The Guardian: "Millions of trees at risk in secretive Network Rail felling programme"

[caradoc]

An issue with trees at this time of year (ie when they are growing !) is signals obscured by foliage; This causes delay if Drivers have to be cautioned until the branches are cut back. Far better to nip the problem in the bud (sorry) rather than wait until it has occurred and respond in a piecemeal fashion.

[PatB]

There is an increasing degree of conflict between environmental protection and safety in some industries. I am a bit of a tree hugger but I also think safety matters. I think it is easy to retreat from questions we don't like by taking the easy way out by telling someone else to reconcile conflicts without compromising anything. The reason I have little time for certain green NGOs in the sector I work in is that sympathising with and supporting their objectives I just find their attitude to people and safety reprehensible.

 

True. However there is also the opposite attitude (and I would emphasise that I am not suggesting that it is on display here; my experience of it is in other fields) whereby as soon as something has the label "safety" applied it cannot be argued against on any grounds, often including other safety aspects which might arise as an unintended consequence. It can be equally unhelpful in arriving at a compromise position which adequately addresses both sides' concerns.

[The Stationmaster]

True. However there is also the opposite attitude (and I would emphasise that I am not suggesting that it is on display here; my experience of it is in other fields) whereby as soon as something has the label "safety" applied it cannot be argued against on any grounds, often including other safety aspects which might arise as an unintended consequence. It can be equally unhelpful in arriving at a compromise position which adequately addresses both sides' concerns.

 

Although a properly conducted risk assessment process should deal with that by taking into account any consequentials arsing from a mitigation applied to the original risk. (also know as informed commonsense among older folk .

[25901]

Shock horror, trees been cut down to have a clean and clear track side. That a new idea

 

 

[The Border Reiver]

West of Brockenhurst 19 August 1966 looking towards station..

 

 

Same cutting looking away from station Google Street View today...

 

 

I know which embankment I prefer!!

[Mark Saunders]

Has anyone asked the Highways Agency about their policy on trees and their roads!

 

Mark Saunders

[jjb1970]

True. However there is also the opposite attitude (and I would emphasise that I am not suggesting that it is on display here; my experience of it is in other fields) whereby as soon as something has the label "safety" applied it cannot be argued against on any grounds, often including other safety aspects which might arise as an unintended consequence. It can be equally unhelpful in arriving at a compromise position which adequately addresses both sides' concerns.

 

Indeed, safety is almost used as a form of emotional blackmail in some cases to close down argument, a bit like when somebody throws some example of great personal misfortune in somebody's face to shut down rational discussion of an issue. Unfortunately the same dynamic is increasingly seen when people throw environmental arguments into the mix. Especially when it comes to evaluating cost benefit and the problem some people have in accepting that there is a balance between what we should spend on safety and residual risk despite the fact that such an analysis and concepts such as ALARP are all but unavoidable for the simple reason that the only way you can eliminate things like train crashes is not to have trains.

[rodent279]

Has anyone asked the Highways Agency about their policy on trees and their roads!

 

Mark Saunders

I'd be interested to know if they have one! I'll bet it's not consistent among local authorities.

[hayfield]

Has anyone asked the Highways Agency about their policy on trees and their roads!

 

Mark Saunders

 

 

Been down the M4 for a few miles today, guess what newly cut down trees. In the nesting season. Some not even a danger of being hit by a wayward car, but some trees which could be (hit by wayward cars) have been left standing.  Why has our great tree protector not protested !!!  Guardian you are missing another sound bite headline !!!

[whart57]

Simples - because safety and operational reasons are exactly what they are.  Leaf fall (from trees) causes horrendous problems including problems with braking and trees can, and do, obstruct the view of landmarks (which Drivers use for braking marks) and signals.   Anyone with an ounce of concern about railway safety and knowledge of railway working will recognise those potential hazards.   The good thing is that at last NR is doing something about it.

 

Now what it puts into the public arena has to be very carefully measured in terminology and the wording which is used and 'safety and operational reasons' is a good catch-all without going into detailed explanations which might worry the casual reader of a newspaper or wind up the more logically minded reader who could ask 'why are they only doing it now?'.  One of the first lessons in PR and media training is that it can be dangerous, in various ways, to say too much - particularly to an audience which is not versed in a deep understanding of the subject.  'Safety and operational reasons' nicely sums up the things which are involved - far better than saying 'there is a risk of a train sliding past a signal at danger and colliding with another train'. although it can be useful to add things such as 'leaf fall puts X trains out of action each year with repairs costing £sY'

 

I would say that this sort of dismissive attitude is why Michael Gove got away with saying we have had enough of experts.

