Tree Cutting

[ashworth]

I recently read comments in the Blackpool to Manchester electrification thread about residents of properties backing onto the railway, I think in the Bolton area, complaining about excessive tree felling. Whilst I fully appreciate that wide scale tree felling does need to take place prior to electrification, I do think in some locations on the rail network in recent years the amount and of tree felling has been a bit excessive and not very environmentally friendly.

I was quite shocked last summer seeing the amount of tree felling taking place in the Poulton Le Fylde area prior to the electrification from Preston to Blackpool North. Everything seemed to be being cut down including all the mature trees well away from the actual tracks on embankments of an extremely wide cutting. Perhaps this was necessary, as I’m no expert, it is all railway land but local councils and conservationalists are usually very strict regarding any felling of mature these days and I wondered how they got away with it.

Travelling recently around the country, I notice that tree felling and cutting back of trees along the side of railways has been taking place in many areas even where there is no electrification planned. Again I fully appreciate that this has to be done to keep the trees away from the tracks and to reduce the likelihood of trees falling onto the tracks during windy and rough weather. However, again in some areas it just seems to be a case of cut every tree down including perfectly healthy mature trees. How do they get away with it? They wouldn’t get away with this at the side of roads or in parks. On the line between Mansfield and Worksop there has recently been large scale cutting back of trees and bushes at the side of the track. What a mess? No care taken whatsoever. No careful pruning and cutting of branches. They have just ripped branches off the trees on a large scale taking no account of the appearance of the remainder of the trees or the condition they have been left in. It looks an appalling mess with no appreciation about the damage they have done to the trees or their appearance of the environment. Like our motorway verges our railway embankments should be a haven for wildlife and an asset to the countryside, not the blot on the landscape that has been left north of Mansfield with damaged trees with half ripped off branches. The view from the train window is bad, I couldn’t believe how dreadful these trees now look with branches literally ripped off, branches split down the middle and widespread tearing of bark from the tree trunks.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Every year the entire country and the press take great enjoyment from point out that leaves on the line delay trains and aren't the railway's useless if they can't stop leaves.

Stopping leaves means removing trees. Hence areas away from electrification being felled.

And in many areas (not as all, as has been discussed on these threads many times so lets not revisit that) removing vegetation from earthworks helps maintain their longevity. Again hence areas away from electrification being felled.

They also affect signal sighting, so rather than coming every few years to trim back, long term removal becomes cheaper. Something that Network Rail is FINALLY coming round to the idea of.

 

[DarloRich]

I recently read comments in the Blackpool to Manchester electrification thread about residents of properties backing onto the railway, I think in the Bolton area, complaining about excessive tree felling. Whilst I fully appreciate that wide scale tree felling does need to take place prior to electrification, I do think in some locations on the rail network in recent years the amount and of tree felling has been a bit excessive and not very environmentally friendly.

I was quite shocked last summer seeing the amount of tree felling taking place in the Poulton Le Fylde area prior to the electrification from Preston to Blackpool North. Everything seemed to be being cut down including all the mature mature trees well away from the actual tracks on emebankments of an extremely wide cutting. Perhaps this was necessary, as I’m no expert, it is all railway land but local councils and conservationalists are usually very strict regarding any felling of mature these days and I wondered how they got away with it.

Travelling recently around the country, I notice that tree felling and cutting back of trees along the side of railways has been taking place in many areas even where there is no electrification planned. Again I fully appreciate that this has to be done to keep the trees away from the tracks and to reduce the likelihood of trees falling onto the tracks during windy and rough weather. However, again in some areas it just seems to be a case of cut every tree down including perfectly healthy mature trees. How do they get away with it? They wouldn’t get away with this at the side of roads or in parks. On the line between Mansfield and Worksop there has recently been large scale cutting back of trees and bushes at the side of the track. What a mess? No care taken whatsoever. No careful pruning and cutting of branches. They have just ripped branches off the trees on a large scale taking no account of the appearance of the remainder of the trees or the condition they have been left in. It looks an appalling mess with no appreciation about the damage they have done to the trees or their appearance of the environment. Like our motorway verges our railway embankments should be a haven for wildlife and an asset to the countryside, not the blot on the landscape that has been left north of Mansfield with damaged trees with half ripped off branches. The view from the train window is bad enough, I couldn’t believe how dreadful these trees now look over a wide area.

where to start with this? There are number of misconceptions to challenge.

