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

[jonny777]

Presumably you will now be campaigning vigorously for every tree next to a UK road to be chopped down?

 

[Dunsignalling]

Things generally ARE an "us v them" situation though.

Don't get me wrong Brian safety is of course foremost, and I've probably slid from here to Birmingham in total due to low adhesion (class 142s are particularly 'fun' in Autumn).

 

Just my two pennorth,

1. Don't even think about cutting trees when wildlife is thriving, our native creatures need all the help they can get and particularly birds while nesting. (I accept that where there is imminent danger to the railway such as a semi-toppled tree this should be disregarded)

2. Flails are brutal, when I see the results of such kit I shudder to think about the fate of the wildlife in the area where flails have been used.

3. Obviously steam locos kept excessive growth in check when they were the main form of traction. Why did nobody foresee these issues when steam was abandoned? I suspect this is because "they" neither knew nor cared.

In steam days, cutting sides etc. were regularly cleared (every other year ISTR) by controlled burning, in order to prevent the uncontrolled sort.

 

Most old photos therefore show a rather manicured look inside the railway boundary fence.

 

What NR have been doing looks, and is, drastic, because the growth has been allowed to run riot for so many years.

 

Flails are brutally effective, and what they leave behind isn't pretty but they aren't used during the nesting season and wildlife is generally savvy enough not to get in the way of one.

 

In our area, the work is being carried out by a small gang who have been working their way along the line for over a year, using chainsaws and chippers with very limited flailing.

 

They have conducted the work in a sensitive manner with no "blitzing" of large areas, so the local wildlife should have had chance to move out of the way, there being plenty of untouched patches outside the clearance zone of 3 to 4 metres that seems to be their remit.  

 

John

[w124bob]

It is not just an obligation to avoid disturbing nesting birds.

 

This would be an infringement of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and in breach of The European Habitats Directive 1992/Nesting Birds Directive.

 

The maximum penalty for each offence is a £5000 fine and up to six months imprisonment in the Magistrates court, and a £5000 fine and up to two years imprisonment in the Crown Court.[/size]

I suspect NR maybe exempt, there would have been cases by now. NR has many exemptions when it comes to what it can do to up keep the railway environment. Trackside is not a nature reserve, it's a working environment and needs to be safe for those staff out there. They would soon be in court for H&S infringements, not to mention the compensation claims if they failed to manage the work place safley. Edited May 11, 2018 by w124bob

[hayfield]

Actually I saw the bit that said "beyond the boundary fence" and wondered how dictatorial some people want the state railway maintainer to be. Clearly the spirit of East Germany lives on in Britain.

 

 

The leaf fall is an inconvenience problem which most travellers on trains would want some form of action/solution. Trees falling on to the tracks especially in cuttings is another problem. Safety of those onboard the train is paramount, if you own the land next to the railway with a large tree you are responsible for the safety of others if your tree falls. 

[hayfield]

What do you depend on for news, Daily Mail, Fox News, Breitbart, Facebook, do they cover these stories?

 

 

But  Millions of trees!!!!, Secretive!!!! .  Sounds like the Guardian have employed the Stars headline maker. Its not news its been going on for years, I doubt if its millions and not at all secretive when they are all in High vis clothes with chainsaws, or hand they got silencers fitted to them to hide their activities,

 

I have no idea if the sources you mention cover these stories, but I bet most would be more informative/objective.  But the Guardian jumping on a band wagon comes to mind and I will certainly look twice when reading any of their stories

[hayfield]

Get your point, but would a "decent news provider" then also have to provide pictures of destroyed nests, chicks being devoured by predators due to lack of foliage, etc etc, or was it enough balance to simply report on the strategy that does exist (which includes an obligation avoid nesting season) with a picture showing that might not be happening, and the fact that the govt have found an issue they can agree on?

