On Sep 14, 5:17*pm, Paul Hyett wrote:

Makes you wonder just what it would take for a Red warning, though!

The last time I saw a red warning was one morning before Christmas
where it snowed very heavily for 1-2 hours in London - really rapid
accumulating stuff - I think it must have snowed about 4 inches in an
hour IIRC. It made for a wonderful pub crawl round Hampstead that
afternoon but snow was settling readily on even main roads. I recall
hearing sirens everywhere at one point dealing with crashes and
thinking that the "red" was merited and the travelling only if
necessary mantra probably held true this time around.

Going back to ex-Katia, it turned out a surprisingly predictable event
in the end. Maybe the added resolution of global models these days
copes well the extra-tropical transition process.

Richard

"Norman" wrote in message
...
Martin Brown wrote:

On 14/09/2011 10:49, Ken Cook wrote:
The local man killed by a falling tree in Monday's gale was well known
to me. It certainly brings home another side of severe weather when
something like this happens. Was the Met Office right to issue gale
warnings? Ask ordinary folk here and you will be told in no uncertain
terms. They don't know what the official terms of a gale are and aren't
particularly interested, but they do know that a gale warning means
damage, strong winds and danger.

I agree. It is more important than ever now that there are lots of
semi-dead
horse chestnut trees about with brittle branches. One of my neighbours
had a
30' tree snap in two on Monday - narrowly missing their house. The mature
oaks I can see from home have survived unscathed despite being in a very
exposed position and swaying like crazy on the day (whole tree that is
not
just the branches).


As I posted in another thread, my wife had a problem travelling from
Macclesfield to London by train on Monday as the line was closed for a
while
due to a fallen tree. It doesn't bear thinking about what might happen if
one
of the high speed Virgin trains ran into a fallen tree. There's not much
the
train companies can do when they receive a gale warning, other than run
the
trains much more slowly than usual, which they don't. When my wife
eventually
got a train on Monday it ran at the normal speed. I suppose the answer
would be
to cut down all the trees bordering the railway lines but I can't see that
ever
happening. Makes you think, though.

They used to be apparently, in the days of steam to stop sparks causing
fires.
When steam ended, the trees were allowed to grow back. By the early 90s
they had grown back to such an extent that we had the first major 'leaves
on the line' problems.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message
...
Brian in Aberfeldy wrote:
On Sep 14, 10:49 am, "Ken Cook" wrote:
The local man killed by a falling tree in Monday's gale was well known
to
me. It certainly brings home another side of severe weather when
something
like this happens. Was the Met Office right to issue gale warnings? Ask
ordinary folk here and you will be told in no uncertain terms. They
don't
know what the official terms of a gale are and aren't particularly
interested, but they do know that a gale warning means damage, strong
winds
and danger.
The warnings were well in advance and spot on, they usually are here.
Imagine the repercussions in these parts if there had been no warnings.
Most of our population are not weather nuts and welcome warnings of
gales,
snow, ice etc.

Ken
Copley, Teesdale

My thoughts exactly. The fault lies with newspapers mainly for taking
an maximum and making it a mean.

brian
aberfeldy
------------------------
The forecasts I saw and warnings seemed about right on this occasion. I
drove from London to Liverpool on Monday and there were a few trucks
swerving about. (They never heed any warnings do they?). They always said
Scotland and the very north of England would bear the brunt.

Yes, I think the yellow warning for this area was appropriate. There was
a time in the late afternoon/early evening when it was very windy indeed.
OK not enough to cause serios damage or much inconvenience to the
general public, but it doesn't take all that strong a wind to cause problems
for high-sided vehicles.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Sep 14, 5:45*pm, "Will Hand" wrote:
"Ken Cook" wrote in message

...

The local man killed by a falling tree in Monday's gale was well known to
me. It certainly brings home another side of severe weather when something
like this happens. Was the Met Office right to issue gale warnings? Ask
ordinary folk here and you will be told in no uncertain terms. They don't
know what the official terms of a gale are and aren't particularly
interested, but they do know that a gale warning means damage, strong
winds and danger.
The warnings were well in advance and spot on, they usually are here.
Imagine the repercussions in these parts if there had been no warnings.
Most of our population are not weather nuts and welcome warnings of gales,
snow, ice etc.

Ken
Copley, Teesdale

Well said Ken.

If the temperature inversion had been lower and close to the summits the lee
gusts would have been even stronger!

