Deploying volunteers to clear lineside vegetation, how realistic is this?

[brad465]

Spurred on by an opinion piece earlier this month about "national service" for retired people (as an alternative to wealth taxes), that includes an image of people cutting back vegetation, combined with engineering works this weekend where vegetation clearance is ongoing, the above title came to mind.

There have been plenty of issues with lineside vegetation that have been mentioned/seen a lot, so I won't repeat these, but if we could deploy more manual labour to clear more vegetation, the level of disruption, especially in leaf fall season, will go down, which improves productivity and trust in the railways, while using volunteers is of lower expense. It could be open to anyone who wants to volunteer in it, but the most abundant target markets would be retired people (who are not living in care homes) and school/uni students looking for work experience.

The main drawback I can see is there must be some pretty tough Health & Safety barriers to overcome, especially as those volunteering are probably not aware of many of the dangers of working lineside. Another problem is volunteer availability and scheduled line closures to do this probably don't match up very well.

If boomers don’t want wealth taxes they can give their time and skills | Phillip Inman

A nationwide volunteering programme designed to boost the economy could help mend a splintered society

www.theguardian.com

If we can’t have your money, baby boomers, we want your time. And more specifically, those who qualify as fit and healthy should be asked to serve in a new national service, offering some free days to a nationwide programme, designed locally, to boost the economy.

When a wealth tax is ruled out and council tax reform too difficult, leaving boomer incomes intact, No 10 should consider such a scheme, especially when it could help to mend a society splintered by almost two decades of austerity; not as a punishment for being the lucky generation, but to reuse and repurpose valuable skills, tackle loneliness and build community cohesion.


Young people are often the target of those who believe in national service, and that too could be an important initiative when there are about 1 million 16- to 24-year-olds neither in work, education or training.


But in 2025, asking boomers to put their shoulder to the wheel (one more time) matters because there could be more than half of the UK’s 12 million retirees, many of them after taking early retirement, with good health, few outgoings and decent pots of money who could be part of a national programme tapping into their skills and benefiting local services.

This would be a voluntary scheme and there should be some obvious grounds for exemption. Anyone who can show they regularly look after grandchildren, work in a community organisation or for a charity can opt out. Poor health would also provide a reason to withdraw.

This is not Rishi Sunak’s militaristic vision of national service. Army uniforms will be kept in the warehouse.

There would be a range of options that pensioners – anyone who wants to give something back, or give more back after a lifetime of public service – should find enticing and want to join.

The only element of coercion would be the need to actively opt out by attending a government office and saying no, thank you. Plenty of people will tick an opt-out box without a second’s thought. But plenty of people might sign up if they could join a scheme where they could enjoy the company of others and were properly managed.

It won’t be easy to set up or to run. Ask National Trust staff about how they handle the many volunteers who turn up to garden or show visitors around the charity’s many properties and they will say it’s a challenge.

 

[BerkshireRails]

I think it is a good idea as long as the railway is shut at they have a personal track safety training.

 

[Magdalia]

Spurred on by an opinion piece earlier this month about "national service" for retired people (as an alternative to wealth taxes),

Volunteering isn't an alternative to taxes.

The government needs to get a grip and find ways of raising more tax from "the UK’s 12 million retirees, many of them after taking early retirement, with good health, few outgoings and decent pots of money". They can afford to pay more.

People doing more volunteering isn't going to pay for the NHS, the welfare bill, defence etc.

 

[Dr Hoo]

I appreciate that the suggestion is not intended to imply working alongside open lines but I most doubtful because of the amount of kit that commercial vegetation management contractors seem to use -chainsaws, abseiling down slopes, chippers and so on. Let alone transport to site, welfare facilities, PPE, etc.

It’s a step up from pottering around in the garden with some secateurs or loppers.

 

[Brubulus]

2 good uses of volunteers on the railway:
Firstly, heritage operators use voluntary labour to reduce the cost of operations and expansions. If new lines could have volunteer assisted construction, that could reduce construction cost and enable cheaper new regional lines while allowing local people to have a sense of local ownership.

Secondly, those who commit railway related crimes could be required to do menial work on the railway as punishment. For example those who put their feet on the seats could face a week of their evenings being spent cleaning said seats. I am a big supporter of time as punishment instead of fines, but fines are better value for the tax and fare payer.

 

[JGurney]

2 good uses of volunteers on the railway:
Firstly, heritage operators use voluntary labour to reduce the cost of operations and expansions. If new lines could have volunteer assisted construction, that could reduce construction cost and enable cheaper new regional lines while allowing local people to have a sense of local ownership.