 

 

But then its not just the railways but also the power companies, that rather than pruning vegetation below the National grid lines, pay the land owners to remove all trees and shrubs below the lines despite some shrubs never being able to grow that tall, what about roadside trees being felled because they undermine the road/pavement. Where do we stop or do we wait for fatalities before doing anything !!

[hayfield]

In steam days, cutting sides etc. were regularly cleared (every other year ISTR) by controlled burning, in order to prevent the uncontrolled sort.

 

Most old photos therefore show a rather manicured look inside the railway boundary fence.

 

What NR have been doing looks, and is, drastic, because the growth has been allowed to run riot for so many years.

 

Flails are brutally effective, and what they leave behind isn't pretty but they aren't used during the nesting season and wildlife is generally savvy enough not to get in the way of one.

 

In our area, the work is being carried out by a small gang who have been working their way along the line for over a year, using chainsaws and chippers with very limited flailing.

 

They have conducted the work in a sensitive manner with no "blitzing" of large areas, so the local wildlife should have had chance to move out of the way, there being plenty of untouched patches outside the clearance zone of 3 to 4 metres that seems to be their remit.  

 

John

 

 

I never saw any controlled burning on the West Coast mainline in the 50's & 60's. What I did see was fires started by passing trains.

[Reorte]

I suspect NR maybe exempt, there would have been cases by now. NR has many exemptions when it comes to what it can do to up keep the railway environment. Trackside is not a nature reserve, it's a working environment and needs to be safe for those staff out there. They would soon be in court for H&S infringements, not to mention the compensation claims if they failed to manage the work place safley.

The laws don't just apply to nature reserves. Like I've said I'm not against getting the vegetation back under control along the lineside, quite the opposite, but if NR have an exemption to the wildlife laws they really shouldn't unless it's an emergency (e.g. a tree identified as being likely to fall). It's hard to see a sudden safety-related case that requires the work to be done this instant yet lets them get away with the state it's been in for years. It can be too easy to shout down a discussion by saying "safety!", which has the added boy who cried wolf effect.

[Dunsignalling]

I never saw any controlled burning on the West Coast mainline in the 50's & 60's. What I did see was fires started by passing trains.

The LMR were evidently cutting out the middleman........

 

It was certainly the practice down this way (SR West of England main line).

 

John

[ejstubbs]

I think it is good that people seek to protect trees, after all they take forty years to grow to maturity and can be chopped down in a morning.

 

And they capture far more CO2 during their growing phase than they do in maturity.  So, actually, cutting them down when they're fully grown and planting new saplings (in more appropriate/less disruptive locations as necessary) has positive aspects.

 

Trees can also fall down naturally, of course (which is part of the reason why managing them in the lineside environment is desirable, assuming that it's done in a responsible manner).

[Mike Storey]

The laws don't just apply to nature reserves. Like I've said I'm not against getting the vegetation back under control along the lineside, quite the opposite, but if NR have an exemption to the wildlife laws they really shouldn't unless it's an emergency (e.g. a tree identified as being likely to fall). It's hard to see a sudden safety-related case that requires the work to be done this instant yet lets them get away with the state it's been in for years. It can be too easy to shout down a discussion by saying "safety!", which has the added boy who cried wolf effect.

 

AFIK, NR don't have an exemption, as I recall (veiled) threats of enforcement if we did not comply with certain requirements by council environmental officers at consultations before such works.

 

But, in the case of safety related actions, there are many examples of trees suddenly becoming unsafe after major storms or very intense rainfalls - I have dealt with the aftermath of a few in my time. The same is true of signals and other essential lineside sight lines becoming obstructed fairly rapidly by fast growing (or leaning) trees or bushes, which require rapid response. Additionally, where leaf fall has become a major problem for slide-bys or even general slipping, then there has to be a targetted foliage removal asap. Simply removing the foliage from a few metres adjacent is rarely enough to solve the problem. 

[Reorte]

AFIK, NR don't have an exemption, as I recall (veiled) threats of enforcement if we did not comply with certain requirements by council environmental officers at consultations before such works.

