Disruption to services - Storm Dudley & Storm Eunice

[Bletchleyite]

Wouldn’t it be better if Avanti tried to source a unit rather than LNWR? It would be hoovering up their customers, plus the proposition of a rattler via Northampton isn’t exactly an attractive alternative, not least for the passengers heading to S&D and Wolverhampton who would have to change at New St to eventually get to their destination?

I suspect it is crew they don't have. Whereas LNR could get a unit off Northampton (even if it resulted in a 12 to 8 short form tomorrow morning) without needing a crew for an entire trip.

 

[DarloRich]

Computer is probably saying no. It was many years ago but I was on a Pendo that refused to go anywhere as it was overloaded at New St. No idea if that can still happen.

They have just left. Guess they found a way to jam the doors shut!

 

[al78]

How is the fastest wind speed ever recorded in England "nowhere near as bad as predicted"? Where is the wild exaggeration? Sheffield was well north of the strongest winds so of course it wasn't very bad there.

Speaking as a SE England resident, it wasn't that bad, the impacts not what I would associate with a red weather warning, so we dodged a bullet, probably helped by the absence of a sting jet. The railways are experiencing serious disruption but it takes little to cause that anyway with the high vulnerability and saturated network around here. In my location, the only effects are a few downed trees and the occasional fence panel blown out. I have just been on a walk from Horsham to Rudgewick and the bridleway is mostly clear, there are trees and big limbs down but very few.

The fastest wind speed recorded in England is one of those technically true but highly misleading statements. The 122 mph or maybe 125 mph peak gust was recorded on the Needles Battery station, which due to its location on a thin cliff which extends into the sea, experiences enhancement of wind speed due to the presence of the cliff and peninsula. The winds recorded here are not representitive of the winds recorded over the mainland or south coast. 122 mph at the Needles translates into 70-80 mph on the mainland. Even comparing to St Catherines Point station which is also on the IOW and close to sea level reveals the high bias. Secondly, the Needles weather station has only been in operation since 1996, which postdates several years with significant and notorious storms. October 1987 and the Burns day storm 1990 quite likely would have brought higher winds to the Needles, but they predate the station. It is an example of survivorship bias.

The media do seem to be latching onto this 122 mph record and blowing it up like it is of huge significance when in reality, it isn't particularly meaningful for the reasons I've said above. It is comparable to the blowing up out of proportion and out of context the Michael Fish forecast prior to the October 1987 storm.

 

[infobleep]

In this day and age of so many methods of communicating that the simple words of do not travel are misunderstood. Many seem to think that their travel is necessary and the ever growing circle of key workers that their workplace can do without for a few days.
I hope that those that chose to travel had a safe journey but for those that felt inconvenienced I have zero sympathy.

Not everywhere was communicating the words do not travel. Eventually, they all were but some were using alternative words and if you are a positive person might look for the positive in what is said and travel.

National Rail Enquiries is showing everything from Waterloo as cancelled but my friend claims to be on the 19:54 to Guildford.

 

[DarloRich]

1953 also rammed. Not quite as bad as the avanti but people left behind

Lots of cancellations and next avanti shown as terminating at new street.

Oh and the toilet is U/S!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not everywhere was communicating the words do not travel. Eventually, they all were but some were using alternative words and if you are a positive person might look for the positive in what is said and travel.

National Rail Enquiries is showing everything from Waterloo as cancelled but my friend claims to be on the 19:54 to Guildford.

Presumably at DaFT's behest, most TOCs were also not pushing refunds. This was a big mistake.

 

[Tomp94]

The 1910 Avanti from new street to euston is the fullest train i have ever seen. It is so full tue doors cant close!

People are unable to board and the train is still here!

It is a 9 car pendolino. All aisle full, every seat taken, people bursting out of every vestibule. I even asked if i could go in the bike space

I should imagine a fair few passengers are paying an awful lot of money to stand squashed in like a sardine!
Kind of reminds me of the Indian trains, the only difference being passengers aren't on the roof!

 

[dk1]

I should imagine a fair few passengers are paying an awful lot of money to stand squashed in like a sardine!
Kind of reminds me of the Indian trains, the only difference being passengers aren't on the roof!

Regardless of how much you pay the most important thing has surely got to be you are on the way after a turbulent couple of days.

 

[CaptainHaddock]

In this day and age of so many methods of communicating that the simple words of do not travel are misunderstood. Many seem to think that their travel is necessary and the ever growing circle of key workers that their workplace can do without for a few days.
I hope that those that chose to travel had a safe journey but for those that felt inconvenienced I have zero sympathy.

There are no circumstances under which any TOC should ever say "do not travel" to its customers; it's the equivalent of a shop putting a big sign on its door (or website) saying "do not buy our products".

The message the TOCs should have stated was "you're free to travel regardless of whether your journey is essential or not but you might experience some delays and cancellations".

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are no circumstances under which any TOC should ever say "do not travel" to its customers; it's the equivalent of a shop putting a big sign on its door (or website) saying "do not buy our products".

