Storm Jocelyn to cause disruption on Tuesday 23 January and Wednesday 24 January

[hwl]

Storm Isha produced gusts of 107 mph in Dundee, and 99 mph in Northumberland, which I think are both the highest wind speeds ever recorded at their respective altitudes in the UK (the highest ever recorded in the UK was 172 mph, on the Cairngorm Plateau).

RAF Saxa Vord would like a word

 

[21C101]

On the flip side: there is always a senior exec who is happy to quote H&S, not think customer-first, take the cheapest option, and slope their shoulders.

There is no incentive to do otherwise. They are insulated from effect of farebox being hit and legally and politically monstered as if they had murdered someone if something goes badly wrong, however improbable the scenario.

In the present situation, if a metorite landed on a train and killed someone then they would be suspending all services every time the perseid showers were due or Nasa identified an incoming comet.

But the politicians, lawyers and unions want utopian levels of safety and this is what result.

It would just be nice if unexpected deaths in hospitals or road deaths were investigated with the same rigour as even rail near misses are.

Scientist here (and I collaborate with the met office, professionally) *waves*

I'm frankly astonished by some of the views here. Storm Isha produced gusts of 107 mph in Dundee, and 99 mph in Northumberland, which I think are both the highest wind speeds ever recorded at their respective altitudes in the UK (the highest ever recorded in the UK was 172 mph, on the Cairngorm Plateau).

There was a red weather warning for wind, which is defined as "risk to life". Yes, this was formally 0100-0500 GMT on Monday, but I wouldn't want to have it on my conscience to run anything in the hours either side of that (i.e. the morning rush hour), if anything went wrong. For context, that was only the 3rd red warning this decade.

I've heard (I need to check) that at times overnight into monday morning, winds over some parts of the British Isles were the highest being measured anywhere on the planet. If that is the case, then this would be the first time that has been recorded.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to pause public transport given those conditions, given that the amber warning covered the whole of Scotland for 12 hours

We are discusing this evenings shutdown in the face of a yellow warning?

Out of interest have Scotlands roads all been closed and were they closed on Sunday night, noting that road vehicles crashworthiness is a fraction of that of trains and that road vehicles drive by sight?

I noted this when the Met Office started naming winter storms back in 2016 or so. The job I did at the time was significantly impacted by weather, and people completely lost their minds about Storm Anna (or whatever it was). The weather the previous weekend, which was just before the cutoff date for a 'named winter storm', was actually worse, and didn't warrant any mention at all. That's not to say the weather isn't getting worse - it's certainly a lot warmer and wetter than it used to be - but the response to it isn't purely rational either.

From a purely rail point of view, especially post-Carmont, the 'shut everything down' approach is entirely understandable, even to me as an outsider. The rail industry's safety culture is commendable, and we should be aiming for a transport system that has zero fatalities or serious injuries.

The unfortunate fact is, we've built a society where people do believe - rightly or wrongly - that they need to travel, and over longer distances than in even the recent past. Managers might accept 'the train was cancelled' as a reason for missing work once or twice. They won't accept it if it's a week a month for several months. And people won't tolerate being isolated from friends and family on a similar basis.

When the railway is unreliable, people will choose to travel by road. With buses having their own issues, that usually means driving - and someone who's started travelling by car is unlikely to only sometimes use it.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether the railway is shutting down more because the weather is worse, or there's a more risk-averse reaction to the same weather. If the railway wants to be seen as a viable method of transport, it needs to find ways to stay open in all but the absolute worst conditions. I don't know what those are, I'm not in the rail industry. But they need to be found.

You have outlined the utopian ideal, a 100% safe railway, and then explained why this ideal is not feaaible in practice as all it does is displace people onto less safe modes of transport.

Even health and safety law only requires eliminstion of hazards so far as is reasonably practicable.

Having gone from Birmingham International to Bletchley yesterday evening around 1700, it was decidedly unpleasant at BHI but by Northampton it was just a normal manky winter's day.



It does strike me that an annual domestic travel insurance product (including cover for e.g. event tickets up to a specific sum, but also stuff like hotels/taxis if stranded, and the cost of things if a trip is abandoned due to a travel provider issuing a Do Not Travel warning or due to an amber or above weather warning) would be a very useful thing to carry. There's the Trainline policy but it's very basic. Yet basically nobody offers one.