 

But, in the case of safety related actions, there are many examples of trees suddenly becoming unsafe after major storms or very intense rainfalls - I have dealt with the aftermath of a few in my time. The same is true of signals and other essential lineside sight lines becoming obstructed fairly rapidly by fast growing (or leaning) trees or bushes, which require rapid response. Additionally, where leaf fall has become a major problem for slide-bys or even general slipping, then there has to be a targetted foliage removal asap. Simply removing the foliage from a few metres adjacent is rarely enough to solve the problem. 

I'm not trying to be argumentative here but those don't seem to tally with the accusations of large-scale clearance at times of nesting birds (maybe those accusations don't usually stand up to scrutiny though, hope that's the case).I doubt anyone has a problem with targetted removals of sudden unsafe patches. This season's growth can obscure signals fairly rapidly most likely. Ideally that should be dealt with before it happens (it's not completely unpredictable), but I'd have thought to keep in with the law then the most that could be done at this time of year was limited to just dealing with enough for now, with more clearance so it doesn't keep happening having to wait until another time of year. Does leaf fall really just become a sudden problem needing clearing ASAP, and at bird nesting times of year though?

 

Come to think of it when is the ideal time of year? Winter is probably less of a hassle in some ways but storms on recently cleared banks probably isn't a good mix, not to mention general working conditions and light.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Reorte

[Reorte]

And they capture far more CO2 during their growing phase than they do in maturity.  So, actually, cutting them down when they're fully grown and planting new saplings (in more appropriate/less disruptive locations as necessary) has positive aspects.

That's why buying a few fields and planting trees on them along with clearing them sounds like a good scheme to quiet the objections, although of course there's the usual question of where does the money for that come from. A large continuous area of woodland, without hundreds of tons of metal flying through it, should be better for wildlife anyway, and provide a nice spot to visit.

[Mike Storey]

I'm not trying to be argumentative here but those don't seem to tally with the accusations of large-scale clearance at times of nesting birds. I doubt anyone has a problem with targetted removals of sudden unsafe patches. This season's growth can obscure signals fairly rapidly most likely. Ideally that should be dealt with before it happens (it's not completely unpredictable), but I'd have thought to keep in with the law then the most that could be done at this time of year was limited to just dealing with enough for now, with more clearance so it doesn't keep happening having to wait until another time of year. Does leaf fall really just become a sudden problem needing clearing ASAP, and at bird nesting times of year though?

 

Come to think of it when is the ideal time of year? Winter is probably less of a hassle in some ways but storms on recently cleared banks probably isn't a good mix, not to mention general working conditions and light.

 

I don't disagree - if such clearance is taking place during nesting season, without an overwhelmingly urgent safety reason, then it is plainly wrong. Hence the review taking place.

 

The best time of year for wider clearances is when the leaves have fallen and have not yet re-grown - easy to spot the deciduous variety then! However, the weather is then not always so favourable or predictable for accessing many sites safely (on steep inclines particularly), or for moving/using heavy equipment, hence much of the work gets done in the mid-to-late summer/autumn months, once nesting would normally be over and the chances of late cancellations of work are diminished.

[Yardman]

Not before time. At least we may be able to photograph the railways again and not forced to travel in a green corridor when travelling by train. In days of steam overgrowth like this never happened as either it was set fire to by a passing locomotive before it could get established or the linesmen would deliberately set fire to bank sides in a controlled manner.

[phil-b259]

 

And yes, certain wild flowers and grasses will flourish for the first couple of years; but soon brambles and bracken will take over and young tree seeds will be excreted by birds, or buried by mammals, and the whole process will begin again. 

 

 

Which is why I have said before that vegetation management is not a short term activity.

 

Why do you think there went lots of trees back in steam days? - we still had birds and other animals depositing seeds in the years before 1960 which had the potential to grow into brambles or trees.

 

The answer is simply that we had folk going round and regularly burning / cutting back plant growth right the way to the boundary fence - not just the 15ft closest to the tracks.

