Embankments & cuttings - should we clear them?

[Pete 75C]

I had a Sprinter once (Merc, not 156) and it dissolved from the wheel arches up. I used to worry about parking it outside. I used to think I'd go out to it one morning and I'd just have 3 seats, a chassis and an engine block left. Old steel Hornby track left outside doesn't rust as fast as a Sprinter...

Doesn't take much to wander off-topic, does it? Sorry...

[Fat Controller]

Earlier this year, I travelled from Gatwick to St. Pancras, and was struck by the number of felled trees lying by the sides of the line in south London. Most of them had been bucked, apparently in preparation for being moved, but many of the piles were overgrown and looked as if they had been there for several years. I thought at the time that they could be a source of revenue, and wondered if they ever were sold off. From your post, apparently they aren't - why wouldn't they be?

I was told by someone who manages woodlands that the little stacks of wood are there, not to make later transportation easier, but because it encourages decomposition and provides a habitat for invertebrates.

[The Bigbee Line]

Whilst not strictly on-topic, but related, the weed killers used now are pretty useless.  I know we shouldn't be using 245T and 24D but something similar (and as potent) would kill the breadleaved weeds, brambles and saplings but leave grasses.  Years ago my dad wanted some weed killer and I got a canister from a guy on the PWay.  I told my dad to use it carefully.....  He had a problem with the woman next door and an overgrown lilac hedge....  The next year her husband confided with my Dad that he thought his fence treatment had killed their hedge,  Dad said had killed a 6 foot swathe....

[The Stationmaster]

There are locations near me, (Flax Bourton Cutting and Uphill Jn - Bleadon), where extensive work has taken place in the past

to remove trees and vegetation and to stabilise the cutting sides, and improve drainage.

I can not remember how many years ago that was done but the regrowth is vigorous and widespread,

this I attribute to either not killing the roots/stumps, or more likely reseeding from exisiting trees at the top of the cuttings.

Looking at old photos there seem to be many less matures trees and shrubs surrounding the railway capable of such reseeding  

 

cheers

The best answer to regrowth is burning but much of that came to an end when the S&T started burying cable routes and putting location cupboards on banks clear of the cess.  But burning off in spring encouraged grass growth and the autumn burn got rid of the dead stuff.  Far more effective than chemicals (most of the time).

[beast66606]

Funnily enough I photographed some lads on tree clearance duties today

 

 

From a selfish point of view trees get in the way of my photos but as I take quite a few from, or near to, level / foot crossings if they are blocking my view, they are also blocking the view of crossing users - there are some very dangerous crossings around "my" area

[big jim]

compare the lineside vegetation in these 2 videos

 

 

[phil-b259]

 

From a selfish point of view trees get in the way of my photos but as I take quite a few from, or near to, level / foot crossings if they are blocking my view, they are also blocking the view of crossing users - there are some very dangerous crossings around "my" area

 

Please report them to the NR helpline, every week if need be making very sure you tell them of the danger and pointing out if nothing is done you will be writing letters to the RAIB, ORR, the press, etc. highlighting NRs disgraceful behaviour

 

(i.e. what Which magazine tell you to do when a company ignores your complaints with regular companies)

[Ceptic]

This TPO regulation, is it an EUDIreCTive ? , or home grown ?.

 

Looking at images of some continental railways, they appear remarkably clear of line side vegetation.

 

Maybe, the tree preservation order needs amending* ?, based on age ?.

I.e. Any tree, shrub etc., younger than 50 years, bordering, and endangering a public thoroughfare, will be removed.

 

One of the ways of determining a tree's age is by counting it's internal(infernal) trunk growth, I.e. it's rings. 

The only procedure requiring ring counting, that comes to mind,.... is to fell the darn thing.

 

I rest my case

[Highlandman]

compare the lineside vegetation in these 2 videos

 

 

Thanks for those two videos. They make interesting comparisons. Look at 2:33 in the top video and 4:27 in the bottom one. Same place on the line but look at the difference of the drivers view round the curve. Surely a massive difference in reaction times if something should be on the line round the bend obstructed by trees.

[AberdeenBill]

Hi all,

 

Interesting debate..    In terms of burning in the good old days, how did they stop the fire spreading beyond the line-side?    Did the PW crew act as "beaters" or was the local fire brigade involved, or...?

 

Another area where rampant (out of control) growth has occurred in recent decades is the New Forest.   

