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

[johncrossley]

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.

Not if a slight worsening in rail safety meant that many cars could be taken off the road. The reduction in road traffic would of course also lead to a better environment as well. Taking cars off the road and improving the environment are (or at least should be) the main reasons for the continued existence of trains today.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

stop bringing facts to the discussion

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.

Two things in play here - the recommendations from Carmont and Lewisham. Carmont regarding the proactive management of the Network prior to bad weather events; Lewisham regarding reducing the risk of stranded trains and management of such incidents if they occur.

NR was convicted re Carmont, and has put in place new procedures to proactively manage the service in severe weather to discharge the relevant Carmont recommendations, and thus manage the risk as far as is reasonably practical.

With that in mind, who here would willingly and deliberately act against those procedures, safe in the knowledge that if someone is killed you will be in the dock on a personal charge of manslaughter?

 

[21C101]

Not if a slight worsening in rail safety meant that many cars could be taken off the road. The reduction in road traffic would of course also lead to a better environment as well. Taking cars off the road and improving the environment are (or at least should be) the main reasons for the continued existence of trains today.

A bit like the apochrophal story of the chap stood by a bus stop one evening on an unlit rural road with no pavement who got run over and killed by a passing car.
He was only there because the station next to the bus stop was closed after dark because it had no lights so wasn't deemed safe to stop trains at.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Or may not be if it causes people to drive instead. There really should be consideration of transport safety as a whole.

 

[Meerkat]

What’s the minimum practical service that could be run?
I’m thinking enough to get those who really really need to travel to their destination….eventually.
Maybe max length, restricted speed, all stops, maybe even doesn’t leave a station until the prior train has left it (to minimise trains stranded inbetween stations).
Being very slow is almost an advantage - should put off most potential passengers.

And give all guards chain saw training!

 

[TPO]

What’s the minimum practical service that could be run?
I’m thinking enough to get those who really really need to travel to their destination….eventually.
Maybe max length, restricted speed, all stops, maybe even doesn’t leave a station until the prior train has left it (to minimise trains stranded inbetween stations).
Being very slow is almost an advantage - should put off most potential passengers.

And give all guards chain saw training!

In some areas, in these conditions, it was previously not unusual for a Network Rail chainsaw crew to be on the first train through. Not sure if that is still the case tho.

TPO

 

[Bletchleyite]

What’s the minimum practical service that could be run?
I’m thinking enough to get those who really really need to travel to their destination….eventually.
Maybe max length, restricted speed, all stops, maybe even doesn’t leave a station until the prior train has left it (to minimise trains stranded inbetween stations).
Being very slow is almost an advantage - should put off most potential passengers.

And give all guards chain saw training!

This is basically what WMT did. 50mph, slow line, all stations, split at Northampton, Birmingham and Crewe. Just under 2 hours Northampton to Euston - not attractive at all but there if it was needed.

 

[21C101]

Or may not be if it causes people to drive instead. There really should be consideration of transport safety as a whole.

Nothing will change so long as there is a societal culture of witch hunts against those who make a minor error of judgement that falls far short of gross negligence but are the unlucky one in ten thousand where this causes catastrophe.

On the roads with the charges of causing death or causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving. I am convinced fewer than 5% of car drivers appreciate how they are one tiny lapse or concentration or (normally) minor decision away from a prison sentence.

But the public and politicians want venegance not justice and have skewed the law that way. Those in positions of responsibility act accordingly and bingo, an everyday yellow weather warning means no trains.

 

[enginedin]

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

Apologies for bringing facts back to this thread ( ) but he was actually a passenger in the car

Man dies after Storm Isha causes major travel disruption

An 84-year-old dies, some rail services remain off and thousands of homes are without power after Storm Isha.

www.bbc.co.uk

The front-seat passenger was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash on Beancross Road, Grangemouth, at about 23:45 on Sunday.

 

[21C101]

Meanwhile in Northern Ireland, not a million miles away from Scotland:

Additional Information:
#StormJocelyn Due to Storm Jocelyen there will be a blanket Speed Restriction of 50MPH on all Lines (Up & Down) commencing at 18:00 until further notice

 

[jon0844]

It's getting really gusty here in Herts (trains are still running though) but I can only imagine what it's like further north.

