Steam Train Causes Fires on the ECML (7/5)

[BestWestern]

This isn't weeds. It is trees. Get a quote for a tree surgeon to take down a 20 foot tree in your garden. Including disposal. Then mention you have another 200 like it. And he has to do it on Sunday mornings or over night. Then tell him his staff have to be trained in trackside safety, and various other competences. And that there is only one place he can get access to the railway and he has to transport all 200 trees there when cut down. And he has to leaflet drop any neighbours weeks in advance.

If the bill is less than £10k you have the contract!

I bet I can do it for less than that; I just need somebody to lend me a couple of steam engines

 

[HSTEd]

Also as to the practice of lighting small lineside fires to clear undergrowth without doing it manually... you would run into all sorts of air quality regulations doing that now.
That just isn't acceptable.

And the resources required for RHTT trains are almost certainly less than the resources required to keep all these linesides and nearby railway properties cleared, and even that level of effort would be unlikely to stop drifting leaves causing issues.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

I bet I can do it for less than that; I just need somebody to lend me a couple of steam engines

200 trees!! You would need a long train of open & flat wagons to take away that quantity of logs, debris & crap!!
Not a pleasant job, snakes and other creepy crawlies lurk in those cuttings!
Ouch!

 

[chorleyjeff]

Also as to the practice of lighting small lineside fires to clear undergrowth without doing it manually... you would run into all sorts of air quality regulations doing that now.
That just isn't acceptable.

.

Air quality regs. Do they apply to railway operational land? Where are these regs. written?
Live steam engines in London don't seem to get nicked - even on an underground line.
Jeff

 

[HSTEd]

Air quality regs. Do they apply to railway operational land? Where are these regs. written?

The "Burning of Wastes in the Open" regulations published by the Environment Agency that have a rather strict limit on the amount of material you can allow to burn at any one time - they refer to burning of cut waste however and the exemption that permits small scale burns may not apply to burning undergrowth in place (remember Farms are certainly not permitted to burn wheat stalks any more).

Additionally you would probably be inside a Clean Air Act designated no-smoke zone, which means if anyone complains you end up in a world of hurt.

And what the hell happens if your fire gets out of control, runs up the embankment and burns down a house or two that might have people in them who can't easily escape?

And I don't see why Railway land would be exempted, as it is not really required for the operation of a railway.

Live steam engines in London don't seem to get nicked - even on an underground line.
Jeff

Yes, but this is not comparable, as those are burning fuel and steam engines move. That is not just randomly setting fire to things, steam engines do not produce that much smoke compared to just setting a significant piece of ground on fire.

Then you have to consider the environmental effects of general detritus that might be concealed in the undergrowth, malcotents leaving petrol cans in an area they believe is due to be burned for a laugh and a hundred other massive issues.

It's just not worth it.

 

[tsr]

Then you have to consider the environmental effects of general detritus that might be concealed in the undergrowth, malcotents leaving petrol cans in an area they believe is due to be burned for a laugh and a hundred other massive issues.

It's just not worth it.

This would be exactly my problem.

Having walked beside many a railway upon the embankments of which the contractors and the general public (and even p-way teams clearing debris thrown on the track by people who are frankly idiots) have dumped all manner of stuff, I know as well as most that you'd really want to make sure that was cleared up properly. If NR staff get in the way of a couple of large aerosol cans which have been dumped in an area which is now on fire - there you go, you have them injured - oops. Therefore, you may as well clear the vegetation legally, methodically and responsibly.

Just for the information of other members, I do actually have previous experience in past years of clearing lots of lovely vegetation and debris from embankments and very tricky sites in close proximity to various types of properties, although I haven't actually done this specifically on railway property, just as it so happens.

 

[yorksrob]

200 trees!! You would need a long train of open & flat wagons to take away that quantity of logs, debris & crap!!
Not a pleasant job, snakes and other creepy crawlies lurk in those cuttings!
Ouch!

That's a good point. We need the snakes and creepy crawlies for bio-diversity.

