Options..? Tree next to Railway

[Guest]

Has the homeowner talked to their household insurer, as they may have some degree of cover as it may have been highlighted when the policy was taken out. That said if the tree has no defects I don't suppose they'd consider it a likely risk. But it might be worth a phone call.

[benedmonds]

1 hour ago, Tommy Hutchinson said:

What's the client's problem with the tree?

 

Why not get a professional arboricultural report done? May that will ease their worries, what ever they may be ^

A report is not going to do anything but decrease their bank balance.  It is a big tree next to a train line. It doesn't need work doing now.. but it will do one day. 

 

No survey can guarantee the tree is 100% safe. We all have some caveat in our surveys saying "trees are living creatures etc etc..."

 

Yes they could keep putting the problem off, pay for annual surveys  and hope the tree outlives them..

 

 

 

[Tommy Hutchinson]

5 minutes ago, benedmonds said:

A report is not going to do anything but decrease their bank balance.  It is a big tree next to a train line. It doesn't need work doing now.. but it will do one day. 

 

No survey can guarantee the tree is 100% safe. We all have some caveat in our surveys saying "trees are living creatures etc etc..."

 

Yes they could keep putting the problem off, pay for annual surveys  and hope the tree outlives them..

 

 

 

There's thousands of big trees next to the railway, so what?

[benedmonds]

8 minutes ago, Tommy Hutchinson said:

There's thousands of big trees next to the railway, so what?

 I don't get your point. 

 

I think you will also find Rail track remove and actively prevent trees on their land growing large next to the tracks.

Trees don't live forever, one day all these 1000s of big trees will need to be removed. 

 

In this case it is difficult, it will be difficult now and likely more difficult in the future..

The tree owner is responsible for the tree and have to ensure it is safe, long term the cheapest and surest is to remove it..

[Mark Bolam]

Is it worth talking to Railtrack and seeing what they come up with?

 

The way I see it the client will end up with a quote that looks like a telephone number anyway, so it won't be getting done anyway,  purely on a cost basis.

 

I agree a reduction is utterly pointless, noone will want to go through this rigmarole twice.

[Tommy Hutchinson]

I survey trees on the railway, big trees get recorded and if deemed safe a re-inspection 1,2,3,4, years and so on is suggested. But some stretches of line will be inspected on a yearly bases...

 

There are literally 10's of thousands of big trees within falling distance of the rail, why on earth would you fell them all because they will grow old and die? This is firstly just want on destruction, secondly not practical and thirdly not sound arboricultural practice. Trees get old and die yes, but you phase manage them out of the tree stock. And of course the railway surveys have less options because crown reductions will rarely be undertaken, it's fell or keep, but I certainly see lots of large healthy trees next to the rail which have a long life ahead and are monitored. 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Tommy Hutchinson

[Stubby]

The feeling I get , and it has not really been stated one way or the other , is that the client wants the tree reduced because it shading his house/garden ? and he is not concerned about the railway ....possibly.   I could be wrong .

[Mark Bolam]

He'll change his mind when he gets the quote....

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

How about a kind of temporary ‘hold’, a stay of execution if you like. 
 

Inspect and produce a report which either confirms observable feature(s) requiring action within a determined timeframe or (seems more likely)  the absence thereof which would satisfy due diligence. 
 

Meanwhile, liaise with the certified safety lunatics at Railtrack to establish if they have a future scheduled line closure and piggy-back the tree fell onto that timeframe so as to avoid / share railway admin cost of removing the tree. 
 

Railtrack ‘should’ be pleased to have what is a non-urgent, possible future issue addressed proactively. Homeowner ‘should’ be happy in the knowledge that a plan exists - even if it is 2-5 years hence.  Insurance company ‘should’ be happy with formal inspection. 
 

The theory might be sound and sensible but when dealing with x3 inherently irrational interested parties (RT, homeowner & Ins company) theory will probably fail at the first...

 

That said, it’s only the homeowner that will have to reach for the cheque book so maybe they, at least, will see sense....

[openspaceman]

7 hours ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

Meanwhile, liaise with the certified safety lunatics at Railtrack to establish if they have a future scheduled line closure and piggy-back the tree fell onto that timeframe so as to avoid / share railway admin cost of removing the tree. 

Railtrack ceased to be responsible for the rail network in 2004, Network Rail was set up as a wholly government owned company to manage the rail assets, it is not a public company nor a private company and does its own thing, it is answerable to the Office or Road and Rail.

 

The person who would be the one to contact at network rail would be the off track manager for the area.