I wouldn't want to be stranded outside. It sounds bad enough being indoors, at home.

 

[D6130]

Really wild with long intense gusts here in the Upper Calder Valley now. Rail replacement buses running Halifax-Hebden Bridge-Blackburn-Preston since mid-evening. Anyone know the detail of why?

 

[skyhigh]

Really wild with long intense gusts here in the Upper Calder Valley now. Rail replacement buses running Halifax-Hebden Bridge-Blackburn-Preston since mid-evening. Anyone know the detail of why?

Can only find one bus this evening around 11pm from Hebden towards Blackburn. I can vouch that trains have been running through to Blackpool early evening.

 

[lrailadventure]

Really wild with long intense gusts here in the Upper Calder Valley now. Rail replacement buses running Halifax-Hebden Bridge-Blackburn-Preston since mid-evening. Anyone know the detail of why?

Also very intense gusts in West Lancs, my window is shut but my curtains are still dancing about . Will be amazed if Preston's roof is still in one piece in the morning, although it survived the previous storm, so not sure what miracles have occured there...

There's an issue with platform equipment between Blackburn and Preston that is affecting trains stopping at Mill Hill, but I can't see anything any issues affecting the route?

 

[D6130]

Can only find one bus this evening around 11pm from Hebden towards Blackburn. I can vouch that trains have been running through to Blackpool early evening.

There were also buses at 23 18 from Blackburn to Hebden Bridge, 23 50 Accrington to Leeds and 23 59 Halifax to Blackpool, according to RTT.

 

[lrailadventure]

There were also buses at 23 18 from Blackburn to Hebden Bridge, 23 50 Accrington to Leeds and 23 59 Halifax to Blackpool, according to RTT.

Those are due to engineering works.

On Journey Check:

Planned engineering work will take place between Manchester Victoria and Smithy Bridge, and between Burnley Manchester Road and Hebden Bridge on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, from 00:05, Monday 22 January 2024 to 06:10, Friday 26 January 2024.
All lines are blocked.
All services will be revised.
Monday to Thursday:
The 2118 Blackpool North to York service will run between Blackpool North and Blackburn, and between Hebden Bridge and York. A bus will be provided from Blackburn to Hebden Bridge.
The 2123 York to Blackpool North service will run between York and Hebden Bridge, and between Accrington and Blackpool North. A bus will be provided from Hebden Bridge to Blackpool North.
The 2202 Blackpool North to Leeds service will run between Blackpool North and Accrington, and between Halifax and Leeds. A bus will be provided from Accrington to Leeds.
The 2205 Manchester Victoria to Blackburn service will run between Manchester Victoria and Todmorden, and between Rose Grove and Blackburn. A bus will be provided from Todmorden to Blackburn.
The 2219 York to Blackburn service will terminate at Halifax. A bus will be provided from Halifax to Blackburn.
The 2220 Blackburn to Wigan Wallgate service will run between Blackburn and Rose Grove, and between Manchester Victoria and Wigan Wallgate. A bus will be provided from Rose Grove to Todmorden.
The 2303 Manchester Victoria to Blackburn service will start from Rose Grove. Customers should travel on the 2323 Manchester Victoria to Leeds service between Manchester Victoria and Todmorden. A bus will be provided from Todmorden to Blackburn.
The 2320 Blackburn to Manchester Victoria service will terminate at Rose Grove. A bus will be provided from Rose Grove to Manchester Victoria.

 

[Horizon22]

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.

I think most TOCs are completely aware of their stranded trains now (unlike in Lewisham where this wasn't identified until late) but what is harder is a) getting a multi-agency plan and b) being able to mobilise a good response. Even in major urban locations this is often 3+ hours and there is often optimism bias that Plan A or B will work.

 

[HSTEd]

These closures are likely to become more and more common as defensive management forces the bar lower and lower, and climate change makes weather events more violent.

We are heading towards a future where large parts of the railway network will be out of action a substantial portion of every winter.
At what point does it cease to be worth paying billions a year to keep lines nominally open?

 

[bahnause]

These closures are likely to become more and more common as defensive management forces the bar lower and lower, and climate change makes weather events more violent.

We are heading towards a future where large parts of the railway network will be out of action a substantial portion of every winter.
At what point does it cease to be worth paying billions a year to keep lines nominally open?

