Potential Rail Disruption from Storm Angus - 20/11

[Antman]

Oh, the emails I got during my twelve-hour shift must have been a figment of my imagination then...

Did you know for certain that there would be no high winds over Kent last night or this morning?
And the wind couldn't blow a dustbin over, but did blow down four trees. Excellent logic.

I am just telling you what NR told me.

So shall we not run trains every morning in winter, you know just in case?

The four trees were miles away from the dustbin!!

 

[EM2]

I am just telling you what NR told me.

And I'm telling you what actually happened.

So shall we not run trains every morning in winter, you know just in case?

If the weather forecast says it's likely that it could cause major disruption, no we should not.

The four trees were miles away from the dustbin!!

They still fell on tracks.

 

[Antman]

And I'm telling you what actually happened.

If the weather forecast says it's likely that it could cause major disruption, no we should not.

They still fell on tracks.

Tracks miles away from Ashford, no reason a service couldn't be run north of there indeed it was on HS1.

 

[EM2]

Tracks miles away from Ashford, no reason a service couldn't be run north of there indeed it was on HS1.

Again, did you know for certain that no damage had been caused to the railway?

 

[PHILIPE]

Tracks miles away from Ashford, no reason a service couldn't be run north of there indeed it was on HS1.

Why don't you accept what you are being told by people who have an understanding of how the railway works ?

 

[philthetube]

Next to nothing in Kent, just a bit of light wind and rain as you might expect in November, there were a couple of trees down in Dover and Ramsgate but nothing inland.

A little light wind blew over trees????????????

Don't think any other posts can be taken seriously.

 

[D1009]

Probably the most pointless posting of the year?:roll:

If there are trees down then obviously nobody will expect trains, but if they're not....................!!

Are you trolling ?

I think the above has given us the answer to that question.

 

[Antman]

Why don't you accept what you are being told by people who have an understanding of how the railway works ?

Oh for pitys sake get over yourself, there is no reason whatsoever why trains couldn't have run from Ashford via both Tonbridge and Maidstone East routes to London this morning just as they ran on the HS1, and that has come from somebody with an understanding of how the railway works!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A little light wind blew over trees????????????

Don't think any other posts can be taken seriously.

Not in Ashford or anywhere north thereof they didn't, got it now?:roll:

 

[Darandio]

No mention of any trees down at Sturry or Selling when I contracted NR.

I'm intrigued as to why you rang NR personally? Was it to tell them that your section had but a mere breeze and they were good to go?

 

[fusionblue]

Network Rail dealt with the issue by closing the entire line for engineering works for the whole day.

Nicely timed i thought

 

[Llanigraham]

I am just telling you what NR told me.

So shall we not run trains every morning in winter, you know just in case?

The four trees were miles away from the dustbin!!

I suggest that those that were working in the area know a lot more about the situation than some anti-rail member of this forum.

 

[EM2]

Oh for pitys sake get over yourself, there is no reason whatsoever why trains couldn't have run from Ashford via both Tonbridge and Maidstone East routes to London this morning

Not until the route was proven to be clear! How are you not getting this?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Antman, would you drive your car after a storm at normal speeds along roads that have got blind bends or bends with limited visibility even though there could be trees on the road that you wouldn't have a chance in hell of avoiding?

 

[Antman]

I suggest that those that were working in the area know a lot more about the situation than some anti-rail member of this forum.

My point exactly, I am going by what I've been told by NR and a member of Southeastern staff!!

Anti rail? Or is it you that's anti customer??????

 

[EM2]

My point exactly, I am going by what I've been told by NR and a member of Southeastern staff!!

And now will you go by what you're being told by someone that was out there doing a twelve-hour shift?

 

[Antman]

Not until the route was proven to be clear! How are you not getting this?

Clear of what? Leaves? I repeat...........there were no high winds in the areas concerned.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And now will you go by what you're being told by someone that was out there doing a twelve-hour shift?

I'm not going to respond to anymore of this nonsense.

 

[EM2]

Clear of what? Leaves? I repeat...........there were no high winds in the areas concerned.

Clear of everything that might damage trains!
I'm going to ask once again, seeing as you've studiously avoided it again.
Did you know, for certain, before trains were scheduled to start running, that all lines were clear of debris and all systems undamaged, so that it was safe to run trains?

 

[al78]

A little light wind blew over trees????????????

Don't think any other posts can be taken seriously.

If you call 80+mph gusts "a little light wind" (this was confined to near the coast, but railway lines do exist along the south coast).

 

[Llanigraham]

My point exactly, I am going by what I've been told by NR and a member of Southeastern staff!!

Anti rail? Or is it you that's anti customer??????

Oh FFS!!
You really do not get it do you?
What you "might" have been told is not the same as what the staff like the signallers and drivers will know.
And considering that my ex-customers were the drivers along my line I suggest that, one, you don't have a clue about how the railway really works, and two, that you never, ever make a positive response about the railway or it's staff; therefore you come across as anti-rail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Clear of what? Leaves? I repeat...........there were no high winds in the areas concerned.

Wind isn't the only thing that causes leaves to fall! Try heavy rain as well.
And I note that people who were on the ground have said that there were trees down. Are they lying?

