Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Stabilisation Of Embankment - Amersham Railway

61 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

It's springtime and I'm fairly certain it's illegal to disturb the nesting sites of birds during the spring and summer, unless you have proper authorisation, which they may have but it might be another side to the argument if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The removal of so many trees and their roots sounds more likely to badly destabilise the embankment.

Removing so many trees is going to be very unwelcome. The trees are a major factor in dampening the sound from the trains, not only for those houses backing onto the railway but also for many others nearby. Shrubs are no replacement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oops, I posted in the other thread by accident:

Unfortunately they've been doing this on the Chesham branch too. It's because of the risk of landslides which can obviously cause considerable damage and delay to journeys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The removal of so many trees and their roots sounds more likely to badly destabilise the embankment.

Removing so many trees is going to be very unwelcome. The trees are a major factor in dampening the sound from the trains, not only for those houses backing onto the railway but also for many others nearby. Shrubs are no replacement.

The people holding the meeting have asked for any railway experts to make themslves known so they can understand the issue.

I believe when the embankments were made, there were no trees. Certainly the growth in vegatation along side railway lines have grown over recent years as cut backs in keeping it clear have been made. In the past I think vegatation was kept back to reduce the risk of fires from steam engines. However, with more vegatation perhaps the routes have actually started to cause instability. Also, they can casue leaves on the line which creates problems for trains braking. So eprhaps they think by removing the trees, this will stabalise the embacnkment and get reduce the leaves on the track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Oops, I posted in the other thread by accident:

I've deleted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I've deleted it.

Does seem odd, as I thought trees roots helped stabilise the soil embankments, during heavy rainfall.Maybe they want to add man-made stabilisation, that they can rely on, thats consistant along the line. I thinkI'd be gutted if my garden backed onto a railway lines and the trees that acted as some visual/sound barrier are removed. I've also thought that it was nice to have the vegetation they do along the embankments, better than having to look at buildings or concete embankment.Eaton is right above the bird nests, in the past weve had to actually stop work on the construction of a building due to bird nests.

This is from RSPB:

Is it legal to move or destroy active birds' nests?

Unless you can be absolutely sure that they are not being used by nesting birds then work of this nature is always best left until the autumn. Gardens are important habitat for a wide variety of species and many will nest in shrubs, hedging and undergrowth.

Can I cut down some shrubs during spring and summer?

The breeding period coincides with the busiest time of the year for gardeners but it is vital that great care is also taken to protect birds and their nests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Unfortunately they've been doing this on the Chesham branch too. It's because of the risk of landslides which can obviously cause considerable damage and delay to journeys.

Doesn't apply in this case, as the railway is on top of the embankment, not below it.

I've found this interesting article. Seems that the wrong sort of trees can cause problems - and that replacement with different types of trees is an alternative to removing trees altogether.

http://www.railwaystrategies.co.uk/article-page.php?contentid=5571

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Doesn't apply in this case, as the railway is on top of the embankment, not below it.

I've found this interesting article. Seems that the wrong sort of trees can cause problems - and that replacement with different types of trees is an alternative to removing trees altogether.

http://www.railwaystrategies.co.uk/article-page.php?contentid=5571

Sounds like the wrong type of leaves or wrong type of weather I've heard in the past. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If there are delays on the line, everyone complains.

If they try to do something to prevent the delays, everyone complains.

If they employ experts to devise the best solution, everyone else knows better.

These threads about the railways are just becoming boring and predictable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Looking on google map thats all the trees along half of the line from Amersham to Chalfont and Latimer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What I find remarkable is that if the railway were being built today, all manner of noise abatement measures would be required. Yet it is OK to remove the only existing means of noise reduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If the residents of Moor Park in their £3m plus houses couldn't stop TFL then Angry of Amersham stands little chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'd rather they removed the trains than the trees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'd rather they removed the trains than the trees.

That's a ridiculous and provocative statement. Thousands of people use the trains to get into/out of London each and every day and for a lot of people, including myself, that is why they moved to the area because of the public transport.

Whilst I do feel for the people who will suffer additional noise when the trees are removed, they would have moved to the property while the railway lines were in use and could have made additional sound improvements within their own gardens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I'd rather they removed the trains than the trees.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Whilst I do feel for the people who will suffer additional noise when the trees are removed, they would have moved to the property while the railway lines were in use and could have made additional sound improvements within their own gardens.

Trees along the embankment are the easily the most effective and most reasonable way to limit the impact of the railway on nearby houses. One household growing a few trees at the foot of what may be quiet a small garden won't help very much since much of the noise echoes around a neighbourhood. The only effective "sound improvements" would be to grow a wall of leylandii around the entire garden, plunging it into permanent near darkness.