 

[Crundles]

Interesting this thread!

Reason being, we have just returned from a rail trip to Germany. Main reason to visit the famous model outfit at Hamburg, and another; the Harz tourist line. While riding this, I did remark to my wife about the risk of fires. Much of the line runs through pine forest. To my mind prone to catch light pretty easy.

Yet despite all motive power provided by steam engines - or "kettles" as you people prefer to term them I'd gather they had few problems with fires, else they'd not be running these trains.

One interesting thing about temperate woodland is that it is remarkably difficult to burn, even when it is very dry. In the parts of the world where wildfires are common, ecosystems have evolved to be that way, not in spite of it*

I guess it's a sort of catch-22 situation in regards line-side management: you don't want a climax community of large trees developing due to the effect of autumn lead litter, but you don't have the money to keep it completely clear year round. The result is the kind of bracken/scrub habitat which is reasonably flammable.

I'm still kind of surprised about this though - was it that really that dry last week? Certainly doesn't bode well for the rest of the summer.


*not withstanding the large conflagrations that make the news, which tend to be driven by human changes in land management.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

May be of interest to some! Price of Railway Vegetation Management
http://www.homegrowntimber.com/gallery

 

[BestWestern]

200 trees!! You would need a long train of open & flat wagons to take away that quantity of logs, debris & crap!!
Not a pleasant job, snakes and other creepy crawlies lurk in those cuttings!
Ouch!

Perhaps NR should start a rumour that they're hiding copper cabling in the trees as part of a cunning new tactic, then after a short while the pikeys will nick them all!

How many pikeys does it take to cut down a tree...??

 

[LE Greys]

One interesting thing about temperate woodland is that it is remarkably difficult to burn, even when it is very dry. In the parts of the world where wildfires are common, ecosystems have evolved to be that way, not in spite of it*

I guess it's a sort of catch-22 situation in regards line-side management: you don't want a climax community of large trees developing due to the effect of autumn lead litter, but you don't have the money to keep it completely clear year round. The result is the kind of bracken/scrub habitat which is reasonably flammable.

I'm still kind of surprised about this though - was it that really that dry last week? Certainly doesn't bode well for the rest of the summer.


*not withstanding the large conflagrations that make the news, which tend to be driven by human changes in land management.

I've had discussions on a similar subject recently. I'm currently involved in a very prolonged project (as in many many years) to clear most of a reserve for the RSPB to restore it to heathland (almost all of it is currently mature woodland). On several occasions, I've asked the warden 'Why don't we just burn it off?'. The answer was that they would have to clear fire breaks around the area and have half of Bedfordshire Fire Brigade on standby in case it got out of control, and that's unaffordable and certainly wouldn't be covered by the insurance. I get the feeling they'd like to do it, but can't. And unlike those farmers who ignore a huge blaze until it's consumed most of the stubble in a field ("Burning of Wastes in the Open" rules are not popular with them) they can't afford to turn a blind eye because of the numbers of visitors.

 

[michael769]

Problem with burning is that it is usually only viable on land that is already maintained using that approach. It relies on preventing a build up of vegetation to the point where the fire becomes hard to control.

This means that it is entirely unsuitable for clearing land that had not previously been burned on a regular basis.

 

[Mugby]

There could be an opportunity for NR to supply one of the new wood burning power stations with fuel. I believe they currently have to import their wood pellets!

 

[Sadsmileyface]

The problem is, as some have said, that without major expenditure over several years to return the line-side to “like it was in my day” would be a massive challenge but to then maintain it with modern equipment on a 3 – 5 year cycle would be cost effective for all concerned.

Well, if the reason that the clearing is undertaken is to prevent lineside fires caused by steam trains, then you really have to ask... just how many of these fires have been caused so far, what has it actually cost, and how many are we likely to see in the future?

Because I dont think it would actually be cost effective, if that's the issue you're trying to tackle. Cost effective would be just taking the hit, if there ever is one.