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

[thejuggler]

I was by the live line last week discussing a project which is adjacent, but at least 30m from the tracks. The site will need to be cleared and there was lots of detail about how to remove trees and methods etc to avoid disruption.

Whilst they were giving all this advice which was slowly looking like any clearance could need to be done overnight due to ever increasing risk, there was a team actually doing lineside clearance for NR - 5m from live line and OHLE and the trees were 5m+ tall.

 

[35B]

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.

There may be benefit - just not necessarily measurably! And I agree about relying on volunteers, though they can have a place around the edges

 

[Bantamzen]

There may be benefit - just not necessarily measurably! And I agree about relying on volunteers, though they can have a place around the edges

They can be great, such as "Friends Of xxxx" groups who look after stations, keep them tidy and even smarten them up with things like flowerbeds (assuming of course they have sought permission previously). But what was proposed above was volunteers working trackside clearing vegetation. That should be left to trained employees of the railways, not just for consistency in how work is undertaken to ensure no potential of damaging infrastructure, but for everyone's safety.

 

[Harpo]

What could possibly go wrong with using the slice of the society with the least physical mobility, eyesight and hearing to walk miles along the ballast, with tools, to do hard physical voluntary work?

 

[Bantamzen]

What could possibly go wrong with using the slice of the society with the least physical mobility, eyesight and hearing to walk miles along the ballast, with tools, to do hard physical voluntary work?

Maybe there is a method behind the madness...??

 

[Magdalia]

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.

If you are expecting any sympathy from me, then you have come to the wrong place.

People who have paid higher rate tax have done well for themselves. That's partly down to their own efforts, but also partly a result of the many services that the state provides. You are neither exceptional or deserving of exceptional treatment.

Furthermore, if you have been a higher rate taxpayer, then you are likely to own your own home, and benefitted hugely from house price inflation. You are also likely to have significant amounts of savings, lots of which you will have been able to shelter from income tax and capital gains tax. Both of those are a result of government economic policy decisions, you haven't had to lift a finger to benefit.

The Government milks me for more than enough tax as it is, and does not always spend it wisely or efficiently.

What the government's present financial situation demonstrates is that, however much it has milked you in the past, it hasn't been enough.

We can only start from where we are now, and now the government needs more tax revenue*. Furthermore, it has to be very careful who it asks to pay more. Going to people who will reduce spending to pay more tax will be counter-productive because it will hit economic growth and future tax revenue. The government needs to go to people who will carry on spending, and adjust their finances by saving a bit less, or drawing down their existing savings a bit more. How those fortunate people got to the financial position in which they find themselves now is irrelevant.

* If you want to know why this is so, I recommend listening to the interview with Mohamed El-Erian that was broadcast on the Radio 4 Today programme this morning at about 0730. He explains it far better than I can.

 

[LYradial]

A quick look at a Don Coffey cab ride (st Pancras to Derby) reveals that the problem is huge, 2 miles of continuous vegetation
reaching the shoulder of the ballast and surrounding the base of the mast all in a shallow cutting, brambles, hawthorns and semi mature trees, having just spent 10 minutes felling a small tree and two days getting rid of it I would not fancy doing that alongside a live railway, or even at night with a possession

 

[35B]

If you are expecting any sympathy from me, then you have come to the wrong place.

People who have paid higher rate tax have done well for themselves. That's partly down to their own efforts, but also partly a result of the many services that the state provides. You are neither exceptional or deserving of exceptional treatment.

Furthermore, if you have been a higher rate taxpayer, then you are likely to own your own home, and benefitted hugely from house price inflation. You are also likely to have significant amounts of savings, lots of which you will have been able to shelter from income tax and capital gains tax. Both of those are a result of government economic policy decisions, you haven't had to lift a finger to benefit.

This argument might be more convincing if the thresholds had not been largely frozen, meaning that higher rate taxpayers are not necessarily that well off. And, likewise, if you consider occupational pensions to be deferred pay, the terms of previous promises also need to be considered.

 

[Brubulus]

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

Hopefully we can roll out some sort of fully automated lineside clearing equipment that can run alongside trains 24/7 in a given area.

Which will get inevitably clogged up twice a day by something disgusting.

Still more efficient than having people do it, paid or unpaid.

 

[Turtle]

This argument might be more convincing if the thresholds had not been largely frozen, meaning that higher rate taxpayers are not necessarily that well off. And, likewise, if you consider occupational pensions to be deferred pay, the terms of previous promises also need to be considered.

Well said. A family member has a combined national retirement pension and small occupational pension, exempt until this year but which now have income tax deducted despite being under £13,00 p.a. Fiscal drag is pulling many into higher rate tax bans sa well.

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

Well said. A family member has a combined national retirement pension and small occupational pension, exempt until this year but which now have income tax deducted despite being under £13,00 p.a. Fiscal drag is pulling many into higher rate tax bans sa well.

"bands". Freudian slip!

 

[greyman42]

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.