 

Thanks,

Bill

[darren01]

Hi 

I can tell you it is not much fun getting whacked in the kisser with a wet branch doing 30 odd miles an hour,  i did like an idiot !

[petethemole]

Controlled burning of lineside vegetation used to be carried out by permanent way gangs who would keep the fire within the fence. Burning caused by loco cinders often spread to neighbouring crops. The age of different species of tree when young can be roughly ascertained by trunk circumference. I would have thought that most trees within the lineside fence wouldn't be older than that.

 

Pete

[Kris]

Doesn't stop them still be substantial trees Pete

[The Stationmaster]

Hi all,

 

Interesting debate..    In terms of burning in the good old days, how did they stop the fire spreading beyond the line-side?    Did the PW crew act as "beaters" or was the local fire brigade involved, or...?

 

Another area where rampant (out of control) growth has occurred in recent decades is the New Forest.   

 

Thanks,

Bill

As Pete has said - controlled burning (which occasionally wasn't quite as well controlled as it should have been!).  Usual practice seems to have been to do some cutting first to provide little bonfires which could then be allowed to spread out but be kept clear of the fence line (sawn sleepers used as fence posts burn rather well).  

[4630]

Hi all,

 

Another area where rampant (out of control) growth has occurred in recent decades is the New Forest.   

 

Thanks,

Bill

 

And to illustrate your point here are a couple of photos, although these were taken just outside the boundary of the New Forest.   A period of 45 years separates the two images taken from the same bridge.

 

 

1967

 

 

7th November 2012

 

Anybody got a chainsaw?

[Fat Controller]

This TPO regulation, is it an EUDIreCTive ? , or home grown ?.

 

Looking at images of some continental railways, they appear remarkably clear of line side vegetation.

 

Maybe, the tree preservation order needs amending* ?, based on age ?.

I.e. Any tree, shrub etc., younger than 50 years, bordering, and endangering a public thoroughfare, will be removed.

 

One of the ways of determining a tree's age is by counting it's internal(infernal) trunk growth, I.e. it's rings. 

The only procedure requiring ring counting, that comes to mind,.... is to fell the darn thing.

 

I rest my case

According to Wikipedia, 'TPOs were originally introduced in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.' I can imagine that, when introduced, they were seen as being necessary to stop developers clearing swathes of woodland, especially of long-established trees (which would have taken a hammering during the two World Wars). The same Wikipedia piece does include a list of exceptions to the normal application of a TPO:-

'The following works normally do not require permission under any TPO:

1. Works approved by the Forestry Commission under a felling licence or other approved scheme.
2. Felling or working on a dead or dangerous tree (the onus is on the person who authorises the work to prove that the tree was dead, dangerous - this can cause problems if the tree is felled and removed, as then there is no proof of its condition. Normally this requirement is fulfilled by obtaining a report by a qualified person made before the works are done).
3. Where there is an obligation under an Act of Parliament (for example, to maintain a public highway).
4. Works at the request of certain agencies or organisations which are specified in the Order.
5. Works where there is a direct need to work on the tree to allow development to commence for which detailed planning permission has been obtained
6. Works to fruit trees cultivated in the course of a business for fruit production, as long as the tree work is in the interests of that business. This means that fruit trees are not automatically exempt unless they are actively being used for a business.
7. Works to prevent or control a nuisance (in the legal sense only)'

These would seem to suggest that there are several grounds upon which NR might apply for exemptions; perhaps their lawyers need to fight (and win) a few cases to establish case law?

Even if they obtain permission to clear trees trackside, this still leaves the logistical problems of how to carry out felling work next to a live railway, how to remove the detritus, and how to manage subsequent regrowth. 

Continental railways are not as free of vegetation issues as some might think; SNCF drivers I know have complained about leaf-fall problems in  various places, and in Normandy (between Le Havre and Rouen), it has been necessary to install fixed tanks dispensing a Sandite-like substance on to the railhead.

1.  

[The Stationmaster]

Maybe they could also apply 'grandfather rights' Brian as the trees are almost invariably recent (or comparatively recent) growth  Simple fact is that NR don't want to pay for the bother of cutting them down and keeping the banks clear of them - until a serious incident occurs.

[Highlandman]

Maybe they could also apply 'grandfather rights' Brian as the trees are almost invariably recent (or comparatively recent) growth  Simple fact is that NR don't want to pay for the bother of cutting them down and keeping the banks clear of them - until a serious incident occurs.

