I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a
tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points
of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:MVlTOPLJJmOhFwPN@255soft.uk...
> On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 at 08:17:03, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
> <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points
> raised):
>>Do you think it was insured against fire damage? Brian
>>
> Big enough companies don't insure, if they can persuade whatever
> authorities regulate that risk that they have enough assets to cover the
> liability insured against; all insurance is a bet, and overall, the only
> winner is the bookie (the insurance company) - it's cheaper to cover it
> yourself if your company is broad enough, unless forced by legislation (as
> we are for car etc. insurance). I have no idea whether Arqiva are big
> enough to think that way. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they weren't
> insured against the replacement costs, only third-party injury-type
> liabilities, and quite possibly not even those, if they were able to
> persuade the relevant authorities they could cover the liability.
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> "Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.

On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a
> tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points
> of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
>
The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.

The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>> I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a
>> tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor
>> points
>> of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
>>
> The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
>
> The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

But think of the birds!

Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and solid
evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not just an
even more expensive alternative).

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
> On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>> I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling
>>> such a
>>> tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the
>>> anchor points
>>> of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
>>>
>> The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
>>
>> The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
>
> But think of the birds!
>
> Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
> serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
> solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
> just an even more expensive alternative).
>
Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !

In article <shf4e5$560$1@dont-email.me>, Brian Gaff (Sofa)
<briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> scribeth thus
>I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a
>tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points
>of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
> Brian
>

Well it wont stand up like a telephone pole unless there zilch in the
way of wind and its perfectly upright!....
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <iq0j3hF1c0mU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>> I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a
>> tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points
>> of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
>>
>The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
>
>The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

Pulling it over Mark;!...

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <iq0tulF3dkgU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
>> On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>>> I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling
>>>> such a
>>>> tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the
>>>> anchor points
>>>> of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
>>>>
>>> The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
>>>
>>> The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
>>
>> But think of the birds!
>>
>> Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
>> serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
>> solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
>> just an even more expensive alternative).
>>
>Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
>less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !

Apart from the poor saps who were working there!....

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In message <iq0tulF3dkgU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
>> On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>>> I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling
>>>>such a
>>>> tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the
>>>>anchor points
>>>> of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
>>>>
>>> The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
>>>
>>> The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
>>
>> But think of the birds!
>>
>> Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
>>serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
>>solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
>>just an even more expensive alternative).
>>
>Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
>less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !

If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However,
might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such
as the main aerials)?
--
Ian

On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
> would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
> However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged
> bits (such as the main aerials)?

Yes, but how ?

On 10/09/2021 13:24, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <iq0j3hF1c0mU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
> <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
>> On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>> I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a
>>> tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points
>>> of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
>>>
>> The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
>>
>> The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
>
> Pulling it over Mark;!...
>
I've always preferred rear wheel drive

On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
>
> On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>> The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
>>
>> The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

IANA explosives expert, but I fancy any competent one could do it
without any fuss.

It would be like felling a tree where you take out a wedge-shaped cut in
the direction you want it to fall, then cut through from the other side
of the trunk to within a cm or two of the wedge cut (the uncut strip
acts as a hinge to control the fall), then, if it isn't already falling,
you hammer wedges into this single cut to tip the trunk in the direction
of the wedge cut (obviously this ASCII art cannot be to scale, and
you'll need a fixed font, for example in Notepad, to display it properly):

1) Make wedge shaped cut in the direction you want it to fall
| |
| < Tree will fall this way.
| |
2) Cut almost all the way through from other side leaving uncut 'hinge'
| |
---- < Tree will fall this way.
| |
3) If necessary bang wedges into the cut made in Step 2.
/ /
>--- < Tree falls this way.
| |

I can already hear a chorus of voices saying: "F*k off! This is not a
tree!" but actually the principle you'd use for a mast is exactly the
same, and both directly analogous to Fred Dibnah's technique for
toppling chimneys:

1) Take out a substantial wedge of bricks from the side of the chimney
in the direction you want it to fall, replacing them with timber props
as you go.

2) Light a substantial fire to burn away the props, of course there's no
problem in getting it to 'draw'!

3) Wait at a safe distance for the wooden props to burn through.