Climate change will require billions of euros of investment to mitigate its effects in many areas of life. This is not news. No one should be surprised.

 

[yorksrob]

I was hoping for my local service to be suspended for a couple of hours this morning so I could have a lay-in.

It wasn't to be !

 

[RLBH]

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.

The way the road transport industry approaches safety in general is decades behind the air, maritime and rail industries. Investigations, where carried out at all, are performed by the police with a view to potential prosecution. The findings of those investigations are not made publicly available. And the blame for accidents is almost always laid exclusively on the driver(s) involved.

Compare that to the much more holistic view of accidents taken by the AAIB, MAIB, and RAIB, where everything up to and including the way the infrastructure was designed generations ago may be treated as a contributing factor. Even where the accident is genuinely due to human error, the questions 'why did the human make the error' and 'why did the error have those consequences' get asked. On the roads, they aren't.

The result, of course, is that minimally-trained drivers are allowed free rein over virtually the entire road network in almost all circumstances and with negligible oversight. The effect on safety is obvious!

Or may not be if it causes people to drive instead. There really should be consideration of transport safety as a whole.

Of course, the decision to run more trains, less safely, to decrease risk for the transport system as a whole isn't one that rail managers can take. If (when) there is an accident under such a regime, it's very easy to point at the consequences. It's very hard to point at the road accidents that didn't happen.

 

[Falcon1200]

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.

Indeed.

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

A Yellow Warning coming just two days after an Amber Warning, with therefore a further risk to trees and structures weakened in the previous event (it is still, now, pretty windy where I am, and the part of my roof damaged on Sunday is flapping rather alarmingly).

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

It could be argued that it is more dependable to tell people in advance that there will be no trains rather than promise a service which then cannot possibly be delivered.

utlilised managers with experience in control functions to assist on an on-call basis

Not sure where they are going to come from, the only non-Controllers I know with Control experience are retired Controllers, whose competences have long since expired anyway!

With that in mind, who here would willingly and deliberately act against those procedures, safe in the knowledge that if someone is killed you will be in the dock on a personal charge of manslaughter?

Certainly not me, especially knowing what my former colleagues in Scotland went through after Carmont.

 

[21C101]

The way the road transport industry approaches safety in general is decades behind the air, maritime and rail industries. Investigations, where carried out at all, are performed by the police with a view to potential prosecution. The findings of those investigations are not made publicly available. And the blame for accidents is almost always laid exclusively on the driver(s) involved.

Compare that to the much more holistic view of accidents taken by the AAIB, MAIB, and RAIB,

I am waiting for the day when an RMT or ASLEF member driving a road vehicle as part of their duties is hauled up before the jury on a causing death/serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving after an innocent minor error (that in itself wouldn't cause you to fail a driving test) has sadly caused a crash as all the holes in the cheese lined up.

The threshold for these charges is driving below the standard of a careful and competent driver and the precedent so far has been that if you are in any way at fault in the accident they will try and put you in prison (even quite egregiously, for example a car that ran out of petrol was on the M25 hard shoulder and was rammed by a lorry that crossed into the hard shoulder, killing a passenger.

I would imagine that RMT/ASLEF lawyers would put a coach and horses through this, for example getting in an ergonomics expert to point out that the most careful and competent drived driver makes x errors per hour and scrutinise the road design and conditon. Eg the positioning of traffic lights and sight lines.

I suspect the CPS would drop the case pronto before it ever got to court for fear of an adverse precedent being set.

 

[Lost property]

The way the road transport industry approaches safety in general is decades behind the air, maritime and rail industries. Investigations, where carried out at all, are performed by the police with a view to potential prosecution. The findings of those investigations are not made publicly available. And the blame for accidents is almost always laid exclusively on the driver(s) involved.

Compare that to the much more holistic view of accidents taken by the AAIB, MAIB, and RAIB, where everything up to and including the way the infrastructure was designed generations ago may be treated as a contributing factor. Even where the accident is genuinely due to human error, the questions 'why did the human make the error' and 'why did the error have those consequences' get asked. On the roads, they aren't.

The result, of course, is that minimally-trained drivers are allowed free rein over virtually the entire road network in almost all circumstances and with negligible oversight. The effect on safety is obvious!

