Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#12
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#13
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#14
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#15
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#16
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#18
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#19
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#20
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ 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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Copley gale, well done MetO! | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Well done Met Office! | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Well done Met O (Boltshope) | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Well done Met Soc | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) | |||
Well done met office | uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) |