It's alway hard for us enthusiasts to put ourselves in the mindset of the
general public, so to get feedback is always good.

Cheers,

Will
--

Heh! To get good feedback always seems good for the MetO and its
employees. You and your colleagues often don't quite say the same when
feedback is not so good!

In this case, I think the warnings for high winds were certainly
merited. It's very easy to tip a high sided vehicle, or in this case,
tragically, a full-leaved tree. It must have been a case of the
warning not being seen, or, perhaps more likely the warning not being
heeded - really it is just very sad and was probably one of those
hugely unlucky things; to be in entirely the wrong place at entirely
the wrong time. IMO, no fault could be attributed to the MetO for
issuing the warning.

I'll make a little assumption that this post is in response to the one
that I posted titled 'I thougth it was meant to be windy today?'
It was a point on which to muse, a question, the ? at the end is a
question mark.

I think that one or two peolple need to calm down a little, take a
tablet if it helps.

I never actually said that the Met'O was wrong to put out their
warnings - I thought that it was beyond dispute that they should - and
for what it is worth the forecasting of the event was very good,
particularly its track across the Atlantic.

The central point was, were the warnings (and the media hype)
suggestive of an even windier event? especially for my part of the
world.
Then moving on, what would be the base line for putting out warnings?
Clearly I think that they are not needed for icy pavements and 2-5cm
of snow - this info' can surely be part of the forecast? (a point made
by someone else.)

I also went on to say that in general the Met'O do a good job.

Just thought I should clarify.

wrote:
I'll make a little assumption that this post is in response to the one
that I posted titled 'I thougth it was meant to be windy today?'
It was a point on which to muse, a question, the ? at the end is a
question mark.

I think that one or two peolple need to calm down a little, take a
tablet if it helps.

I never actually said that the Met'O was wrong to put out their
warnings - I thought that it was beyond dispute that they should - and
for what it is worth the forecasting of the event was very good,
particularly its track across the Atlantic.

The central point was, were the warnings (and the media hype)
suggestive of an even windier event? especially for my part of the
world.
Then moving on, what would be the base line for putting out warnings?
Clearly I think that they are not needed for icy pavements and 2-5cm
of snow - this info' can surely be part of the forecast? (a point made
by someone else.)

I also went on to say that in general the Met'O do a good job.

Just thought I should clarify.
-----------------
I wouldn't worry - I think it was just agreeing with Ken's comments
rather than criticising yours. We save the real moans up for when the
snow warnings go wrong ;-)
Dave

On 14/09/2011 19:19, Dave Cornwell wrote:
wrote:
I'll make a little assumption that this post is in response to the one
that I posted titled 'I thougth it was meant to be windy today?'
It was a point on which to muse, a question, the ? at the end is a
question mark.

I think that one or two peolple need to calm down a little, take a
tablet if it helps.

I never actually said that the Met'O was wrong to put out their
warnings - I thought that it was beyond dispute that they should - and
for what it is worth the forecasting of the event was very good,
particularly its track across the Atlantic.

The central point was, were the warnings (and the media hype)
suggestive of an even windier event? especially for my part of the
world.
Then moving on, what would be the base line for putting out warnings?
Clearly I think that they are not needed for icy pavements and 2-5cm
of snow - this info' can surely be part of the forecast? (a point made
by someone else.)

I also went on to say that in general the Met'O do a good job.

Just thought I should clarify.
-----------------
I wouldn't worry - I think it was just agreeing with Ken's comments
rather than criticising yours. We save the real moans up for when the
snow warnings go wrong ;-)
Dave

I am not so forgiving. He didn't say where he was or on what basis he
was accusing the met office of exaggerating the threat from wind damage.
They were pretty much right on the nail for NE England.

Where I live neighbours have trees down, a couple of badly built
buildings have been trashed and HGVs were on their side blocking some
roads. I reckon that merits an amber warning and his original post was
completely out of order. The Met Office were right - the red tops may
well have gone completely OTT about it but what is new about that?

Regards,
Martin Brown

Like I said - calm down - take a pill.
I did say where I live - In cumbria near to Shap.
Quite agree that a warning was merited - never said that it wasn't and
quite agree that the media were looking for a story - the BBC had
people out at various locations trying to talk up 30mph gusts; that
was quite sad really.
Curious about 'badly built buildings' - don't they tend to be easily
damaged anyway?
But don't worry, I'm not after forgiveness.

