agg221

I have no wish to re-ignite the earlier nature of this thread, but I'm interested in approaches. Hypothetically, if you were going to tackle a tree like the one in the original film without a winch, and assuming the top was securely wedged in a fork so no chance of it rolling out, I appreciate the difficulty in assessing tension/compression in the first cut but once the first cut is made (so it's free at the base) is there any reason not use a cut that looks like a felling cut in reverse (i.e notch the top, then undercut), taking sections of approx. 4ft long, working at waist height? Alec

That's what I was reckoning, but what I'm not sure of is the position over public liability for injury to people or your neighbours' property) when felling your own trees for commercial rather than leisure purposes (don't know because I haven't been in this position). This is what I would suggest checking first. You may also need to extend it if you end up with a portable mill that you start hiring out - you are likely to need to use a saw to crosscut to length, take off branch stubs etc. These are the points where the difference may lie between cover needing proof of competence or not, hence the suggestion to talk to SWOG, who are more likely to know the answer than me Alec

As per Big J. The other thing I would add is, if it's a decent size with no rot and looks worth doing, dismantle it to a stick, as long as you can get and leave six inches or so on each branch stub beyond the clean stick. If at that stage the band of visible sapwood is only an inch or two thick, it should be good. Take photos of the ends and dig it rather than fell it, then paint the ends to seal. That way, if anyone does buy it they'll get the cleanest, longest butt possible, with the best chance of minimising losses through cracking. If the sapwood band is much wider, cut clean to the top of the stick and see how much heart there really is. If it's looking much over a foot, it's probably saleable, but don't expect much more than roadside cord price unless it's a long, clean, wide butt. I'd still photograph it and then get it moved and painted. I wouldn't bother digging the stump unless it's a good proportion of heartwood. I know people differ in view on painting ends, but I've had very good results on a walnut stump I got hold of just after an idiot farmer had chopped it off at 4ft and dug it out. I ultimately want to make a chest of drawers from it, 4ft high and the boards are 4ft0.5in long. I got it the day it was cut, painted the ends immediately and then painted the bottom end cuts once roots etc were off. I have absolutely zero cracks in it, so in this case it was worth it. Ordinary gloss paint works fine. I wouldn't get your hopes up, but it's worth a look. Alec

I know this is an old thread, but something I've wondered. In apples, you often get epicormic buds breaking if you heavily reduce. Sometimes these break on the trunk which you want to keep permanently clear. The shoots break from a single bud, but grow a basal cluster of new, latent buds, so if you cut them off you get these new buds breaking and it gets worse. One old technique for dealing with this is to wait until the wood is hardening (around July) and then run the back of a billhook sharply down the trunk to knock them out rather than cutting them. It rips the whole base of the shoot clear, and although it creates a larger wound than a cut it's still only about a quarter of an inch across and heals quickly. It doesn't rip into the old bark as the shoot is still too small and soft, and weakly attached. By removing the basal cluster of buds, the epicormic growth doesn't readily occur from the same point. I've used this on apples for about 25yrs with good results. I wondered whether anyone had any thoughts on its potential effectiveness on other species, such as limes? Alec

You might find Small Woodland Owners' Group (SWOG) useful. I've specifically linked the courses page as that's what you were asking about: Small Woodland Owners Group Blog Archive Courses for woodland owners There are two important things to learn about chainsaws - the first is basic maintenance and the second is safe operation. They're both important. There are three possible routes to go down. One is formally recognised qualifications (typically CS30 and CS31 which can often be done as a combined course). You're looking at not far short of £1000 for this, but it would be recognised by, for example insurers. The opposite extreme is informal training from your brother in law. If he's fully qualified, and you trust him, and believe he will be good and clear at explaining then this will give you (free?) one-to-one tuition to cover the basics. This could be perfectly satisfactory. The in-between route would be a basic, uncertificated course, maybe from one of the providers on the SWOG site. The advantage of this type of course is that it can often be geared to showing what you need to know - for example the formal qualifications work their way up in diameter for felling, whereas if you own a woodland you're more likely to want to start by harvesting the bigger trees! One major factor that will come into play here is what kind of insurance provision you need to make. Your circumstances will be different from mine, and I don't know the answer I'm afraid, but you can probably get a good answer from the SWOG forum. Alec