I'm not going to respond to anymore of this nonsense.

Byeee!

 

[Antman]

Oh FFS!!
You really do not get it do you?
What you "might" have been told is not the same as what the staff like the signallers and drivers will know.
And considering that my ex-customers were the drivers along my line I suggest that, one, you don't have a clue about how the railway really works, and two, that you never, ever make a positive response about the railway or it's staff; therefore you come across as anti-rail.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Wind isn't the only thing that causes leaves to fall! Try heavy rain as well.
And I note that people who were on the ground have said that there were trees down. Are they lying?



Byeee!

Do calm down a bit!

Your 'staff are always right and passengers are always wrong' attitudes comes oozing out of your every post.

And train drivers were not your customers, unless you were selling them something:roll:

Did anyone say there were trees down between Ashford and London or are you just making it up as you go along? And from your location how do you know what the weather was doing in Kent?

 

[EM2]

Did anyone say there were trees down between Ashford and London or are you just making it up as you go along? And from your location how do you know what the weather was doing in Kent?

No-one said that there were trees down between Ashford and London. But that could only be known for certain once the line was checked.
If there had been a tree (or trees) down, which had not been known about because the line had not been checked, there is a strong possibility that it (or they) could have been hit by a train (or trains).
If that had happened, you have:

• damaged train(s)
• possibly damaged track if the train(s) derailed
• possibly injured or dead crew and/or passengers
• blocked line(s)
• trains stuck behind
• and people stranded for a long time.

But that's all OK, because Antman says that it's absolutely fine to run passenger trains in service as it turned out not be as windy as was forecast.
I'm really glad that you're not in charge.

 

[Antman]

No-one said that there were trees down between Ashford and London. But that could only be known for certain once the line was checked.
If there had been a tree (or trees) down, which had not been known about because the line had not been checked, there is a strong possibility that it (or they) could have been hit by a train (or trains).
If that had happened, you have:

• damaged train(s)
• possibly damaged track if the train(s) derailed
• possibly injured or dead crew and/or passengers
• blocked line(s)
• trains stuck behind
• and people stranded for a long time.

But that's all OK, because Antman says that it's absolutely fine to run passenger trains in service as it turned out not be as windy as was forecast.
I'm really glad that you're not in charge.

I repeat.............there was no significant wind so how would trees be down?

 

[Darandio]

I repeat.............there was no significant wind so how would trees be down?

And I'll repeat..........why did you ring NR?

Was it to assure them that your section was clear and they were good to go?

 

[Antman]

And I'll repeat..........why did you ring NR?

Was it to assure them that your section was clear and they were good to go?

I tweeted them to ask about fallen trees, ok?

 

[Darandio]

I tweeted them to ask about fallen trees, ok?

Absolutely ok.

It's just that the constant arguing with those involved, I'd assumed the contact was much more formal than a tweet.

 

[dcsprior]

Ignoring Antman's rather antagonistic line of questioning, there has prompted me to wonder something:

The Met Office and their competitors sell forecasts and also observation data. The forecasts by definition aren't 100% accurate, so are plans such as revised timetables revisited if the weather that actually happens (ie the observation data) isn't as bad as forecast?

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

 

[Antman]

Absolutely ok.

It's just that the constant arguing with those involved, I'd assumed the contact was much more formal than a tweet.

Involved? I can't imagine that the honourable member for Powys had much involvement with things in Kent?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ignoring Antman's rather antagonistic line of questioning, there has prompted me to wonder something:

The Met Office and their competitors sell forecasts and also observation data. The forecasts by definition aren't 100% accurate, so are plans such as revised timetables revisited if the weather that actually happens (ie the observation data) isn't as bad as forecast?

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

Nothing antagonistic, just wondering why trains weren't running.

 

[EM2]

I repeat.............there was no significant wind so how would trees be down?

When the decision was taken to not run trains, it was not known that the wind would not be as high as forecast.
As there had already been very high winds in nearby areas, it was surely prudent to make sure that no trees had fallen, for example any that might have had the embankment washed away in heavy rain, or any that were maybe not quite so stable as the rest?
Your solution seems to be that because the wind wasn't as strong as expected, there is absolutely no chance of trees having fallen down therefore it is safe to run trains.

 

[Antman]

When the decision was taken to not run trains, it was not known that the wind would not be as high as forecast.
As there had already been very high winds in nearby areas, it was surely prudent to make sure that no trees had fallen, for example any that might have had the embankment washed away in heavy rain, or any that were maybe not quite so stable as the rest?
Your solution seems to be that because the wind wasn't as strong as expected, there is absolutely no chance of trees having fallen down therefore it is safe to run trains.

Yes, my point was that a decision not to run trains shouldn't have been taken the night before.

And yes if there is no significant wind surely it is reasonable to assume that no trees will be down? The alternative would be to run no trains before 10.00 on a regular basis during winter.

 

[221129]

The Southwest has also been hit hard, yesterday evening delays of 4 hours+ in Cornwall due to poor adhesion. The Looe branch has been cancelled until at least tomorrow morning due to flooding, a landslip AND flooding in 2 separate locations in the Chipping Sodbury area with GWR services diverting via Hullavington and PAD - Cardiffs cancelled.