 

If people living alongside a railway line were told that NR had to cut back trees because they were obscuring signals then everyone would understand the safety aspect. If a tree has to be cut down because it is in a dangerous condition, people understand. If people have it explained that greasy leaves on the lines in autumn means braking and adhesion problems and thus their train to London risks delay or cancellation then they might accept the "operational  reasons". The thing is though that these explanations are more local, for example NR can't use the obscuring signals reason on a stretch of line where there are no signals. Lofty pronouncements don't cut it these days. And that's a good thing.

[hayfield]

I would say that this sort of dismissive attitude is why Michael Gove got away with saying we have had enough of experts.

 

If people living alongside a railway line were told that NR had to cut back trees because they were obscuring signals then everyone would understand the safety aspect. If a tree has to be cut down because it is in a dangerous condition, people understand. If people have it explained that greasy leaves on the lines in autumn means braking and adhesion problems and thus their train to London risks delay or cancellation then they might accept the "operational  reasons". The thing is though that these explanations are more local, for example NR can't use the obscuring signals reason on a stretch of line where there are no signals. Lofty pronouncements don't cut it these days. And that's a good thing.

 

 

The thing is though who did the local people speak to, if it were a contractor especially one of the workers, there is a good chance they know nothing about railways, they are for the gant of a better word tree surgeons/groundsmen who are working for a totally different company

 

However a journalist worth their salt when writing up a story should do a minimum amount of background work to report the story accurately. What's even more surprising is the comments of some modellers  who should have a bit of background knowledge of the reasons why this is done, agreed the points about birds and nesting season. plus anyone who has bought a house must understand the problems associated with large trees near foundations, or safety issues with diseased/dying trees.

 

The best bit of journalism on here is the uploading of old photos especially when compared with new ones of the recent condition 

[caradoc]

Has anyone asked the Highways Agency about their policy on trees and their roads!

 

Mark Saunders

 

I used to have a 1930s book, given to me by my Mum, about how things worked. Among the subjects covered was bus services, and there was a section on a specially adapted double-decker used to cut down overhanging tree branches which would otherwise strike buses. I presume this practice has long since ceased given the number of times double-deckers are scraped by branches, certainly in Oxford anyway (including outside the rail station !).

[Fat Controller]

I used to have a 1930s book, given to me by my Mum, about how things worked. Among the subjects covered was bus services, and there was a section on a specially adapted double-decker used to cut down overhanging tree branches which would otherwise strike buses. I presume this practice has long since ceased given the number of times double-deckers are scraped by branches, certainly in Oxford anyway (including outside the rail station !).

East Kent still do it on the routes around here. The trees in Oxford may be covered by a TPO.

[Reorte]

True. However there is also the opposite attitude (and I would emphasise that I am not suggesting that it is on display here; my experience of it is in other fields) whereby as soon as something has the label "safety" applied it cannot be argued against on any grounds, often including other safety aspects which might arise as an unintended consequence. It can be equally unhelpful in arriving at a compromise position which adequately addresses both sides' concerns.

That certainly happens a great deal on internet discussions on the subject - "it's about safety, therefore if you question it you try explaining when someone gets hurt, end of." The natural human reaction to that sort of attempt to shout down a conversation is to generate a negative response in reply. That's why it's a dangerous approach to take because, combined with frivolous things done in the name of safety (which the professionals do try to point out are just that) it creates a bit of a boy who cried wolf effect which can lead to very genuine, sensible issues not being treated with the respect they deserve by some.

[PatB]

Although a properly conducted risk assessment process should deal with that by taking into account any consequentials arsing from a mitigation applied to the original risk. (also know as informed commonsense among older folk .

 

Indeed it should, and in my experience in private industry this has been the case. However, my experience as a public servant suggests that, when it comes to government policy, a screaming headline trumps any two properly conducted studies in the eyes of any minister I've served under .

[Coryton]

I used to have a 1930s book, given to me by my Mum, about how things worked. Among the subjects covered was bus services, and there was a section on a specially adapted double-decker used to cut down overhanging tree branches which would otherwise strike buses. I presume this practice has long since ceased given the number of times double-deckers are scraped by branches, certainly in Oxford anyway (including outside the rail station !).

 

Isn't the modern approach to put hefty protective bars on the buses themselves and let them prune the trees as they go past/through?

 

I've certainly been at the front on double deckers a few times when I was glad it wasn't an open top bus.

[Reorte]

Isn't the modern approach to put hefty protective bars on the buses themselves and let them prune the trees as they go past/through?

 

I've certainly been at the front on double deckers a few times when I was glad it wasn't an open top bus.

I remember buses being scraped by trees a lot back in the 80s; I assumed that the trees weren't ever pruned (unless a new route was introduced), it was just the constant passage of buses that kept them that shape.