I suspect an explosives expert should be able to do much the same thing
with explosives, but in a second or so. They'd probably blow the guys
moments before blowing a hole in the side of the tower in the direction
they want it to fall, then fractionally later blow the other side just
enough to weaken it so it couldn't maintain the structure, and gravity
should do the rest. Alternatively it might be stable enough that they
could bring it down in sections, blowing the top off moments before a
charge lower down, etc, in stages until the bottom would be the last to
blow. This would reduce the area of damage and debris left to clear up
afterwards.

> But think of the birds!

Joke or not, probably not an issue at this time of year, I don't think
there would even be many fledgelings now, let alone nestlings. You
could beat the cover beforehand in the direction of fall to remove as
much wildlife as possible, get the beaters out of the way, and blow.

> Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
> serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and solid
> evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not just an
> even more expensive alternative).

Dunno about that, but probably one quick blow would be better than weeks
of noise and disruption.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/09/2021 17:10, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
>>
>> On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>
>>> The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
>>>
>>> The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
>
> IANA explosives expert, but I fancy any competent one could do it
> without any fuss.

It'll be sitting on a concrete base structure like the one at its twin
at Waltham

http://admin.mb21.co.uk/tx/userimages/1207proc20200425043704.jpg

Possibly blow the appropriate side of that away ?

On 10/09/2021 17:10, Java Jive wrote:
> On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
<snip>
>> But think of the birds!
>
> Joke or not, probably not an issue at this time of year, I don't think
> there would even be many fledgelings now, let alone nestlings.  You
> could beat the cover beforehand in the direction of fall to remove as
> much wildlife as possible, get the beaters out of the way, and blow.
>

And what about habitat as in (a) how much will be damaged* and (b) how
will it be restored and by when (if ever fully)?

*or perhaps the better word would be destroyed

>> Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
>> serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
>> solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
>> just an even more expensive alternative).
>
> Dunno about that, but probably one quick blow would be better than weeks
> of noise and disruption.
>

But not necessarily in terms of damage to habitat.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In article <YpXh$IDjG1OhFwfA@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVE
THISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> scribeth thus
>In message <iq0tulF3dkgU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
><mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
>>On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>>>>> I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling
>>>>>such a
>>>>> tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the
>>>>>anchor points
>>>>> of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
>>>>>
>>>> The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
>>>>
>>>> The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
>>>
>>> But think of the birds!
>>>
>>> Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
>>>serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
>>>solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
>>>just an even more expensive alternative).
>>>
>>Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
>>less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !
>

>If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
>would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However,
>might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such
>as the main aerials)?

Well that wont be that simple. To get up there someone would have to go
up inside the mast a to arrange the man bucket on of the up most stay
or they'd have to get a s chopper in that that means having someone up
there to undo all the bolts etc..

Bit of a bugger if the mast decided to collapse while the chopper was
just lifting the main TX aerial parts..

Far too dangerous.

A few pounds the bangin stuff in the right places and that will be
that..
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>> If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down would
>> be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However, might
>> they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such as the
>> main aerials)?
>
> Yes, but how ?

Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes
unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes. You
need an old car horn with a rubber bulb, which you belatedly sound *after*
the mast has fallen, at which point you run like buggery, and then turn
round to the camera and grin, saying "Did yer like that?".

In article <shg2vu$p3s$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid>
scribeth thus
>"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>> If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down would
>>> be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However, might
>>> they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such as the
>>> main aerials)?
>>
>> Yes, but how ?
>
>Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes
>unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes. You
>need an old car horn with a rubber bulb, which you belatedly sound *after*
>the mast has fallen, at which point you run like buggery, and then turn
>round to the camera and grin, saying "Did yer like that?".
>

LOL!

I wonder how old Fred would have bought this down?, don't think his
chimney propping methods would have worked that well somehow;!...

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 10/09/2021 17:17, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 10/09/2021 17:10, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
>>>>
>>>> The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
>>
>> IANA explosives expert, but I fancy any competent one could do it
>> without any fuss.
>
> It'll be sitting on a concrete base structure like the one at its twin
> at Waltham
>
> http://admin.mb21.co.uk/tx/userimages/1207proc20200425043704.jpg
>
> Possibly blow the appropriate side of that away ?