 

[ashworth]

I knew that I was opening a whole controversial can of worms here!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

How do they get away with it? .

How would you like it if your neighbours told you that you could not cut down tress on your own property. These are nearly 200 years old grand fathered rights on their property and they have every right to cut down trees and people near the railway did not have to buy property near the railway -they chose to live there. As others have mentioned upthread there are very real safety reasons too and sensible logistic reasons about leaf fall etc.

 

[Envoy]

If anything, I don’t think Network Rail do enough to remove line side vegetation. It is far better to remove trees that are close to railways than to have them actually be blown down onto the tracks and for trains to crash into them. Furthermore, removing line side vegetation opens up views across the countryside for the enjoyment of passengers. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the beauty of trees - but they must be in the right place. Network Rail must fell the trees before the nesting season - which is about to start.

 

[ashworth]

If anything, I don’t think Network Rail do enough to remove line side vegetation. It is far better to remove trees that are close to railways than to have them actually be blown down onto the tracks and for trains to crash into them. Furthermore, removing line side vegetation opens up views across the countryside for the enjoyment of passengers. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the beauty of trees - but they must be in the right place. Network Rail must fell the trees before the nesting season - which is about to start.

It’s not always as simple,as that. You cannot always just cut down trees these days even on your own property, especially in villages and other sensitive locations. In some church grounds, local to me, there are 4 completely worthless, coming towards the end of their life sycamore trees that are getting in a dangerous condition and need removing. The local council will not let the church remove these trees and the not very wealthy church has had to pay over £1,000 to have them pollarded.

To bring it back to topic. I do understand fully why trees have to be felled or cut back on railway property but just wondered how the railway get around the local councils and environmentalists.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Sometimes NR can't win. Just the other week there was a faff with some idiots in Bristol taking it upon themselves to cut down trees that were on NR's land because NR wouldn't do it. So they cut trees down and people like the OP complain, and then they don't cut trees down and you have idiots risking danger to themselves and passing trains to cut them down!

 

[DarloRich]

In some church grounds, local to me, there are 4 completely worthless, coming towards the end of their life sycamore trees that are getting in a dangerous condition and need removing. The local council will not let the church remove these trees and the not very wealthy church has had to pay over £1,000 to have them pollarded.

may i suggest that you may have a misunderstanding of that issue as well. Could they, perhaps, be the subject of a tree preservation order or part of a conservation area or some-such?

 

[Tio Terry]

When we had steam trains there was a sort of natural tree clearance, it usually took the form of a fire started by sparks emitted from the locomotive. Places like Thetford forest used to build in a fire break between the railway and the trees to prevent the fires spreading.

When steam finished trees started to grow bigger and closer to the railway, initially this led to problems with telegraph pole routes and interference with communications and signalling systems so they needed to be cut back. Then line side cables replaced pole routes. The trees got even closer to the trains.

In OHEL areas they need to be cut back to prevent the possibility of rain or snow laden branches coming in to contact with live parts and trespassers climbing trees and getting too close to the OHLE. In 3rd rail and diesel areas it's not uncommon to have trees and bushes in contact with passing trains, but this means that any maintenance or faulting needs a possession as it's not safe to walk the line. Signal sighting issues has already been mentioned, there's also sighting issues for occupational level crossing and footpath users to consider.

There will always be a need for vegetation control, there always has been, but the days of the carefully manicured hawthorn hedge are long gone. Today it's flail bush cutters that shred unwanted vegetation and it's cheaper to cut a tree down once ever 15 years than to trim it back every other year. Aesthetics are difficult to justify on a balance sheet!

There is some danger in over doing vegetation clearance, it can affect ground conditions and lead to land slides if roots are destroyed and, of course, trees drink water so cut them down and you could help flooding.

It's a balance that is required, not easy to gauge.

 

[55018ballymoss]

I would simply ask the OP to review pictures from older times. This would help to remind of a time when the railway routinely managed all encroachment onto the running lines either through natural course, stray sparks from steam locos, or through management by cutting back trees.
The railway realised that trees too close to the railway cause problems, such as fallen trees, leaves building on the railhead, damage to embankments, as well as the aesthetic of not being able to see the view for passengers, and they were dealt with.
It is a shame that Network Rail and the rest of the privatised railway have taken so long to catch up with basic maintenance, such as this, which is a necessary cost and not a luxury when it comes to operation of the railway.