[Wickham Green]

I remember buses being scraped by trees a lot back in the 80s; I assumed that the trees weren't ever pruned (unless a new route was introduced), it was just the constant passage of buses that kept them that shape.

yeah - bus topiary ! .................... like the carefully sculpted weeds shaped by the underside of trains on certain bits of railway nowadays .............

[Mark Saunders]

Isn't the modern approach to put hefty protective bars on the buses themselves and let them prune the trees as they go past/through?

 

I've certainly been at the front on double deckers a few times when I was glad it wasn't an open top bus.

The open top bus was the one that was used as a platform for pruning the trees!

[Mark Saunders]

Indeed it should, and in my experience in private industry this has been the case. However, my experience as a public servant suggests that, when it comes to government policy, a screaming headline trumps any two properly conducted studies in the eyes of any minister I've served under .

Seems like part of the script for “ yes minister “ and how James Hacker became PM!

[The Stationmaster]

I would say that this sort of dismissive attitude is why Michael Gove got away with saying we have had enough of experts.

 

If people living alongside a railway line were told that NR had to cut back trees because they were obscuring signals then everyone would understand the safety aspect. If a tree has to be cut down because it is in a dangerous condition, people understand. If people have it explained that greasy leaves on the lines in autumn means braking and adhesion problems and thus their train to London risks delay or cancellation then they might accept the "operational  reasons". The thing is though that these explanations are more local, for example NR can't use the obscuring signals reason on a stretch of line where there are no signals. Lofty pronouncements don't cut it these days. And that's a good thing.

 

Hardly 'dismissive', more like 'informed' and informative.  But if you wish to differ that is entirely your prerogative of course and if you don't wish to be informed that is also your prerogative.  

 

But plenty of trees have come down in adverse weather, and at other times, a heck of a long way from any signals and in some cases trains have hit them and in one case a Driver was almost killed (by a tree that had been felled outside the boundary fence).  If that isn't 'safety' then I'm at a loss to know what is.   If trains are delayed by fallen trees or leaves on the line (the latter having been frequently publicised and explained in the past for more years than I can remember) are not 'operational' reasons' then I don't know what is.

[whart57]

The thing is though who did the local people speak to, if it were a contractor especially one of the workers, there is a good chance they know nothing about railways, they are for the gant of a better word tree surgeons/groundsmen who are working for a totally different company

 

However a journalist worth their salt when writing up a story should do a minimum amount of background work to report the story accurately. What's even more surprising is the comments of some modellers  who should have a bit of background knowledge of the reasons why this is done, agreed the points about birds and nesting season. plus anyone who has bought a house must understand the problems associated with large trees near foundations, or safety issues with diseased/dying trees.

 

The best bit of journalism on here is the uploading of old photos especially when compared with new ones of the recent condition 

 

It may be worth digging out the original Guardian piece, it was actually a balanced piece of journalism in which Network Rail were given every opportunity to give their side of the story. This thread though contains more than a few for whom the word "gammon" seems to have been coined given that the combination of "Guardian", "Friends of the Earth" and similar triggers have resulted in an intemperate reaction.

 

As to uploading old photos, interesting but irrelevant. It was a different world fifty or sixty years ago. Different railway too.

[whart57]

East Kent still do it on the routes around here. The trees in Oxford may be covered by a TPO.

 

I remember back in the 1960s East Kent keeping an old Guy Arab II with a Utility body cut down for that purpose in Herne Bay shed. As a naive nine year old I thought it was a relic from the days when double deckers were open topped .   In my defence I think Airfix had just brought out their kit of the London General B type. I believe that Guy Arab was replaced by a "Puffin" sometime in the 70s

[Trog]

Interesting what happens where a TPO tree overhangs a right of way such as a road, where there is a common law right to remove obstructions to the extent needed to allow safe passage. So a bus company would have a legal right to cut back to a 'structure gauge' that allowed their buses to pass without damage.

[Reorte]

As to uploading old photos, interesting but irrelevant. It was a different world fifty or sixty years ago. Different railway too.

The old photos are there to show that there's nothing to the "it's always been like that" line which some people have taken. A different world and a different railway may or may not affect how much worth it is to return it to that state but they do demonstrate that the lineside jungle is a mostly recent(ish) phenomena, that cutting it down isn't a change to how something's been for an awful long time. It's surprising how quickly changes to growth can get accepted as normal, even happens when I cut some stuff back in the garden to how it was just a couple of years ago ("surely it hasn't grown that much, but must've done if I can only now see things behind it I remember seeing two years before.")

 

And signals need to be seen now and did 50 years ago, even if they're different signals.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Reorte