Probably cheaper in the long run to put some money in a savings account and draw it down if needed. Plus no risk of not paying out.

 

[Bow Fell]

It’s important to remember that these “EWAT” conference calls that take place, of which I’ve been involved in a few have a representative from the Met Office or a weather forecaster / expert. They are impartial, they are not there to tell you whether to run trains or not. They give the facts, the figures and the details.

Now imagine you’re being told how bad the conditions are expected to be and you went against this advice and there was a serious incident, or loss of life like Carmont. That is a situation no one wants to be in.

 

[21C101]

Most of the Glasgow suburban network is electrified, and when electric trains keep running during extreme winds it is inevitable that some will become stranded when the overheads come down or are obstructed, often nowhere near a station, requiring staff to attend, detrain passengers and escort them along the track to somewhere they can get onward transport (if such is even available), all this in the face of horrendous weather. Been there, done that also, far too many times.

but a yellow wind warning, as is the case tonight, is not extreme.

It’s important to remember that these “EWAT” conference calls that take place, of which I’ve been involved in a few have a representative from the Met Office or a weather forecaster / expert. They are impartial, they are not there to tell you whether to run trains or not. They give the facts, the figures and the details.

Now imagine you’re being told how bad the conditions are expected to be and you went against this advice and there was a serious incident, or loss of life like Carmont. That is a situation no one wants to be in.

A temporary speed restriction would have likely avoided those deaths.

In such a situation in times gone by the Signalman and driver had far more discretion to apply such restrictions ad-hoc. However as we all know, after track was split from train such commonsense initiative became frowned upon due to eye watering per minute train delay charges and prescriptive procedures.

Of course had this been identified as the root csuse it would be the politicians in hot water and we can't have that, can we?

 

[enginedin]

RAF Saxa Vord would like a word

that wasn't a verified measurement (sorry!)

We are discusing this evenings shutdown in the face of a yellow warning?

the threads have become merged - the posts I quoted seemed to be referring to Sunday night's disruption (talking about the collapsed wall at Glasgow Queen Street, etc)

 

[21C101]

the threads have become merged - the posts I quoted seemed to be referring to Sunday night's disruption (talking about the collapsed wall at Glasgow Queen Street, etc)

Fair enough

 

[driverd]

And while road did continue, people were killed in their vehicles. And many flights were diverted away from destination, in some cases even to another country altogether!

Indeed. Which demonstrates that the public recognises the risks of a storm as more tolerable than the railways do, and are prepared to endure disruption when it's our of their control.

The railway is not here to tell people what to do. Its here to deliver a service. It's risk tolerance should be in check step with that of the public. As you're own post demonstrates, significant segments of society are satisfied to continue even in spite of the risks a storm poses.

The railways only damages itself and its business by failing to be dependable.

It’s important to remember that these “EWAT” conference calls that take place, of which I’ve been involved in a few have a representative from the Met Office or a weather forecaster / expert. They are impartial, they are not there to tell you whether to run trains or not. They give the facts, the figures and the details.

Based upon which, you make an educated decision.

Now imagine you’re being told how bad the conditions are expected to be and you went against this advice and there was a serious incident, or loss of life like Carmont. That is a situation no one wants to be in.

You said yourself they give facts, not advice.

If you don't like being the guy who makes decisions, perhaps take on a different role.

 

[enginedin]

Out of interest have Scotlands roads all been closed and were they closed on Sunday night, noting that road vehicles crashworthiness is a fraction of that of trains and that road vehicles drive by sight?

It's not a fair comparison - if someone dies in a road accident, it's very rare for National Highways to be investigated. If someone dies in a rail accident, the TOC / NR will always be investigated.

But yes, where there is significant risk to life, where National Highways can mitigate, roads *are* closed (e.g. bridges).

 

[driverd]

A temporary speed restriction would have likely avoided those deaths.

Absolutely.

In such a situation in times gone by the Signalman and driver had far more discretion to apply such restrictions ad-hoc. However as we all know, after track was split from train such commonsense initiative became frowned upon due to eye watering per minute train delay charges and prescriptive procedures.

Of course had this been identified as the root csuse it would be the politicians in hot water and we can't have that, can we?