Although I do have the experience of having felled a couple of sizeable
trees, this is another scale so I repeat IANA explosives expert, but
this is my guess based on what I've seen on TV programmes, etc, all of
which suggests that somehow or other you need arrange the initial
direction of fall, but then get a clean break to allow the fall to occur
unhampered once the initial direction of it has been set.

At a guess, if that photo is accurate for Bilsdale too ...

Fractionally before everything else blow the guys at both of their ends,
so that they can just fall to the ground, except possibly the one(s) in
the direction of fall of the mast, so that they will help to prevent the
mast teetering over in the wrong direction.

Next blow the join between the concrete base and the mast proper both to
remove the concrete beneath it in the direction you want it to fall, and
to sever the supports and sides of the mast around 120 degrees either
side of there, leaving the far side of the mast to act as hinge in the
initial stages of fall, which you then blow a fraction later to allow
the fall to be clean.

Next, once the mast is falling, you'd want to crumple the entire
concrete plinth, so that you don't leave the end of the mast perched
precariously on top of its remains.

For any remaining guys, you'd blow them once the mast is falling safely.

I am presuming that experience would allow an expert to schedule the
individual blasts in the correct sequence lasting in all over at most
just a few seconds or so.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/09/2021 18:00, NY wrote:
> Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes
> unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes. You
> need an old car horn with a rubber bulb, which you belatedly sound*after*
> the mast has fallen, at which point you run like buggery, and then turn
> round to the camera and grin, saying "Did yer like that?".

They could also have cutting charges at several points to cut into
several pieces.

On 10/09/2021 18:44, tony sayer wrote:
> I wonder how old Fred would have bought this down?, don't think his
> chimney propping methods would have worked that well somehow;!...

If only they had built it of brick.

"tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GkSyn$NKm5OhFwcq@bancom.co.uk...
> I wonder how old Fred would have bought this down?, don't think his
> chimney propping methods would have worked that well somehow;!...

Angle-grind a rectangular hole in one side at the bottom, insert some
pit-props (not necessary but just for the effect), build a bloody big fire
with tar-soaked railway sleepers and light it with an oily rag. Then watch
from an unsafe distance (well within the height of the mast), telling
stories about how great Brunel was, punctuated with occasional cries of
"she's going", and then get the horn out and prepare to run like buggery as
the red-hot mast bulges and gently folds in on itself as it crashes to the
ground.

If he was feeling adventurous, he might have climbed to the top first (*) to
get a look round at all the other masts that you can see from there, as well
as what's left of Eggborough, Drax and Ferrybridge power stations (**).

(*) Making sure that his climb involved a section where he had to climb
outwards and backwards, which he would made look dead easy.

(**) There is a section of the road from Castleton, via the Blakey Inn pub,
to Hutton-le-Hole where you are in a very rural moorland setting but in the
far distance you used to be able to see the steaming cooling towers of
Eggborough, Drax and Ferrybridge power stations.

NY wrote:

>(**) There is a section of the road from Castleton, via the Blakey Inn pub,
>to Hutton-le-Hole where you are in a very rural moorland setting but in the
>far distance you used to be able to see the steaming cooling towers of
>Eggborough, Drax and Ferrybridge power stations.

I've never been good with heights, but recall a spell (late 60s)
working for AEI at Eggborough power station. This was a placement
during my training, and we were, to some degree, able to head off
exploring the site. We visited the boiler house where the floor
at 135 ft was open mesh. If you looked down, as you moved, it
blurred and disappeared and you felt as if you were floating. The
only solution, to avoid tripping over stuff, was to look far
enough away that it appeared solid.

Once up on the roof, we had a good view across to Drax, then
under construction, and Ferrybridge.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

Plant amazing Acers.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 17:10:37 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>It would be like felling a tree where you take out a wedge-shaped cut in
>the direction you want it to fall, then cut through from the other side
>of the trunk to within a cm or two of the wedge cut (the uncut strip
>acts as a hinge to control the fall), then, if it isn't already falling,
>you hammer wedges into this single cut to tip the trunk in the direction
>of the wedge cut

Than get out of the way very quickly before the base of the tree
splits and takes you by surprise by kicking out in the opposite
direction to the direction of fall. If you forget that a tall
structure falling over is actually turning and will have a moment of
inertia, then nature will remind you.