On 14/09/2011 16:32, Norman wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:

On 14/09/2011 10:49, Ken Cook wrote:
The local man killed by a falling tree in Monday's gale was well known
to me. It certainly brings home another side of severe weather when
something like this happens. Was the Met Office right to issue gale
warnings? Ask ordinary folk here and you will be told in no uncertain
terms. They don't know what the official terms of a gale are and aren't
particularly interested, but they do know that a gale warning means
damage, strong winds and danger.
I agree. It is more important than ever now that there are lots of semi-dead
horse chestnut trees about with brittle branches. One of my neighbours had a
30' tree snap in two on Monday - narrowly missing their house. The mature
oaks I can see from home have survived unscathed despite being in a very
exposed position and swaying like crazy on the day (whole tree that is not
just the branches).

As I posted in another thread, my wife had a problem travelling from
Macclesfield to London by train on Monday as the line was closed for a while
due to a fallen tree. It doesn't bear thinking about what might happen if one
of the high speed Virgin trains ran into a fallen tree. There's not much the
train companies can do when they receive a gale warning, other than run the
trains much more slowly than usual, which they don't.

Actually, they do; and this was one of the causes of the delays which
occurred on the main lines that day. Depending on the risk, the
allowable speed might be reduced to as low as 50 mph. This is going to
cause big delays on long-distance routes with normal speeds of 100 - 125
mph. But, as you say, this is preferable to the alternative, especially
considering a collision at 100mph releases not twice but four times the
destructive energy of a collision at 50mph.

When my wife eventually
got a train on Monday it ran at the normal speed. I suppose the answer would be
to cut down all the trees bordering the railway lines but I can't see that ever
happening. Makes you think, though.



You're so right. Everyone loves trees these days but, like anything
else, trees in the wrong place can cause problems. But the fact that a
particular train ran at the normal speed over a certain section of route
doesn't mean that all the others that day did, or even that that
particular train was allowed to run at normal speed over all of its
route. The "emergency" speed limits will be reviewed as circumstances
change.

--
- Yokel -

Yokel posts via a spam-trap account which is not read.

[ regarding whether railways react to high wind warnings ....]

Actually, they do; and this was one of the causes of the delays
which occurred on the main lines that day. Depending on the risk,
the allowable speed might be reduced to as low as 50 mph. This is
going to cause big delays on long-distance routes with normal speeds
of 100 - 125 mph. But, as you say, this is preferable to the
alternative, especially considering a collision at 100mph releases
not twice but four times the destructive energy of a collision at
50mph.


.... for a good many years, certainly back to pre-privatisation days,
railways that depend on overhead capture of electric power have
responded to warnings of gales and introduced much-reduced speeds on
such lines: I can remember issuing such warnings from London Weather
Centre in the 1980s and I'm pretty sure that the Public Services
Handbook contained the instructions for such warnings so we're going
back to the early 1970s at least & I suspect to the early 1960s when
elements of the WCML were electrified. When wind speeds are
high/gusty, then the overhead arrays (the catenary/'loopy bits', the
droppers and contact wires/lines that actually supply power to the
locomotive/power unit) sway beyond certain tolerances and this may/can
cause excessive movement of the whole assembly and reduction/loss of
power - and in extremis, damage to the overhead array or to the
locomotive's pantograph.

Also, for lines that pass along the coasts (e.g., around Dawlish, the
Ayrshire coast line etc.), speed restrictions will be in force to
reduce any possible problems with trains encountering waves
over-topping the permanent way. Another impact on railway operation
occurs with respect to the Channel Tunnel; when the wind exceeds
certain limits, then speed of trains passing through the tunnel will
be reduced significantly to minimise the 'shock' of the train
entering/exiting the tunnel - i.e., passing from a high wind
environment to a 'no' wind environment, particularly when a lengthy
train is involved - one part will be subject to high forces due to the
wind, whilst the bit of the train still in the tunnel (or already
entered) will have no such stress.

I'm sure there are more examples ... crossing exposed bridges across
estuaries; and of course, if you 'throw' the schedule in one part of
the network, then the entire 'diagram' that operators use to
plan/manage traffic is thrown awry.

Martin.


--
Martin Rowley
West Moors, East Dorset (UK): 17m (56ft) amsl
Lat: 50.82N Long: 01.88W
NGR: SU 082 023