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

[driverd]

If you follow Scotrail on twitter, or some of the NWR MOMs in Scotland, you would see the multitude of blockages on the line caused by the storm, Trees, sheds, a greenhouse and many more objects.

So recover them and reopen the network. Follow this up with investment to ensure resilience, given the frequency of these events (and expected increase in frequency into the future). Needless to say there's things you can't mitigate but that's precisely why NR employs the likes of MOMs.

A ESR would not stop a train hitting one of those? So you suggest letting trains run on the lines instead with an ESR? Instead of the steady shut down of services last night?

You may find it hard to believe, but yes I do - as the rest of the UK network did, with very similar weather conditions and with the vast majority of services completing their journey without event.

How would an ESR of helped at Glasgow Queen street where a wall was in danger of collapsing onto the lines?

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?

Your argument is essentially if there is flooding in Liverpool, we should stop trains in Leicester.

It’s all well and good for people who don’t have to make these safety decisions to sit here and criticise, and yes, on certain lines Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I'd argue the job of the railways is to deliver a service, not suspended it because weather. We have various ways to mitigate risk across the industry without resorting to stopping everything.

I say this speaking as the guy who's face would meet said fence/trampoline/wall before anyone else on the train.

But last night I thing they actually made a very sensible decision to do what they did.

Really? How many lines of route did you have closed at any one time? Unless the answer is, essentially, all of them - then a ceasing of services was unnecessary.

We routinely work around weather events as an industry. If you speak as a controller or planner and feel these events pose an unbearable workload on your grade, perhaps the answer is to re-assess your procedures and staffing levels. Sensible things that I've personally been involved with in the past include stepping up managers to support the control functions when bad weather is expected and to mobilise additional standby transport options. This isn't me talking about the "good old days", this is within the last decade.

Network Rail tell the train operators that the infrastructure is not safe until the storm passes and the lines are checked

Yes but as pointed out by others, there's management overlap and ongoing communication between operator and infrastructure manager.

 

[Retorus]

There needs to be a review on the resilience of the rail network in Scotland if these storms are the new norm. It’s understandable to put safety first but if the whole thing grinds to a halt when the wind picks up then that’s not good enough.

 

[jagardner1984]

Personally I wonder if the emphasis in the messaging is wrong. ScotRail issue a “Do not travel” and there is a debate about the appropriateness of that. Personally I think the effect of the Carmont report has essentially been to reduce the “keep the show on the road, somehow” mentality - and that is understandable.

However, it ignores the fact that many will travel, and indeed need to travel. They will not of course travel by rail tonight. However I can’t imagine many Police or NHS managers being impressed with “trains are off” as a reason for absence - and so therefore would it not be more appropriate to issue “essential travel only” more akin to Covid restrictions by government - as a clearer instruction to employers that Work from Home must be used wherever possible, that the roads should not be additionally cluttered with rail passengers going on non essential journeys, and services more free flowing (buses, taxis etc) for those who really do need to travel.

There is heightened risk for all modes of travel in extreme weather, and whilst of course the railway must mitigate the risks for its staff and its assets (ie don’t run trains into fallen trees) - as a society we should engage more with the wider risks (for example, one of those who sadly lost their life yesterday was travelling in a car). I think some other countries with more regular extreme weather are more used to knowing when really, you just need to stay at home.

 

[Dave W]

I think some other countries with more regular extreme weather are more used to knowing when really, you just need to stay at home.

Ah but you see not in Britain where, as this thread proves, everyone knows better and it must just be some big conspiracy or something. Ultimately, if you tell someone to judge whether their travel is essential, they almost certainly will decide it is.

Here is your handy guide to responding to Network Rail's storm planning:

Storm approaching, railway shut down for safety:
"Wasn't even windy here. No respect for those who need to get around."

Storm approaching, railway kept open, trains stranded (or worse):
"What are Network Rail playing at? No respect for the safety of passengers on the train."

Storm approaching, railway kept open with reduced capacity, trains rammed:
"Can't even run a full service. No respect for the paying passenger."

... Ad nauseum.

 

[jagardner1984]

Ah but you see not in Britain where, as this thread proves, everyone knows better and it must just be some big conspiracy or something. Ultimately, if you tell someone to judge whether their travel is essential, they almost certainly will decide it is.