There are lots of amusing videos on Youtube of people who think it's a
simple matter to fell a tree, sometimes by the method described above,
though there are other ways of injuring yourself too, even if the tree
doesn't fall on a house or a power line that you haven't noticed, or
hoist a car into the air. It appears to be far from simple.

Rod.

On 10/09/2021 18:00, NY wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>> If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
>>> would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
>>> However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable
>>> undamaged bits (such as the main aerials)?
>>
>> Yes, but how ?
>
> Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load
> becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed
> guy ropes.

I was asking how the aerials could be salvaged, considering no one in
their right mind is ever going to climb the mast again.

On 11/09/2021 09:23, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 17:10:37 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> It would be like felling a tree where you take out a wedge-shaped cut in
>> the direction you want it to fall, then cut through from the other side
>> of the trunk to within a cm or two of the wedge cut (the uncut strip
>> acts as a hinge to control the fall), then, if it isn't already falling,
>> you hammer wedges into this single cut to tip the trunk in the direction
>> of the wedge cut
>
> Than get out of the way very quickly before the base of the tree
> splits and takes you by surprise by kicking out in the opposite
> direction to the direction of fall. If you forget that a tall
> structure falling over is actually turning and will have a moment of
> inertia, then nature will remind you.
>
> There are lots of amusing videos on Youtube of people who think it's a
> simple matter to fell a tree, sometimes by the method described above,
> though there are other ways of injuring yourself too, even if the tree
> doesn't fall on a house or a power line that you haven't noticed, or
> hoist a car into the air. It appears to be far from simple.
>
> Rod.

This is how they felled the masts at Rugby in 2004:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sq_4klJl5Ak

Cutting charges on the supports for one set of guys on each mast. Their
only problem was that rabbits were eating through the detonation cords,
so it took several attempts to fell all of them.
--
Dave

On 11/09/2021 09:23, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2021 17:10:37 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> It would be like felling a tree where you take out a wedge-shaped cut in
>> the direction you want it to fall, then cut through from the other side
>> of the trunk to within a cm or two of the wedge cut (the uncut strip
>> acts as a hinge to control the fall), then, if it isn't already falling,
>> you hammer wedges into this single cut to tip the trunk in the direction
>> of the wedge cut
>
> Than get out of the way very quickly before the base of the tree
> splits and takes you by surprise by kicking out in the opposite
> direction to the direction of fall. If you forget that a tall
> structure falling over is actually turning and will have a moment of
> inertia, then nature will remind you.

Yes, that can happen. Forestry has always been hazardous work. ISTR
reading that back in the days of the Canadian forest, one of the most
dangerous jobs was climbing to the top of each tree to saw off the
crown, so that it wouldn't foul other trees and prevent the trunk from
falling. You had to keep on sawing right to the very end, those that
didn't tended to die.

> There are lots of amusing videos on Youtube of people who think it's a
> simple matter to fell a tree, sometimes by the method described above,
> though there are other ways of injuring yourself too, even if the tree
> doesn't fall on a house or a power line that you haven't noticed, or
> hoist a car into the air. It appears to be far from simple.

Yes, but the method I described above is I believe the standard way of
doing it manually, or at least was when I was taught it. As I said up
thread, I've done it myself successfully certainly a couple of times,
maybe one or two more that I've now forgotten.

Nowadays in commercial plantations they use machines like a JCB, but
instead of the bucket there's a multi-purpose hydraulically-controlled
unit that first grasps the trunk near the base and cuts through just
underneath, rotates to bring the tree down, then spiked wheels run it up
the trunk trimming off the brash (small branches) and cutting the trunk
up into standard timber lengths as it goes, until it reaches the crown
which is discarded. An entire conifer can be processed easily within a
minute, probably around half a minute, though I've never timed one. The
harvesting machines were initially so expensive that they were kept
running 24/7 by shift drivers, who lived in caravans on site at the
forest. Unfortunately however, these caravans were often abandoned once
a forest had been felled, and left to be destroyed by the elements, and
can be be seen as eyesores visible from miles away for years afterwards.

There is, I'm afraid, rather a lot of junking of old machinery and
fencing in the Scottish countryside, as well as the usual problem of
people throwing litter out of their vehicles.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk