NR 'Secretive' Tree Felling

[yorkie]

The review launched by the not-to-be-missed Jo Johnson has apparently been completed. I haven't yet come across the report, but the Guardian* is reporting
"not my news source of choice

What is so difficult to understand about trees and the trackside being completely mutually exclusive? How many more trains need to collide with fallen trees, or bring the OLE down, how many more delays due to '''leaves on the line" are required before someone at DafT realises this. NR is not an environmental charity or cause and has more worthwhile things to spend it's budget on than tree hugging.

Your response doesn't seem compatible with what the article actually says.

The article mentions reducing the scale of tree felling that takes place during the nesting season, taking into account environmental best practice, not compromising the safety of the network, and removing leaf-fall species of trees along the tracks.

If you disagree with any of those things, feel free to let us know why, but I am struggling to make sense of what you are unhappy with at the moment.

I do feel there is a balance to be struck, and yes there are some people who seem to be of the view that no trees should be cut down ever - which is an absurd view that I think we all would agree should be challenged - but no-one is arguing that in this article, are they?

 

[kaiser62]

Well as the old saying goes "never let truth get in the way of a good story". The media have enjoyed taking cheap shots at the railways for decades (remember the demolition job they did on APT) so this is just more of the same. At the risk of setting a few people off, a Churchill-like character who would sort them about seems quite appealing!

 

[td97]

The article mentions reducing the scale of tree felling that takes place during the nesting season, taking into account environmental best practice, not compromising the safety of the network, and removing leaf-fall species of trees along the tracks.

Ok, I can see the dilemma of tree felling/clearance during nesting season. And I definitely wasn't advocating clearing trees with nesting birds.
However, is there actually any evidence of this programme disturbing any nesting birds - i.e. it seems like a non-issue brought about by environmental groups/tablet papers, unless there is clear evidence (that I am not aware of) that NR is felling trees with actively nesting birds. What is wrong with 'excessive' tree felling during nesting season, providing the relevant checks have been made and it follows protocol to ensure it won't disturb nesting birds?
I note another poster quotes

My experience of NR de-vegetation is that the ecology searches beforehand are very thorough and everything is undertaken by the book.

The article states

The rail minister, Andrew Jones, called on Network Rail to produce an action plan in six months to spell out how it would protect biodiversity and avoid excessive tree felling in the nesting season next year.

My opinion is that the lineside is not the place to promote biodiversity. Other projects, like the Northern Forest, are great to do exactly that.

 

[DanDaDriver]

Surely NR has enough disused land away from running lines that isn’t going to be sold, that it could plant a few trees on and keep everyone happy.

In the grand scheme of things it would probably cost less than 10% if it’s annual lanyard budget.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

This is the report, on the DfT web site.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...network-rail-vegetation-management-review.pdf
Whichever way you read it, it is very critical of Network Rail's vegetation management, both in terms of its strategy and implementation locally.
It's hard to summarise but this is typical of the findings:

The Current Standard is well known and understood across both Network Rail staff and contractors. Those directly responsible for felling trees or managing vegetation, almost without exception, consider that their delivery is fully compliant with the Current Standard. However, the lack of detail in the Current Standard has resulted in a lack of consistency in application. For example, on the Thameslink Resilience Programme, three different contractors at separate sites all interpreted it in different ways (see the Hadley Wood case study). This has resulted in the Network Rail project team developing its own detailed specifications; an example is shown in Figure 9. The Lineside Asset Management Policy 2017 appears not to be well known within Network Rail, or to be material to operational decisions on vegetation management. There are over 75 further relevant Network Rail documents provided to the Review which do not appear widely recognised or used.

There are some quotes from railway staff which look very bad from a management point of view.
eg:

Cost of current approach? No idea as we can’t get the figures from maintenance on how much they currently spend.

Vegetation management and environmental management further share an unwelcome common bond within Network Rail as disciplines that do not benefit from the levels of accountability, support and funding enjoyed by traditional asset management disciplines.’

The opening quote seems suspect to me:

The railways were built with the idea that they would make the countryside more beautiful.’
Sir John Betjeman 1979

I don't think I have ever seen that from the Victorian builders themselves.
They may have built some fine structures, but environmental protection was not high on their priority lists.

 

[squizzler]

Why is the management of wildlife and vegetation within railway property meant to be worse than that in other sectors that manage land?

I gather that disturbing nesting birds is already a criminal offence. Is the railway some sort of exception under the law, possibly not having to consult with wildlife bodies because it is felt they have the skills in-house?

If not, then it just seems a case of enforcing laws that exist. Otherwise, if it felt the the railways are required to go above and beyond their duties under wildlife protection legislation, they should be given appropriate budget by the DfT to do so.