Here is your handy guide to responding to Network Rail's storm planning:

Storm approaching, railway shut down for safety:
"Wasn't even windy here. No respect for those who need to get around."

Storm approaching, railway kept open, trains stranded (or worse):
"What are Network Rail playing at? No respect for the safety of passengers on the train."

Storm approaching, railway kept open with reduced capacity, trains rammed:
"Can't even run a full service. No respect for the paying passenger."

... Ad nauseum.

It always brings to mind a flight I was on where there was some commotion and a fairly direct, in the middle of the night, lights on and PA “if there are any medical personnel on the flight” announcement.

After some passengers and staff attended to a gentleman who was having a heart attack, I believe, we were on a 7700 call and onto the ground at Amsterdam. Another direct PA as we were moving to the gate - “this flight is being met by paramedics at the gate, all passengers MUST remain in their seats when the plane comes to a stop” ….. Not sure I’ve ever felt so angry as I did with the usual suspects immediately clambering for the overhead lockers as the plane reached the gate, as the paramedics tried to get down the aisles to do their work.

The utter selfishness and stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze.

It is why I made the Covid reference to “essential” travel - I think it was one of the few circumstances where people seemed to use a little of their oft lacking common sense. The issue with ScotRail’s “Do not travel” is that because there is no definitive associated instruction to employers, schools etc, what it actually means is “Travel by another (probably statistically less safe) means.”

Hope this coming storm does not see any further loss of life.

 

[21C101]

It is a reaction to what happened at Carmont.
I don't entirely blame the Network Rail managers though. Thats what happens when you monster people and impose near 8 figure fines for human error of judgement that falls far short of gross negligence and you have preening politicians that live in a utopian la la land where nothing ever goes wrong and there are infinite amounts of other peoples money to spray around, who give those trying to keep things going in adversity zero support.

Personally I'm not surprised to see the Highland lines shut, but shutting down, for example, the Glasgow Suburban services does suggest shutting stable doors after the horse has bolted.

However the acceptable risk threshold will continue to come down as the years go on, with more and more disruption and more and more subsidy for a poorer more flaky service. History suggests that this process will sooner or later go into reverse after someone takes power who will make the trains run on time. This sort of politician tends to have other vices though.

 

[Taunton]

It is a reaction to what happened at Carmont.

I don't entirely blame the Network Rail managers though. Thats what happens when you monster people and impose near 8 figure fines for human error of judgement that falls far short of gross negligence and you have preening politicians that live in a utopian la la land where nothing ever goes wrong and there are infinite amounts of other peoples money to spray around, who give those trying to keep things going in adversity zero support.

Quite agree.

 

[hux385]

At least they are giving good notice to people of these changes. If people NEED to travel, they are being told to do so before 1900 when the storm arrives. I think that's a fair enough approach personally.

They've looked at the forecast, made a decision, put out messaging and then will follow through with their plan. I'd much rather this approach than tons of people trapped on trains for hours due to fallen trees etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At least they are giving good notice to people of these changes. If people NEED to travel, they are being told to do so before 1900 when the storm arrives. I think that's a fair enough approach personally.

They've looked at the forecast, made a decision, put out messaging and then will follow through with their plan. I'd much rather this approach than tons of people trapped on trains for hours due to fallen trees etc.

What I think also works is what WMT did in a lower risk area - I'm sure it was done for resilience, but it also had the effect of pushing people to travel earlier. Namely operating a simple set of self-contained all stations stopping services.

But yes, if you notify people in advance they have the opportunity to make other arrangements. If they find out when they're already away from home, they've got no viable option but to try to get back (hotels are expensive and may be unaffordable).

 

[21C101]

Just looked at the met office site; even allowing for post Carmont jumpiness I'm a bit surprised they have shut down the whole network when the amber warning only impacts a handful of minor lines in the highlands and islands, with just a yellow warning for the populated (with people and railway) areas.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just looked at the met office site; even allowing for post Carmont jumpiness I'm a bit surprised they have shut down the whole network when the amber warning only impacts a handful of minor lines in the highlands and islands, with just a yellow warning for the populated (with people and railway) areas.

Yellow can still be quite windy to be fair, the other night I was watching the fence with some concern, though it did hold up OK. Though yellow warnings are so common I don't think shutting the railway down for them can be justified, otherwise it'll be shut down so often it'll basically be useless.

