Lineside Vegetation - past, present, and future

Peter C · 24 Jul 2019

Hello all,
Sorry if this is in the wrong subforum or has already been discussed, but I was just wondering:
Why are our railways' linesides so covered in vegetation? Living on the Cotswold Line, I can say that at stations such as Kingham, there are a lot of trees. And big ones.
Here's Kingham station in 1980s (not my photo):

And here it is in 2019 (my photo):

Both photos show the lineside vegetation (or lack of) at the Hereford end of the station. These trees have been there for years, yes, but surely if they were (I assume) kept back and stopped during the 80s and for decades before that, why can't we do it now? In a large thunderstorm, these trees could easily fall down and cause untold damage.

I was just wondering if anyone know anything about this.

-Peter

EDIT: I am describing the left hand side of the 80s photo here and the trees behind the 43 in my new one.

RailUK Forums

DarloRich · 24 Jul 2019

This thread will generate all kinds of wibble from the usual suspects almost all of it in accurate.

The issue is simple: time, cost, man power, access and the lack thereof

Edit: plus different environmental legislation.

Bromley boy · 24 Jul 2019

Peter C said:
Both photos show the lineside vegetation (or lack of) at the Hereford end of the station. These trees have been there for years, yes, but surely if they were (I assume) kept back and stopped during the 80s and for decades before that, why can't we do it now? In a large thunderstorm, these trees could easily fall down and cause untold damage.

Any reason to suppose those trees are a particular risk? If they were I’m sure NR would be on the case.

As I understand it linesides were kept largely barren during the age of steam due to the risk of lineside fires. In the diesel/electric era vegetation has been allowed to encroach.

However, certainly on my bit of the former southern region, there has been quite radical defoliation over the last few years. This has paid dividends in reducing leaf fall related delays.

Peter C · 24 Jul 2019

Bromley boy said:
Any reason to suppose those trees are a particular risk? If they were I’m sure NR would be on the case.

As I understand it linesides were kept largely barren during the age of steam due to the risk of lineside fires. In the diesel/electric era vegetation has been allowed to encroach.

However, certainly on my bit of the former southern region, there has been quite radical defoliation over the last few years. This has paid dividends in reducing leaf fall related delays.

Fair. I agree with the leaves bit. Leaves on the line are a problem. IIRC, part of the Cotswold Line further towards Oxford is noted in the Sectional Appendix as being an area of low adhesion already.

-Peter

Bromley boy · 24 Jul 2019

Peter C said:
Fair. I agree with the leaves bit. Leaves on the line are a problem. IIRC, part of the Cotswold Line further towards Oxford is noted in the Sectional Appendix as being an area of low adhesion already.

-Peter

And of course another factor to consider is that removal of trees and line-side vegetation can destabilise embankments and lead to landslides.

From an operational perspective these tend to be rather worse than tree falls. Afflicted areas can be closed for days or weeks rather than hours!

Peter C · 24 Jul 2019

Bromley boy said:
And of course another factor to consider is that removal of trees and line-side vegetation can destabilise embankments and lead to landslides.

From an operational perspective these tend to be rather worse than tree falls. Afflicted areas can be closed for days or weeks rather than hours!

Fair point. I still think that, as the example at Kingham is not on an embankment, it could work there, but I agree with what you've said. I think that maybe closing the Cotswold Line (or maybe just this bit near Kingham - operate two halves, Oxford - Charlbury and Moreton - Hereford) could prove better long-term than having to close the line in the event of leaves on the line.
-Peter

Bevan Price · 24 Jul 2019

Bromley boy said:
Any reason to suppose those trees are a particular risk? If they were I’m sure NR would be on the case.

As I understand it linesides were kept largely barren during the age of steam due to the risk of lineside fires. In the diesel/electric era vegetation has been allowed to encroach.

However, certainly on my bit of the former southern region, there has been quite radical defoliation over the last few years. This has paid dividends in reducing leaf fall related delays.

In the steam age, cinders regularly set fire to lineside vegetation. But in some areas, the track "gangers" deliberately had "controlled burns" of lineside vegetation, especially when there was a potential threats to adjacent farmland (or woodland.)

Currently, things like buddleia and silver birch are like rampant weeds, and rapidly colonise anywhere that their seeds happen to land. From "bare land" to "near forest" seems to take little more than 5 to 10 years.

