Lineside trees must go...

Leaf fall menace means our tracksides must be kept clear

“The only way to prevent leaves falling from trees is not to have trees at all on railway land…”

While most of us lament the passing of summer and the return of frosty mornings and dark evenings, the railway is preparing for its annual onslaught of leaves. Yes, it’s that time of year again - the dreaded leaf fall season.

There are around six million trees on Network Rail land, and a further seven million nearby. Every year thousands of tonnes of leaves fall onto the tracks, stick to damp rails, and become compressed into a smooth, slippery surface - much like black ice on roads.

Subsequently, train drivers not only have to brake earlier, but more gently to avoid the whole train sliding and overshooting stations or signals, and accelerate more gently to avoid wheel spin. Imagine the frightening sensation of applying a brake and actually travelling faster with hundreds of passengers aboard.

Leaves are a safety and performance nightmare. Of course, NR has an army of vehicles and Railhead Treatment Trains out round the clock, cleaning and treating rails. They have to be, considering each of those six million trees can have up to 50,000 leaves. But, as the saying goes, prevention is better than cure - the only way to prevent leaves falling from trees is not to have trees at all on railway land…

As the recent storms have shown, it’s not just about leaves. Some of the photographs doing the rounds on Twitter following Storm Ali on September 20 showed the terrifying results of trains hitting fallen trees - smashed windscreens, shattered cabs and very lucky drivers who narrowly escaped serious injury (at least) are an all-too-frequent occurrence.

NR cuts down roughly 50,000 trees each year within a seven-metre boundary of running lines. Despite this clearance, there were still 400 incidents of trains colliding with trees or branches last year (that’s more than one a day), and another 1,000 where they caused delays to passengers or freight. The cost to the taxpayer was more than £100 million.

In steam days, linesides were clear of vegetation because of fire risk - take a look at photographs from the 1950s and 1960s and you will see well-manicured tracksides. But BR abandoned this clearance after the end of steam in 1968 in order to save cash. The inevitable result is up to 50 years of tree growth.

But, despite swathes of well-proven safety, performance and financial risks these trees pose, there are still those who believe NR fells too many trees and should re-evaluate its approach. The result of understandable public concern is the Varley Review. But before we get onto that, let’s remind ourselves how the latest spate of vitriol against NR was sparked…

Back in April, an article ran in The Guardian headlined ‘Millions of trees at risk in secretive Network Rail felling programme’. This ‘exclusive’ story sought to expose a change in NR policy that would lead to mass tree cutting to “end the nuisance” of leaves on the line.

So, did The Guardian expose a ‘secret programme’? Of course not. This non-story blew up because Twickenham residents ‘outraged’ by tree felling had leapt to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy because they had not been informed the work was taking place.

Abject nonsense. Or, as NR Chairman Sir Peter Hendy described it at the time, “drivel” and “crap journalism”. It was NR’s immediate safety-critical response to a driver reporting that branches were obscuring clear views of signals. Other media outlets picked up the ‘story’, shortly followed by The Woodland Trust (WT), which posted this on its website:“The recent media revelations about Network Rail’s lineside tree management policies have raised concerning questions for many of us across the UK. The company has produced a new engineering manual that outlines its plans for ‘enhanced clearance’ of trees and vegetation along its tracks, during Control Period 6 (CP6, 2019-2024).”

Except there is no ‘new engineering manual’. NR’s policies on lineside management have not changed. And its long-standing policy has always been freely available online - as NR later made clear to The Guardian.

WT merely repeats its view that NR should look at “alternative management options” for lineside trees. But, as far as I can see, no options have been offered.

I asked WT to explain its solutions to me in detail but, as RAIL went to press, there had been no reply. Nigel Harris responded to some of WT’s posts on Twitter, offering to arrange a trip with a driver, to understand more clearly what the problems are. WT ignored Nigel, too.

WT recently concluded a campaign inviting the public to give its views on NR’s policies to the Varley Review. So, what is this review? Following much media attention, in May Rail Minister Jo Johnson announced a review of NR’s vegetation management. He appointed Director of Clinton Devon Estates John Varley OBE TD to chair it. RAIL sources indicate this review was more about internal government turf wars between environment and transport departments than about lineside issues. Ostensibly, the review is to consider how NR can keep the railway safe while protecting wildlife and preserving trees.

NR’s current approach has halved the number of trees falling onto the tracks over the past four years, but that still leaves a serious problem. ORR told me that while public concern over the protection of biodiversity is important, ORR will not hesitate to ensure NR continues to meet its duties to manage safety, and its inspectors will be monitoring the situation. Reading between the lines, it’s apparent ORR is making clear NR should not only continue its current programme, but increase the pace of lineside clearance. This is not just about leaf fall, but also takes into account what a tree will be like when it has grown or is in full leaf… and might affect sightlines.

This ludicrous chain reaction against NR’s policies and responsibilities began as a result of one ill-informed article, which The Guardian has both apologised for and corrected. Nevertheless, this prompted WT to start an emotional campaign in which it turns a blind eye to learning more about the facts, while offering only vague solutions.

After the announcement of the Varley Review, NR’s felling operations up until the end of summer were halted, unless classified as safety-critical. NR told me it’s fair to say its vegetation management was curtailed this year, and the consequences are yet to be seen.

I’m a nature lover and care for the environment. But this is not an emotional argument, it’s a very real safety issue. This might sound harsh, but those trees are weeds - they were never intended to be there. No amount of ‘management’ will prevent deciduous trees from shedding leaves - leaves which have no place within the railway boundary. We must not be afraid of confronting public opinion on this, and sticking to the safety arguments.

NR deserves all our support to keep our linesides clear - and our drivers and passengers safe. It really is that simple.

Nigel Harris is away.