Very annoying. I had mine nicked a few years back on the banks of the Wyrley and Essington canal, when I put it down for a second whilst clearing the propeller of weeds. Mine was a Royal Ordnance stamped one for 1918 and I still haven't found a replacement. Best place I've found to keep a lookout for buying a replacement is: Billhooks - Green Tools Alec

I think that's highly probable, but if quotes were being skewed by the nature of the cars on the drive this could be a significant factor. How, as a client, do you know which people will quote you based on your supposed income and which will quote you based on their actual costs? Also, as a potential client, how do you know which companies will be 2-man bands and which will be large companies with high overheads? It's relevant, because coming at it from the client perspective, you want a simple solution to a problem. You don't want to wait around for half a dozen people to turn up (or not) possibly taking time off work to do so. You want a quick and simple solution. Interestingly, it was left entirely at the client's discretion how much they chose to pay, and they paid something (including stump removal) pretty much on the money which, to me at least, suggests that not all potential clients are out to rip off all potential service providers, but as per the origins of this thread, the amount of money to be earned has to be considered realistically. Alec

Hi Hodge, I am not in arb - I am in a totally unrelated field (contract R&D) but I am highly familiar with being undercut, mostly in my field by one man band consultants who typically purport to offer the same service until it all goes wrong because they can't provide the depth and breadth of knowledge to correctly identify alternative approaches. It's a reasonable sized company (700 people) and probably has the highest hourly rate in the field. I run a group of about 20 split over two sites, being responsible for my own group's P&L as a self-sufficient cost centre with centrally dictated overheads. I am responsible for turnover of about £3m annually. I entirely recognise the difference between what I described above and the fully insured professional company which you are operating. However, my point was that the only real additional costs here are depreciation on PPE and depreciation on training costs and the annualised division of insurance. I'm sure a professional company would take a different approach, but it would probably be quicker, which would offset costs. As such, it is very difficult to justify the price difference in this particular job, since even allowing for 50% utilisation you would still be presuming added costs of over £125k annually, which is not realistic. The other point I was making was that if this discrepancy in costs remains so large, jobs will go to the grey market on pure cost grounds - how many people can raise £900 to have a tree removed rather than £350, and how many are going to do so when they have a choice? Also, for the record, none of it ended up dumped roadside due to connections of the people doing the job - all disposed of legitimately, at cost. Alec

I think this is a very valid point, particularly when the tree can be dropped fairly easily without much risk of damage to fragile things underneath. I have an acquaintance who runs a small groundworks company - him and his son. I was talking to him the other day and he mentioned that on a recent job remodelling a front driveway the client commented that they didn't really want the 60ft conifer in the front garden, but had been quoted £900 to remove it. They had a look and reckoned they could do it - the client said he'd see them right if they did. The son climbed up as high as he could get, tied a rope to the top and attached it to the excavator, then sawed the top off while the father pulled it clear. He then worked his way down, sawing of side branches and dropping them, with top sections being pulled clear by the excavator as they were sawn out, until the remaining stick fitted in the front garden and was dug out and knocked over with the excavator. No chainsaws were involved (knowing the people involved this will have been done with a B&Q panel saw!). There will also have been no PPE or insurance, but the risks were clearly quite low and the whole job was completed, including stump removal (loaded onto a truck and taken away for legit disposal) in about 2.5hrs with 2 people. It was at the client's discretion how much they paid, and they decided on £175 each, with which the two people concerned were very happy. I'm not condoning what they did, but the point is that they did no damage, the risk was very low and this compares with a 'professional' quote of £900 for 5hrs work, which would have been less if you used a chainsaw! Quotes need to be realistic for a client to take them, and some of the comments made on this site about "I priced it based on his Bentley on the drive" encourage people to look elsewhere for someone who is covering their overheads and making a sensible profit, rather than looking to exploit the customer. For reference, because I don't climb I can't access the bigger trees at my place, but I know exactly what I want doing to them. I have happily paid someone from this site to come and do some work on one of them, and was very pleased with their work. They set their price, effectively as a subbie climber (knowing that I was not able to carry out aerial rescue) and the job was done. At some point, I'll happily pay someone to do some more, but like Stereo (and the person I mentioned above) I will be looking for a price that reflects the job at hand, not the nature of the car I drive and hence my apparent financial status (although given the state of our cars it might even get us a discount ) Alec