It is more like putting a Closed sign up, which any shop can do if it would not be safe to be open, or indeed they just don't feel like opening.

 

[Starmill]

The media do seem to be latching onto this 122 mph record and blowing it up like it is of huge significance when in reality, it isn't particularly meaningful for the reasons I've said above. It is comparable to the blowing up out of proportion and out of context the Michael Fish forecast prior to the October 1987 storm.

Do you think that they have? I really don't think they have. Yes it has been mentioned but it's technically true so mentioning it is legitimate. Actual in depth coverage, at all outlets I've seen including both the BBC and Channel 4 as well as the main papers Times etc and also the likes of the regional REACH titles has focused on the damage that the storm has caused. Videos of trees coming down, structural damage and flying furniture. Reports of the poor people who've died in accidents, questions about the resilience of the electricity network and accounts from the roads and railways which are closed.

I know it's fun to criticise the media and I know there are frequently legitimate reasons to do so. But is the coverage so far away from what people might actually want to know about? I agree entirely with you that the speed at the Needles specifically is a detail and probably not really relevant. However it's not like the 70-80 mile/hour gusts felt inland weren't impactful.

 

[Huntergreed]

There are no circumstances under which any TOC should ever say "do not travel" to its customers; it's the equivalent of a shop putting a big sign on its door (or website) saying "do not buy our products".

The message the TOCs should have stated was "you're free to travel regardless of whether your journey is essential or not but you might experience some delays and cancellations".

I think it’s important for the railway to be able to openly state it doesn’t feel it is safe to operate services under any circumstances, which is fair enough.

What I don’t think is fair, is removing the legal obligation that a TOC must to accommodate passengers who are travelling, thus making it legal to dump passengers with no obligation for a TOC to provide onward travel or hotel accommodation in these circumstances.

 

[800001]

There are no circumstances under which any TOC should ever say "do not travel" to its customers; it's the equivalent of a shop putting a big sign on its door (or website) saying "do not buy our products".

The message the TOCs should have stated was "you're free to travel regardless of whether your journey is essential or not but you might experience some delays and cancellations".

So, for example Southwestern Railways, where for example I believe up to 15 trees came down between Basingstoke and Eastleigh, some needed crane equipment to lift some cut sections away, what do you do with 1000s of people who decide to head to London who then can’t get home due to trains being unable to run?

A do not travel deters many leisure people, and makes it easier to manage the numbers that do still decide to travel.

 

[Starmill]

It is more like putting a Closed sign up, which any shop can do if it would not be safe to be open, or indeed they just don't feel like opening.

To be fair, random shops don't really have a public service obligation beyond that which their owners choose to take on for themselves. The railway, a service which is in receipt of a very large value of public money, definitely does. But of course you are still 100% correct to say that both are in theory obliged to close if to open is directly unsafe to the public, so I'm just splitting hairs really.

 

[dk1]

There are no circumstances under which any TOC should ever say "do not travel" to its customers; it's the equivalent of a shop putting a big sign on its door (or website) saying "do not buy our products".

The message the TOCs should have stated was "you're free to travel regardless of whether your journey is essential or not but you might experience some delays and cancellations".

To me you do seem to be trying to cause a reaction. Your views are very anti the majority of posters on here.

 

[zwk500]

Not everywhere was communicating the words do not travel. Eventually, they all were but some were using alternative words and if you are a positive person might look for the positive in what is said and travel.

National Rail Enquiries is showing everything from Waterloo as cancelled but my friend claims to be on the 19:54 to Guildford.

https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/wat#LINK_2 Check this link out, which shows that the Bournemouth lines are running, albeit much reduced. However the Windsor Lines have a tree at Queenstown Road, a tree at Putney, a Tree at Barnes and an engineering possession from Waterloo to Barnes. If you follow the links you'll see problems are still around at e.g. Ash Vale.

 

[yorksrob]

If there genuinely is an unusually high risk to life (as in the area of the red warning) then a "do not travel" missive is probably justified.

In other circumstances, where there's a risk of delays and debris disrupting services, a "we can't guarantee you will get to your destination today - you travel at your own risk" message would seem more appropriate.

 

[zwk500]

If there genuinely is an unusually high risk to life (as in the area of the red warning) then a "do not travel" missive is probably justified.

In other circumstances, where there's a risk of delays and debris disrupting services, a "we can't guarantee you will get to your destination today - you travel at your own risk" message would seem more appropriate.

Trees were (still are) on the line, and some trains *have* hit them. There is no way to guarantee when the tree will fall, so the driver can't reasonably drive to prevent the collision. A train colliding with a tree is a high risk to life. Therefore, by your criteria, the Do not travel was justified. Discussions about when other messages might be more suitable are probably for another thread.

 

[Robertj21a]

Who determines whether the sheer volume of passengers on board is a serious risk to life?
Presumably the driver (or guard if one present) ?