These people are in this position because they were fiscally responsible when they worked and should not be forced to pay extra taxes to cover for people who have wasted their money.

 

[Falcon1200]

People who have paid higher rate tax have done well for themselves. That's partly down to their own efforts

No, entirely down to my own efforts in taking on additional duties and responsibilities during my career.

You are neither exceptional or deserving of exceptional treatment.

I quite agree! But I do think I contribute a fair share of my income to the various levels of Government already. How much more do you think I should pay?

Furthermore, if you have been a higher rate taxpayer, then you are likely to own your own home, and benefitted hugely from house price inflation.

I do indeed own my own home, having used every penny of what savings I had, and cashed in various policies, to buy it in 1998. However, unless I sold it and lived in a tent instead (probably unpopular with the wife and son), inflation in its value is of no benefit.

the government needs more tax revenue

No, it needs to spend the huge sums it raises far better than it does now: And I regard all Governments of whatever colour as equally inefficient and wasteful.

Regardless, I will not be signing on to work the night shift cutting down trees alongside railway lines.

 

[Magdalia]

No, entirely down to my own efforts in taking on additional duties and responsibilities during my career.

No, every step of the way you received assistance from the state, without which you would not have been in a position to tale on additional duties and responsibilities.

But I do think I contribute a fair share of my income to the various levels of Government already.

The state of the public finances say that people haven't contributed enough.

How much more do you think I should pay?

I can't know the answer to that. It will be a matter for the Chancellor in the budget, advised by the Treasury and assessed by the OBR.

it needs to spend the huge sums it raises far better than it does now: And I regard all Governments of whatever colour as equally inefficient and wasteful.

I agree on this, but it is misguided overgenerous tax and benefit policy that is where spending is most out of control. This is much easier to diagnose than to correct, as the recent attempt on welfare reform has demonstrated. Inefficiencies and waste exist in all large organisations, and eliminating them can't be done immediately. It will take time to unravel the past, time that the government doesn't have. That's why the immediate response needs to be mostly more tax, hopefully hitting areas that don't do much damage to the economy, even though it may feel uncomfortable and unfair.

 

[Bald Rick]

Let’s not get bogged down about taxes.

Back to the subject - has anyone here (other than me) actually done lineside vegetation work?

It is worth seeing the de-veg teams at work to see how they do it, and the kit they use. It is not a job for amateurs.


Question 1 (and there’s lots) - if a volunteer de-veg-er cut through a signalling cable, who is at fault?

 

[Harpo]

Question 1 (and there’s lots) - if a volunteer de-veg-er cut through a signalling cable, who is at fault?

Question 2 - ‘Where’s the toilet love?’

 

[Bald Rick]

Question 2 - ‘Where’s the toilet love?’

There is that.

 

[Falcon1200]

The state of the public finances say that people haven't contributed enough.

The state of the public finances is determined by spending as well as income!

 

[al78]

No, every step of the way you received assistance from the state, without which you would not have been in a position to tale on additional duties and responsibilities.


The state of the public finances say that people haven't contributed enough.

I can't know the answer to that. It will be a matter for the Chancellor in the budget, advised by the Treasury and assessed by the OBR.


I agree on this, but it is misguided overgenerous tax and benefit policy that is where spending is most out of control. This is much easier to diagnose than to correct, as the recent attempt on welfare reform has demonstrated. Inefficiencies and waste exist in all large organisations, and eliminating them can't be done immediately. It will take time to unravel the past, time that the government doesn't have. That's why the immediate response needs to be mostly more tax, hopefully hitting areas that don't do much damage to the economy, even though it may feel uncomfortable and unfair.

Part of the issue in the UK is we appear to have a lot of people who are out of work, either due to retirement or ill health. COVID brutally exposed how dreadful the health of the UK's population is and has made things worse with things like long COVID and people in their 50's and 60's deciding after a period of working from home they would like to be at home permanently and have retired early. Another part of the issue is lack of investment in public services over the decades resulting in deterioration and a resultant bigger cost in getting them back up to par. I personally find it ridiculous that the rail network in SE England struggles in 30C temperatures which are experienced several times a year here in all but the worst summers, to think of one example of UK poorness. Infrastructure should not be struggling in anything less than 5-10 year return period conditions if it was built and maintained properly, save for events like flooding and windstorms which are difficult/expensive to build for high resilience against. When services and infrastructure are allowed to deteriorate, the cost of regressing back to adequate can be substantial and likely ends up costing more than if they had been properly maintained in the first place. It doesn't help that the last government, when they knew their days were numbered, adopted a scorched earth policy and just let things deteriorate even more in their twilight months, deliberately making things more difficult for the incoming government so they could sit on the opposition benches and heckle about how things are not getting better. It is rather like comparing two situations. Situation A, someone buys a new house with a mortgage which is in good condition and needs nothing but routine maintenance on top of the standard costs. Situation B, someone buys a new home which superficially looks sound, but has ongoing issues due to years of skimping on maintenance by the previous owner. If both houses cost the same and both people have similar incomes, who is going to have the largest expenditure? Person B, because they have to spend on major improvements on top of the routine stuff and will almost certainly have to go without luxuries for years to be able to afford it. Person A is sitting pretty with low maintenance costs and plenty of disposable income to enjoy life with. The UK is analogous to situation B.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 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.


