How should forecast weather disruption be handled?

[Bletchleyite]

I have to say that the weather forecast for today was so bad so long ago that I would have been in favour of much more in the way of precaution to try and limit what we are seeing right now in England.

It seems pretty clear that from the levels of rainfall that were expected that there would be massive problems and that is exactly what has happened.

There is a difference between giving up immediately and realising that things are just not going to be workable - Now we have all these people stuck and a situation that is only going to get worse as the night progresses.

I am due to travel to London on Sunday for work on Monday...we will see what happens between now and then.

People's employers are not always that understanding, nor insurers, nor hotels etc. The only way to make that really viable would be to effectively declare a lockdown when a red warning is issued. By which I don't mean "thou shalt not leave the house or go round thy mate's house" COVID style, but rather mandatory business closures etc so people can't be pressured to work and hotels etc would have to refund.

I suspect however this would not be popular, and it would mean many other issues, so we are where we are. If people need to travel for reasons they can't just opt out of, then they have to at least try.

 

[Adam Williams]

Clear "Do Not Travel" guidance issued centrally, by RDG - following consultation with operators on which routes the warning applies to - as soon as it appears obvious from e.g. forecasts there will be difficulties running a full service.

Machine-readable list of a) routes affected and dates the warning applies to and b) ticket acceptance/route-easement information to be published (where tickets can be used on a different day or a different TOC), and updated promptly in relation to the forecasted weather and actual events on the day.

Retailers permitted to contact customers automatically and perform disruption refunds with no fee on-request using the above data source. A single contact for raising issues with the data feed and getting them sorted expeditiously on the disrupted day.

People who genuinely have no choice but to travel can try early in the day if time restrictions are lifted and/or via different routes.

 

[SynthD]

If employers and others maintain the need for people to travel while train companies wisely react to the weather, we have reached an impasse. Change the presenteeism culture or stop the rain falling.

If the number of people wanting to travel is sufficiently reduced, then they should be made aware of how to gain acceptance on another route. I think that would require heavy handed messages like “do not travel”.

 

[Krokodil]

People's employers are not always that understanding, nor insurers, nor hotels etc. The only way to make that really viable would be to effectively declare a lockdown when a red warning is issued.

Given that a red warning means "risk to life", surely that should equate to "critical journeys only". "Critical" meaning things like emergency services, workers maintaining power and water supplies etc. Plus cases where vulnerable people may be stranded otherwise.

 

[bramling]

Given that a red warning means "risk to life", surely that should equate to "critical journeys only". "Critical" meaning things like emergency services, workers maintaining power and water supplies etc. Plus cases where vulnerable people may be stranded otherwise.

The difficulty is that people have shown over and again that they aren’t really capable of making a good judgement as to what is a critical journey.

I remember a few years back when there was a big wind storm forecast here. The local rail service was pared back to a base service only. In the morning the trains were packed solid with people taking leisure day trips from Cambridge to London (as an aside meaning quite a few people doing more essential things couldn’t get on trains). By the evening the inevitable had happened and they were all moaning that they were stranded in London.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that a red warning means "risk to life", surely that should equate to "critical journeys only". "Critical" meaning things like emergency services, workers maintaining power and water supplies etc. Plus cases where vulnerable people may be stranded otherwise.

I‘ve read somehsere that when Southeastern issued a “do not travel” warning due to severe weather last year, they still had 70,000 passengers travel up to London who expecteed / demanded to get home...

 

[Krokodil]

I hope that they told them where to go

 

[Bantamzen]

People's employers are not always that understanding, nor insurers, nor hotels etc. The only way to make that really viable would be to effectively declare a lockdown when a red warning is issued. By which I don't mean "thou shalt not leave the house or go round thy mate's house" COVID style, but rather mandatory business closures etc so people can't be pressured to work and hotels etc would have to refund.

I suspect however this would not be popular, and it would mean many other issues, so we are where we are. If people need to travel for reasons they can't just opt out of, then they have to at least try.

You deal with them on a case by case basis, weighing up the information available at the time. Weather systems, especially on our isles can be chaotic & unpredictable, and warnings can & do change regularly as a result. So how far out would you mandate a lockdown? 6 hours, 12, 18? Even in those timeframes weather patterns can change, and warnings be altered accordingly. So for example say a warning was given for rain in 12 hours for MK & businesses were told to close, but then 4 hours later that warning had changed to being applicable to Birmingham instead, and then 4 hours later for the Nottingham. How would you handle lockdowns through that, close all of them and any other places that might be somewhere in a possible path? It would be chaos, not to mention costly.

We don't need some lockdown mandate for every time there might be a risk due to weather. Put the info out there and let people & businesses make their own assessments of risk. Yes some people will make poor judgements, but for the most part people will be sensible.

