Lineside Clutter - A Modern Phenomenon?

[M.I.B]

I was debating lineside clutter with M.I.B Snr. It may be his senior years, but he thinks that clutter is a modern phenomenon.

 

Graffiti, mattresses and washing machines excluded, I was thinking more of rail sections, chairs, sleepers and oil driums left trackside.

 

In the 40s would this sort of item be left/pre positioned or "left over" awaiting collection, or were permanent way staff more thorough?

 

The reason for the question is that I don't want to have a sterile looking set of main running lines and thought that the odd piece of rail section would break things up a bit.

[Kris]

Photos of yards in the time you are talking about do show some of the clutter that you want however away from these areas I can't think of photos showing much or any unless they are showing locations where work is underway or obviously only recently finished.

[ForestPines]

I'm slightly wary, sometimes, as to how much "classic" railway photographers might have self-edited and either not taken pictures of "messy" areas or not submitted them for publication.

 

This is after reading a book of S&DJR photos including plenty of Ivo Peters' work. One of his photos featured this sort of lineside clutter in the foreground; and the caption stated that the shot was previously unpublished, probably because Peters thought that the clutter stopped the photo coming up to his usual standard.

[The Stationmaster]

The big difference in more recent years is the amount of lineside foliage/overgrowth which has appeared and the loss, often due to higher ballast shoulders, of cess paths. As far as rubbish dumping is concerned this has been a feature of some urban areas for a very long time.

[Oldddudders]

Do not underestimate the dramatic reduction in permanent way manpower since the war. By the '60s, CWR was coming into use on main lines everywhere, with its attendant savings in inspection staff. Thus the local gang, who might well have been rather good at tidying as they went walking up and down on inspection, were now reduced in number ,and probably had a motor vehicle taking them daily to specific sites. Thus the clutter left behind after works had less chance of being scooped up and taken away. The Civil Engineer had to have special trains & possessions to clear up the tat.

 

The foliage issue has the same root (sorry) cause. In steam days it made good sense to keep foliage to a minimum, to avoid unplanned conflagrations. Thus the local gang did such tasks in marginal time, and because they were always about, nothing even reached sapling stage. Once the guys were taken away, the growth was enormous, as so many photos show. It also has to be said that few of the railway's neighbours were truly sorry to see and hear less of the trains. Indeed I think it was at Burgess Hill in the '80s, where the Area Manager at Brighton lived and had an allotment, that a couple of mature trees were removed to assist with light - to local outrage.

[M.I.B]

Thank you all - didn't think about the effect that CWR had, but I am fully aware that manpower has reduced everywhere since the 50s.

 

I also hadn't thought of the effect of producing "the perfect world" photo devoid of clutter.

 

So without attempting to quantify clutter for my planned setting, I will go for "some" but "not much".

[Peter Kazmierczak]

But from a different perspective, there were more things to look at by the lineside in steam and early diesel days. Telegraph posts, semaphore signals and signalboxes, point rodding and signal wires, lineside huts with all their bits and bobs, ballast bins, foot crossings with their cast-iron signs, etc. etc.

 

I find the modern scene quite bland and sterile at times, especially missing in vertical elements.

 

But then again, the sun always shone in the past.

 

Regards,

Peter

[ess1uk]

some areas are better at cleaning up than others, but even i think it has got worse recently.