Only if those "new regional lines" are to be built at heritage railway pace. E.g. From relaying getting started to a thorough train operating took 23 years on the 10-mile Swanage branch, and that was with the trackbed already in place.

Secondly, those who commit railway related crimes could be required to do menial work on the railway as punishment.

That is not volunteering at all.

 

[Bald Rick]

Lineside veg clearance is (generally) a quite specialised task. It’s not just a case of turning up with some gloves and secateurs. I’ve done some myself, on easy sites, and it is still like a military operation in terms of logistics. Especially getting rid of the ‘arisings’. It won’t all go in the green bin…

 

[brad465]

Lineside veg clearance is (generally) a quite specialised task. It’s not just a case of turning up with some gloves and secateurs. I’ve done some myself, on easy sites, and it is still like a military operation in terms of logistics. Especially getting rid of the ‘arisings’. It won’t all go in the green bin…

Useful to know. How did they do it in the mid-20th century, especially during the steam era, where embankments were considerably bare compared to now?

 

[Russel]

Useful to know. How did they do it in the mid-20th century, especially during the steam era, where embankments were considerably bare compared to now?

I guess there was a lot more civil pride in how things looked back then and a lot less H&S hoops to jump through.

 

[Bald Rick]

Useful to know. How did they do it in the mid-20th century, especially during the steam era, where embankments were considerably bare compared to now?

There wasn’t any vegetation to start with, other than grass and the odd sapling. Much of it burnt off (often deliberately).

 

[Magdalia]

How did they do it in the mid-20th century, especially during the steam era, where embankments were considerably bare compared to now?

The liberal use of noxious weedkiller helped, some of it made near here by Fisons.

Another factor is that more faster moving trains spread wind blown seeds much more easily, hence the lineside proliferation of plants such as buddleia and rose bay willow herb.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

To my observation, London Underground (LU) keeps vegetation at bay far better than does Network Rail. Is there any explanation for that other than LU taking the issue more seriously?

 

[stevieinselby]

No. Just no.
Stop trying to dragoon people to "volunteer" to do things that should be paid work.
If a job needs doing then pay someone to do it.

People don't mind volunteering for a good cause, whether that's doing a couple of afternoons a week in a charity shop, showing visitors around a National Trust property or tidying up the flower beds at the local station.
Ensuring that the permanent way of the railways is kept clear of vegetation is an essential function and not a "nice to have".
It's also not a job for Betty and Nora to do with their gardening gloves and a trowel before toddling off to the bridge club, it's a physically demanding job using serious equipment that needs strict health and safety policies.

 

[Harpo]

The government needs to get a grip and find ways of raising more tax from "the UK’s 12 million retirees, many of them after taking early retirement, with good health, few outgoings and decent pots of money".

Congratulations on bringing this site’s incessant gerontophobia to the simple topic of lineside vegetation!

We need a new version of Godwin’s law!

 

[Bantamzen]

How about creating actual jobs, paying actual wages to do this work? This not only increases the tax revenue, both takes more people off the unemployed list and thus saving in benefits?

 

[reb0118]

Secondly, those who commit railway related crimes could be required to do menial work on the railway as punishment. For example those who put their feet on the seats could face a week of their evenings being spent cleaning said seats. I am a big supporter of time as punishment instead of fines, but fines are better value for the tax and fare payer.

I broadly agree with this.

 

[Bald Rick]

To my observation, London Underground (LU) keeps vegetation at bay far better than does Network Rail. Is there any explanation for that other than LU taking the issue more seriously?

A lot less lineside, a lot more consequence, and a lot more time with no trains running to do it.

 

[brad465]

How about creating actual jobs, paying actual wages to do this work? This not only increases the tax revenue, both takes more people off the unemployed list and thus saving in benefits?

I can see this being the sort of work that becomes more prominent if/when AI eliminates a high proportion of office jobs.

 

[Magdalia]

Congratulations on bringing this site’s incessant gerontophobia to the simple topic of lineside vegetation!

Spurred on by an opinion piece earlier this month about "national service" for retired people (as an alternative to wealth taxes)

The topic is clearing lineside vegetation as an example of volunteering as a substitute for taxation.

The UK needs more tax revenue, and some people are going to have to pay it.

The government finding ways of raising more tax from "the UK’s 12 million retirees, many of them after taking early retirement, with good health, few outgoings and decent pots of money", isn't gerontophobia, it is sound economic policy.

I write that as a person who took early retirement, draws an occupational pension and a state pension, has few outgoings and a decent pot of money. I want to pay more tax, not to have my conscience salved by doing a bit of voluntary bush trimming.
.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

This is lunacy, the risks couldn't be reasonably managed or probably insured.