I would be inclined to talk to the FC about it. Good management practice is usually encouraged, so you could get a view on thinning and if you present it as part of a management plan you should be able to get a licence for 10yrs at a time. The other practical point is that even 2 cube is quite a lot per quarter. You're talking about 6-8 trees per year, i.e. 2/quarter. I'm not quite sure how the volume is calculated, but assume it's based on useable timber, the table in the link below: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/TimberVolumeCalculator.pdf/$FILE/TimberVolumeCalculator.pdf indicates that you can take 20 linear metres of trees at 60cm mid-length diameter, so probably 3 trees/quarter. If you're at thinning stage this is pretty big! Also a useful link is: Forestry Commission - Felling licences exemptions particularly if you consider the diameters below which a licence is not required and think of these as potential understorey coppice or rapidly felled sycamore, for firewood etc. Alec

I haven't got many photos of moving stuff - tend to be too busy doing it, but below are some of a bit about 12ft long x 18in dia. You can see it's on wheels on a short axle at the end, ready to tow off down the garden for milling. The axle has a short section of 6in wide U channel welded to it to stop the log rolling onto the wheels. You can saw featheredge quite effectively with a bandsaw mill - mill out the cant to the right width, then stick a block the right thickness under one edge to tilt it slightly. Take the block out, make the next cut horizontal, repeat until cant is gone (thanks Tommer9!). You don't typically need any resawing from a bandsaw mill, except if you are trying to squeeze the last knockings out of of something very thin that the mill grips won't keep hold of. Alec

