Fallen / dangerous trees

[JB25]

Who deals with these? Obviously there have been quite a few fall on the track recently, and there are loads just lying next to the track but worryingly when going along both Caterham and Tattenham Corner branch lines today there seem to be loads of trees hanging precariously which could cause some serious damage / danger to both trains and people if not dealt with soon. hock:

377 117 is sat in the Selhurst shed awaiting repair after it hit a tree yesterday doing nearly 50mph near Hurst Green.

 

[Saint66]

I imagine that NR will deal with them if they are reported by a driver and pose a risk to trains/overhead lines.

I've noticed that just north of St Albans, NR have cut down/trimmed a lot of trees along the Thameslink line, quite a few of which weren't even overhanging the line.

 

[user15681]

I imagine that NR will deal with them if they are reported by a driver and pose a risk to trains/overhead lines.

I've noticed that just north of St Albans, NR have cut down/trimmed a lot of trees along the Thameslink line, quite a few of which weren't even overhanging the line.

Similarly, I've noticed the stretch between Sittingbourne and Faversham has had a lot of trees cut down too. Whether it's a reaction to the recent storm disruption, or was planned, I don't know.

 

[Chrisgr31]

They have cleared a lot of trees on the Uckfield line during the summer. The Southern twitter feed did say the tree hit between Lingfield and Hurst Green was a large one.

Problem I guess is when the trees are not on railway land. I wonder whether if Network Rail were to write to the owner of land on which trees they were worried about to advise them of their concerns they could then sue for compensation should those trees come down and block a line or cause disruption?

However of course some trees show no signs that they are going to fall before they do.

 

[JB25]

There are about three along the Tattenham line literally being held or proper by other trees. I would not want to be going past if one of them gives. I would have hoped someone would have reported it / dealt with it by now.

There's a few spots around where if you have your head or arm out of the cab window at the wrong time you could get a nasty injury too.

 

[DownSouth]

Problem I guess is when the trees are not on railway land. I wonder whether if Network Rail were to write to the owner of land on which trees they were worried about to advise them of their concerns they could then sue for compensation should those trees come down and block a line or cause disruption?

Do property owners in the UK have the right to lop off branches of other trees which overhang into their property? If so, any legal action by NR about damage caused by overhanging branches if which they were already aware would surely be dismissed by the court and legal costs awarded to the landowner.

A more proactive approach would be for NR to write to the landowner and ask them whether they would prefer for NR to simply lop branches at the boundary or if they would be open to NR paying for complete removal and replacement with mature saplings of a more suitable species. Spending a few pounds here and there to keep the goodwill of their neighbours could be a very worthwhile investment as a contingency for those neighbours' cooperation potentially being required during future infrastructure renewal works.

 

[Llanigraham]

A property owner has the legal right to remove any branch that is overhanging THEIR property, but it must be returned to the tree owner.

 

[Darren R]

I can say from personal experience that NetworkRail inform railway neighbours that they are going to fell/cut-back trees that are overhanging the railway and considered to potentially pose a problem, and then they come and do it.

In the middle of the night!
(Yes, I know why.....!)

 

[Llanigraham]

And I also know from experience that if a dangerous tree is on property adjoining the railway they will tell the landowner to get it seen to very quickly, or they will do it and send them the bill. Especially if it is delaying trains!!

 

[455driver]

A property owner has the legal right to remove any branch that is overhanging THEIR property, but it must be returned to the tree owner.

Correct, my neighbour was none too impressed when I lopped off loads of branches overhanging my back garden and threw them back over the fence. He was quite arsey until I informed him I was doing what was legally required!

 

[John Webb]

I imagine that NR will deal with them if they are reported by a driver and pose a risk to trains/overhead lines.

I've noticed that just north of St Albans, NR have cut down/trimmed a lot of trees along the Thameslink line, quite a few of which weren't even overhanging the line.

This was done about three years ago, I recall, and was more to do with reducing 'leaves on the line' than any dangerous trees. (The line is on a 1:176 rising gradient in that area for Down trains.) A lot of people complained because of the tree removal - I wonder how many of them were commuters who'd previously suffered delays through slipping trains!

 

[fireftrm]

Correct, my neighbour was none too impressed when I lopped off loads of branches overhanging my back garden and threw them back over the fence. He was quite arsey until I informed him I was doing what was legally required!

He was right and you were wrong, as any branches cut must be returned ONLY if the owner wants them. You may have committed trespass by simply throwing them over without first asking him. If you do cut a neighbour's overhanging tree you have to ask about the return if off cuts.

 

[Bald Rick]

Similarly, I've noticed the stretch between Sittingbourne and Faversham has had a lot of trees cut down too. Whether it's a reaction to the recent storm disruption, or was planned, I don't know.

Planned some months ago.

 

[Saint66]

This was done about three years ago, I recall, and was more to do with reducing 'leaves on the line' than any dangerous trees. (The line is on a 1:176 rising gradient in that area for Down trains.) A lot of people complained because of the tree removal - I wonder how many of them were commuters who'd previously suffered delays through slipping trains!

Hi John, thanks for the info! However, I am sure that more tree's have been taken down in the last month or so, as it looks rather different just north of the station, but then, maybe not!

 

[al78]

He was right and you were wrong, as any branches cut must be returned ONLY if the owner wants them. You may have committed trespass by simply throwing them over without first asking him. If you do cut a neighbour's overhanging tree you have to ask about the return if off cuts.

Just out of interest, what happens if it is the neighbour that prunes his tree and the prunings fall into my garden? Is there any legal obligation either way here?

 

[455driver]

He was right and you were wrong, as any branches cut must be returned ONLY if the owner wants them. You may have committed trespass by simply throwing them over without first asking him. If you do cut a neighbour's overhanging tree you have to ask about the return if off cuts.

I never set foot on his property so how am I trespassing?

They were legally his property which was returned to him, if I did not return them than that could be construed as theft, as they were returned to their legal owner could you please inform me what offence I had committed please?

 

[Chrisgr31]

I never set foot on his property so how am I trespassing?

They were legally his property which was returned to him, if I did not return them than that could be construed as theft, as they were returned to their legal owner could you please inform me what offence I had committed please?

Presumably it is to avoid the accusation of theft that the requirement is only to return the branches should the tree owner require them.

If my neighbour chopped branches off my trees then lobbed them over the fence they would be returned. If you want to chop bits of trees down then you dispose of the branches if the neighbour doesn't want them. Speaking to the neighbour before starting seems like a good idea though!

http://www.ghplegal.co.uk/news.php?cat=21&id=166