The amount of very unpleasant biohazards, needles, illegally dumped hazardous chemicals, oils, fly tipping, industrial waste etc is a huge issue for Network Rail. Most of the foliage and plant growth actually disguises all of this lying underneath. You also find that as soon as you clear a load of the greenery, and an area becomes more accessible and exposed, it becomes even more targeted as a dumping ground or even things like cable thefts.

It's not just a case of mowing the grass and chopping a few bushes back.

That's before you end up being harassed by parish councils and opinionated locals who think you're killing the planet.

 

[35B]

How about creating actual jobs, paying actual wages to do this work? This not only increases the tax revenue, both takes more people off the unemployed list and thus saving in benefits?

Are you talking about those jobs being funded through subsidy? Because if so, even allowing for the effects you describe, they are still a net cost.

 

[SJL2020]

I write that as a person who took early retirement, draws an occupational pension and a state pension, has few outgoings and a decent pot of money. I want to pay more tax, not to have my conscience salved by doing a bit of voluntary bush trimming.
.

Here you go, you can easily pay more tax today.

Voluntary payments / donations to government

Find out how to make a voluntary contribution to government.

www.gov.uk

 

[Snow1964]

I am all for healthy retires to have a social meet up and do a bit of vegetation tidy up. There are lots of battery pole trimmers, hedge cutters, even pole saws available these days (and I mean decent ones by companies like Stihl, Dewalt etc, not cheap ones that struggle). It's not the old back breaking cutting with scythes and hand saws of 100 years ago.

So that brings up number of questions.
1) safety, obviously not practical on busy lines, but maybe on a branch line with one train per hour, or rural line something is possible
2) older people obviously need breaks and more rests so this might help with 1, wait until train has passed then have x minutes safe space (effectively blocked), but with a lookout with mobile phone to signalbox
3) Should it be compulsory, I think no, but should the railway pay for the tools and tea and cake, yes, much cheaper than hiring contractors
4) Leave the contractors to the busy lines where budget is higher, but seriously consider volunteer groups where funding is harder.
5) Slopes and uneven ground, older people tend to have lot more sense having grown up when playing outside was common. But there are lots of former sidings, or when running tracks have been reduced, and thus strips of flat ground without needing to clamber, and if those pole tools allow first 2-3m away from lines to be cut back, that is good start.
6) What about all the stuff that is cut down, a small amount can just be tossed down an embankment, harder to lose in a cutting, but in some cases will need disposal, or high power shredders to mulch what has been cut.
7) Will health and safety mess it up, possibly if misinterpreted as do nothing, rather than act safely and be aware of risks.
8) If volunteers then is possible to get them to sign the safety briefing and accept trains are potentially dangerous, and even add a clause they won't employ ambulance chaser lawyers. Ultimately it's no more risky for them than a contractor, actually it's less because volunteers can choose to skip bits if they feel not safe, contractors have to do whole job.

Only last week I was on a train with vegetation brushing sides of train, if that is current state of managed vegetation then do nothing isn't an option.

 

[CMS1]

Put a large one of these on a wagon

A lot faster and safer than an army of volunteers on the lineside

 

[Magdalia]

Here you go, you can easily pay more tax today.

Me, and a few others, donating a few £thousand is not going to make a material difference to the UK public finances. The Chancellor needs £tens of billions: that is only going to be raised through tax, not voluntary donations.

 

[al78]

Volunteering isn't an alternative to taxes.

The government needs to get a grip and find ways of raising more tax from "the UK’s 12 million retirees, many of them after taking early retirement, with good health, few outgoings and decent pots of money". They can afford to pay more.

You make a valid point in general but retired people are like God in the UK. They are a powerful voting group and are capable of swinging elections, hence the primary political parties will pander to their wants/needs, often at the expense of the rest of the less election swingy population e.g. young people (the means-tested winter fuel payments fiasco being an exception and an example of consequences). Any political party attempting to extract extra tax revenue from retirees, even if the taxes are targeted towards those easily capable of paying more with minimal impact on quality of life, will be onto a loser (e.g. possibly Labour after their term). The UK population is American in its mentality, not Scandinavian, we have an individualistic, not a collective attitude.

 

[Falcon1200]

I want to pay more tax, not to have my conscience salved by doing a bit of voluntary bush trimming.
.

Feel free to do so then, as per Post #22.

This is lunacy, the risks couldn't be reasonably managed or probably insured.