Hi James, The mill you propose would cover the bases, but I would still personally veer towards a bandmill. I don't do this commercially in any sense, but I've milled quite a lot of timber, for my own use (70ft canal boat, 40ft canal boat, another canal boat underway and a house extension). This has been singlehanded, almost exclusively. I've done this on an extremely small budget, but the aim has been to mill timber fast enough that it doesn't become the primary exercise - there was a point when I was using an 064 and an Alaskan mill and for a while I went over to buying in timber as the time/cost calculation didn't work. I simply couldn't mill fast enough and was spending all my time milling rather than using the timber. In the course of doing this I've found the following: Did you get your driving licence before 1997? I did and I've found that a 7.5 ton lorry has a 20ft deck, which defines a maximum length. I also have the trailer entitlement. Of the two, I'd go for the latter if you have to take one or the other. I drive a Volvo estate which will pull 1.8 tons. I bought an 8'x4' plant trailer which is big enough to move timber up to about 18' long and strong enough to carry it stuck over the top, rather than having to fit inside. This means I can move most butts, or milled timber, easily. It doesn't work if you have to carry every piece of milled timber out of the woods individually. You need some form of wheeled, ideally mechanised, transport. I have used things as simple as a pair of wheels on a short axle, or a wheelbarrow, but really you need something that will tow a trailer or a log arch. The alternative is to batch it up, then hire something - be it a small tractor, quad or horse extraction team. Milled timber is more likely to get nicked than a large log, so you don't want to leave it roadside for too long while you make a series of trips. Large logs can be left roadside much more safely while you make a series of trips, possibly over several days. If you buy your own quad or tractor, make sure it fits in the trailer! (I bought a small ancient 2wd dumper which works fine so long as you run it in reverse for towing). Having tried both, I prefer bringing butts to me rather than the mill to the butt, wherever possible, even though I've only had portable mills. This is because you need so many bits and pieces that I always find I either forget something, or have to improvise when something breaks, and with all the spares to cover every contingency it takes up far more space than the 'portable' description would indicate. If I mill at home (which conveniently I can) then everything is in the shed so I can sort out problems as they arise and if the weather turns bad or I need a spare that I haven't got, I can just stop and do something else. I know people do treat milling as truly portable, but it hasn't suited me. I use an engine hoist for loading butts. It's manual, but I can lift every piece into the trailer, put it together in under a minute and it will lift a ton onto the trailer. Get it right and I can load a butt in 20mins from parking to driving off again, which is good enough for me. I prefer bandsaws because they can take wide boards which means I can then cut around defects and choose the best grain. I also like the narrow kerf which helps yield, particularly on smaller logs. I use a fully manual chainsaw-mounted bandsaw, which is smaller than ideal (14" width, 9" throat) but I can pick it up and carry it. If I have to mill in-situ, I can literally stick everything I need in a wheelbarrow or two and take it into the woods for the day. However, given the choice I'd go for a larger bandmill (like a Woodmizer or equivalent) and accept that I had to move more butts to it. Other must-have equipment - consider how you are going to fell the trees so you'll need an appropriate saw, PPE and training in both saw operation and maintenance (although this could be informal from your brother-in-law). Consider that it is hugely preferable not to work on your own when felling, so you would need a second person then anyway. You will need chains, strops, a winch (I use a Tirfor) - this is partly for moving timber and partly for when trees hang up on felling. If you mill in-situ I would advise a heavy jack for rolling logs to the best orientation. I use an old railway toe jack but any form of ratchet jack will work. Some form of lever bar is also very useful - I use a 6' length of 3"x2" box-section steel with an angle plate welded on the end. It's overkill for most things, but the huge leverage is worth having when you have to move things on your own, and the length gives you plenty of places to get purchase. You will need to season the timber, so whether this is kiln or air-dry you will need an enormous amount of stickers - I make mine from old pallets. Hope these thoughts are of some use! Alec

I'd look carefully at your calculations. 10 acres of timber-sized trees, say 100 trees to the acre, gives you 1000 trees. On a 100yr rotation, this gives a sustainable timber harvest of 10/yr. If you buy more mature woodland and harvest over a shorter period you can increase the harvest rate - say you want 30yrs worth of harvest you can now take 30/yr. Is this enough? Do you need to consider added costs from buying in? The more value you add, the fewer trees you need to harvest as your time is occupied in adding value rather than harvesting trees and you earn a lot more per tree, so producing end product rather than seasoned timber is more likely to add up. I'd also seriously consider a bandsaw mill rather than a swing mill. Most woodland grown timber isn't that large a diameter (2ft or so). You will need to differentiate your product and this would be easier by using wider boards, as you will never compete in the bulk production of standard small section constructional type timber. Being able to add maximum value to a small number of sawlogs by processing them flexibly into whatever is needed will give you the most value. For ideas, try looking at some of Rob D's threads on here. It's more chainsaw mill production focussed, but things like his picnic benches (or more recently the ones shown in a thread started by Delabodge) give a good idea of the type of thing that can be done. Ultimately though, one thing to consider is that creativity rarely sells. You have to accept that there will be items which sell, and items which don't. Making the things which sell in the most efficient way possible is actually a miniaturised version of production line manufacturing - just a point to bear in mind as to how it isn't always true creativity that pays the bills. Alec

Yes, and it always should, because to make firewood you've put time, effort (and fuel) into it whereas to sell it to 'craftsmen' you haven't. Consider how much a cube of seasoned firewood would sell for. Then consider the equivalent volume of timber you are selling to a 'craftsman', and it's still green! I buy some timber - not much but a bit. I tend to try to take my offered price from the up to date hoppus foot prices that get quoted on here from time to time. The price will be higher than roadside cordwood, but nothing like split, seasoned firewood, for the above reason. I find the range of reactions quite interesting. Some people assume they'll get something like the finished value price of the item that might be made, just for the timber. Others like the fact that it's better than cordwood prices if they can't be bothered to split it up themselves. Alec