 

[21C101]

What I think also works is what WMT did in a lower risk area - I'm sure it was done for resilience, but it also had the effect of pushing people to travel earlier. Namely operating a simple set of self-contained all stations stopping services.

But yes, if you notify people in advance they have the opportunity to make other arrangements. If they find out when they're already away from home, they've got no viable option but to try to get back (hotels are expensive and may be unaffordable).

That is what First Capital used to do. Split the service and abandon the core with an all Stations Moorgate (later St Pancras) to Bedford service.

First Crapital Connect for all their faults even published a disruption timetable in advance (from memory 4 an hour to bedford, 2 all stations two fast to St Albans, two an hour from Blackfriars one each way round the wall of death loop and two an hour London Bridge to Brighton ECroy, Gatwick then all stations)

 

[Meerkat]

'Do not travel' means 'Do not trust the railway to get you anywhere'.
Might not have an immediate impact, but over time people will think about all the times the railway doesn't run when they make decisions on buying cars and where they live and work.
Closing down all over Scotland seems extreme, though I understand that this is what happens when tragic incidents lead to witch hunts and lawyer fests, and no one wants to put their name on a decision to ignore an expert (an expert who probably isnt an expert in the costs of over caution)
From the forecast surely they could still run at least a basic central belt service?

 

[Mountain Man]

Good point, well made. Not sure whether the seemingly endless conveyor belt of storms just now are quite as bad as ones experienced in the past, or whether perhaps they are just more frequent / more accurately forecast?

Or maybe the climate is changing.....

The previous times are highly relevant, You are expecting people to heed a message which is supposedly for drastic action only, but unfortunately due to crying wolf it’s natural that some won’t believe the urgency of such a message anymore.

Far better to be accused of crying wolf than accused of lack of action if the situation is worse than expected

 

[Napier]

There are two factors combining to make these planned shut downs of the Scottish network far more frequent than previously. Firstly Network Rail Scotland has become significantly more risk averse after the Carmont accident - one of the criticisms in the final RAIB report was the general forecasting and response to the storm on the night of 11th August 2020, and the perfunctory approach to the EWAT (emergency weather action teleconference) process. The subsequent Weather Advisory Task Force report concluded that Network Rail wasn't taking the impact of weather and climate change on the infrastructure seriously enough and recommended big changes to how the railway should operate in poor weather. The introduction of dedicated meterologists on duty 24/7 in NR Scotland Control, with access to live observations and forecasts means that the rail industry in Scotland is monitoring the weather more closely than ever before and EWATs are held far, far more frequently than they were before Carmont. Just as an aside, the daily weather readiness status in NR Scotland has been at the highest 'extreme' level for either wind, rain or low temperatures continuously for about four weeks now. There have been three planned partial or whole network shut downs in Scotland because of the weather since October 2023; by way of a comparison I can only remember two weather shut downs in Scotland between 2000 and 2020.

The second factor in this is that the UK Met Office seems - to me at least - to also be developing a more risk averse strategy to weather warnings and winter low pressure systems. I think this is a symptom of a wider societal change, as general tolerance of risk across the entire sphere of public life has reduced over the last few decades.

Wind wise in the North East I don't think we've had as bad as 2002 into 2003 into the new Year, previous top that I'd say October 1987 "The UK's Great Storm" but water wise I recall 2012 & 2015 being really bad about the October time with rainfall and flooding, snow wise I don't think we've had a really bad hit since 2009 into 2010, although I do recall a 142 got stuck in a drift maybe 2016/17.

Yesterday the TVL managed to keep a Northern service running while nursing about 20 faults from trees down in various locations, signal failures, power outages, TC failures, barrier failures so hats off to the great work the staff did in difficult conditions, some signalling AB blind, deaf and dumb with no comms, no mains power.

I'd also like to extend my thanks to the lack of management for overseeing everything, checking on your staff and seeing if welfare was ok.!!!!

 

[Fermiboson]

It is a reaction to what happened at Carmont.
I don't entirely blame the Network Rail managers though. Thats what happens when you monster people and impose near 8 figure fines for human error of judgement that falls far short of gross negligence and you have preening politicians that live in a utopian la la land where nothing ever goes wrong and there are infinite amounts of other peoples money to spray around, who give those trying to keep things going in adversity zero support.