 

[theironroad]

The people who say that there is too much vegetation management and brush and tree removal from the lineside need to spend a few hours in a driving cab to see how it is only the train keeping the growth back and the frequent smacking of branches on a daily basis against the cab and scraping down the side of the train.

 

[w0033944]

The review launched by the not-to-be-missed Jo Johnson has apparently been completed. I haven't yet come across the report, but the Guardian* is reporting
"not my news source of choice

What is so difficult to understand about trees and the trackside being completely mutually exclusive? How many more trains need to collide with fallen trees, or bring the OLE down, how many more delays due to '''leaves on the line" are required before someone at DafT realises this. NR is not an environmental charity or cause and has more worthwhile things to spend it's budget on than tree hugging.

While I don't understand why many conservatives (including those who are self-declared "country people") seem to dislike the environment and are scathing of those who try to protect it, the railway is a rather different case for the reasons you outline.

 

[nidave]

Surely NR has enough disused land away from running lines that isn’t going to be sold, that it could plant a few trees on and keep everyone happy.

In the grand scheme of things it would probably cost less than 10% if it’s annual lanyard budget.

I suspect the complaints are not really about the animals it's the removal of the visual barrier between track and homes. I would like to see where these "concerned environmental citizens" live. I suspect most are bordering a railway track.

 

[a_c_skinner]

What is so difficult to understand about trees and the trackside being completely mutually exclusive? How many more trains need to collide with fallen trees, or bring the OLE down, how many more delays due to '''leaves on the line" are required before

Not the point, it is about votes. The problems vegetation causes are laid at NR's feet, clearing trees is something the government carries the can for. Everything is about votes and not as many people travel on trains as people who think "green".

Similarly new trains that are too few and too short gain votes when rail users would prefer (for a given amount of money) more rolling stock that has been repurposed, refurbished and so on.

 

[Bald Rick]

I suspect the complaints are not really about the animals it's the removal of the visual barrier between track and homes. I would like to see where these "concerned environmental citizens" live. I suspect most are bordering a railway track.

Spot on.

 

[malc-c]

I noticed that a lot of the trees on the west embankment adjacent to the North bound slow line, south of the station (between the A602 over bridge and six hills way over bridge) have been cut down. Does anyone know the reasoning behind this (is the 5th platform at Stevenage finally going ahead ?)

Cheers

 

[John Webb]

Or is it just clearing trees close to the line to reduce leaves on the line or potential falls onto the OHLE in stormy weather, as they've been doing on both the ECML and the MML in Herts in the last year or two? There are restrictions on tree cutting during the spring to avoid disturbing nesting birds, I believe, so this time of year makes sense.

 

[717001]

Suspect it is part of the vegetation work being done by NR linked to the Thameslink Resilience Project, which covers 30 miles northwards from Kings Cross St Pancras.

It was largely paused pending the publishing of the Varley Report* before Christmas but work is underway again.

* The Varley report is available on the DfT website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...uing-nature-a-railway-for-people-and-wildlife

 

[MSH2019]

The clearance is a fore-runner to building an additional line and Platform on the West Side of the line at Stevenage.
Services from the Hertford North Branch will terminate in a new platform still to be built, this i reached on a new Single Line from Langley Junction.

 

[Ploughman]

Would it be part of the project to remove the old Huntingdon viaduct on the A14 / 602?

 

[malc-c]

Thanks for the replies and the links to the documents

 

[philthetube]

Yes, the scrap metal is a particular issue, as the value around the network must be enormous, aside from the safety implications of so many trip hazards and invitations to vandals to move old rails, etc. onto the line.

Large amounts of rails are dotted aroue the network for emergency repairs, although these are supposed to be kept to a minimum

I also think, and am sure others can confirm or deny, that there is a minimum length of rail which can be left lying about in order to ensure that the weight prevents vandals from moving it.

 

[krus_aragon]

Well as the old saying goes "never let truth get in the way of a good story".

There's also the old saying " if a tree is felled secretly when no-one is around, does it make a noise?"

 

[Taunton]

Large amounts of rails are dotted aroue the network for emergency repairs, although these are supposed to be kept to a minimum

I also think, and am sure others can confirm or deny, that there is a minimum length of rail which can be left lying about in order to ensure that the weight prevents vandals from moving it.

I think that the proportion of rail lying in case of emergency repair need is a very small percentage of what has just been cast aside and forgotten. It would never be acceptable for road contractors to just leave removed crash barrier bits or excavated asphalt just lying by the roadside for months if not yeats after the job.