As someone who lives in the world of grants and public funding, perhaps a perspective might be useful. Consider why grants are made available. With the exception of a very small number of really nice people (Lord Leverhulme springs instantly to mind) it isn't usually an altruistic thing, but rather social engineering. Public bodies collect money in taxes, and then redistribute it to achieve social aims. There can be various aims - increasing employment, preventing influx of foreign exports and 'culture' are the three main ones - they're all criteria against certain public bodies are measured on performance, and all relate to the 'health of the nation' or region or whatever the funding body may be. Grants are usually a pretty scatter-gun approach. Some funding schemes expect a success rate of less than 5%. The thinking is that if there was a true, low-risk commercial case for something you should get a bank loan instead. So with the above in mind, what you need to consider is the particular thing someone may wish to achieve with their investment. Filling skills gaps is always a good bet - look at the sequence in teaching as an example - 1980s teachers were squeezed hard relative to inflation, so they didn't train, so there were skills gaps and standards dropped, so in the 1990s teachers got grants to train and golden hellos. Now we're back in recession, teaching is still a relatively safe profession and supply outstrips demand, so all the grants etc have been withdrawn and pay rises have not matched inflation since 2003. Once the recession ends, teachers will be in short supply again and the cycle will repeat. In arb, this doesn't apply - if this site is to believed colleges are turning out students faster than people are leaving the industry and so there's no skills shortage, so that isn't going to work on a blanket level. Culture is unlikely to get you very far as a driver (operatic arb singers anyone?) and there isn't a tangible product to protect the trade deficit against, so global options are unlikely to be made available. However, go looking at the local drivers and employment is most likely to be the winner. As mentioned, Shropshire has grants - rural with an unemployment issue and so not many options to move transferrable skills around as there would be in towns. The Princes Trust addresses the youth unemployment issue, as do some state-funded schemes where you can get taken on at low cost (although think of the furore this caused last year with Sainsbury's and Tesco's about 'taking honest people's jobs). There are other similar mechanisms though, such as modern apprenticeships, and the paperwork isn't too complex so a small firm might be prepared to give it a go. You can expect to have to do all the work for them though. As WorcsWuss has said, 'disadvantaged' or 'minority group' are always a good bet. Genuinely, there is positive discrimination at work. I do a lot of EU funding applications and the 'triple word score' is a black, one-legged muslim lesbian. Also, don't forget that grant money is there to be used - it's embarrassing when it's not taken up, and it's your taxes you're getting back so there's nothing inappropriate about using it. However, you have to present your case as one of the most deserving causes. With no blanket coverage, you will need to find your angle, think creatively and work pretty hard in pulling a case together, by second guessing what the funder wants to achieve and ticking the right boxes, and then really meaning it so that if you get the funding you will have to deliver against what you offered to the best of your ability. As an example of how this can be done, I obtained a grant for training (75% costs met) for my wife and I to got to Shetland for a week to work with the last remaining working industrial smith in Britain, because he was a specialist in true wrought iron and someone needed to learn the tricks of making fittings and tools etc. before they vanished, and I needed to know them to repair my boat. Above, in a nutshell, is my case, but it took a good week's worth of evenings to sort it out and justify it with supporting evidence. Don't think that grant funding is an easy option - there's probably more work in preparing a good bid than in just running round trying to find someone to take you on. Hope this helps. Alec

If you assume it's about 2ft diameter at the top end (which is what governs post size) you would get 4 square posts about 8.5ins square. Most people would use oak green rather than waiting for it to season. You do get movement, which you have to allow for in the design, but it's much easier to work and bearing in mind you would need to wait for about 4-5yrs for it to air dry to a basic level you can see why green is easier! You'll still need to stack it up neatly though whilst getting ready to use it, as otherwise you risk it staining up on the surface due to contact with iron/going mouldy etc. You also want to keep them away from too much sunlight (shouldn't be a problem in Scotland in winter!) as otherwise you risk case hardening, where the surface seasons faster than the centre and getting the middle to dry is then very difficult. Alec