 

That's the problem hit right on the head. It will take the likes of a Southall, Clapham or Harrow and Wealdstone caused by a tree or debris on the line before someone decides to do anything. Shutting, door, stable, horse, bolted springs to mind. Judging by some of the comments on here it's not if but when something is going to happen because sighting problems on crossings, damaged OHLE caused by falling branches or a tree falling in front of a 100mph train with no warning.

 

Why, when safety is an important factor in an industry, do we always seem to act in hindsight rather than proactively?

 

Strange isn't it.

[jjb1970]

Am I the only one scratching my head at the no doubt laudable aim of the government to protect trees with things like TPO's at the same time as throwing bucket loads of subsidies at electricity companies to hack trees down in groves to shove them in power station boilers? Luckily if you call it "biomass" then burning trees is OK so maybe NR should re-classify its entire lineside estate as a biomass farm? (PS. this is meant to be tongue in cheek before anybody takes me to task!!)

[Highlandman]

I love the idea of 'white van man' bidding for a franchise and paths just to pick up all the scrap found after the banks have been cleared.

 

 

I fancy modelling that, with the mech from a Sentinel inside an Oxford die cast...

 

Just in case 'white van man' does bid for all the scrap. He might come up with this.

 

 

Trotters Scrap Metals - Keeping Britain's banks and cuttings clear.

I really hope not, but it might make a good model. Over to you 'CHARD.

 

[class"66"]

Very interesting thread!!

[Mike Storey]

The best answer to regrowth is burning but much of that came to an end when the S&T started burying cable routes and putting location cupboards on banks clear of the cess.  But burning off in spring encouraged grass growth and the autumn burn got rid of the dead stuff.  Far more effective than chemicals (most of the time).

 

Maybe, but it also happens to be illegal now!

[Mike Storey]

The key difference, from the steam era, when vegetation was cut back routinely due to the fire risk and then controlled with various poisons, is that simply cutting them down now is a very short term solution. Weedkillers these days are less than effective in general use, due to the regulations which prevent run-off into drains, water courses, rivers and the like - the very high toxicity of rivers and streams by the 1960's, with some effect on the human water supply, was a major factor leading to these regs. That's why so many more rivers now have fish again and other wildlife, which had previously long disappeared.

 

As many have related, NR (as did BR and RT before them) face a mountain of objections when most wholesale tree clearances are proposed. The solution on new works these days is to stabilise embankments using soil-nailing techniques imported from Europe, and to then cover the ground with anti-growth fabric, which becomes overgrown in time with low growing vegetation (if you're lucky). For leaf fall, there is a gradual programme of replacement of deciduous trees with conifers, but this will take decades. Meanwhile, BR, then RT, then NR have invested in Flail Trains (or wagons) which slice off the worst of the overhangs as they move along, thus maximising the use of limited possessions. This, of course, does not work near structures or on OLE lines, where, so far, only manual clearance is possible.

 

There was an analysis done of the "tree problem" following the 1987 "Michael Fish" hurricane strength storms, in which at least one train was derailed and others damaged. The report included potential future storm impacts (such as the one which followed shortly after in 1990) but concentrated largely on leaf fall, and primarily on the Southern Region. It concluded that whilst some known black spots should be addressed, the effect of clearing most lineside trees on BR land would be minimal due to the existence of the number of trees on the other side of the fence, over which BR had no control. Given the amount of urbanisation plus field clearances that have taken place since then, I do not know whether this is still sufficiently the case, but the primary strategy (other than for new works) is for routine flailing in known problem areas and manual intervention as necessary for sighting or structural problems.

 

I well remember one of the greatest problems we had during the London 2012 rail works, was to get rid of a row of trees on an embankment adjacent to an LUL line, necessary to allow construction access for a temporary footbridge. The residents collectively objected and planning consent (which was necessary despite land ownership) was granted only on the basis that we replaced the trees afterwards. LUL then objected to replacing the trees as they were (mainly Silver Birches and Sycamores I think), so we had to reach compromise with all by planting some mature exotica (whose name escapes me) that provided the screening required by the residents, but were of low maintenance for LUL, with minimal leaf fall (conifers were not allowed there due to fast root growth). That row of trees, about 50 metres long, cost my budget around £30,000. Project that, even if you halved the cost, across the route mileage of the national network, even if just in urban areas, and you will see the scale of the problem. If nature could develop a disease for sycamores, instead of elms, horse chestnuts and the like, it would solve much of the problem at a stroke........

[The Bigbee Line]

For historic information from 1975:

 

 

The main risk perceived then was fire.