 

[DelW]

Indeed in steam days embankments and cuttings were kept clear of vegetation, but it's my understanding that this was done by local p-way gangs deliberately burning the banks under controlled conditions, so that stray sparks didn't cause accidental fires. I can remember seeing this done on the line near my parents' house in the 1960s.
It's amazing to see the contrast between photos taken in the 1950s and 60s, with those taken 30 or 40 years later.

 

[furnessvale]

Indeed in steam days embankments and cuttings were kept clear of vegetation, but it's my understanding that this was done by local p-way gangs deliberately burning the banks under controlled conditions, so that stray sparks didn't cause accidental fires. I can remember seeing this done on the line near my parents' house in the 1960s.
It's amazing to see the contrast between photos taken in the 1950s and 60s, with those taken 30 or 40 years later.

Correct. The local perway gang would often do a controlled burn while working on the adjacent track. A fire caused by a passing steam train was a nuisance, burning out of control and requiring the gang's attention, taking them away from other work.

 

[ashworth]

I would simply ask the OP to review pictures from older times. This would help to remind of a time when the railway routinely managed all encroachment onto the running lines either through natural course, stray sparks from steam locos, or through management by cutting back trees.
The railway realised that trees too close to the railway cause problems, such as fallen trees, leaves building on the railhead, damage to embankments, as well as the aesthetic of not being able to see the view for passengers, and they were dealt with.
It is a shame that Network Rail and the rest of the privatised railway have taken so long to catch up with basic maintenance, such as this, which is a necessary cost and not a luxury when it comes to operation of the railway.

I don’t need to look up old pictures from the 1960’s as I can just think back to my childhood and look at old photos from the garden where I lived for my first 14 years. My dad was a driver on the railway back in the days of steam and we lived in a rented house owned by the railway right next to the track.
Yes, I remember how the banks, tress and other plant growth was carefully managed and generally maintained and cared for. It was a different age and will never come back.

I now fully understand how after years of neglect the dense growth of bushes and trees next to many of our railways has got to be cut back and controlled. However, years of letting everything grow wild followed by drastic cutting back of everything that’s alive is perhaps not the best way. As already pointed out much of this undergrowth with its root systems and trees drinking up the water have helped to keep embankments stable for many years. Drastically cutting it all down in one go can lead to unstable ground and land slips especially following periods of heavy rain or even at the other extreme extended dry periods.

 

[theageofthetra]

I would simply ask the OP to review pictures from older times. This would help to remind of a time when the railway routinely managed all encroachment onto the running lines either through natural course, stray sparks from steam locos, or through management by cutting back trees.
The railway realised that trees too close to the railway cause problems, such as fallen trees, leaves building on the railhead, damage to embankments, as well as the aesthetic of not being able to see the view for passengers, and they were dealt with.
It is a shame that Network Rail and the rest of the privatised railway have taken so long to catch up with basic maintenance, such as this, which is a necessary cost and not a luxury when it comes to operation of the railway.

Or see any railway in Australia. They can use weedkillers that actually work and the lineside looks like ours did 60 years ago.

The bushfire risk plus the oil off indigenous trees will play a part in why they keep the lineside so clear.

 

[Ash Bridge]

Here's an example close where I live, 40 years separate these to shots. The class 67 is in exactly the same position as the class 50 at the head of a Euston - Glasgow service was back in 1973, please excuse the very poor quality of both pictures but they do illustrate the point made above.

 

[Western Lord]

The obsession that some people have with trees reminds me of the "every sperm is sacred" scene in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. Trees are big weeds and will grow anywhere if not controlled. Travelling by train to admire the countryside is impossible in many places today, you are running through a green tunnel much of the time. Comparison with photos from 50 or 60 years ago shows that there is much more tree and foliage growth today and it is not just railways. There is an excellent movie site called Reel Streets which compares movie locations with what's there today. Even on streets in London it is sometimes impossible to realise it is the same place due to the massive growth of trees.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

OP:

1. I assume you pay your taxes, making you a funder of the Government.
2. Network Rail is now an agency of the Department for Transport and thus a Government body
3. If NR didn't actively manage trees on it's property the outcome will eventually be either legal action against it by neighbours or disruption to the operation of the railway, costing you the taxpayer money to fund the results
4. However, in the case of disruption to the operation (and safety) of the line NR has a right under legislation to do whatever it deems reasonable to address the issue, including a right of compulsory entry to third party property at no notice.
5. So, NR could leave the trees, wait until they fall on the line, drive a tractor over your garden(s) to fix the issue and then haggle with you for three years about £5 in compo
6. Or it could do it's job, like it is doing
7. On a similar subject, it could also consider reclaiming all the little bits of railway land that have been stolen by petty neighbours illegally extending their rear boundaries. My favoured tool for this is the Cat 235 excavator, at 0300 hours, with the arisings being returned to the neighbour for disposal (e.g. dumped on their decking).