Personally I'm not surprised to see the Highland lines shut, but shutting down, for example, the Glasgow Suburban services does suggest shutting stable doors after the horse has bolted.

However the acceptable risk threshold will continue to come down as the years go on, with more and more disruption and more and more subsidy for a poorer more flaky service. History suggests that this process will sooner or later go into reverse after someone takes power who will make the trains run on time. This sort of politician tends to have other vices though.

A minor, but important, point of historical contention: The referenced Italian did not make the trains run on time. Most improvements to the Italian railway service occurred before 1922; pre-WWI the nationalised Ferrovie dell Stato did much of the line and signalling upgrades that laid the basis, and while the railways continued to develop quickly after 1922, and the speed of intercity routes improved considerably, punctuality and reliability of most short/medium haul services did not change massively. I presume that there will be someone on this forum who is able to go into more detail than I am.

 

[snookertam]

Just looked at the met office site; even allowing for post Carmont jumpiness I'm a bit surprised they have shut down the whole network when the amber warning only impacts a handful of minor lines in the highlands and islands, with just a yellow warning for the populated (with people and railway) areas.

I was going to make this point. However there is likely to be concern about the combined impact of both events happening so close together. There is also much more of an issue with rain with this storm too, which NR forecasts will have provided access to.

 

[FGW_DID]

Ah but you see not in Britain where, as this thread proves, everyone knows better and it must just be some big conspiracy or something. Ultimately, if you tell someone to judge whether their travel is essential, they almost certainly will decide it is.

Here is your handy guide to responding to Network Rail's storm planning:

Storm approaching, railway shut down for safety:
"Wasn't even windy here. No respect for those who need to get around."

Storm approaching, railway kept open, trains stranded (or worse):
"What are Network Rail playing at? No respect for the safety of passengers on the train."

Storm approaching, railway kept open with reduced capacity, trains rammed:
"Can't even run a full service. No respect for the paying passenger."

... Ad nauseum.

Absolutely spot on!

 

[al78]

There needs to be a review on the resilience of the rail network in Scotland if these storms are the new norm. It’s understandable to put safety first but if the whole thing grinds to a halt when the wind picks up then that’s not good enough.

There are not the new norm they have always been the norm. October to March is peak windstorm season in NW Europe and it is normal for at least a handful of events with 60-70 mph gusts to affect some part of the UK over the course of autumn and winter. Last season (2022/23) was unusual in there being only two named storms. I work for EuroTempest and they tell me the situation last month with frequent bulletins and alerts issued for wind and rain which seemed hectic at the time is a standard busy period in the autumn/winter for them.

As for the future, there is no evidence that windstorms have been getting more severe or more frequent over the last 60 years and the jury is out on future changes in windstorm activity across the UK with climate change. The winter North Atlantic Oscillation (which is a proxy for how Atlantic dominated the weather is across the north Atlantic) has a quasi-decadal periodicity which results in clusters of mild stormy winters followed by clusters of colder drier winters. The 1990's are an example of a decade populated with wet stormy winters whereas the late 2000's saw a cluster of cold snowy blocked winters.

 

[nlogax]

In spite of storm Isha I made it south yesterday lunchtime, but almost certainly my luck ended there. Can't see my flight home happening this evening and the trains from Euston are rammed.. looks like another night in London! Such is life at this time of year.

 

[al78]

Good point, well made. Not sure whether the seemingly endless conveyor belt of storms just now are quite as bad as ones experienced in the past, or whether perhaps they are just more frequent / more accurately forecast?

They are not exceptional in terms of wind speed but the rainfall over the last few months has been unusually high. July-December 2023 was the fourth wettest such six month period on record with records going back to 1766. The UK, specifically the southern half (much of Scotland has seen average or below average rainfall through autumn whilst further south it has been very wet), has been affected by a jet stream displaced further south than normal which has been constantly steering low pressure systems across England and Wales from late September to early January. The complete lack of any settled weather in that period is quite remarkable and is why there have been frequent episodes of flooding through autumn and early winter, the rivers were elevated and have been constantly topped up so never had a chance to recover to normal levels until the two week cold dry spell recently.

 

[Napier]

Absolutely spot on!

Or in the case of Northern yesterday "Storm Hitting" close to 20 faults on one route, most of which are trees down, barriers or power fails, Network Rail no backbone to say run reduced service, Northern ramming as many almost empty trains out to try and prove they can run a service absolute spanners the lot of them.

