Do the issues caused by Leaf Fall warrant greater vegetation clearance

[glbotu]

My understanding is that with the advent of dieselisation and the decline of steam, vegetation clearance was bumped massively down the list of priorities, because no-one was worried about a spark setting fire to a bunch of trees. However, given some of the many issues brought up recently (especially situations like GA's DMU shortage last year), would a more aggressive vegetation clearance program be warranted?

 

[DerekC]

My understanding is that with the advent of dieselisation and the decline of steam, vegetation clearance was bumped massively down the list of priorities, because no-one was worried about a spark setting fire to a bunch of trees. However, given some of the many issues brought up recently (especially situations like GA's DMU shortage last year), would a more aggressive vegetation clearance program be warranted?

I would suggest that's exactly what has been happening over the past ten years - take a trip from Guildford to Portsmouth, to take only one example, and see the massive cutting back which has been done. The problem is that whatever you do on railway land, the wind has a habit of blowing leaves over fences.

 

[Deepgreen]

My route, the North Downs line, has had a huge amount of tree felling this year, but performance this autumn seems as poor as ever, so I would suggest that it makes very little difference, much to my surprise. Mind you, the 166s are very light and particularly prone to slipping, so much so that even in high summer they struggle in light rain (and yes, I realise that heavy rain can actually be beneficial in cleaning the rail head)..

 

[125Forever]

The OWW (Old Worse & Worse) has had vegetation clearance, concurrent with the re-doubling of the line.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Absolutely! Numerous places across tye network trees are making contact with the sides of trains. Unfortunately common sense seems to have gone out of the window, the perceived cost of pruning back the foliage plus the whim of the tree huggers and the planning consent councillors looking for a bung they arent going to get. Besides, the industry would rather spend more money in the here and now repairs than what in the long run would be less money in preventative maintenance.

 

[QueensCurve]

would a more aggressive vegetation clearance program be warranted?

Yes, it would.

 

[Deepgreen]

My understanding is that with the advent of dieselisation and the decline of steam, vegetation clearance was bumped massively down the list of priorities, because no-one was worried about a spark setting fire to a bunch of trees. However, given some of the many issues brought up recently (especially situations like GA's DMU shortage last year), would a more aggressive vegetation clearance program be warranted?

It's also true that steam operation caused a significant amount of 'natural' vegetation control, with line-side fires very common, preventing swathes of trees from developing. Mechanical signalling and points control was also much more resistant to brief fires than electrical-cabled installations.

 

[DerekC]

Absolutely! Numerous places across tye network trees are making contact with the sides of trains. Unfortunately common sense seems to have gone out of the window, the perceived cost of pruning back the foliage plus the whim of the tree huggers and the planning consent councillors looking for a bung they arent going to get. Besides, the industry would rather spend more money in the here and now repairs than what in the long run would be less money in preventative maintenance.

I don't think that planning consent councillors or tree huggers have any say on what NR does on its own land - and it can lop overhanging branches too, so if trees are making contact with the sides of trains, complain to the right people!

 

[al78]

plus the whim of the tree huggers...

*stops reading*

:roll:

 

[Deepgreen]

I don't think that planning consent councillors or tree huggers have any say on what NR does on its own land - and it can lop overhanging branches too, so if trees are making contact with the sides of trains, complain to the right people!

Objections can be lodged but I think NR reserves the right to lop/fell trees as it sees fit, unless, presumably, they are listed trees (I'm not joking, by the way, many trees are protected in much the same way as listed buildings).

 

[gimmea50anyday]

*stops reading*

:roll:

Lol!

I dont have an issue with conservation or with environmental protection. My only issue is when it clashes with common sense, of course peoples idea and perception of what constitutes common sense will always be different. Not all bypasses/motorways/housing developments are good ideas but neither are keeping certain trees/plantations/fields, and some councils ideas of development plans are just potty!

I don't think that planning consent councillors or tree huggers have any say on what NR does on its own land

Maybe thats just cynical old me kickkng in!

I cant say for sure, but it is my understanding there was an issue with listed planning consent on the route out of York towards Scarborough immediately after scarborough bridge. Some tree felling was needed but because it was a conservation area someone put in an objection and won! I could of course be mistaken....

