Tree's on the MET.

[neasdena60]

WHY? has it been necessary to slaughter so many in the recent months, north harrow being the last seen of slaughter.

Dont come back with the leaf fall season remark, as if seems that the slaughter has nothing to do with this ( metronet knows the worst type of leaves, so why remove eveyrthing ), and the slaughter areas are not leaf fall hot spots.

One of the great pleasures of the met, WERE the banks lined with green trees from harrow / pinner onwards, it made a lovely journey as you left the centre of london behind, and moved further northwards.

now all you can see are more houses.

[Ben]

Without knowing the real story, I suspect its a similar idea to concreting over ones garden. Simpler to maintain, but shows youre a philistine when it comes to gardening.

[Deleted]

It could well be root growth, tree roots are insidious buggers and could well cause problems with nearby trackbeds.

If you've ever seen a street with the pavement pushed up by tree roots you'll know what I mean.

[neasdena60]

Jun 1, 2009 14:18:21 GMT Ben said:

Without knowing the real story, I suspect its a similar idea to concreting over ones garden. Simpler to maintain, but shows youre a philistine when it comes to gardening.

idiot.

[Ben]

Not me I hope?

[21146]

Jun 1, 2009 18:07:49 GMT Ben said:

Not me I hope?

Metronet were named and shamed at the Mayor's Question Time for doing same at Hainault as part of bank stablisation work.

[Colin]

Someone has also butchered line side greenery on the District's Wimbledon branch between Southfields and the East Putney Tunnel.

I must admit though, I cannot tell the difference between a weed and a flower, so never ever let me loose on a garden!

[citysig]

Network Rail did the same in my area (and I believe are doing it country-wide.) Great swathes of established trees apparently slaughtered overnight.

Last year's leaf-fall in my area was noticeably improved though (even though many of the areas were never particular hotspots.)

Lower maintenance, leaf-fall mitigation, who knows. Only time will tell. Let's just hope the roots that remain allow the embankments and cuttings to stay rigid. Otherwise it's going to be landslides not leaf-fall that slow us down after the next decent rainfall.

[stanmorek]

Jun 1, 2009 13:03:02 GMT @neasdena60 said:

WHY? has it been necessary to slaughter so many in the recent months, north harrow being the last seen of slaughter.

Dont come back with the leaf fall season remark, as if seems that the slaughter has nothing to do with this ( metronet knows the worst type of leaves, so why remove eveyrthing ), and the slaughter areas are not leaf fall hot spots.

One of the great pleasures of the met, WERE the banks lined with green trees from harrow / pinner onwards, it made a lovely journey as you left the centre of london behind, and moved further northwards.

now all you can see are more houses.

Parts of the embankment between Pinner and North Harrow is being regraded. Assessment has found the factor of safety against shoulder slip is below what LU standards require. If left alone the cable runs will eventually fall over.

[stanmorek]

Jun 1, 2009 14:18:21 GMT Ben said:

Without knowing the real story, I suspect its a similar idea to concreting over ones garden. Simpler to maintain, but shows youre a philistine when it comes to gardening.

Seasonal uptake of the water from tree roots causes soil to shrink and swell though permanent lowering of the water table may also cause settlement of nearby structures. This is a problem for clay railway embankments and LU and NR have legal authority to remove vegetation if it is a threat.

[Deleted]

The weight of the trees on embankment is actually a contributary factor in landslips. Removing the trees helps reduce these as well as solving the leaf fall problem that all Drivers struggle with. It is a shame to remove established trees but the only reason that they have become established is because embankment control has been neglected for so long in the name of keepng costs down. The trick is to keep them under control and not let them grow back like Network Rail seem to do.

[North End]

Jun 2, 2009 19:27:22 GMT @stanmorek said:

Jun 1, 2009 14:18:21 GMT Ben said:

Without knowing the real story, I suspect its a similar idea to concreting over ones garden. Simpler to maintain, but shows youre a philistine when it comes to gardening.

Seasonal uptake of the water from tree roots causes soil to shrink and swell though permanent lowering of the water table may also cause settlement of nearby structures. This is a problem for clay railway embankments and LU and NR have legal authority to remove vegetation if it is a threat.

There's also the issue that vegetation can obscure signals. This can get tricky when the vegetation comes from someone's back garden, as can sometimes be the case..

[Chris M]

I thought that the railways had the legal authority to do whatever they liked to vegetation that gets in the way of any part of their operation, regardless of the source. i.e they can cut back the portion of vegetation that is within the railway boundary.

[mrfs42]

Anyone is entitled to cut back the vegetation to their boundary, and obliged to return the arisings to the owner of the organism that grew over the boundary.

Although the removal of trees is an emotive issue, there can have been nothing exceptional about the trees adjoining the Met [1] otherwise they would not have been removed. After all, the Met wouldn't exist if it were not for the houses. A nice view does not line the coffers.

[1] no declaration of SSSI or tree preservation order, unless the OP is suggesting that the agents of the cutting down have been remiss in checking their legal responsibilities in order to enact their legal responsibilities.