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!

Which bit do you disagree with? Is it a fact that pensioners are a highly influential voting block as they vote in large numbers. The problem is with the infinite growth idea which is impossible over the long term. Wealth growth relies on consumption and unlimited consumption on a planet with finite resources is impossible and is a recipe for societal collapse in the future.

I have less need to be careful what I wish for although I'm not sure what you think I am wishing for. I am in a privileged position through good fortune that I own my home outright and because I have been single all my life (not out of choice), I was and still am able to put money into a stocks and shares ISA which will be worth a few hundred thousand hopefully by the time I retire, a potentially useful income supplement to my private and state pensions. As a result I am largely immune to things like increases in cost of living which have or are shafting many people financially.

 

[Bantamzen]

Which bit do you disagree with? Is it a fact that pensioners are a highly influential voting block as they vote in large numbers. The problem is with the infinite growth idea which is impossible over the long term. Wealth growth relies on consumption and unlimited consumption on a planet with finite resources is impossible and is a recipe for societal collapse in the future.

I disagree that the older people are as you put it, "like God". They have been blamed for far too much, usually by much younger generations for the crime of working hard and investing well (see where I'm going here?). Most did so because they wanted to leave their kids and grandkids something, this was exactly what people were encouraged to do. And I think you over-estimate their influence, look at how many ideas to raise more involve taxing older people first.

I have less need to be careful what I wish for although I'm not sure what you think I am wishing for. I am in a privileged position through good fortune that I own my home outright and because I have been single all my life (not out of choice), I was and still am able to put money into a stocks and shares ISA which will be worth a few hundred thousand hopefully by the time I retire, a potentially useful income supplement to my private and state pensions. As a result I am largely immune to things like increases in cost of living which have or are shafting many people financially.

When I say be careful what you wish for is wanting the government to take more from the current generation of pensioners. Because when any additional funds are extracted and spent, future governments driven by younger generation's demands might come looking at those funds you've carefully saved over the years. So you might not be as immune as you may have planned to be. That's what a lot of the older generation are now concerned about.

 

[fandroid]

The answer to lineside vegetation is not more labour intensive activity, however organised, it's mechanisation. That will only become possible if a sustained effort is made to reduce/ shift all the kit that's been put there over the years without ever thinking of how it gets in the way of efficient maintenance.

 

[WAO]

The Soviet Union used to have a scheme for poor pensioners to make up their income. They were paid to clear snow from the streets in winter, in temperatures of -20C! The balances of the state pension scheme remained very healthy! Pensioners do have failing physical skills but keep their knowledge, judgement and communication skills much longer. That's what needs to be mobilised.

Seriously, if a semi political aside is allowed, I feel that those (of us) with occupational pensions should pay half rate National Insurance. We don't need sick pay or dole etc but can need the NHS and social care.

Many of us didn't choose to retire; it was forced on us to cheapen and de-skill the workforce.

WAO

 

[Straus]

Not a great idea, I've known trained and qualified people nearly sever fingers when doing vegetation clearance.

 

[Turtle]

The Soviet Union used to have a scheme for poor pensioners to make up their income. They were paid to clear snow from the streets in winter, in temperatures of -20C! The balances of the state pension scheme remained very healthy! Pensioners do have failing physical skills but keep their knowledge, judgement and communication skills much longer. That's what needs to be mobilised.

Seriously, if a semi political aside is allowed, I feel that those (of us) with occupational pensions should pay half rate National Insurance. We don't need sick pay or dole etc but can need the NHS and social care.

Many of us didn't choose to retire; it was forced on us to cheapen and de-skill the workforce.

WAO

Whilst I agree with your final paragraph (I could have put in 2 years plus before getting health issues) I must disagree about paying half rate NIC on my miserable occupational pension. I was a victim of the Equitable Life collapse and already pay tax on the rump pension at over 50% as tax on the NRP is collected via both the occupational pension plus direct assessment.

 

[WAO]

You would only start to pay NI when your income exceeded a threshold as for those in work and as with PAYE.

A miserable additional pension would not attract much if any NI.

WAO

 

[35B]

Whilst I agree with your final paragraph (I could have put in 2 years plus before getting health issues) I must disagree about paying half rate NIC on my miserable occupational pension. I was a victim of the Equitable Life collapse and already pay tax on the rump pension at over 50% as tax on the NRP is collected via both the occupational pension plus direct assessment.

That sounds odd - unless you've got something weird in your tax code. Being paid two pensions should be like being paid on two jobs - you pay tax on your total income over your tax free allowance.