 

[philosopher]

I hope that they told them where to go

I think this is a bit harsh on the passenger. Many passengers will work in jobs that they have to attend in person. Is it realistic to expect to them to lose an entire day’s pay or be forced to lose a day’s annual leave because their railway operator has told them not to use the trains.

What about passengers going on holiday and have booked accommodation and would lose a day of their holiday plus the accommodation they have paid for. Now you could argue it would not be much fun of a holiday if the weather at their destination is very bad. However, those who were travelling to the Lake District two week’s ago (7th October) when Avanti told passengers not to travel north of Preston would probably disagree with this assessment.

To me a better system would be a two tier system as follows:

1) Essential travel only. This could be used when the weather forecast is very bad, such as red warning. In these situations I would expect many businesses to close anyway which would naturally reduce travel demand.

2) Passengers should consider cancelling or postponing their journey. It would discourage travel without actually telling passengers not to travel. This could be used for less bad forecast weather.

 

[Wolfie]

If employers and others maintain the need for people to travel while train companies wisely react to the weather, we have reached an impasse. Change the presenteeism culture or stop the rain falling.

If the number of people wanting to travel is sufficiently reduced, then they should be made aware of how to gain acceptance on another route. I think that would require heavy handed messages like “do not travel”.

Given that employers have a legal duty of care towards employees it may well take one or more of the latter getting hurt trying to comply then taking legal action which costs the former dearly for the message to get over.

 

[Bald Rick]

I hope that they told them where to go

Duty of care applies.

 

[Hadders]

To me a better system would be a two tier system as follows:

1) Essential travel only. This could be used when the weather forecast is very bad, such as red warning. In these situations I would expect many businesses to close anyway which would naturally reduce travel demand.

2) Passengers should consider cancelling or postponing their journey. It would discourage travel without actually telling passengers not to travel. This could be used for less bad forecast weather.

How do you validate whether or not a passengers travel is 'essential'. That couldn't even be done during the covid lockdown so it's going to be rather hard when there's bad weather.

By all means there needs to be strong advice not to travel and ticket acceptance etc so ticets can be used at a later date but enforcement is rather tricky.

 

[jupiter]

I think you are touching on and trying to redefine already understood terms. “Essential travel” includes taking your kids to/from school.

 

[philosopher]

How do you validate whether or not a passengers travel is 'essential'. That couldn't even be done during the covid lockdown so it's going to be rather hard when there's bad weather.

It would be up to the passenger to deem if their journey was essential, which I admit would mean some passengers will ignore it. However if the weather is very bad, a lot of the reason for travelling would be removed anyway. Very few people for example are going to go on a country hike if 80 mph winds are forecast.

 

[Bantamzen]

How do you validate whether or not a passengers travel is 'essential'. That couldn't even be done during the covid lockdown so it's going to be rather hard when there's bad weather.

By all means there needs to be strong advice not to travel and ticket acceptance etc so ticets can be used at a later date but enforcement is rather tricky.

If people stand on their doorsteps and bang pots on a Thursday evening for you then your travel is essential. That's how it works right?

Seriously though, "essential travel" is entirely subjective. If you have an elderly relative in hospital who are on their last legs, then I'd deem travelling to see them as essential. Equally someone picking the kids up from school, or someone working in the food industry, or someone going to a supermarket to buy food to eat is essential. There is no definition for it, and it comes down to each individual to make their own assessments on travelling and any risks associated with bad weather. I mean we've been doing just such for literally millions of years and it's generally worked out so far.

 

[Krokodil]

Duty of care applies.

They'd been told not to travel. Those for whom travel was unavoidable should have prepared for the possibility that they might need to stay over in a hotel. It's not the only situation where the railway won't put on replacement transport. There's no guarantee that the roads will be passable either.

I think this is a bit harsh on the passenger. Many passengers will work in jobs that they have to attend in person. Is it realistic to expect to them to lose an entire day’s pay or be forced to lose a day’s annual leave because their railway operator has told them not to use the trains.

An employer insisting that non-critical workers attend when a "risk to life" warning has been issued are risking legal action. Those employing critical workers should be prepared to sort out transport or accommodation for those workers.

What about passengers going on holiday and have booked accommodation and would lose a day of their holiday plus the accommodation they have paid for.

That's what travel insurance is for.

 

[HSTEd]

An employer insisting that non-critical workers attend when a "risk to life" warning has been issued are risking legal action. Those employing critical workers should be prepared to sort out transport or accommodation for those workers.

Defining "critical" and "non-critical" is fraught to the point of meaninglessness as we discovered during the coronavirus mess.

The only real answer that avoids major unintended consequences would be to harden the transport system to withstand these risks, which unfortunately is too expensive in the current political-economic climate.