Of course, the decision to run more trains, less safely, to decrease risk for the transport system as a whole isn't one that rail managers can take. If (when) there is an accident under such a regime, it's very easy to point at the consequences. It's very hard to point at the road accidents that didn't happen.

I would suggest, that, whilst you correctly state the use of independent agencies involved in safety, the road transport sector, whom I agree tend to " go at all costs " due to their thin margins, are far from immune to oversight. The DVLA and Traffic Commissioners aren't noted for their "softly softly " approach. Likewise, Police Collision investigators, tend to go far deeper than saying " your family member was killed when they left the road, hit a solid wall / tree, doing an estimated 95mph in an unroadworthy vehicle with the bloodstream containing 12 pints of Stella, cocaine and cannabis" .

As for the weather and the "do not travel " advice, in recent times, the Met.Office has become very risk averse but, it would help if the symbols on their website actually represented the forecast weather. That, and how the information is relayed to the public.

The professionals are, generally, very good on television. Unfortunately, this is not always replicated with local news and presenters who are clueless, but adore themselves, and hence forecasts become secondary and with limited content.

MSM is equally culpable as storms are always newsworthy and hence open to embellishment / histrionics and drama

 

[enginedin]

a car that ran out of petrol was on the M25 hard shoulder and was rammed by a lorry that crossed into the hard shoulder, killing a passenger.

that was death by careless driving. Running out of fuel on a motorway is classed as careless driving, the resulting accident caused a death. It's a pretty straightforward case.

 

[al78]

that was death by careless driving. Running out of fuel on a motorway is classed as careless driving, the resulting accident caused a death. It's a pretty straightforward case.

I haven't considered that but you are correct:

Is it illegal to run out of fuel on the motorway?

While it's not illegal to run out of fuel on a motorway, you could face charges if the breakdown causes an accident. We explain the rules.

www.motoringresearch.com

"Is it illegal to run out of fuel on the motorway?

While it's not an offence to run out of fuel on a motorway, you could face charges if the breakdown causes an accident. We explain the rules."

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.

The difference between a system where people put their safety in the hands of authorities and where carelessness can theoretically kill hundreds, and a system where people are expected to be responsible for their own and other people's safety and a single incident very rarely kills more than a handful. The former always has tighter regulations than the latter.

People are dreadful at assessing risk in general. People fear flying yet are happy to drive to the airport. People whinge about the danger from cyclists yet vastly more pedestrians are killed each year from motor vehicles.

Apologies for bringing facts back to this thread ( ) but he was actually a passenger in the car

Man dies after Storm Isha causes major travel disruption

An 84-year-old dies, some rail services remain off and thousands of homes are without power after Storm Isha.

www.bbc.co.uk

The rhetorical question still stands, how essential was it to be traveling in a car at quarter to midnight during severe gales which had been forecast days in advance with amber weather warnings out?

 

[The exile]

People whinge about the danger from cyclists yet vastly more pedestrians are killed each year from motor vehicles.

But how many are killed by motor vehicles being driven deliberately down the pavement - that’s the comparison?

 

[HSTEd]

Climate change will require billions of euros of investment to mitigate its effects in many areas of life. This is not news. No one should be surprised.

Well then why, hypothetically, should billions a year be burned off supporting a railway that is manifestly less able to perform than a road network that now has a similar cost to the state? (~£12bn for the railway excluding HS2 vs ~£12bn for road maintenance in total)

Saying "climate change means everyone will need more money" doesn't solve the fundamental political problem that the railway is hurtling towards.
If the railway wants to hold a significant position in the post carbon transport world, it will have to do better than it is currently doing, or at least do it cheaper.

 

[bramling]

But how many are killed by motor vehicles being driven deliberately down the pavement - that’s the comparison?

FWIW, it seems fairly common to read reports of motor vehicles having mounted the pavement unintentionally, and one doesn’t have to look too far to even find reports where vehicles have crashed into houses. Fatalities caused by cyclists are exceptionally rare, which was presumably the point the earlier poster was making about assessment of risk.

I suspect the old saying “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence” comes in to play when it comes to individual assessments of risk.

 

[Tester]

I suspect the old saying “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence” comes in to play when it comes to individual assessments of risk.

Classic Dunning Kruger