Should the railway operate when met office red warnings are issued for wind.

[philthetube]

The railway operates in part during red weather warnings, should it?

For the safety of staff and passengers I don't think it should, the Met office needs to get warnings out a bit quicker, but I feel the railway should shut down for the safety of all.

We have seen stations closed because of buildings with bits falling off, by the grace of god no one was injured. trees down all over the place, again luckily, no injuries.

When train staff are working they do not have the equipment which they should have when out in areas where debris is flying round, is health and safety legislation followed?

There should be long term plans in place to ensure key workers are in place, these should only be for key workers who are involved in life saving jobs and working out things like who they are and who pays expenses should be sorted now.

 

[SynthD]

As you say, during the worst storm in decades no one connected to the railway, or use of it, was hurt? Let’s not over react.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

Could you add 'not sure' to the possible answers?

I think road travel should be discouraged too in such weather.

 

[Ken H]

Only in the red warnng area and maybe nearby. I live in N Yorks and it wasnt that bad. Nothern were running Carlisle - Leeds trains.
But how you manage that is another story.

 

[PTR 444]

While closing the railway during periods of severe weather makes the most sense on safety grounds, it ignores the fact that many people with no means of personal transport still have to get to work, even those not considered key workers. If you decide to cancel train services at the last minute, it either leaves those people unable to get to their jobs, or strands them in places far away from home.

It might be unpopular now due to people’s experiences and collateral damage over the past two years, but I wonder if a temporary lockdown-esque stay at home order might work in times of severe weather. In addition to the railway, all public transport*, entertainment, tourism and non-essential retail would be required to close, but with a reassurance that this would only last as long as a red weather warning is in place. This would discourage any discretionary travel and enforce that going out in such weather conditions is dangerous.

* For key workers without personal transport needing to get to work, rail and bus operators would fund taxis for them.

 

[Ken H]

While closing the railway during periods of severe weather makes the most sense on safety grounds, it ignores the fact that many people with no means of personal transport still have to get to work, even those not considered key workers. If you decide to cancel train services at the last minute, it either leaves those people unable to get to their jobs, or strands them in places far away from home.

It might be unpopular now due to people’s experiences and collateral damage over the past two years, but I wonder if a temporary lockdown-esque stay at home order might work in times of severe weather. In addition to the railway, all public transport*, entertainment, tourism and non-essential retail would be required to close, but with a reassurance that this would only last as long as a red weather warning is in place. This would discourage any discretionary travel and enforce that going out in such weather conditions is dangerous.

* For key workers without personal transport needing to get to work, rail and bus operators would fund taxis for them.

So while its unsafe to use buses and trains its ok for tasix, with their drivers, to take risk

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The more 'do not travel' the railway issues, the more it risks becoming a non-essential luxury to an even greater proportion of the population. If you have to have an alternative means of travel available just in case the railway issues a 'do not travel' well, having bought a car you might as well use it all the time. Saves paying twice (for season ticket and car) and you save the rail industry the effort the rest of the time as well.

How many road users didn't die despite still travelling during storms D and E?
How many stations didn't suffer damage despite being in the eye of the storms?

Caution to be applied, yes. Temporary removal of service for a couple of hours, possibly. Complete shutdown for 24 hours, no.

The four T's of risk management:
Terminate,
Treat,
Transfer,
Tolerate.

Where does the railway sit on those and has it shifted to a more risk averse position over the years?

 

[etr221]

It used to be the case that the the railway used to be seen as the 'reliable' form of transport - and in a number of closure cases, that without the railway, places might be cut off in bad conditions was an argument against closure. And the railway did its part in this - running the (or at least a) service was the most important thing for it to do: perhaps the only thing more important was clearing the line so a service could be run.

But now...

And it's not just things like bad weather. After incidents it seems to take days, if not weeks, for the line to be cleared - or even to start to be cleared. (Perhaps the worst thing about the Hatfield derailment was that the railway didn't get the line back, so it could start work to reopen it, for three weeks. Contrast with say Harrow, where the line was clear, and trains running through in hours).

A symptom of a 'service optional' attitude - which perhaps came in in the Beeching era, and has spread to become standard mind set on the railway.