In any case, it's reasonable to suppose that trees that have been there for decades will continue to be there in the future.

I'd rather they removed the trains than the trees.

Troll. Do not feed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That's a ridiculous and provocative statement. Thousands of people use the trains to get into/out of London each and every day and for a lot of people, including myself, that is why they moved to the area because of the public transport.

Whilst I do feel for the people who will suffer additional noise when the trees are removed, they would have moved to the property while the railway lines were in use and could have made additional sound improvements within their own gardens.

Sense of humour failure, perhaps? I use the drain once or twice a week myself, but I could easily travel from C+L if it would save Amersham's trees...

You know, I used to live in Crouch End in N London, one of the main attractions of which is that it doesn't have a tube/train station.

Trees along the embankment are the easily the most effective and most reasonable way to limit the impact of the railway on nearby houses.

Trees are very much undesired by Network Rail. In the HS2 thread there's mention made of the tree felling requirement either side of an at grade railway, and it's substantial. Have a fly along the HS1 route on Google Earth, as I have, and look how far back from the track woodland has been felled, you may be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

could have made additional sound improvements within their own gardens.

Whilst trees dont count for much when it comes to a noise barrier they are better than nothing.It makes me wonder surely the residents could plant their own trees at the end of their gardens.Something that is broad leafed and evergreen.Then again that would probably give TFL another headache with the roots. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Looking on google map thats all the trees along half of the line from Amersham to Chalfont and Latimer.

It's a pretty shocking scenario, isn't it? Who'd want to live in formerly desirable neighbourhoods like Highland Road once all the trees are gone? Does anyone know why this has to be done with such absurdly short notice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It's a pretty shocking scenario, isn't it? Who'd want to live in formerly desirable neighbourhoods like Highland Road once all the trees are gone? Does anyone know why this has to be done with such absurdly short notice?

Because that makes it harder for people to mount opposition?

Whilst trees dont count for much when it comes to a noise barrier they are better than nothing.It makes me wonder surely the residents could plant their own trees at the end of their gardens.Something that is broad leafed and evergreen.Then again that would probably give TFL another headache with the roots. :)

You'd be surprised. There is a very significant difference in sound from the station in winter and in summer - foliage has a strong effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

If its also to reduce leaves falling on the track, would they then adjust their timetable to account for the large reduction in leaves? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Because that makes it harder for people to mount opposition?

You'd be surprised. There is a very significant difference in sound from the station in winter and in summer - foliage has a strong effect.

I was looking online regarding noise reduction at the side of roads and what effect vegetation had on this.The main problem is that it wasnt a continious barrier,so didnt have much effect.I've planted broad leaf vegetation to reduce some of the roAd noise near my property, but its had a tiny effect, if any.I'd have to take your word for that on the effect it has as I dont live near a train line.It could be possible to that the trees dampen down some of the vibration to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I was looking online regarding noise reduction at the side of roads and what effect vegetation had on this.The main problem is that it wasnt a continious barrier,so didnt have much effect.I've planted broad leaf vegetation to reduce some of the roAd noise near my property, but its had a tiny effect, if any.

Previous owners of our property planted a double leylandii hedge along the entire length of the front boundary. The hedge is 8 foot high, around 2 foot thick and around 150 foot long. It makes a tremendous difference to the amount of noise that we can hear from the road in our garden. At either end of the hedge the road noise is, at times, highly intrusive but once you are away from the ends you can hardly hear the road at all.

We have the hedge cut every October so that it's tidy for 10 months of the year, it only really starts sprouting and looking untidy in August.

In the front garden it's about 15-20 feet from the front of our property and we have no problems with light levels but we do gain from the amount of birds that nest successfully in it each year.

I think the key to the reduction of noise is that any hedge/trees that are planted need to be evergreen and thickly planted to provide a continuous year round barrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I was looking online regarding noise reduction at the side of roads and what effect vegetation had on this.The main problem is that it wasnt a continious barrier,so didnt have much effect.I've planted broad leaf vegetation to reduce some of the roAd noise near my property, but its had a tiny effect, if any.I'd have to take your word for that on the effect it has as I dont live near a train line.It could be possible to that the trees dampen down some of the vibration to.

Yes, the problem is if it's not a continuous barrier - which is where the problem lies in relying on individuals planting trees at the bottom of the garden. On the whole, embankment trees are a continuous barrier. Far from perfect, but they do make a difference.

Another issue is that, to have any chance of blocking the sound, a row of leylandii at the foot of our garden would have to be about 40ft high. Irrespective of any other considerations (e.g. aesthetic - they would completely overpower the garden), I doubt we would be allowed to let them grow to such a size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0