Again, a sensible and highly localised approach. Centralised signalling functions unfortunately don't help on today's railway but entirely support the sentiment!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Which demonstrates that the public recognises the risks of a storm as more tolerable than the railways do

That conclusion is pretty much the opposite of what I would take from people being so stubborn / stupid that they get themselves killed in a storm. It tells me that the public absolutely do not recognise the risk of a storm.

 

[Carntyne]

An ESR likely wouldn't have had any impact on the wall at all, but why should a wall in danger of collapse at Queen Street stop a train in Aviemore?

It didn't. The Queen Street issue affected the low level station, not the high level station.

The river Tay ovewhelmed the Pitlochry dam, with river levels rising well past safe limits at Dalguise Viaduct south of Pitlochry, so much so that it wasn't safe to run trains on the Highland Main Line

 

[jon0844]

It's fine to try and keep things going until it all goes wrong, but if multiple trains get stranded without power (and we know how quickly power cuts out leaving people with no toilets, lighting, heating, PA system etc) then how do you rescue people? What happens when people egress? In many cases people might be without a good mobile signal to let people know they're late.

With continued cuts, maybe those who want a resilient service with plenty of staff to assist when it goes wrong (and plenty of buses or coaches willing and able to take over) should be moaning to their MP?

 

[driverd]

That conclusion is pretty much the opposite of what I would take from people being so stubborn / stupid that they get themselves killed in a storm. It tells me that the public absolutely do not recognise the risk of a storm.

But that's your personal take on things - it really depends on what your travel plans are. Here's a, none exhaustive, list of reasons why you may have no choice but to travel:
> You don't drive and need to get to work (most employers do not see a storm as reason to fail to attend duty)
> You're holidaying by rail and haven't the funds to book additional nights accommodation
> You have a medical appointment (particularly in relatively isolated communities in the North of Scotland)

It didn't. The Queen Street issue affected the low level station, not the high level station.

That's my point.

The river Tay ovewhelmed the Pitlochry dam, with river levels rising well past safe limits at Dalguise Viaduct south of Pitlochry, so much so that it wasn't safe to run trains on the Highland Main Line

And decisions to close the routes at localised areas of disruption would be perfectly sensible. To close the whole network on the basis of a forecast seem very risk adverse.

It's fine to try and keep things going until it all goes wrong, but if multiple trains get stranded without power (and we know how quickly power cuts out leaving people with no toilets, lighting, heating, PA system etc) then how do you rescue people? What happens when people egress? In many cases people might be without a good mobile signal to let people know they're late.

That's why you train your staff, have conductors and drivers, MOMs, controllers etc. You'd rescue people in the same way they would have done in Newcastle or Carlisle - where the rail network was not shut down but covered by the same weather warning and experiencing very similar weather.

The railways can cope with out of course situations, believe it or not!

With continued cuts, maybe those who want a resilient service with plenty of staff to assist when it goes wrong (and plenty of buses or coaches willing and able to take over) should be moaning to their MP?

Two things really - firstly (and more seriously) as I said in my one of my previous posts - I'm only comparing primarily to pre-coivd and how things were done just a few years ago. I do, however, find you're oversimplfying somewhat. I've pointed out numerous ways we (at my TOC at the time) did deal with these types of events. It cost very little because we either trained and stepped up existing staff or utlilised managers with experience in control functions to assist on an on-call basis and in terms of buses/coaches this was all contractually covered with the rail replacement provider. It's not a case of the magic money tree.

Secondly, those who applaud NR Scotlands approach don't hold a monopoly on critique!

 

[Bow Fell]

Indeed. Which demonstrates that the public recognises the risks of a storm as more tolerable than the railways do, and are prepared to endure disruption when it's our of their control.

The railway is not here to tell people what to do. Its here to deliver a service. It's risk tolerance should be in check step with that of the public. As you're own post demonstrates, significant segments of society are satisfied to continue even in spite of the risks a storm poses.

The railways only damages itself and its business by failing to be dependable.



Based upon which, you make an educated decision.



You said yourself they give facts, not advice.

If you don't like being the guy who makes decisions, perhaps take on a different role.

I’ve no problem making decisions, I wouldn’t be in the role I was in if it wasn’t for that. I’m no Senior Management by any means either.

They do give facts, they don’t say we advise you not to run trains, you make that decision yourself on the resources available as well as risk mitigation.

Are you one those “anti-Control” members of the railway?

