Apparently uncontrolled trackside vegetation

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

Sounds to me like the sort of work which could usefully be done by layabouts/Young offenders/prisoners but no doubt there would be issues over their Human Rights being contravened?

[John R]

I had the pleasure of travel with Pathfinder Railtours on their Heart of Wales Rambler yesterday, from Exeter to Shrewsbury via Hereford and return via Llandrindod Wells and Briton Ferry. Travelling in excellent condition Mark I stock, I thought I'd take the opportunity of standing with my head out of the slam door window taking photographs. Sadly not possible on virtually the entire Marches line or the Central Wales line because of overgrowing vegetation and I suspect the coaches will need a heck of a lot of treatment for scratches.  In places, the sound of rather large tree branches hitting the train was almost like gunshot.

No photos to illustrate the point for obvious reasons!
 

Since you would be in breach of the railway byelaws by leaning out of the window (assuming there is a notice telling you not to), I don't think that argument for reducing trackside vegetation would cut much ice with any of the relevant authorities.

[PhilWakely]

Since you would be in breach of the railway byelaws by leaning out of the window (assuming there is a notice telling you not to), I don't think that argument for reducing trackside vegetation would cut much ice with any of the relevant authorities.

Nope, the one thing missing from the very well refurbished coaches was the "Don't lean out of the window" sticker above the door   

[broadgage]

As the taxpayer funds NR^» (Network Rail - home page), I doubt they'd be happy having to pay more in fares just to keep the view good....

If it were Only a case of preserving the view, then I agree that it is not best use of money, except in special cases when the view is of particular importance to tourists and leisure travellers.

However uncontrolled vegetation is also a considerable fire risk, especially during droughts, and fires are very expensive in both direct damage and delay minutes.
Uncontrolled vegetation also provides cover for metal thieves, trespassers and perhaps even terrorists.
Track workers may be put at increased risk when vegetation forces them to walk in the four foot rather than on the cess.
Failures of signalling equipment and electric cables are more time consuming to locate and rectify if the equipment is buried in greenery.

[ChrisB]

Sounds to me like the sort of work which could usefully be done by layabouts/Young offenders/prisoners but no doubt there would be issues over their Human Rights being contravened?

Very expensive to train them up on the rules/H&S^▸ (Health and Safety).....

[chrisr_75]

Uncontrolled vegetation also provides cover for metal thieves, trespassers and perhaps even terrorists.

However, thick brambles and/or assorted thorny species such as hawthorn & blackthorn, all of which thrive along our rail network, are particularly effective barriers to entry, much more so than the standard fencing, so much so that when I was doing this work along the Cambrian coast, we were asked by the then Railtrack rep to leave a couple of metres of brambles or x-thorns along the fence line specifically for that purpose!

Track workers may be put at increased risk when vegetation forces them to walk in the four foot rather than on the cess.

Indeed, one of the main reasons for vegetation control, along with improving sight lines at level crossings, especially remote pedestrian crossings with no lights or automatic barriers.

[broadgage]

Sounds to me like the sort of work which could usefully be done by layabouts/Young offenders/prisoners but no doubt there would be issues over their Human Rights being contravened?

Very expensive to train them up on the rules/H&S^▸ (Health and Safety).....

True, but I have often wondered if use could be made of convict labour to clear vegetation and rubbish from the trackside when the line is closed for engineering work.
A closed railway without any trains moving is a relatively safe place in which to put convicts to work.

[TaplowGreen]

Sounds to me like the sort of work which could usefully be done by layabouts/Young offenders/prisoners but no doubt there would be issues over their Human Rights being contravened?

Very expensive to train them up on the rules/H&S^▸ (Health and Safety).....

True, but I have often wondered if use could be made of convict labour to clear vegetation and rubbish from the trackside when the line is closed for engineering work.
A closed railway without any trains moving is a relatively safe place in which to put convicts to work.

Hear hear - may even give them skills for the future.

[BerkshireBugsy]

 A travelling acquaintance lives within 10 yards of the B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) line. He claims that the failure of Network Rail to clear vegetation from on-network ditches used for drainage resulted in his property being flooded.

Whilst I have sympathy for him being flooded (we got hit in 2007) as far as I know NR^» (Network Rail - home page) has no legal responsibility to clear ditches even if it impacts on neighbours properties - is this correct ?

[Worcester_Passenger]

A travelling acquaintance lives within 10 yards of the B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) line. He claims that the failure of Network Rail to clear vegetation from on-network ditches used for drainage resulted in his property being flooded.

Whilst I have sympathy for him being flooded (we got hit in 2007) as far as I know NR^» (Network Rail - home page) has no legal responsibility to clear ditches even if it impacts on neighbours properties - is this correct ?

