|
|
Post by stapler on Feb 22, 2019 10:52:44 GMT
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724 
Member is Online
|
Post by class411 on Feb 23, 2019 10:38:01 GMT
Currently getting:
An Error Was Encountered
The URI you submitted has disallowed characters.
However it works if you cut and paste the URL.
|
|
|
|
Post by AndrewPSSP on Feb 23, 2019 12:08:54 GMT
|
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223
|
Post by rincew1nd on Feb 24, 2019 0:15:46 GMT
Currently getting: An Error Was Encountered The URI you submitted has disallowed characters. However it works if you cut and paste the URL. |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Feb 25, 2019 17:12:25 GMT
The tree felling has been relentless over the past 5 yrs, went through Grange Hill to Chigwell yesterday and the inner rail bank of trees has been decimated. Surely they can't just fell them all and use the "well they're on our land so we can do what we damn well please!" argument, the size of most of these trees would've required permission from local authorities to fell 🤔
|
|
|
|
Post by spsmiler on Feb 25, 2019 22:44:55 GMT
Probably the real issue is that the trees should not have been allowed to grow so big in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Feb 26, 2019 16:10:48 GMT
Yes, so a good old prune should suffice, not a felling?
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Feb 26, 2019 21:59:52 GMT
The tree felling has been relentless over the past 5 yrs, went through Grange Hill to Chigwell yesterday and the inner rail bank of trees has been decimated. Surely they can't just fell them all and use the "well they're on our land so we can do what we damn well please!" argument, the size of most of these trees would've required permission from local authorities to fell 🤔 This is because "railway operational land" is exempt from planning controls, including tree preservation orders. Therefore TFL can literally do as they please with their trees. Whilst one understands they do not want their wheelsets to end up like threepenny bits, IMO they are often far too drastic. So Local Planning Authorities have no power to intervene. What constitutes "railway operational land" was the subject of a legal argument 3-4 years ago, in which the Great Eastern Railway Act of (I think) 1863 was pleaded, as to whether land to the east of the railway at Theydon Bois was or had ever actually been "operational land". It would have been an interesting legal point to have had the judges determine, but in the event, the application (for a car park) was not proceeded with. In particular, I believe the meaning in 1863 of the word "yard" was questioned, and interpreted in fact as "crane", yard being an old word for jib. The Theydon Bois Rural Preservation Society (who have successfully kept streetlights out of TB since 1936) were the world experts on this subject. |
|
rincew1nd
Administrator
Junior Under-wizzard of quiz
Posts: 10,223
|
Post by rincew1nd on Feb 28, 2019 13:20:01 GMT
The tree felling has been relentless over the past 5 yrs, went through Grange Hill to Chigwell yesterday and the inner rail bank of trees has been decimated. Surely they can't just fell them all and use the "well they're on our land so we can do what we damn well please!" argument, the size of most of these trees would've required permission from local authorities to fell 🤔 Network Rail have run into political issues with tree felling after they cut down a tree (on their land) which was at the bottom of the garden belonging to a national newspaper's environment correspondent. The (now former) minister got involved as did The Woodland Trust and for a while tree felling stopped. The Office of Road & Rail then got involved, being concerned that not cutting down the trees was a safety risk. It definitely seems that the mistake was allowing trees to grow in the first place, but I suspect that's a result of funding cuts at the time. |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Mar 1, 2019 9:43:58 GMT
The tree felling has been relentless over the past 5 yrs, went through Grange Hill to Chigwell yesterday and the inner rail bank of trees has been decimated. Surely they can't just fell them all and use the "well they're on our land so we can do what we damn well please!" argument, the size of most of these trees would've required permission from local authorities to fell 🤔 Network Rail have run into political issues with tree felling after they cut down a tree (on their land) which was at the bottom of the garden belonging to a national newspaper's environment correspondent. The (now former) minister got involved as did The Woodland Trust and for a while tree felling stopped. The Office of Road & Rail then got involved, being concerned that not cutting down the trees was a safety risk. It definitely seems that the mistake was allowing trees to grow in the first place, but I suspect that's a result of funding cuts at the time. I agree, but once environments are created that have an overall effect on the wider local area, then taking away an important part of that environment could be argued 'irresponsible'. It most certainly is a political issue, and one being played on a global scale at the moment, and for years to come too..... Interesting though, was walking through the Coopersale woods beside the EOR other day, and couldn't help notice there's a tree tunnel formed over the rails, would almost say the railway has been 'accepted' into the environment than imposed upon it and changing it to suit. Its all about balance, and I don't think the current collective mindset of TfL is mature enough to cope with it 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by alpinejohn on Mar 1, 2019 10:43:01 GMT
Inherently this is more about cash than environmental priorities - so the current approach seems likely to win the day unless or until the environmentalists are willing to dig into their own pockets (or as they seem keen someone else's pockets) to pay the significant additional cost involved in regular "pruning" as opposed to once every x years wholesale clearance.
