RAIB report on Glencarse tree strike published

[matchmaker]

Driver was lucky!

Railway inspectors warned of an area at "high risk" of falling trees eight months before a train crash there, a report has revealed.
The Perth to Dundee service hit a fallen tree near Glencarse at about 16:47 on 21 May.
The train driver sustained head and arm injuries in the collision, which also damaged the train's cab.

BBC news story


RAIB report

 

[furnessvale]

No tree should stand where, if it fell, it would obstruct a running line and that includes trees outside the boundary fence.

 

[YorkshireBear]

No tree should stand where, if it fell, it would obstruct a running line and that includes trees outside the boundary fence.

Agreed to be honest. The risk profile is too great. However, to achieve that now would cost about a decade of £100M+ a year. Heritage railways can't even achieve that level of vegetation manager, I know, I've tried!

 

[InOban]

It seems that the no-one admitted ownership of the land which lies between the trunk road and the line.

 

[plugwash]

The RAIB report says the land was owned by "Scottish ministers" does that mean it was owned by the scottish government?

 

[Robertj21a]

No tree should stand where, if it fell, it would obstruct a running line and that includes trees outside the boundary fence.

Unrealistic ?
If you do that for railways there's little reason for not applying it to all roads as well.

 

[davetheguard]

Unrealistic ?
If you do that for railways there's little reason for not applying it to all roads as well.

Now that really is unrealistic. Road traffic can stop in a shorter distance than trains. Road traffic can swerve round a fallen tree. I think furnessvale's suggestion to remove the danger of fallen trees from railway lines is eminently sensible.

 

[alf]

No tree should stand where, if it fell, it would obstruct a running line and that includes trees outside the boundary fence.

I regularly travel between Farnborough & Woking & have plenty of time to observe the tall trees growing in the very deep cuttings:usually at 0 to 20 mph as BR & NR have not bothered to build a flyover to end the 180 year conflicts between the 90 mph up Basingstoke & the up Guildford line.

There are many tall large girth Scots pines which if they fell would land on the tracks.

The same applies around Balcombe, Brighton main line area.

NR has failed to read furnessvale’s dictum.

 

[OldNick]

Comes down to cost, doesn't it?

If my garden bordered a railway (it doesn't) and I had a massive Sycamore on the boundary (I do) and it was decided one day that it should come down, who pays for it?

I took down a large Ash on the same boundary a few years ago, and it fell exactly where I wanted it to - onto my land despite it leaning the other way. But if there was a chance it could come down across a railway line then of course the risk would be far greater and Network Rail might not be so keen on letting me do it myself for free.

It would require a change in law, for them to take control of trees on other people's land and then identify and manage them all, which they can't even do at the moment.

 

[Annetts key]

No tree should stand where, if it fell, it would obstruct a running line and that includes trees outside the boundary fence.

Unless there is a change in the relevant laws (England and Wales, Scotland) plus extra financing, it’s not going to happen.

Network Rail has to seek permission before going on land it does not own or otherwise have access rights to. So just inspecting is going to be a legal nightmare alone. And before any tree was felled (or any branches cut off), it would require written permission. Without this, it’s powers are rather limited.

Plus there is the negative publicity that such a policy would result in.

And don’t forget, some species of tree can grow very tall. So we are not just talking about trees near the boundary fence, but trees that could be many metres away from the boundary.

Network Rail does not even apply this requirement of yours to trees on it’s own land. Although they do inspect such trees and are supposed to take action to remove any tree that becomes unsafe.

 

[Highlandspring]

The RAIB report says the land was owned by "Scottish ministers" does that mean it was owned by the scottish government?

Yes it’s shorthand for various departments of the Scottish Government, in this case Transport Scotland. Pre-devolution it would have been The Scottish Office.

 

[GB]

Now that really is unrealistic. Road traffic can stop in a shorter distance than trains. Road traffic can swerve round a fallen tree. I think furnessvale's suggestion to remove the danger of fallen trees from railway lines is eminently sensible.

Why is it unrealistic? The fact that road traffic could stop short or could swerve doesn't change anything. I'd also wager there is more injury and death on the roads when it comes to trees then there is on the railway.

 

[furnessvale]

NR has failed to read furnessvale’s dictum.

I know! I have been saying this for years, but do they listen!

 

[swt_passenger]

If NR retrospectively enforced a wide tree free corridor either side of ALL existing tracks, it would at least take the pressure off HS2. The “destruction of ancient woodlands” critics would go beserk…

 

[furnessvale]

If NR retrospectively enforced a wide tree free corridor either side of ALL existing tracks, it would at least take the pressure off HS2. The “destruction of ancient woodlands” critics would go beserk…

Given that the vast majority of those trees have sprung up since 1968, I doubt there is much "ancient" woodland involved.

 

[Horizon22]

Unless there is a change in the relevant laws (England and Wales, Scotland) plus extra financing, it’s not going to happen.