Indeed, and apart from anything else, such work would usually have to be done during the night; I don't see hordes of the unemployed, or chain gangs of us fat lazy pensioners, jumping to sign up for that.

Me, and a few others, donating a few £thousand is not going to make a material difference to the UK public finances.

But it would set a great example to the rest of us! Not to me, however, I worked bl**dy hard for my occupational pension; Every shift under the sun, every Public Holiday as rostered including Xmas Day, Boxing Day etc, night and 12 hour shifts, and made sacrifices in other areas to enable me to retire early with a good pension; On which, living in glorious progressive Scotland, I pay 42% tax, not to mention £300 Council Tax per month on top. The Government milks me for more than enough tax as it is, and does not always spend it wisely or efficiently.

 

[Bantamzen]

Are you talking about those jobs being funded through subsidy? Because if so, even allowing for the effects you describe, they are still a net cost.

No I am saying create the jobs where the need exists, and not use volunteers especially retired ones as suggested above. Yes more jobs is a net cost but also not dealing with overgrown vegetation adds cost, especially when it starts to bake in delays and the resulting compensation claims.

You make a valid point in general but retired people are like God in the UK. They are a powerful voting group and are capable of swinging elections, hence the primary political parties will pander to their wants/needs, often at the expense of the rest of the less election swingy population e.g. young people (the means-tested winter fuel payments fiasco being an exception and an example of consequences). Any political party attempting to extract extra tax revenue from retirees, even if the taxes are targeted towards those easily capable of paying more with minimal impact on quality of life, will be onto a loser (e.g. possibly Labour after their term). The UK population is American in its mentality, not Scandinavian, we have an individualistic, not a collective attitude.

I'm not sure all of that is really true. But remember, today's workers are tomorrow's pensioners. Anything you impose today, will be waiting for future pensioners in the future. And when the current younger generations reach that age, there will be likely be new younger generations claiming old people have it too good, and demand even more! This is probably for another thread, but be careful what you wish for!

 

[35B]

You make a valid point in general but retired people are like God in the UK. They are a powerful voting group and are capable of swinging elections, hence the primary political parties will pander to their wants/needs, often at the expense of the rest of the less election swingy population e.g. young people (the means-tested winter fuel payments fiasco being an exception and an example of consequences). Any political party attempting to extract extra tax revenue from retirees, even if the taxes are targeted towards those easily capable of paying more with minimal impact on quality of life, will be onto a loser (e.g. possibly Labour after their term). The UK population is American in its mentality, not Scandinavian, we have an individualistic, not a collective attitude.

There are two separate issues.

The first is that British voters are, typically, individualistic in their voting choices rather than collective. Where research has dug into motivations, it's found that "I'd pay an extra 1% on Income Tax for <NHS/whatever>" translates as "I might pay a tenner a year".

The second is about voting habits. Older voters are both numerous and likely to vote. That means that policies which benefit them reward politicians, and they get grief for the costs - observe the reaction to some state pensions being taxed. The answer to this is not to say "but older voters should be made to <x>" - they won't, and it will undermine the policies associated with them. At the same time, politicians need to understand the consequences of a genuine generational imbalance, where older voters, as a group, have accumulated capital and are benefitting from benefits paid for by the taxes of working age people who generally have no prospect of the same type of benefits.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Sep 2025 ==

No I am saying create the jobs where the need exists, and not use volunteers especially retired ones as suggested above. Yes more jobs is a net cost but also not dealing with overgrown vegetation adds cost, especially when it starts to bake in delays and the resulting compensation claims.

As I said, a net cost. The savings from doing this necessary work, and the circulatory effects of paying people to do it, will be less than the cost of paying for the work to be done. Money has been saved over decades from not doing this stuff, and Network Rail are picking up the tab for savings realised by BR when I was in nappies. That means that the costs will hit now, and the benefits appear, if they can be identified (because they're costs foregone) in years and decades to come.

It may well be the right thing to do (though there are consequences to removing root systems in particular), but there needs to be an honest appreciation of what it all means.

 

[Bantamzen]

As I said, a net cost. The savings from doing this necessary work, and the circulatory effects of paying people to do it, will be less than the cost of paying for the work to be done. Money has been saved over decades from not doing this stuff, and Network Rail are picking up the tab for savings realised by BR when I was in nappies. That means that the costs will hit now, and the benefits appear, if they can be identified (because they're costs foregone) in years and decades to come.

It may well be the right thing to do (though there are consequences to removing root systems in particular), but there needs to be an honest appreciation of what it all means.

In that case if there is no benefit, don't employ people. My main point was that the railway shouldn't ever find itself relying on volunteers.