Put another way - are TFL running a train service or an arboretum?
If people are really that concerned then perhaps the good folk of Epping Forest could round up gangs of volunteers willing to carry out "for free" a more sympathetic clearance regime. Provided of course they work with TFL to ensure that everyone involved complies with all the attendant H&S requirements of working beside a live railway - then presumably everybody will be happy.
A while back I spent three back breaking days just cutting back a couple of years of profuse undergrowth which had sprung up at the rarely visited far end of my garden. Having seen first hand just how difficult and time consuming this task really is, especially when everything you have just cut down (prickles and all) needs to be loaded up and dragged down to the local green recycling bays. With the benefit of hindsight I would have no hesitation just pay a contractor to clear the lot next time even if it meant a few attractive trees and bushes were lost.
As it stands, I bet some of those same "concerned residents" will be among the first to complain loudly when square wheels means their train service falls to bits due to leaves on the line.
To be honest TFL cannot win here - however that does not stop politicians endeavouring to score points - anyone would think there are local elections on the horizon..
|
|
|
|
Post by piccboy on Mar 1, 2019 11:09:59 GMT
Network Rail have run into political issues with tree felling after they cut down a tree (on their land) which was at the bottom of the garden belonging to a national newspaper's environment correspondent. The (now former) minister got involved as did The Woodland Trust and for a while tree felling stopped. The Office of Road & Rail then got involved, being concerned that not cutting down the trees was a safety risk. It definitely seems that the mistake was allowing trees to grow in the first place, but I suspect that's a result of funding cuts at the time. I agree, but once environments are created that have an overall effect on the wider local area, then taking away an important part of that environment could be argued 'irresponsible'. It most certainly is a political issue, and one being played on a global scale at the moment, and for years to come too..... Interesting though, was walking through the Coopersale woods beside the EOR other day, and couldn't help notice there's a tree tunnel formed over the rails, would almost say the railway has been 'accepted' into the environment than imposed upon it and changing it to suit. Its all about balance, and I don't think the current collective mindset of TfL is mature enough to cope with it 🤔 What would be the impact on the railways by not removing the trees? I would suspect most people here would know someone who has had subsidence of a property from tree roots, would they same issue of subsidence effect track beds, cuttings and embankments of railway lines? What about the annual disruption caused by "leaves on the line" causing delays to services? What about disruption caused by branches and whole trees falling or fouling railway lines? I don't think this is just about saving money, there are also safety and service issues to consider. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 1, 2019 12:56:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Mar 1, 2019 18:49:59 GMT
In late 90s, they removed a load of trees from embankment between Loughton-Buckhurst hill EB side, then the track slipped a little, so had to spend shed loads reinforcing and shoring. Assume that killing the trees led to the root systems drying out causing ballast slip. I even remember a similar incident being discussed at a line H&S meeting and the SQE (Safety, Quality & Environment) advisor, advising that the advice given by the experts was 'should have left it alone'.
My point is I'm in agreement that maybe the trees shouldn't have been planted in first place, or managed whilst young saplings, but once the trees are deeply rooted and start to create a whole changing environment, then just wiping them out isn't the solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 1, 2019 21:59:14 GMT
In late 90s, they removed a load of trees from embankment between Loughton-Buckhurst hill EB side, then the track slipped a little, so had to spend shed loads reinforcing and shoring. Assume that killing the trees led to the root systems drying out causing ballast slip. I even remember a similar incident being discussed at a line H&S meeting and the SQE (Safety, Quality & Environment) advisor, advising that the advice given by the experts was 'should have left it alone'. My point is I'm in agreement that maybe the trees shouldn't have been planted in first place, or managed whilst young saplings, but once the trees are deeply rooted and start to create a whole changing environment, then just wiping them out isn't the solution. I remember that episode. Epping Forest DC, who have an honourable record in tree protection, tried to dissuade LU, and failed (LU doing the "we know what's best for our railway" thing. As drainrat says, they were hit in the pocket. The same happened between Loughton and Debden a few years later, I think. BTW---Anyone who remembers the great storm of Oct 1987 will know the Central Line cutting just north of Leytonstone was filled with tree trunks cast about like discarded matchsticks! |
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 2, 2019 8:25:25 GMT
Just occurred to me - this is pretty much the site of the ex-GER nursery operation, isn't it, where there was a trailing connection from the outer rail on the Chigwell side of the tunnel into a stub that served the nursery, abandoned just after WW1? Perhaps some of the trees were of the GER's own planting!