 

[driverd]

I’ve no problem making decisions, I wouldn’t be in the role I was in if it wasn’t for that. I’m no Senior Management by any means either.

They do give facts, they don’t say we advise you not to run trains, you make that decision yourself on the resources available as well as risk mitigation.

Are you one those “anti-Control” members of the railway?

Not at all! Control fulfil a very important function and there are some excellent, highly skilled and experienced people in those roles. I can't speak for other operators but at my past employers I've always had a great working relationship with many controllers on a personal and professional level.

I'm just being critical of one part of NR stopping the job (and having a track record of doing so) when the rest of the country takes sensible measures to reduce risk and continues.

 

[Mathew S]

Many people are comparing the risk of a weather-caused incident on the road, should one choose to make one's journey by driving, and the risk of a weather-caused incident on a train. As rightly pointed out, humans are bad at assessing probability (e.g., people who play the National Lottery), and we are bad at making logical decisions about risk. There's plenty of evidence (e.g., (1)) that control is a big factor in risk tolerance: we tolerate more significant risks when we feel in control of a situation enough that we believe we can avoid the risk. Fundamentally, I would suggest that we tolerate the risk that a tree will land in front of us when we're driving because we feel we have the control to stop / drive around / otherwise avoid it.

In contrast, we perceive a higher risk where there is a greater degree of volition, such as, e.g., deciding to keep trains running in a higher-risk situation because, having made that call, we know we have no control whatsoever over the outcome of the decision we've taken.

I'm not saying that the decisions 'the railway' has taken over the last few days have been wrong, or right. But, it's not enough to just compare the statistical risks or try to make purely objective decisions sitting here on the sidelines on an internet forum; understanding the human psychology of the situation is genuinely essential and, to repeat: humans are bad at making logical decisions about risk.

Perception of control has been a fundamental construct in research on risk-taking behavior. It has been shown, for example, that people tend to underestimate risks that are under their control.
...
Using a wide variety of risk behaviors ... we demonstrate that volition and control exert opposing influence on risk perception: control decreases perceived risk while volition increases perceived risk.

(1) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.565

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It's fine to try and keep things going until it all goes wrong, but if multiple trains get stranded without power (and we know how quickly power cuts out leaving people with no toilets, lighting, heating, PA system etc) then how do you rescue people? What happens when people egress? In many cases people might be without a good mobile signal to let people know they're late.

Thats a good point about how incapacitated modern trains become without power

With continued cuts, maybe those who want a resilient service with plenty of staff to assist when it goes wrong (and plenty of buses or coaches willing and able to take over) should be moaning to their MP?

Indeed todays passenger expect to be transported whatever the cause and have nowhere the patience that they did decades back and will of course resort to social media to further heap pressure on operators.

 

[al78]

That conclusion is pretty much the opposite of what I would take from people being so stubborn / stupid that they get themselves killed in a storm. It tells me that the public absolutely do not recognise the risk of a storm.

Part of that is possibly because people take it for granted that the UK has a temperate climate so the weather can never really be a significant risk to life, and accidents only happen to other people. Windstorms kill very few people relative to the population impacted so it could be argued you have to be very unlucky to be killed by a fallen tree or flying debris even if you go out at the peak of a moderate or severe gale and put yourself in that position of risk. Even the October 1987 storm killed less than 20 people although that may be because it peaked overnight when people were in bed asleep. The Burns day storm which hit during the daytime when people were out and about killed less than 50 and that affected a large population.

I keep hearing reports of a pensioner that was killed in Scotland driving late at night at the peak of the Sunday/Monday storm. I do wonder how essential the journey was for an 80+ yr old for him to decide it was worthwhile to go out driving at a quarter to midnight in 70-80 mph gusts capable of bringing trees down across roads. Maybe he had good reason to be out, but you can see YouTube clips of people larking about on promenades in severe gales, very high seas and battering waves easily capable of sweeping someone into the sea, which makes me think the default very safe society we have today has wrapped many people in a cloak of invulnerability which has eroded their ability to accurately assess risk.

 

[paul1609]

RAF Saxa Vord would like a word

Ive stayed in the Sargeants Mess In RAF Saxa Vord which is a hostel now.
The questions that immediately spring to mind are;
A) How did the RAF ever justify a base this large just to maintain a single radar set?
B) What criminal offence did you have to commit to justify a posting there?