[slugabed]

This is a very fraught issue in terms of property generally,for instance,someone I know recently got a letter from his neighbour's insurers,demanding that all trees in the vicinity of a (badly built) extension be felled,as the foundations were sumping.
This is a common tactic by insurers,and indeed landowners in general,but the truth is that the effect of the presence or absence of trees is pretty unpredictable,and any changes may have the opposite effect of what was intended.
For example,removal of trees may cause heaving of clay soil,or flooding,because the water they abstracted is left in the soil.On the other hand,it may cause shrinkage or loosening as the root system rots.
As I see it,the best plan is to have well-managed trees along the railway boundary....years ago,I read an article about LT's Gardening Unit,who planted trees on railway land for the purposes of bank stabilisation,and graded shrubs lower toward the track to reduce leaf and sighting problems.Also plants' effective role in sound insulation for neighbouring properties was a consideration.Is this Unit still at work?
NR seems to have made a rod for its own back,a result of the short-termism of the last 30-40 years or so.
In the Steam Age,embankments were kept effectively as meadows,mown short a couple of times a year to reduce the risk of fires.Mature trees were allowed only on the property line.
After steam,in the atmosphere of cost-cutting,embankment mowing was effectively stopped as it seemed an easy economy.
What a surprise! 20 years later,in the 80s,the embankments are covered with semi-mature trees right up to the cess,and leaf-fall is a problem in autumn,causing wheelslip etc.
So the response is to take the trees out entirely.
In the meantime,people have got used to the wooded view of the railway,and the screening benefits of trackside vegetation,as well as the wildlife issues (*pace New Cross Cutting!)
and NR has a fight on its hands,as well as the fact that the embankments have reached an accomodation with the trees,and may not take kindly to their sudden absence.
The answer is,of course,what LT's Unit had been doing all along:Manage tree growth continuously,leave the trees on the proprerty line,and grade the vegetation for height toward the track.
Fortunately,though,what NRs contractors seem to be doing,in many places,is to coppice the semi-mature trees.This is exactly what should have been done originally,but the process must be repeated every 5 years or so to keep them managed.If they don't,we'll have exactly the same palaver in 20 years time again.

[Ben]

The Gardening unit was started by the Underground Group in the 30s because of the directors concerns that natural amenities might be destroyed by new construction.

The right kind of trees are good for earth stabilisation. Oak, holly, birch and false acacia have been planted on LT lines, and weeping willow apparently can function as piles for the feet of heavy clay embankments. The erosion of chalk cuttings has been controlled by a overing of things like dogwood, ivy, and horizontal junipers. If a tree is removed, even for signal sighting reasons, it can be replaced by low cover plants to mitigate amenity loss.

This is all taken from H.G. Follenfants 'Reconstructing London's Undergorund' by the way. Perhaps some metronet engineers should read it sometime?

Theres nothing wrong with grass banks, but surely its a matter of pride to make things look as nice as possible where conditions permit? If a tree that is well maintained, doesnt affect the earth that much, and doesnt interfere with signal sighting then surely its better to plant it than not? It shouldn't be a question of 'easiest solution'.

[stanmorek]

Jun 3, 2009 9:44:28 GMT Ben said:

This is all taken from H.G. Follenfants 'Reconstructing London's Undergorund' by the way. Perhaps some metronet engineers should read it sometime?

Thanks for the advice but I already own a copy which I read from time to time.

I believe some 'landscaping' will be carried out as part of the embankment works at North Harrow.

[Ben]

Hehe, fair enough! So will we see trees and shrubs replaced then, perhaps in a later phase?

[stanmorek]

Jun 2, 2009 22:18:58 GMT mrfs42 said:

Anyone is entitled to cut back the vegetation to their boundary, and obliged to return the arisings to the owner of the organism that grew over the boundary.

Although the removal of trees is an emotive issue, there can have been nothing exceptional about the trees adjoining the Met [1] otherwise they would not have been removed. After all, the Met wouldn't exist if it were not for the houses. A nice view does not line the coffers.

[1] no declaration of SSSI or tree preservation order, unless the OP is suggesting that the agents of the cutting down have been remiss in checking their legal responsibilities in order to enact their legal responsibilities.

As a statutory undertaker LU can overturn a tree preservation order. I did hear about a local resident chaining themself to a tree in RLB Kensington. Amongst other powers they have authority to access railway land through private property or remove third party structures posing a danger to safety.

A colleague who was researching property deeds for some work said to beware buying property on ex-railway land. There are all sorts of convenants that allow requistioning of land.

[stanmorek]

Jun 3, 2009 22:18:45 GMT Ben said:

Hehe, fair enough! So will we see trees and shrubs replaced then, perhaps in a later phase?

I can't really say as I'm not involved with Earth Structures but Metronet were quite keen on their environmental image so I expect some type of planting but maybe not to Follenfant's methods.

Contempary methods employ soil nailing, piling and proprietary geotextile materials as they have a more quantifiable effect.