be on a passenger-only route with therefore very few loco Drivers passed for the line, so needing another Driver to route-conduct them. And, an issue which affected such operations towards the end of my career was the operator of the assisting loco requiring their Driver to have 'traction handling experience', ie knowing how to haul a dead EMU !
I have no doubt that this is a challenge and I suppose highly route dependent. For instance, a class 801 stranded north of Grantham creates a much bigger headache than a 333 stranded at Menston. In the later case, usual procedure is to leave the unit in situ until OHLE is restored - because its a self contained route, there's really no detriment to this.
As I mentioned above, a route by route approach really is essential, and with expected bad weather, it would seem sensible to simply not run pure EMUs where ever possible.
Eventually this will all have been arranged, taking up a lot of resources, and Control time, and the stranded train will be removed. However, other incidents occurred during the severe weather but lines could not be examined because they were blocked by stranded trains, and the resources, locos, Drivers, OLE/PW staff etc required to carry out line exams, debris clearance and repairs had to be utilised to rescue those trains.
I can't disagree there. Disruptive weather will, undoubtedly, be resource intensive.
I remain in no doubt that Scotrail's decision did drastically reduce the overall level of disruption, the one thing I think could have been done differently was to advertise last train departure times, on key routes at least, eg 'Our services will shut down by 1600 today, the last train from Edinburgh Waverley to Glasgow Queen St will be the 1445, from Glasgow Central to Ayr the 1504', etc.
I would agree - it reduced the disruption to zero, because there was no service - or, from an alternative point of view, the disruption was 100%, because every single service was cancelled.
If a sensibly reduced timetable were introduced, with a blanket ESR and DMU operation where possible - perhaps taking a AWC approach and splitting longer runs into shorter segments, do you think total cancellations would still have been greater (taking into account potential units out of place, crew etc the following day)?
