The big difference for me between now and 'the good old days' is the accuracy of forecasting in the 24-48 hour horizon - for wind speeds in particular. Rainfall is more difficult if it's localised showers, but pretty good when it comes to frontal systems and major depressions.
The storm of 1987 wouldn't have come as a surprise if it happened now; and the accuracy of prediction means the risk of getting egg on face if it turns out to be wrong is much reduced. I think what we're seeing is professional planning and communication, rather than the old 'hope for the best' approach.
As a reminder of what can happen if it goes wrong - remember the Glanrhyd bridge failure, also in 1987. Four people drowned on an early morning train. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen now, but by suspending early morning services and using modern communications to warn both crews and passengers the likelihood is much lower (even down to the fact a farmer saw the collapsed bridge but couldn't get to a phone to warn anyone).
I think the railway has done an excellent job in the recent storm events, and apart from some in the media and the vocal ones on Twitter, I think public perceptions are pretty positive.
Of course the one thing we can't forecast well is snow; our climate hovers around freezing point for much of winter, and a difference of one or two degrees can make all the difference between rain, wet snow and powder snow. We live in one of the most difficult climates in the world when it comes to snow and ice conditions - much more so than those places where it's predictably cold, and well below freezing for most of the winter.