Network Rail has to seek permission before going on land it does not own or otherwise have access rights to. So just inspecting is going to be a legal nightmare alone. And before any tree was felled (or any branches cut off), it would require written permission. Without this, it’s powers are rather limited.

Plus there is the negative publicity that such a policy would result in.

And don’t forget, some species of tree can grow very tall. So we are not just talking about trees near the boundary fence, but trees that could be many metres away from the boundary.

Network Rail does not even apply this requirement of yours to trees on it’s own land. Although they do inspect such trees and are supposed to take action to remove any tree that becomes unsafe.

This is the key problem. By all means NR can manage what it is in their control but it would be at a considerable expensive with layers of bureaucracy to start going into every bit of private land to cut down trees at risk of danger. I understand they have levels of risk, but to mandate someone to do something in their private property requires a law change.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure what reasonable case there is for the railway being given unlimited power over trees on other people's land.

If the railway is concerned about trees falling onto the track they should adopt the Belgian solution

 

[Horizon22]

I'm not sure what reasonable case there is for the railway being given unlimited power over trees on other people's land.

If the railway is concerned about trees falling onto the track they should adopt the Belgian solution

That looks great, but it is on a reasonably new part of high-speed railway built to modern standards. Not sure it would be a solution for a metro line built in the 1890s in a cutting in suburban London with houses backing right onto the line. Nor lines that aren’t even in cuttings. It would be a monumental piece of work that would take decades to remove all risk - as per normal the application of “as far as reasonably practicable” needs to be applied.

 

[swt_passenger]

Given that the vast majority of those trees have sprung up since 1968, I doubt there is much "ancient" woodland involved.

That won’t worry the environmentalists though, the same arguments have raged about their definition of ancient re. HS2. I think they use it for anything more than a few years old.

 

[Annetts key]

Ancient woodland refers to the area of land, not how old individual trees are. If an area of woodland has existed continuously since 1600 or before, and trees still grow there, then it’s considered to be ancient woodland. Even if the site is managed and some trees are cut down.

 

[swt_passenger]

Ancient woodland refers to the area of land, not how old individual trees are. If an area of woodland has existed continuously since 1600 or before, and trees still grow there, then it’s considered to be ancient woodland. Even if the site is managed and some trees are cut down.

ISTM they effectively use the term for anything they feel like at the time, because no one ever calls them out on it…

 

[Annetts key]

ISTM they effectively use the term for anything they feel like at the time, because no one ever calls them out on it…

And to be fair, in a significant number of cases, they are quite right to challenge the proposed developments.

Climate change has been known about for in excess of thirty years. Yet this country (and we are not alone in this by far) has still been intent on building more roads, building out of town shopping malls (while local shops suffer a decline), and shoddy new housing that is not super insulated or particularly environmentally friendly. As a result we now have a lot of very sceptical people who no longer believe what developers or politicians say…

And the protesters have learnt that occupation of trees and woodland areas gets them on the news far more effectively than the usual arguments or demonstrations in the road leading to the site.

But I’m drifting way off topic, so I’ll shut up now.

Back on topic, maybe the solution is for the government to encourage (and fund) Network Rail to buy strips of the adjacent land so that the trees can be properly managed. This could also be promoted as wildlife corridors. Maybe public footpaths and cycleways could also be provided.

 

[davetheguard]

Why is it unrealistic? The fact that road traffic could stop short or could swerve doesn't change anything. I'd also wager there is more injury and death on the roads when it comes to trees then there is on the railway.

Well, I certainly agree there is more injury & death on the roads than on the railway -trees or no trees. And I agree trees are a danger on the railway; although mainly a problem that the railway has brought upon itself by letting the things grow in the first place.

The road network is of course absolutely vast; someone once said to me there is 8,000 miles of it in the county of Devon alone, although I don't actually know if that is an accurate figure to be honest. What would the mileage total for the whole country be? That's a lot of trees you'd have to clear; you'd certainly have the Woodland Trust on your back at the very least!

 

[snowball]

The road network is of course absolutely vast; someone once said to me there is 8,000 miles of it in the county of Devon alone, although I don't actually know if that is an accurate figure to be honest. What would the mileage total for the whole country be? That's a lot of trees you'd have to clear; you'd certainly have the Woodland Trust on your back at the very least!

Enough to reach the Moon.

Road Lengths in Great Britain: 2020

www.gov.uk

In 2020, the total road length in Great Britain was estimated to be 247,500 miles.

There were 31,800 miles of major road in Great Britain in 2020, consisting of:

• 2,300 miles of motorway (99% trunk, 1% principal)
• 29,500 miles of ‘A’ road (18% trunk, 82% principal)

There were 215,700 miles of minor road in Great Britain in 2020, consisting of:

• 18,900 miles of ‘B’ road
• 196,800 miles of ‘C’ and ‘U’ roads