No sense what so ever.

 

[al78]

The previous times are highly relevant, You are expecting people to heed a message which is supposedly for drastic action only, but unfortunately due to crying wolf it’s natural that some won’t believe the urgency of such a message anymore.

Unfortunately people are generally clueless in statistics, probability and uncertainty. With any severe weather event, there is the deterministic forecast which is what is most likely to happen, then there is an uncertainty distribution around that which means there is a finite probability other areas will be badly hit. This is exactly the same as in the southern U.S. states where the areas under a hurricane warning are much larger in extent than the areas that end up being hit with hurricane force winds, because of uncertainty in the forecast. It is up to the end user to decide if a 20-30% probability of severe wind/rain impacts is enough to warrant pre-emptive action, and if they take pre-emptive action, it is certain that occasionally that action ends up unnecessary with the benefit of hindsight. That doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong based on the information available at the time.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Unfortunately people are generally clueless in statistics, probability and uncertainty.

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


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

 

[nr758123]

Do these people not watch the news? Read papers?

Given that Reach plc's awful, awful, so-called newspapers predict apocalyptic weather several times a day, every day, it just becomes background noise which people don't take seriously.

 

[Essan]

There are either far more storms, or the rail companies are being extra cautious. I cannot remember this many 'No trains after X' years ago. You atleast gave it a go.

Maybe. But in the past, unless you were travelling yourself in the region affected, you'd probably not have even been aware of cancellations.

Social media means we're all much more aware of what is going on than ever before.

There is also, I think, an increased element of caution due to the modern culture of compensation expectation, and general lack of any sense of personal responsibility.

Also, obviously, before storms were named, we didn't have many named storms. And before colour coded warning were introduced, we didn't have any amber and red warnings. The very fact that people perceive there to be more storms these days shows that the purpose of naming them is being achieved!

 

[geoffk]

Or we could pass anti-storm legislation ordering weather to allow a minimum level of service to operate across the country.

*runs for cover*

or we could send the storms to Rwanda.

 

[robbeech]

It’s understandable to put safety first but if the whole thing grinds to a halt when the wind picks up then that’s not good enough.

Safety first means safety first. If the infrastructure isn't up to the job for weather we expect then it isn't safety first it's pound notes first.

However, it ignores the fact that many will travel, and indeed need to travel. They will not of course travel by rail tonight. However I can’t imagine many Police or NHS managers being impressed with “trains are off” as a reason for absence - and so therefore would it not be more appropriate to issue “essential travel only” more akin to Covid restrictions by government - as a clearer instruction to employers that Work from Home must be used wherever possible, that the roads should not be additionally cluttered with rail passengers going on non essential journeys, and services more free flowing (buses, taxis etc) for those who really do need to travel.

Essential Travel Only would be left to passengers to decide if their travel is essential. There are a fair few things wrong with this. The first is clearly the attitude of many passengers, they'll want to travel regardless and will smugly come up with a reason why it's essential for them. But there are other reasons too. If someone has planned a long distance trip to go and see family or have a break for a few days then they'll be reluctant to give it all up and lose the money if the first 40 minutes of their 6 hour journey is by an operator suggesting Essential Travel Only and the rest of the journey is running without any significant issues. Feel free to argue that they're entitled to a refund for not travelling but in reality, many passengers don't know this, and if they do they don't know how to get it, and if they try to ask they'll often be denied this or told incorrectly and will end up with a refund being rejected or being charged an admin fee. Add this to the hotel, theatre tickets and restaurant deposit they'll have no chance of getting back and you can see why their journey may become essential.

'Do not travel' means 'Do not trust the railway to get you anywhere'.

If we are using that comparison then we may aswell change the operator logos to DO NOT TRAVEL and have metal signs manufactured to put at the entrance of each station.

 

[dk1]

There needs to be a review on the resilience of the rail network in Scotland if these storms are the new norm. It’s understandable to put safety first but if the whole thing grinds to a halt when the wind picks up then that’s not good enough.

I can’t see anything changing. It’s just how it is nowadays especially after recent incidents & then there’s not wanting to risk damage to very expensive new fleets of rolling stock.

 

[bib]

Just need a fleet of snowploughs with chainsaws on the front, problem solved