Unless you have access to free/very cheap transport, it is likely to be much cheaper to get it milled where it falls. For posts, a chainsaw mill is likely to be the best bet as you can literally stick all the bits in a wheelbarrow and get to wherever you need to be (although a Lucas mill might just do it). Should cost you somewhere between £250 and £350/day I would have thought, and should be possible to do the lot in a day. Also take into account that you will want to stack the posts somewhere that the air can get around them but the rain doesn't land directly on them, with sticks between them to help air flow. You want to get the bottom of the pile 8ins or so off the ground, so get some bricks or blocks ready, and prepare you sticks - something like inch square would be about right and they want to be seasoned. Old bits of pallet work quite well. Alec

Hi Mike, As Eddy says, chain gauge is the width of the bit of the chain (drive link) that runs in the bar, i.e. how wide the gap in the bar is if someone hasn't done something nasty to it. The actual width of the teeth (cut) will vary slightly, but not much in the grand scheme of things. I have no idea how someone would do what they have to that bar! By the way, the number of teeth on the sprocket doesn't matter so much as the pitch. You could have a 7-tooth sprocket or an 8-tooth sprocket but so long as they were both 3/8" pitch the chain would still run properly. The more teeth, the more chain links pulled round per rev. of the saw, so the faster the chain runs (but with less torque). Alec

Would this be acceptable to you professional fellers then? Alec

I wouldn't take it as anything personal. There aren't that many people on here who mill, and most who do are only doing it on an occasional basis so there's probably not that much experience to draw on. The other point is that not that many species are saleable, and plain, clear, narrow (up to 8in or so) boards are made much more easily in a commercial mill. This leads to a lot of what's discussed on here being either what came to hand, through and through sawn for convenience, or very wide slabs for table tops etc. which is something big commercial mills often can't handle. Again, these are usually slab sawn through and through. Personally, I've tended to either saw oak for construction (boat or house) with the odd bit of other stuff that turned up. Cherry doesn't seem to show much advantage based on how you saw it and also seems to cope with being through and through sawn surprisingly well, which is handy for getting more wide boards. Holly has nothing to show however you cut it, but is very white for detailing inlays/stringing. As Rob says, plane is worth quartering, known as lacewood and quite a spectacular effect but rather overpowering in large areas. Alec

It's one of the later Danarm 55s - they were originally yellow and black (all metal), then dark red, then metallic blue and finally yellow plastic, so I would guess early '80s? The information on your bar - it's currently running 0.58" width drive links on the chain, and 3/8" pitch. The 72 dl is drive links, so the length of the chain to order. The rest is the Sandvik part number. I would definitely be looking for a shorter bar - it's not that big a saw so probably 16" max. A replacement bar will say how many drive links you need on it. I wouldn't change the 3/8" pitch as you need this to mate with the sprocket, so unless this is also shot I'd leave well alone. You can change the drive link width if necessary - 3/8" pitch chain is commonly available in 0.53", 0.058" and 0.063". For reference, you can get bars for the Danarm 1-36 at 12", 14" and 16" new from Oregon, so it may be worth establishing if they use the same mounts. Out of interest, what is wrong with your bar? Alec

An excellent read actually - not sure whether you've read it yourself but I picked up a copy of the third edition (1679) cheaply some years ago and it's still surprisingly valid in parts. Alec

ChunksBigBro on here may be able to help. Not sure if he travels that far but he now does my Mum's place near Dartford and does an excellent job. Alec

The other people to try are people with horses - our neighbours will literally take as much as anyone can supply (only proviso that it doesn't have blackthorn or hawthorn in it). Not a problem though, as I can use the stuff with blackthorn and hawthorn in it. Alec

Odd. I had a loop of Oregon ripping chain on my 47" bar, which didn't give me any problems. Luck of the draw on a particular batch of chain? Alec