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

Bevan Price said:
In the steam age, cinders regularly set fire to lineside vegetation. But in some areas, the track "gangers" deliberately had "controlled burns" of lineside vegetation, especially when there was a potential threats to adjacent farmland (or woodland.)

Currently, things like buddleia and silver birch are like rampant weeds, and rapidly colonise anywhere that their seeds happen to land. From "bare land" to "near forest" seems to take little more than 5 to 10 years.

I have heard, especially on heritage lines now, where they will do these controlled burns to ensure that they can keep running.
I have seen videos on YouTube about this buddleia issue across the network and it is amazing how quickly it does spread. I just would have thought that NR would have been trying to keep it down.

-Peter

Rockhopper · 25 Jul 2019

Trees are a pain, by the time they are big enough to cause a problem they are too big to deal with easily!

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

Rockhopper said:
Trees are a pain, by the time they are big enough to cause a problem they are too big to deal with easily!

That's the problem! If the ones near Kingham had been tackled earlier, they wouldn't be this big.

-Peter

DarloRich · 25 Jul 2019

Peter C said:
I have heard, especially on heritage lines now, where they will do these controlled burns to ensure that they can keep running.
I have seen videos on YouTube about this buddleia issue across the network and it is amazing how quickly it does spread. I just would have thought that NR would have been trying to keep it down.

-Peter

did you read my first post?

Peter C said:
That's the problem! If the ones near Kingham had been tackled earlier, they wouldn't be this big.

-Peter

Are they are problem or have you decided they are are a problem? If so on what do you base that assessment? They look like fairly slender pine trees of a sort often grown for a crop.

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

DarloRich said:
did you read my first post?

Are they are problem or have you decided they are are a problem? If so on what do you base that assessment?

I did read your first post, and I still think that NR would be trying to keep these large plants down to ensure the safe running of trains. I have seen videos of trains on small branch lines when tree branches have started hitting trains as they go along. Surely that isn't good.

I said that the fact that "by the time they are big enough to cause a problem they are too big to deal with easily!" was the problem. Please read what I said properly.

-Peter

DarloRich · 25 Jul 2019

Peter C said:
I did read your first post, and I still think that NR would be trying to keep these large plants down to ensure the safe running of trains. I have seen videos of trains on small branch lines when tree branches have started hitting trains as they go along. Surely that isn't good.

I don't disagree however unlike many here I have to live in the real world of 2019 and not some kind of fantasy/mythical 1952 world. There isnt an army of people to go grass cutting ( and still deliver the other tasks they are responsible for) there isnt unlimited funds to pay for contractors and there isn't unfettered access to the track to do the work.

Peter C said:
I said that the fact that "by the time they are big enough to cause a problem they are too big to deal with easily!" was the problem. Please read what I said properly.

I read what you posted thanks. I repeat the tress you are worried about look like fairly slender pine tress. I don't think they are a problem. Do you know if they are on railway land? Do you know why they were planted? Do you know why that species was used?

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

DarloRich said:
I don't disagree however unlike many here I have to live in the real world of 2019 and not some kind of fantasy/mythical 1952 world. There isnt an army of people to go grass cutting ( and still deliver the other tasks they are responsible for) there isnt unlimited funds to pay for contractors and there isn't unfettered access to the track to do the work.

I read what you posted thanks. I repeat the tress you are worried about look like fairly slender pine tress. I don't think they are a problem. Do you know if they are on railway land? Do you know why they were planted? Do you know why that species was used?

I understand that money does not grow on trees. I do live in 2019 and I understand that whilst I think these trees on branch lines which could easily damage the side of a train, causing the TOC to have to pay for a service/fix, the people who could do this job don't due to financial constraints. Yes, those trees are pine trains and may not pose a problem now, but if we had some more bad weather like we had a couple of nights ago, we could easily see them collapse. It may sound like a "oh, it will never happen here" scenario, but it could happen. I can't see any reason for why those trees were planted there. Yes, they may not be on railway land, but NR seem to be alright telling people who live next to the railway (and not on railway land) what to do with things in their own gardens, so why can't this be extended to the trees? Kingham was used as an example in my original post. That species of tree is relatively common around this part of the world so they could have easily grown from seeds moved around.

-Peter

Rockhopper · 25 Jul 2019

They look like self seeded pine trees.

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

Rockhopper said:
They look like self seeded pine trees.

Thank you. I don't know a lot about trees and that sort of thing!