[whart57]

Trees don't suddenly appear, they take thirty or forty years to grow. Trees are also seen as an amenity, they provide cover and separation in our increasingly crowded isle. (Though I might regret using the word "crowded" given that triggers some bad reactions). If you look at that picture of trees cleared from an embankment in SW London you can see why people are upset. A week or two ago they had a nice copse at the end of their gardens, now they have a bare bank with sawn off stumps, plus trains full of bored passengers staring into their garden passing every ten minutes. All these old railway farts going on about bare tracksides in the days of steam are not going to placate those home owners.

Edited May 11, 2018 by whart57

[Trog]

I never saw any controlled burning on the West Coast mainline in the 50's & 60's. What I did see was fires started by passing trains.

 

I can remember seeing it done, south end of the WCML in the 1960's.

[phil-b259]

Trees don't suddenly appear, they take thirty or forty years to grow. Trees are also seen as an amenity, they provide cover and separation in our increasingly crowded isle. (Though I might regret using the word "crowded" given that triggers some bad reactions). If you look at that picture of trees cleared from a cutting in SW London you can see why people are upset. A week or two ago they had a nice copse at the end of their gardens, now they have a bare bank with sawn off stumps, plus trains full of bored passengers staring into their garden passing every ten minutes. All these old railway farts going on about bare tracksides in the days of steam are not going to placate those home owners.

 

In which case its up to the home owners to do something about it USING THEIR OWN LAND

 

Not for the first time I am compelled to remind people that the national railway system does not exist to be a repository for historic buildings, a museum of the past, or in this case a nature reserve simply because developers / local authorities / farmers have steadily been reducing the amount of greenery outside the boundary fence. If society as a whole is so concerned about providing wildlife corridors why is there not grater protection for hedgerows and why do new developments not include plenty of green corridors through them.

 

Picking on the railways - just because repeated cuts to the funding British Rail received and the subsequent abolition of lineside vegetation management budgets allowed excessive tree growth is yet more evidence of short term thinking and demonstrates a complete lack of understand that having low taxes (and by extension low Government spending / regulation) usually is detrimental to the long term needs of society as a whole

 

If you move next to a railway then you shouldn't rely on the railway to provide privacy by letting vegetation grow - just as you shouldn't assume that the frequency / type of trains will forever remain the same as when you moved in.

Edited May 12, 2018 by phil-b259

[whart57]

A bit of understanding of why people are upset might have been nice. Instead we just have a load of sneering at the one national newspaper that is not slipping into the habits of Pravda. As it happens the Department of the Environment is sufficiently concerned about Network Rail's plans that they have demanded they are put on hold and a bit more investigation done. And Michael Gove is hardly a tree-hugger.

[scouser]

Err, protecting birds? Domestic cats are the main problem here, listen to the screams now!

As for why people are upset, well it is people who want to travel so until we invent some sort of magic travel system trains, cars etc. will have to be put up with.

The ideals of environmentalists are exactly correct, but unfortunately the real world gets in the way.

[w124bob]

Err, protecting birds? Domestic cats are the main problem here, listen to the screams now!

As for why people are upset, well it is people who want to travel so until we invent some sort of magic travel system trains, cars etc. will have to be put up with.

The ideals of environmentalists are exactly correct, but unfortunately the real world gets in the way.

Slightly OT but you also forgot to mention the Magpie, seems to be the only bird round here able to stay one step ahead the army of cats.

[Reorte]

Slightly OT but you also forgot to mention the Magpie, seems to be the only bird round here able to stay one step ahead the army of cats.

Magpies are pretty intelligent birds (all members of the crow family are).

[jjb1970]

The natural world is a brutal one, there is a natural pecking order and food chain and it is good to keep that in mind before getting too misty eyed about things. I am a bit of an animal rights type person in many respects but I don't see the natural world as some sort of idyll.

[Zomboid]

Though domestic cats aren't really a part of the natural fauna of the British isles.