An accident near Gillingham on the Salisbury - Exeter line in 2009 occurred when part of a cutting failed as a result of drainage issues; the train ran into a landslide on the track. There's a set of recommendations in the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411165/101028_R192010_Gillingham_Tunnel.pdf) about the maintenance of drainage, both on and off Network Rail's land.

I suggest that you forward this link to your acquaintance, and get them to point out what's happening to Network Rail.

[BerkshireBugsy]

A travelling acquaintance lives within 10 yards of the B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) line. He claims that the failure of Network Rail to clear vegetation from on-network ditches used for drainage resulted in his property being flooded.

Whilst I have sympathy for him being flooded (we got hit in 2007) as far as I know NR^» (Network Rail - home page) has no legal responsibility to clear ditches even if it impacts on neighbours properties - is this correct ?

An accident near Gillingham on the Salisbury - Exeter line in 2009 occurred when part of a cutting failed as a result of drainage issues; the train ran into a landslide on the track. There's a set of recommendations in the RAIB^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch) report (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/411165/101028_R192010_Gillingham_Tunnel.pdf) about the maintenance of drainage, both on and off Network Rail's land.

I suggest that you forward this link to your acquaintance, and get them to point out what's happening to Network Rail.

Many thanks for that WP...as the acquaintance doesn't have an email account (yes, I know!) I think I will have to resort to printing it out

[Bmblbzzz]

Senior managers in the 1960's and subsequently, didn't appreciate the difference between "management" and "neglect".  Whilst diesel and electric trains didn't cause lineside fires, trees and bushes didn't stop growing to compensate.

The last Network Rail estimate to restore national linesides to something approaching 1930's standards would cost about the same as another Reading station.  It would be a brave person to put that business case together and defend it.
[/quote
No need to return it to 1930s standards, though, surely? Just where it obstructs visibility or presents a risk to track workers, buildings, embankments, etc.

[stuving]

A travelling acquaintance lives within 10 yards of the B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) line. He claims that the failure of Network Rail to clear vegetation from on-network ditches used for drainage resulted in his property being flooded.

Whilst I have sympathy for him being flooded (we got hit in 2007) as far as I know NR^» (Network Rail - home page) has no legal responsibility to clear ditches even if it impacts on neighbours properties - is this correct ?

In answer to the question as posed - is there any legal duty to neighbours - this, from www.environmentlaw.org.uk, says "yes":

Responsibilities of property owners

The law (common law) requires that you use your property or land in a way that does not increase the risk of flooding to a neighbouring property. If you do carry out acts on your property that results in flooding to other people^s property, you may face a civil action.

To reduce the risk of flooding to neighbouring properties, the law requires that you:

Keep your drains clear in your property and to ensure that you do not drain water into your neighbour^s property or foul drain. There is a natural right of drainage that allows water that flows naturally across your land to flow downhill naturally to your neighbour^s land. But you are not allowed to artificially channel water a way that will cause damage your neighbour^s land. If you do, you may face a civil action.

So it may depend on whether there was a natural watercourse through the neighbour's property, and that has been intercepted by drainage, but I imagine even that may have to be maintained if it has been in place long enough.

[BerkshireBugsy]

A travelling acquaintance lives within 10 yards of the B&H^▸ (Berks and Hants - railway line from Reading to Taunton via Westbury) line. He claims that the failure of Network Rail to clear vegetation from on-network ditches used for drainage resulted in his property being flooded.

Whilst I have sympathy for him being flooded (we got hit in 2007) as far as I know NR^» (Network Rail - home page) has no legal responsibility to clear ditches even if it impacts on neighbours properties - is this correct ?

In answer to the question as posed - is there any legal duty to neighbours - this, from www.environmentlaw.org.uk, says "yes":

Responsibilities of property owners

The law (common law) requires that you use your property or land in a way that does not increase the risk of flooding to a neighbouring property. If you do carry out acts on your property that results in flooding to other people^s property, you may face a civil action.

To reduce the risk of flooding to neighbouring properties, the law requires that you:

Keep your drains clear in your property and to ensure that you do not drain water into your neighbour^s property or foul drain. There is a natural right of drainage that allows water that flows naturally across your land to flow downhill naturally to your neighbour^s land. But you are not allowed to artificially channel water a way that will cause damage your neighbour^s land. If you do, you may face a civil action.

So it may depend on whether there was a natural watercourse through the neighbour's property, and that has been intercepted by drainage, but I imagine even that may have to be maintained if it has been in place long enough.

Many thanks for your replies everyone.  My understanding of my acquaintances problem was there is a drainage ditch on NR property which if it is cleared of overgrowth then his property is not affected at times of excessive rain.