Christian Wolmar
CHRISTIAN WOLMAR says proper vegetation management would provide obvious environmental benefits … and good PR for the industry
NR vegetation management.
SOMETIMES good results come out of bad decisions. When the now-departed Rail Minister Jo ‘Hydrogen’ Johnson announced a review of Network Rail’s vegetation management policies last spring, it was greeted by widespread derision - not least from this commentator. We all had a good chuckle about how the poor fellow had no understanding of the railway, and how his announcement was just a knee-jerk reaction to a very necessary part of railway maintenance.
Johnson’s announcement had been prompted by a rather silly ‘exclusive’ in the Guardian about how Network Rail had a vendetta against Britain’s trees, with a secret plan to chop down “millions” while “thousands” had bitten the dust already. All this was dismissed rather offhandedly by the industry, which took the view that the railway has been doing this since the days of Stephenson and so Network Rail knew what it was doing.
In fact, it didn’t, and we were wrong to shoot the messenger. The original story had been prompted by some tree felling around Twickenham and Richmond in south west London, which in the event was probably all done correctly. However, just north of London, at Hadley Wood, there was a much lesspublicised bit of sheer vandalism.
Contractors, instructed to cut back vegetation around the station, had felled a whole copse of mature trees up to 60 metres away from the track, leaving what looked like a First World War battlefield scene and a destabilised embankment. Only action from the Hadley Wood Rail Users Group, fresh from a victorious campaign to ensure disabled access to the station, prevented more trees from being felled.
When Network Rail managers, alerted by the Users Group, turned up at the site, their jaws apparently dropped. They could not believe that such a mess had been created and that the contractors had been so insensitive to the environment.
However, as the excellent and thorough report that has resulted from Johnson’s intervention - Valuing Nature, a railway for people
and wildlife, by John Varley - points out, it is hardly surprising that this type of incident occurred. That’s because Network Rail has had no clear policy in relation to ‘vegetation management’ - the jargon expression for chopping down trees near the track. Varley found that “management of vegetation tends to be reactive and focused on minimising safety and performance risks as they are identified”.
Essentially, Network Rail seems to have treated its huge lineside estate as something that was a bit of a hassle and needed occasional remedial action, rather than as potentially a huge asset which needs proper long-term management. Cutting back the trees and vegetation has essentially been seen as a response to emergency situations, rather than as a properly managed programme.
Amazingly, NR does not know how much it
“Cutting back the trees and vegetation has essentially been seen as a response to emergency situations, rather than as a properly managed programme.”
spends on ‘vegetation management’.
Even when a reasonably coherent policy did emerge in the form of The Lineside Asset
Management Policy 2017, “it appears not to be well-known within Network Rail, or to be material to operational decisions on vegetation management”. Moreover: “There are over 75 further relevant Network Rail documents provided to the Review which do not appear widely recognised or used.”
One of the problems is our old friend ‘outsourcing’. Network Rail routes, with the exception of London North Western, have no trained ecologists and so there is no one capable of managing the contractors effectively. Therefore, it is proving impossible for Network Rail to determine if the work is carried out effectively. That is how mistakes such as at Hadley Wood occur - according to Varley, it meant that Network Rail could not act as “an intelligent client”.
In contrast, the Highways Agency seems to be doing a better job and has a clear remit from government. This includes “the operation, maintenance and enhancement of the Strategic Road Network should move to a position that delivers no net loss of biodiversity. And, in the long term, the company should deliver a net gain across its broader range of work.”
On the railways, there has been no such requirement from the Government. The High Level Output Specification makes no mention of vegetation, environment or biodiversity, but there is a vague and inadequate requirement from the Office of Rail and Road that Network Rail should “have regard to sustainable development”.
This is a story that has a partly happy ending. The highly effective ‘Treegate’ campaign has borne fruit - or at least new trees. I went along to Hadley Wood last month to a little ceremony attended by Johnson’s replacement Andrew Jones, to replant the first trees. It was used as a backdrop to launch the Varley report, which will be one of the few legacies of the now quickly forgotten Jo Johnson, but which has highlighted a real gap in Network Rail’s understanding of its role and must be acted upon - hopefully with some extra resources.
I am sure that some railway managers would groan if they were required to meet similar requirements to the Highways Agency, but it is perhaps the obvious solution. This requires the Department for Transport and Network Rail to work together to create an effective new policy.
I know that new Network Rail Chief Executive Andrew Haines has a lot on his plate, but this is an issue that has long been neglected and has significant impact on local people in many areas. It would, therefore, be (among other things) very good PR for the industry.