Some avid GER enthusiasts may know more, but the nursery seems to have provided veg for the GE Hotel and plants/flowers for the system.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Mar 2, 2019 10:07:14 GMT
In late 90s, they removed a load of trees from embankment between Loughton-Buckhurst hill EB side, then the track slipped a little, so had to spend shed loads reinforcing and shoring. Assume that killing the trees led to the root systems drying out causing ballast slip. I even remember a similar incident being discussed at a line H&S meeting and the SQE (Safety, Quality & Environment) advisor, advising that the advice given by the experts was 'should have left it alone'. My point is I'm in agreement that maybe the trees shouldn't have been planted in first place, or managed whilst young saplings, but once the trees are deeply rooted and start to create a whole changing environment, then just wiping them out isn't the solution. In the East London & West Essex Guardian article TfL says the embankment is "unstable" so leaving it alone is not an option. Rather than just cutting down the trees then leaving it (as per Loughton-Buckhurst hill EB side) "piles" will be "bored into the foundation" (oo er, missus) and the "earth regraded" which I suppose they can't do without getting rid of the trees first. |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Mar 2, 2019 16:56:31 GMT
In late 90s, they removed a load of trees from embankment between Loughton-Buckhurst hill EB side, then the track slipped a little, so had to spend shed loads reinforcing and shoring. Assume that killing the trees led to the root systems drying out causing ballast slip. I even remember a similar incident being discussed at a line H&S meeting and the SQE (Safety, Quality & Environment) advisor, advising that the advice given by the experts was 'should have left it alone'. My point is I'm in agreement that maybe the trees shouldn't have been planted in first place, or managed whilst young saplings, but once the trees are deeply rooted and start to create a whole changing environment, then just wiping them out isn't the solution. In the East London & West Essex Guardian article TfL says the embankment is "unstable" so leaving it alone is not an option. Rather than just cutting down the trees then leaving it (as per Loughton-Buckhurst hill EB side) "piles" will be "bored into the foundation" (oo er, missus) and the "earth regraded" which I suppose they can't do without getting rid of the trees first. I guess not, again, the age of the railway has to be considered, what we know at a given point isn't always obvious in the past 🤔 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 18:24:41 GMT
If I recall correctly (again) from my Central Line days, most of the old Great Eastern Railway embankments out east are mainly composed of ash carted out of the centre. Not the greatest of materials. And quite a lot of general rubbish - we once had a problem with bottle collectors who dug a 6 foot tunnel into one of them.
Paul Haynes and his merry men did a lot of shoulder stabilisation at the time up there. I believe at one point they bought two adjacent houses so they could get access via the shared drive (and rumour had it, refurbished said houses too and made a tidy profit on the deal).
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 2, 2019 22:35:50 GMT
Folks -- we keep taking about embankments, but aren't these cuttings at this point? So the comment about ash wouldn't apply? I'd always assumed the soil from the Chigwell cutting and the tunnel was taken in skips westward to make the approaches to the Roding viaduct.
|
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Mar 3, 2019 12:37:08 GMT
Yes, it is a cutting between Grange Hill and Chigwell, but an embankment where the works took place between Loughton and Buckhurst Hill
|
|
|
|
Post by stapler on Mar 4, 2019 9:25:31 GMT
Yes, it is a cutting between Grange Hill and Chigwell, but an embankment where the works took place between Loughton and Buckhurst Hill Correct, though the embankment becomes a cutting approaching Loughton. There used to be an underbridge carrying a farm road (blocked pre-electrification) emerging where the Felstead Rd playground now is, and a bridge over the railway roughly from garden of 72 Spring Grove. I think the vegetation was tackled both on embankment and in cutting, from memory, and very bare they both looked for a few years. |
|
|
|
Post by drainrat on Mar 4, 2019 17:21:14 GMT
Indeed, I was pointing out the embankment where the works were done and why.....between Lou and Buckhurst Hill, they didn't do it at the cutting 😀
|
|