 

[markymark2000]

https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/wat#LINK_2 Check this link out, which shows that the Bournemouth lines are running, albeit much reduced. However the Windsor Lines have a tree at Queenstown Road, a tree at Putney, a Tree at Barnes and an engineering possession from Waterloo to Barnes. If you follow the links you'll see problems are still around at e.g. Ash Vale.

No reason though why the planned timetable (as noted on RealtimeTrains) couldn't run between Barnes and Kingston or the Hounslow line between Barnes and Staines (Staines to Weybridge showed as being blocked). Yet instead Hounslow had no trains all day and Barnes - Kingston had a few services but completely random times.

 

[yorksrob]

Trees were (still are) on the line, and some trains *have* hit them. There is no way to guarantee when the tree will fall, so the driver can't reasonably drive to prevent the collision. A train colliding with a tree is a high risk to life. Therefore, by your criteria, the Do not travel was justified. Discussions about when other messages might be more suitable are probably for another thread.

There's always a risk of something being on the line and causing a collision. If the railway judges it too great, it will stop the job (as it did for many services on Friday).

If it's judged safe enough to run the train, the do not travel order is not justified on the basis of safety. It would, however be perfectly justifiable to say "if you travel we can't guarantee you will complete your journey".

 

[dk1]

Who determines whether the sheer volume of passengers on board is a serious risk to life?
Presumably the driver (or guard if one present) ?

Never heard of that. As long as the doors shut & interlock is given its brakes released & off we go.

 

[Carlisle]

It is more like putting a Closed sign up, which any shop can do if it would not be safe to be open, or indeed they just don't feel like opening.

Not really, if you know your local shop has been open from x to y for years, & it’s not gone out of business, changed owners, or suffered a personal emergency, your unlikely to expect the hours to change significantly.
Pub landlords in my experience who’ve taken the above attitude are either long gone or actively pursuing that goal .

 

[Howardh]

Opposite Trinity St station Bolton, there's a queue of rail replacement buses right now and adjacent is Piggy Banks' bar and the whole canopy blew off yesterday, could have caused serious injury or worse. Luckily I'm told no-one was around!
The forecast up here suggests tomorrow/Mon it may be as or even more severe, although to be honest yesterday's gale was not much worse than a "usual" once a year gale.

 

[43096]

https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/wat#LINK_2 Check this link out, which shows that the Bournemouth lines are running, albeit much reduced. However the Windsor Lines have a tree at Queenstown Road, a tree at Putney, a Tree at Barnes and an engineering possession from Waterloo to Barnes. If you follow the links you'll see problems are still around at e.g. Ash Vale.

Given there's a planned possession out to Barnes with trains diverted via Kingston, trees at Queenstown Road, Putney and Barnes don't stop them running a service on the Windsor lines today. They've obviously shifted the trees further out as they managed to run an up Reading-Waterloo ECS this morning by the looks of it (https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:13386/2022-02-19/detailed) and a down ECS this evening (https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:13656/2022-02-19/detailed).

Yet there has been no attempt at a passenger service all day. Assuming that data is correct the line is clear. To then not run anything for passengers is (and pick any or all of these) shameful, pathetic, inept, incompetent, disgraceful.

 

[zwk500]

There's always a risk of something being on the line and causing a collision. If the railway judges it too great, it will stop the job (as it did for many services on Friday).

If it's judged safe enough to run the train, the do not travel order is not justified on the basis of safety. It would, however be perfectly justifiable to say "if you travel we can't guarantee you will complete your journey".

Giving a warning that says 'we'll try but it might now work out' will result in 90% of people going 'well let's see how it goes'. 'Do Not Travel' is much clearer and more likely to put people off travelling (and I think the full communication did acknowledge there were some who couldn't avoid travelling).

 

[Ediswan]

Also it just isn’t the same thing. Airliners don’t typically encounter fallen trees on the runway(!) and can land in surprisingly strong winds if they’re straight down the runway. It’s more about allowable crosswind components for them…

And gusts. Strong steady winds are one thing. Strong variable winds are another.

 

[yorksrob]

Giving a warning that says 'we'll try but it might now work out' will result in 90% of people going 'well let's see how it goes'. 'Do Not Travel' is much clearer and more likely to put people off travelling (and I think the full communication did acknowledge there were some who couldn't avoid travelling).

But it's dishonest. I'd rather be given an honest assessment of the situation and make up my own mind.

 

[urbophile]

Because the truth is we don't need the railway any more.

it's not very wise to make sweeping statements like this in reaction to an emergency. In half-way normal times (ie as we are beginning to hope we can emerge from Covid) trains all over the country are frequently crowded and often uncomfortably or dangerously so. If all those people were forced onto the roads, imagine the congestion, the motorway delays, the environmental damage, the rise in hospital admissions and worse, preventable deaths... it doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Who determines whether the sheer volume of passengers on board is a serious risk to life?
Presumably the driver (or guard if one present) ?

Don't some more modern trains have over-weight sensors?