-Peter

rich r · 25 Jul 2019

Peter C said:
I have seen videos of trains on small branch lines when tree branches have started hitting trains as they go along. Surely that isn't good.

-Peter

Not just small branch lines - the eastern approach to Leeds station often has trees being batted out of the way by trains. Quite alarming when leaves and twigs snag the open windows in a Pacer and shower people inside with debris. I'm sure Leeds isn't at all unique in this respect too. Generally I guess they're self limiting by breaking off like that so unlikely to cause any real damage until NR get round to trimming them back.

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

rich r said:
Not just small branch lines - the eastern approach to Leeds station often has trees being batted out of the way by trains. Quite alarming when leaves and twigs snag the open windows in a Pacer and shower people inside with debris. I'm sure Leeds isn't at all unique in this respect too. Generally I guess they're self limiting by breaking off like that so unlikely to cause any real damage until NR get round to trimming them back.

OK. Big stations such as Leeds should be cared for more, I would think. But yes, the trees are self-limiting, evolution seems to have passed them by if they keep getting broken!

-Peter

Rockhopper · 25 Jul 2019

Peter C said:
Thank you. I don't know a lot about trees and that sort of thing!

-Peter

If you look at deliberately planted trees, especially pines then they are done in nice straight rows so machines can get in to manage them. I’m no expert either I hasten to add

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

Rockhopper said:
If you look at deliberately planted trees, especially pines then they are done in nice straight rows so machines can get in to manage them. I’m no expert either I hasten to add

OK. I suppose they kind of look like they are in rows, but kind of in a formation like you would get in cinema seating, you know 2 seats in row 1 then 1 seat in the middle of those two in row 2.

-Peter

DarloRich · 25 Jul 2019

Peter C said:
the people who could do this job don't due to financial constraints.

goodness me. it is not solely due to financial constraints. There are just as serious constraints on manpower and access and on competing priorities.

Peter C said:
Yes, they may not be on railway land, but NR seem to be alright telling people who live next to the railway (and not on railway land) what to do with things in their own gardens, so why can't this be extended to the trees?

NR cant tell people what to do on their land ( unless there is a risk to the railway) and nor can they just chop down tress on other peoples land.

Peter C said:
OK. Big stations such as Leeds should be cared for more

so the same constraints miraculously disappear when we consider BIG stations do they?

underbank · 25 Jul 2019

Trouble is that now we have loads of "tree huggers" who go and cry on social media whenever a hedge or tree is cut back. Howls of anguish "just think of the poor birds!"

Only last week, our local twitter and facebook were full of people whinging about the council cutting back a tree in the town centre, as usual whinging about the loss of bird and insect habitat, etc., which resulted in the council having to produce pictures and an aborist (sp?) report confirming it had a huge crack down the middle, was dying and likely to partially fall down in wind. But the tree huggers continued to whinge, and insist the council planted not just one replacement but several to make up for it - in exactly the same place ( on the pavement inches from the main A road). Not good enough for the council to do the new planting further away in a more sensible location.

Last month, a garden centre was the brunt of it, as they were demolishing an existing huge greenhouse and they had to remove 20' of hedging for plant hire to get in. They'd done everything they could, including having it sheeted over since winter to prevent birds building their nests, but there were still protests and people saying the garden centre should be boycotted.

It's becoming a new religion and won't end well. Older trees and shrubs need to be pruned regularly for them to remain healthy and felled when they're diseased or out of control. New replacement trees and shrubs need to be planted in more appropriate places, not just inches from roads, railways and buildings.

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

DarloRich said:
goodness me. it is not solely due to financial constraints. There are just as serious constraints on manpower and access and on competing priorities.

NR cant tell people what to do on their land ( unless there is a risk to the railway) and nor can they just chop down tress on other peoples land.

so the same constraints miraculously disappear when we consider BIG stations do they?

I do sincerely apologies for not listing every single possible reason for Network Rail cannot do something about trees near the line.
They seem to do a good job of telling people to keep things such as trampolines tied down (and for good reason).
These constraints do not disappear, but seen as Leeds is a larger station one would have thought that NR would want to try and do as much as possible and have people there every so often to try and get the buddleia under control!

-Peter

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

underbank said:
Trouble is that now we have loads of "tree huggers" who go and cry on social media whenever a hedge or tree is cut back. Howls of anguish "just think of the poor birds!"