 

[Clip]

The problem with greater vegetation clearance is that you then have to spend money pinning back the cuttings or else you run the risk of landslides which will shut the railway completely.

Its a very fine line to tread

 

[DerekC]

Objections can be lodged but I think NR reserves the right to lop/fell trees as it sees fit, unless, presumably, they are listed trees (I'm not joking, by the way, many trees are protected in much the same way as listed buildings).

A quick look at NR's website shows that they are affected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on trees on adjacent land and also have to consult local authorities when cutting vegetation on a line runs through a conservation area. TPOs are a good thing in principle - otherwise developers would just chop everything in sight. In our area developers now chop all the trees not already covered by a TPO on a site after they have bought it, before applying for planning permission, just in case!

 

[HH]

Look at this article that shows one side of what happens when you have a Route Director who wants to do something about vegetation...

 

[Deepgreen]

A quick look at NR's website shows that they are affected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) on trees on adjacent land and also have to consult local authorities when cutting vegetation on a line runs through a conservation area. TPOs are a good thing in principle - otherwise developers would just chop everything in sight. In our area developers now chop all the trees not already covered by a TPO on a site after they have bought it, before applying for planning permission, just in case!

Indeed, even though the presence of mature trees often adds value to a residential development. However, TPOs are, sadly, no match for copper nails that mysteriously appear hammered into trees on development sites.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes and no. Remove the trees, you lose the leaves but you instead get landslips as the roots that held the embankments together die.

Perhaps replanting with conifers would make sense.

 

[Deepgreen]

Yes and no. Remove the trees, you lose the leaves but you instead get landslips as the roots that held the embankments together die.

Perhaps replanting with conifers would make sense.

Needles on the line, wrong type of cones, hedge disputes with neighbours...

 

[gimmea50anyday]

whoever is paying for this, would they be providing a hedge fund?

 

[route:oxford]

Then you have to deal with people whose lives are ruined by tree cutting:-

(Who, judging by their faces all seem to have terrible trapped wind too...)

Images from The Oxford Mail:-

 

[Mugby]

No trees are actually pulled up by their roots, they're merely heavily pruned or cut off at the base of the trunk. The roots stay in the ground as far as I'm aware.

And when did Travelling Post Offices mutate into Tree Preservation Orders?

 

[mwmbwls]

Remove the trees, you lose the leaves but you instead get landslips as the roots that held the embankments together die. Perhaps replanting with conifers would make sense.

Most tree species are robust and the roots do not die when the tree is pruned. Cutting trees back close to the ground is often described as rejuvenation pruning as the extant root system pushes out multiple new shoots from the rim of the severed trunk. This results in a fan of multiple trunks and is known as coppicing. The technique was harnessed by charcoal makers for many years as a method of generating easily accessible raw material. Successful rejuvenation does depend on the health of the tree. Recent years have seen the arrival of pests and diseases that have struck down Elm, Ash. Oak and now Horse Chestnut Trees. Such diseased trees represent a hazard to the safe operating of the railway and need to be removed. Anything that might compromise overhead electrification is regularly scrutinised. Hence current works between Bolton and Manchester.
Tree preservation Orders are not a significant problem. All Councils who issue these orders have arboriculture officers whose agreement is required to all works on preserved trees. In cases where trees are encroaching on houses or industrial/railway property, such consent is not unreasonably withheld. They also are concerned about who will being doing the work lest the tree is left susceptible to infection by air borne fungal spores,etc. IIRC not only do Network Rail have their own” Orange Army” arboriculture specialists and but also they employ specialist contractors who know their stuff.
The major problem about tree clearance tends to come from neighbours whose immediate response is to rattle the bars of their local MP who keen to be seen to be doing something immediately contact the local press. Often complaints are couched in terms of environmental vandalism, destruction of nature corridors etc. These arguments tend to be flawed because nature is resilient and as indicated above tree rejuvenation quickly follows. Major projects often schedule preparatory works to take place outside of the bird nesting season to minimise damage to the bird population. The scale and limited nature of lineside tree pruning means that small mammals can move along the corridor. Wild life also takes advantage of cleared areas. Insect life is often given a boost as contractors try to reduce the amount of material they must remove from the site by using chippers which provide a supply of biodegradable weed suppressant, plant food and habitat for creepy crawlies who then form a food supply for the next level in the food chain.
Although many people couch their complaints in environmental terms; they are, however, mainly are concerned about the personal impact of such works – in terms of loss of privacy with train passengers with their noses stuck to carriage windows staring at them as trains hurtle past. Alternatively, they complain about the noise or vibration which do not change materially with the removal of the tree.
The view from their house may be changed by the removal of trees but residents such as appear in the earlier images seen above seem to forget that you cannot own the view from your house unless you own the land containing the view. I cannot tell my neighbour that he cannot have a trampoline in his garden (although aged seventy-six, I cannot foresee that as being a priority for him). Most railways in this country were built in the mid-19th century and few if any of the original residents are around to complain about the over the fence activity. The inference is that current residents must have bought their property whilst there was a railway running at the back of it. If they knew it was there when they bought the house, then they knew or ought to have known that from time to time such a railway would need maintaining including the embankments.
There is an old story, which may be apocryphal about a passenger on an American rail-road who was bitten by bed bugs and who wrote in to complain. He received in return a fulsome apology saying that this was a regrettable but isolated incident and hoped that he would travel with them again. Having been mollified by the letter, his mood changed when a manuscript note dropped out of the envelope – an instruction from the manager to the typist which read: “Send the bed-bugs letter”. I do hope that lurking on the Network Rail word processing system that there is the equivalent “Tree Hugs” letter.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps replanting with conifers would make sense.

