Cordless telephones are indeed in very widespread use, and a surprising number of users don't know that they wont work in a power cut. A traditional phone SHOULD be kept as backup. I have connected my cordless phone base unit to a UPS but that is not the norm.

Street cabinets that require electricity, should in my view have TWO supplies, one from the local mains and an alternative from the telephone exchange that is equipped with a generator.

There are indeed major problems in a power failure, and the consequences seem to surprise many people. In particular some people do not really understand that a power cut means NO mains electricity for anyone, no matter how deserving.
I have heard complaints like these !
"They would have to leave the light on the stairs on, Auntie could fall"
"They should not be allowed to cut me off, I have three babies"
"But I NEED THE INTERNET."

During and after storm Arwen, there were many complaints along such lines.

 
Battery technology developing fast, sodium batteries offer a cheaper alternative to lithium though at a cost in increased weight.  For fixed BT cabinets, routers and even mobile phone masts this would not be a problem.  So a greater use of UPS or EPS is the solution here rather than keeping analogue. 

 
I agree that there is a concern, however the following points are valid:

1 At the moment most people have a cordless phone.  This will die without power and relatively few people have a corded phone available to plug in if necessary.

2 A lot of BT equipment is now powered through the curb side green boxes which have no UPS and so will cease to work in a power cut.

In addition mobile phone base stations have limited UPS capacity so mobile phones will stop working.

The net effect of this is that even if BT continued the analogue service many people would still loose connectivity.

The analogue equipment in BT exchanges is end of life and digital is the replacement using fibre for speed.  Technically BT can deliver digital over copper using ADSL or VDSL but these will require power to th green box.

Home workers have a wider problem if there is no power, but they would have had some problems if they were trying to commute into work.

The bottom line is that there are major problems if there is no power.

 

In those particular cases I agree, both disasters occurred very suddenly  and the the general availability of telephones would have helped little.
Contrary examples exist, for example the East coast floods of 1953, in which many people drowned in their homes, unaware of the approaching flood. Telephones would have saved many lives.

Prompt use of a telephone is arguably more relevant  in the case of individuals in danger, rather than large scale disasters. For examples, watch one of the many TV programmes about the work of the ambulance service and the air ambulance, in which many lives are saved.
And in such cases how was the ambulance called ? almost always by telephone ! If no phone had been available the victim would probably have died.
Consider also the risk of fire, many lives and properties are saved by the fire brigade, almost always called by phone.

I was taught at primary school how and when to ring 999 for the emergency services. Including how to proceed in the case of a party line, how to dial 999 by touch in darkness or smoke, and that no coins were needed to make an emergency call from a public telephone.
If no phone was available, running to a shop or pub or to the nearest police station or fire station was suggested.

 
Similarly if you have a work arrangement where you have a computer system and telephone sytem combined it does amount to a single point of failure.

 
Several Telecom companies have been rolling out 'Digital Voice' for a few years now.
I believe Virgin and BT have now paused this as there is growing concern that more vulnerable people are left without call facilities in event of a power cut.
Especially those reliant on "life-line pendant monitors".

 
Hmm. This is a sobering discussion.

May I offer two other examples of disasters which occurred, quite quickly, in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberfan_disaster, 1966 - 144 died

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynmouth_Flood, 1952 - 34 died

I'm not convinced that, in either of those tragedies, the use of traditional landlines would have helped in forward warning.


_{Edit to correct date}

 
BT have announced plans to end traditional copper wire telephone service in the near future. This means total reliance on an electricity supply in order to make or receive a phone call.
No electricity=no telephone or internet service.

concerns have been expressed about this policy, after storm Arwen in particular.

 
Yes a modern day Carrington event could be very serious indeed and result in very substantial loss of life.
I have taken such precautions as I can for my own safety, but can not do much about the wider effects on infrastructure.

There MIGHT be a days warning during which time HMG could make limited preperations, but would they do anything effective ?

 
If you want to get into doomscrolling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event

nowadays would probably take out most landline and radio communication, and satellites.

 
As has already been said, extreme weather events are increasing in both frequency and severity.
Modern communications help a lot to reduce the death toll by giving warning of the need to evacuate, communications dont much help in reducing destruction of infrastructure.