 

[Bald Rick]

OP:

1. I assume you pay your taxes, making you a funder of the Government.
2. Network Rail is now an agency of the Department for Transport and thus a Government body
3. If NR didn't actively manage trees on it's property the outcome will eventually be either legal action against it by neighbours or disruption to the operation of the railway, costing you the taxpayer money to fund the results
4. However, in the case of disruption to the operation (and safety) of the line NR has a right under legislation to do whatever it deems reasonable to address the issue, including a right of compulsory entry to third party property at no notice.
5. So, NR could leave the trees, wait until they fall on the line, drive a tractor over your garden(s) to fix the issue and then haggle with you for three years about £5 in compo
6. Or it could do it's job, like it is doing
7. On a similar subject, it could also consider reclaiming all the little bits of railway land that have been stolen by petty neighbours illegally extending their rear boundaries. My favoured tool for this is the Cat 235 excavator, at 0300 hours, with the arisings being returned to the neighbour for disposal (e.g. dumped on their decking).

[LIKE BUTTON]

 

[GRALISTAIR]

[LIKE BUTTON]

x 2 ditto

 

[Ash Bridge]

x 2 ditto

+ another one for the like button.

 

[Elecman]

And another LIKE from me

 

[Ships]

OP:

1. I assume you pay your taxes, making you a funder of the Government.
2. Network Rail is now an agency of the Department for Transport and thus a Government body
3. If NR didn't actively manage trees on it's property the outcome will eventually be either legal action against it by neighbours or disruption to the operation of the railway, costing you the taxpayer money to fund the results
4. However, in the case of disruption to the operation (and safety) of the line NR has a right under legislation to do whatever it deems reasonable to address the issue, including a right of compulsory entry to third party property at no notice.
5. So, NR could leave the trees, wait until they fall on the line, drive a tractor over your garden(s) to fix the issue and then haggle with you for three years about £5 in compo
6. Or it could do it's job, like it is doing
7. On a similar subject, it could also consider reclaiming all the little bits of railway land that have been stolen by petty neighbours illegally extending their rear boundaries. My favoured tool for this is the Cat 235 excavator, at 0300 hours, with the arisings being returned to the neighbour for disposal (e.g. dumped on their decking).

Well put, especially point 7!

 

[AM9]

Well put, especially point 7!

Me too. Ooops, that a bit overused lately.
Where have all the tree huggers suddenly gone to on this thread?

 

[randyrippley]

Badgers
Trees mean badgers. And foxes and rabbits.
And we know what they do to embankments

 

[Joseph_Locke]

Badgers
Trees mean badgers. And foxes and rabbits.
And we know what they do to embankments

Not if you deploy the grout pumps.

 

[randyrippley]

Not if you deploy the grout pumps.

that would of course be totally illegal.......

 

[Mugby]

To put it simply, nature is an incredibly powerful force. If you don't control it, it will control you!

 

[6Gman]

It’s not always as simple,as that. You cannot always just cut down trees these days even on your own property, especially in villages and other sensitive locations. In some church grounds, local to me, there are 4 completely worthless, coming towards the end of their life sycamore trees that are getting in a dangerous condition and need removing. The local council will not let the church remove these trees and the not very wealthy church has had to pay over £1,000 to have them pollarded.

To bring it back to topic. I do understand fully why trees have to be felled or cut back on railway property but just wondered how the railway get around the local councils and environmentalists.

Environmentalists have no say on tree removal.

Local Councils only have a say if the trees are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs), are in a Conservation Area, or some other designated status. The vast majority of trees are the sole responsibility of the landowner.

 

[6Gman]

Badgers
Trees mean badgers. And foxes and rabbits.
And we know what they do to embankments

Aren't you thinking of squirrels? And sloths?

Badgers, foxes and rabbits don't live in trees.