Is it not the case that certain species of conifers are only shallow-rooted?

 

[mwmbwls]

Is it not the case that certain species of conifers are only shallow-rooted?

IIRC - yes. Most conifers (except Yew) will not sprout from old wood making them unsuitable for rejuvenation pruning.

 

[Trog]

Indeed, even though the presence of mature trees often adds value to a residential development. However, TPOs are, sadly, no match for copper nails that mysteriously appear hammered into trees on development sites.

Good thing that copper nails killing trees is just an old wives tale then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes and no. Remove the trees, you lose the leaves but you instead get landslips as the roots that held the embankments together die.

Perhaps replanting with conifers would make sense.

Rubbish trees on embankments are a menace, the only real connection between cutting trees and landslips is that the trees will have killed off the grass and herbage that locked the surface of the bank together, and the exposed loose soil can be washed down by heavy rain. If there is a storm before grass cover re-establishes its self. The answer to this problem is not letting the trees grow in the first place.

 

[DerekC]

And when did Travelling Post Offices mutate into Tree Preservation Orders?

It was a gradual process between 1947 and 2004, as I understand it. The interim stages must have been interesting!

 

[hwl]

Then you have to deal with people whose lives are ruined by tree cutting:-

(Who, judging by their faces all seem to have terrible trapped wind too...)

Images from The Oxford Mail:-

In the first photo (Wolvercote?) it looks like the garden has had a gate on to the railway line added possibly to dispose of Garden waste etc. which NR found and awful lot of when they came to do the works there. You can see why they might be a bit upset when NR removed their ability to do that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rubbish trees on embankments are a menace, the only real connection between cutting trees and landslips is that the trees will have killed off the grass and herbage that locked the surface of the bank together, and the exposed loose soil can be washed down by heavy rain. If there is a storm before grass cover re-establishes its self. The answer to this problem is not letting the trees grow in the first place.

Agreed from a Civil Engineering point of view they are menace and the myth that they hold embankments together needs to be busted at every opportunity.
Decent drainage being understood as the key since von Terzaghi...

 

[Deepgreen]

In the first photo (Wolvercote?) it looks like the garden has had a gate on to the railway line added possibly to dispose of Garden waste etc. which NR found and awful lot of when they came to do the works there. You can see why they might be a bit upset when NR removed their ability to do that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Agreed from a Civil Engineering point of view they are menace and the myth that they hold embankments together needs to be busted at every opportunity.
Decent drainage being understood as the key since von Terzaghi...

So they are all looking so aggrieved because they have been caught out in their illegal activities? Not much cause for self-righteous indignation there, I think.