In some ways, society is becoming more vulnerable to extreme weather events, in particular the increasing reliance on electric power.
In the 1953 floods many areas still lacked electricity, and in those areas that DID have the new fangled electric lights, these were considered new and untrustworthy, most households still had oil lamps and candles.

These days lack of electricity increasingly means no telephone or internet service. And soon no internet will mean no food in supermarkets, reordering is increasingly automatic and on line.

The lack of telephone and internet service was heavily criticised during and after storm Arwen.In many places the ONLY means of summoning help in case of fire or sudden illness was amateur radio or an Inmarset satelite telephone.
Satellite telephones can be a literall lifesaver in such conditions, they are too expensive for general use.
IMHO, EVERY remote village should have a satellite phone available for emergencies, keep it at the village shop or pub, or other suitable location.

I repeat my earlier advice that those living remote places should store food and fuel for at least a months use, two months would be better.
Have a means of heating at least one room for a month without re-supply.
Non perishable foods that require no, or minimal preperation, for at least a month.
Oil lamps and fuel for at least a month.

 

Yes but it should not have been left to the media. The very high tides were observed all down the East coast and had there been a monitoring and warning system it is almost certain that most of the lives could have been saved.  Of course we had telephone system and so all that was lacking was institutional arrangements to bring this about. 

 

according to Wikipedia, Yes

 
Was it the 1953 floods that eventually led to the construction of the Thames Barrier?  Took about 30 years to go from idea to operational?

Paul

 
Given that we already seem to be doomscrolling on Wikipedia it's worth reflecting on the Bristol Channel flood event of 1607, thought to be a tidal surge rather than a tsunami (another risk to which the UK is exposed).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1607_Bristol_Channel_floods

Mark

 

The 1953 East coast floods are a good example to study. 307 lives lost altogether, but as with most extreme weather events, the damage was local, and the effect in those localities was immense, while for much of the country it would have been forgotten about quite quickly. 59 were killed in Canvey Island, a small town on the Essex coast, and 35 in Jaywick, a much smaller Essex community. 41 in Felixstowe and 31 in Hunstanton. If it happened today, one advantage we would have is that news of the events would spread much more quickly, so some awareness of what was happening in Hunstanton would have been known in Essex before the damage occurred there. But the scale of damage would not be known until it happened. So today's instant communications, 24 hours news, social media and so on, should reduce the likelihood of loss of life, but would be unlikely to eliminate it (and would obviously have no effect on the scale of damage).

To an extent, Britain has been lucky with extreme weather events so far. The 1953 floods killed 1800 in the Netherlands. Last winter, immense flooding occurred in much of the nearby continent, and just these last few weeks, the worst of the storms affected northern France rather than England. Wildfires, extreme heat events, all have affected nearby countries more than us. But it won't always be like that, and one day climate change will impact this country in ways that most people will think are unimaginable.

 

Do you mean that the Coffee Shop archives do not go back that far? 

 

I can find no accounts of any infrastructure or staff shortage related delays or cancellations on the Transwilts or in the Thames Valley on the date in question, therefore I assume that the infrastructure and staff were in fact MORE robust and resilient in those days 

 
Well worth reading Daniel Defoe's book on it, available as a Penguin Classic. Similarly his book on the Great Plague, think we had a problem with Covid?

 
It was a terrible storm, and yes, shipping and buildings more vulnerable - but yes, we'd struggle today (and did with the October 1987 event even though it was of a different nature, impacted a smaller area, and though it was very violent, was of short duration).

Mark

 

I suspect elements of all three.

We are certainly getting extreme events more frequently these days due, almost certainly to man made climate change, but that does not mean that does not mean that events as extreme as those we are experiencing now did not happen before, merely that they are happening more frequently. 

Storm Babet had that sort of impact on buildings in the Chanel islands and northern France, but building regulations and the test of time (weak buildings have not survived) mean that buildings are generally more resilient. 

As recently as the 1953 east coast floods, lack of warning was the major factor in the loss of life and that may well have been the issue with the number of lives lost at sea in 1703. 

 
320 year ago, from WikiPedia


I read this in absolute horror at the death and destruction wrought by the weather. I compare it to the recent extreme weather events we have seen which, though descructive in parts amd places, have not lead in the UK to the same loss of life and the same effect on property and transport.  Is this because it was more extreme in weather terms, or because of the less robust infrastructure and lack of warning systems in place in those days??