Only last week, our local twitter and facebook were full of people whinging about the council cutting back a tree in the town centre, as usual whinging about the loss of bird and insect habitat, etc., which resulted in the council having to produce pictures and an aborist (sp?) report confirming it had a huge crack down the middle, was dying and likely to partially fall down in wind. But the tree huggers continued to whinge, and insist the council planted not just one replacement but several to make up for it - in exactly the same place ( on the pavement inches from the main A road). Not good enough for the council to do the new planting further away in a more sensible location.

Last month, a garden centre was the brunt of it, as they were demolishing an existing huge greenhouse and they had to remove 20' of hedging for plant hire to get in. They'd done everything they could, including having it sheeted over since winter to prevent birds building their nests, but there were still protests and people saying the garden centre should be boycotted.

It's becoming a new religion and won't end well. Older trees and shrubs need to be pruned regularly for them to remain healthy and felled when they're diseased or out of control. New replacement trees and shrubs need to be planted in more appropriate places, not just inches from roads, railways and buildings.

I agree that these people who moan about trees being cut down should probably, to put it lightly, reconsider their morals/life choices?

Don't cut down a tree in the town centre which could easily fall in a wind and crush a pensioner!

An outrage. Why would the council do such a thing?

If someone wants to plant a tree, plant it away from transport. They do nothing for a railway apart from throw leaves onto the tracks!

-Peter

DarloRich · 25 Jul 2019

Peter C said:
They seem to do a good job of telling people to keep things such as trampolines tied down (and for good reason).

They are not telling people to tie them down. They don't have the power to direct. They are ADVISING people to do so.

Peter C said:
These constraints do not disappear, but seen as Leeds is a larger station one would have thought that NR would want to try and do as much as possible and have people there every so often to try and get the buddleia under control!

OK. Lets try and look at this rationally. To cut the buddliea off a bridge you are going to need to talk possession of the railway ( that is close it to traffic), turn off the electrics, erect suitable access towers, kit out the blokes with the right safety gear, safely do the gardening, perhaps patch up any damage, then clean up and dismount everything and get clear of the track to reopen on schedule. You are going to remove one plant per night!

For somewhere like the Neville Hill cutting you are possibly going to have to abseil to access some of the plants. Piece of cake that. Everyone is trained to do that.

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

DarloRich said:
OK. Lets try and look at this rationally. To cut the buddliea off a bridge you are going to need to talk possession of the railway ( that is close it to traffic), turn off the electrics, erect suitable access towers, kit out the blokes with the right safety gear, safely do the gardening, perhaps patch up any damage, then clean up and dismount everything and get clear of the track to reopen on schedule. You are going to remove one plant per night!

For somewhere like the Neville Hill cutting you are possibly going to have to abseil to access some of the plants. Piece of cake that. Everyone is trained to do that.

OK. So maybe doing plant removal during the normal day-to-day operations of the railway isn't an option, but during engineering works this could be an option, couldn't it?
I never mentioned Neville Hill cutting and you're just bringing it in to make me seem stupid for having an opinion.

-Peter

DarloRich · 25 Jul 2019

Peter C said:
OK. So maybe doing plant removal during the normal day-to-day operations of the railway isn't an option, but during engineering works this could be an option, couldn't it?

Perhaps not in the same work site as engineering work but certainly if there is a possession it is sensible trying to get work done at the same time near by. If you have the manpower.........

Peter C said:
I never mentioned Neville Hill cutting and you're just bringing it in to make me seem stupid for having an opinion.

No i am not - there was mention of Leeds eastern approach - I don't, actually, disagree with you. It just isnt as easy or straight forward as people here like to suggest.

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

DarloRich said:
Perhaps not in the same work site as engineering work but certainly if there is a possession it is sensible trying to get work done at the same time near by. If you have the manpower.........

No i am not - there was mention of Leeds eastern approach - I don't, actually disagree with you. It just isnt as easy or straight forward as people here like to suggest.

I think that a few people to tackle some plants could be found.

-Peter

DarloRich · 25 Jul 2019

Peter C said:
I think that a few people to tackle some plants could be found.

it isnt just finding people to tackle some plants. It is people, suitability trained and equipped to be on the railway that have to be found. They tend to have other priorities when work needs doing.

Peter C · 25 Jul 2019

DarloRich said:
it isnt just finding people to tackle some plants. It is people, suitability trained and equipped to be on the railway that have to be found. They tend to have other priorities when work needs doing.

Fair point. Sorry. I should elaborated.

-Peter

Lineside Vegetation - past, present, and future

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member