 

[al78]

So, is a risk matrix, something like the one shown below, of any use... (ALARP = As low as reasonably practicable).

View attachment 150908
(Pic of risk matrix diagram showing 'Severity' on the vertical axis and 'Probability' on the horizontal axis).

Yes, for some people. There are businesses where people who are the decision makers are trained in statistical analysis and probability and are capable of making a fair judgement call based on a risk matrix.

 

[Bow Fell]

Not at all! Control fulfil a very important function and there are some excellent, highly skilled and experienced people in those roles. I can't speak for other operators but at my past employers I've always had a great working relationship with many controllers on a personal and professional level.

I'm just being critical of one part of NR stopping the job (and having a track record of doing so) when the rest of the country takes sensible measures to reduce risk and continues.

That’s fine then

It’s a tough call to make and you have to see both sides of the picture.

My mantra is that as a controller I’m here to run trains, not not to run trains. But unfortunately sometimes your hands are tied.

I don’t believe at all in “P” coding cancellations, unfortunately they are the instructions from above sometimes, but I believe we should be transparent when services are “removed” for occasions such as this.

I think the big problem is Lewisham and Carmont were two massive wake up calls for the railway in general and unfortunately I will admit there are occasions now where they are used too much as a knee-jerk reaction.

I would say with regards people stranded on trains at my TOC at least this is something we’ve got a lot better at, Lewisham is always in my mind when we have trapped and stranded trains.

 

[bramling]

I noted this when the Met Office started naming winter storms back in 2016 or so. The job I did at the time was significantly impacted by weather, and people completely lost their minds about Storm Anna (or whatever it was). The weather the previous weekend, which was just before the cutoff date for a 'named winter storm', was actually worse, and didn't warrant any mention at all. That's not to say the weather isn't getting worse - it's certainly a lot warmer and wetter than it used to be - but the response to it isn't purely rational either.

From a purely rail point of view, especially post-Carmont, the 'shut everything down' approach is entirely understandable, even to me as an outsider. The rail industry's safety culture is commendable, and we should be aiming for a transport system that has zero fatalities or serious injuries.

The unfortunate fact is, we've built a society where people do believe - rightly or wrongly - that they need to travel, and over longer distances than in even the recent past. Managers might accept 'the train was cancelled' as a reason for missing work once or twice. They won't accept it if it's a week a month for several months. And people won't tolerate being isolated from friends and family on a similar basis.

When the railway is unreliable, people will choose to travel by road. With buses having their own issues, that usually means driving - and someone who's started travelling by car is unlikely to only sometimes use it.

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter whether the railway is shutting down more because the weather is worse, or there's a more risk-averse reaction to the same weather. If the railway wants to be seen as a viable method of transport, it needs to find ways to stay open in all but the absolute worst conditions. I don't know what those are, I'm not in the rail industry. But they need to be found.

Realistically I’m not sure how that can be done for wind events, where sooner or later something is going to cause a blockage. Yes we could do a massive programme of removing trees from within the railway boundary, but this is only going to help so much. Having more resources available to respond afterwards would of course help, but then we run into the usual problem of whether “we” as a country are prepared to pay lots of money to fund resources which are only required for a relatively small part of the time.

The above balance may be swayed very slightly if something materially changes with the weather, for example there is a trend for the jet stream to work in ways which causes us to have more wind events relative to what we might have been used to in the past. Whilst some have suggested that this may be the case, it certainly isn’t clear cut by any means.

 

[Llanigraham]

It's not a fair comparison - if someone dies in a road accident, it's very rare for National Highways to be investigated. If someone dies in a rail accident, the TOC / NR will always be investigated.

But yes, where there is significant risk to life, where National Highways can mitigate, roads *are* closed (e.g. bridges).

As an example, the 2 bridges on the A483 near Llangollen were closed to all traffic at 1730 this evening, as they were the other day, and in the past one of the bridges over the Menai Straight and the old Severn Bridge have been closed due to high winds.

 

[21C101]

It's fine to try and keep things going until it all goes wrong, but if multiple trains get stranded without power (and we know how quickly power cuts out leaving people with no toilets, lighting, heating, PA system etc) then how do you rescue people? What happens when people egress? In many cases people might be without a good mobile signal to let people know they're late.

