Speculation but I totally agree. In fairness to NR though, I really think they would like to be more aggressive on vegetation control but then you get others whining and moaning about cutting down trees etc. so they back off.
I think money, or rather, the lack of it, coupled with only being allowed to fell trees outside the nesting bird season are the main problems.
That was my recollection too.
I wasn't aware of this - then again, since Covid, we've only had the Evening News twice a week.
I'm not a fan of cutting back or netting trees/hedgerows in case a housing development gets the green light, but this is a matter of safety, so, unfortunately, it must be done.
Then that’s NR‘s PR department’s responsibility to highlight the safety case for cutting the vegetation and the reasons for doing so. It’s no use hiding behind any excuse. Just look at the nasty incident at my depot where a train struck a fallen tree recently and the driver was injured and had the potential to be so much worse but for sheer luck. Inaction by NR after a survey highlighted these trees as high risk in this incident was disgraceful.
There was someone on the Today Prog on Radio 4 this morning who had authored a report on railside treework a couple of years ago. Important to also note perhaps the role vegetation has in holding slopes together against huge runoff- thinking of that big landslip that closed the Chiltern mainline in Warks/ North Oxon some years back (Harbury?). Carmont also comes to mind- noting the chalky looking 'scar' on the north side of the cutting 1971?
Cutting down trees might seem to be the answer......but invariably there is a trade off. Trees do provide a method of soaking up excess water on cuttings and embankment.....as well as landslide stability and shade during hot periods.
Exactly. If some people want to get upset by this, photos of the Salisbury accident are a stark reminder that this isn’t about trees or things living in them. Had the SWR train been a little earlier or 1F27 been a shade earlier, we’d likely be talking about a double collision with deaths resulting.
Another programme on Radio 4 , yesterday lunchtime- about trees in Sheffield. People love 'em- you'd think they, like us, will never die. Swampy lives on.
I think it depends on how you define "cutting down enough trees" - unless they're actually fouling the loading guage you can argue that they're not a problem, but there's a reason the steam era railway had very few trees within railway property boundaries, and it wasn't entirely to do with fires.
There was an item on R4 this morning discussing the pros and cons of clearing lineside vegetation (begins at 2:45:20): https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0011494
This is where explanation has to be almost patronisingly basic to make it clear to people that cutting down trees on railway property isn't just vandalism, but actually has a critical safety function.
Exactly- somehow we need to get the media onside.
They do but that also causes problems on our oversteep earthworks, built before geotechnics was a discipline in its own right really. So the constant changes in water content between seasons actually causes massive problems in certain (and frequent situations).
Perhaps those areas in which smaller managed trees and bushes by the lineside are advantageous AND which are away from block post or junction signals can be dealt with differently from those areas where railhead conditions are the most important consideration?
Alternativery, you get residents demanding NR fell trees, then take matters into their own hands:
And then you need a Jenny Agutter and some red, er, 'undergarments'.
Those whining should have no say in safe operation of the railway. They will have all chosen to live next a railway line. We are lucky that no one is dead due to the utter failure of NR & its predecessors to deal with this issue.
Tough. They chose to live next to a railway line.
Tough. They chose to live next to a railway line.
I hope the driver or their union sued those who failed to do anything about it?