With continued cuts, maybe those who want a resilient service with plenty of staff to assist when it goes wrong (and plenty of buses or coaches willing and able to take over) should be moaning to their MP?

What cuts? The railway gets vastly more public funds than it did 30 years ago.

The problem is that during this period, fixed assets (property) largely concentrated in the hands of a few, have risen vastly more than inflation, encouraged by government policy which attempts to supress inflation (but encourages asset inflation as they get a cut in tax when assets have sold).

As a result, firstly housing has become far more expensive for most taking far more as a proportion of their wages and the few industries remaining where workforces have industrial muscle have seen large pay increases making the railways expensive to operate and staff compared to the general norm. So more public funds get you less.

 

[johncrossley]

It does strike me that an annual domestic travel insurance product (including cover for e.g. event tickets up to a specific sum

All you get back is the money you originally spent. You don't get back the annual leave you have wasted or a one-off sporting occasion which might be once in a lifetime. For example, you wouldn't want to miss the non-league football team you support beat a Premier League team in the FA Cup.

The experience from the last couple of years shows us, sadly, we cannot rely on trains for (personally) important travel.

 

[yorkie]

Baring in mind LNER are advising Do not travel north of Newcastle from 1500, I can’t see why they would arrange ticket acceptance, as that encourages people to travel!

The guidelines disagree with you:

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/about-us/publications/archive/350-2014-07-passenger-information-during-disruption-cop/file.html

...during disruptive incidents passengers should not be discriminated against on the basis of operator and efforts should be made to deliver the same high standards to everyone. This includes passengers travelling on Railway Undertaking-specific tickets...

The do not travel message is there for a reason! For your safety!

If it's not safe to run trains, then the company would need to provide road transport if at all possible, and/or reimburse the cost of accommodation, as appropriate.

If it is safe to run trains, no claim should be made that it is unsafe.

 

[21C101]

The guidelines disagree with you:

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/about-us/publications/archive/350-2014-07-passenger-information-during-disruption-cop/file.html

If it's not safe to run trains, then the company would need to provide road transport if at all possible, and/or reimburse the cost of accommodation, as appropriate.

If it is safe to run trains, no claim should be made that it is unsafe.

But it is never safe to run trains, just relatively safe/unsafe to a greater or lesser extent.

Even walking down the street on clear calm day you could be slain like poor Aeschylus if a passing eagle drops a tortoise on your head (although that possibly explains Network Rails hard hats at all times everywhere policy).

 

[Lewisham2221]

It's not a fair comparison - if someone dies in a road accident, it's very rare for National Highways to be investigated. If someone dies in a rail accident, the TOC / NR will always be investigated.

But yes, where there is significant risk to life, where National Highways can mitigate, roads *are* closed (e.g. bridges).

I'd also argue that driving by sight makes road travel safer in circumstances where you are likely to find some sort obstruction, rather than hurtling towards something that - even if you see it - you're unlikely to be able to avoid hitting. At least a road vehicle should be able to take evasive action, ie stop or swerve.

 

[hwl]

that wasn't a verified measurement (sorry!)

The previous time the Saxa Vord weather station was blown away was also an unofficial record that beats the official one. Inability to design weather stations / anemometers capable of taking greater than a sustained 175mph for 1 minute at Saxa Vord (or Unst in general*) is a key caveat for the "official" record. *The adjacent weather station on Unst at Muckle Flugga lighthouse was also destroyed
As Ian Fleming said: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."
"Record where the recording equipment wasn't destroyed on Unst on the Nth occasion" would be a more accurate description for Cairngorm

I've stayed in the Sergeants Mess In RAF Saxa Vord which is a hostel now.
The questions that immediately spring to mind are;
A) How did the RAF ever justify a base this large just to maintain a single radar set?
B) What criminal offence did you have to commit to justify a posting there?

A) accurately tracking huge numbers of incoming
B) like bird watching? or wanting to attempt unaided human flight (a local speciality when it gets blowy up there)

 

[cheekybifta]

We are discusing this evenings shutdown in the face of a yellow warning?

Out of interest have Scotlands roads all been closed and were they closed on Sunday night, noting that road vehicles crashworthiness is a fraction of that of trains and that road vehicles drive by sight?

To echo someone else's words in the Storm Isha thread, the road network tolerates thousands of deaths a year. The rail network won't tolerate one passenger death per year. That's probably a good thing.