Felling a London Plane

[wizer]

Does it really need to be cut down?

Did you read the report??

 

[Argee]

You could also try Charles Willment (trades as "Treespanner") at Lingfield/Dormansland. He had some London Plane planks last year that were simply massive and he does operate his own mobile planker. PM me if you want his mobile number.

Ray

 

[Benchwayze]

Does it really need to be cut down?

Did you read the report??

I think it's had it.

Might even need treatment before being put into store!
8)

John

 

[Offcut]

The tomogram is very misleading because of the sensor positions being either side of a butress - giving the impression of less wood. It is also doing a large amount of averaging probably on the wrong side.

I think it need to be re-analysed with far more sensors. The % of solid wood on the outside if far greater the the graph indicated just by looking at the pictures.

The strength of the tree is on the outer rim - if this was a steel pipe then I would see no issue with having a hollow core.

I think the tomogram should also be taken as close to ground level as possible and then stages up the trunk to give a better picture.

I think the reason for the ground cavity is that the roots are close to surface level meaning the base of the tree is not very deep.

Just my thoughs though

 

[wizer]

Those houses behind it are probably the most expensive in the country. If the tree goes over, someone's going to be very unhappy. I rather think this has been a large consideration in the decision to fell it. It appears too much if a risk to keep it just for the sake of saving a tree.

 

[miles_hot]

As many have said - if there's any left over after you've stored your stash, especially burls etc I'd be happy to help out

Miles

 

[eoinsgaff]

Try to plank the timber to a single thickness. I think 50mm is a good option. The first time I did it I tried a few thicknesses to cover all bases and it made the stacking more difficult.

Try to set up level 'supports' on the ground at about 450mm centres to keep the wood up off the wet surface. I had to lay a few corses of bricks the first time as the platform wasn't level. Other wise a few timbers should suffice.

The most important thing is to paint the end grain with a heavy coat (or coats) of water proof paint. Oil paint is common but I've heard of people using a glue mix. The end grain will also soak the paint to some extent so be generous and keep an eye on it for the first few weeks. Moisture is lost quickest here and the uneven drying causes significant checking.

When stacked and stickered, the top must be loaded somehow. This holds the wood flat and helps to prevent cupping, bending etc. Heavy weights are the common solution - concrete blocks, steel beam etc. I used tie-bars at each support to pull down a steel 'soldier' and keep the timber loaded. Its neat and tidy but may be regarded as over kill. I had the bars and soldiers at hand.

I hope this helps. Its a few pointers I learnt from mistakes I made myself.

Eoin

 

[Mreagleeyes]

Try to plank the timber to a single thickness. I think 50mm is a good option. The first time I did it I tried a few thicknesses to cover all bases and it made the stacking more difficult.

Try to set up level 'supports' on the ground at about 450mm centres to keep the wood up off the wet surface. I had to lay a few corses of bricks the first time as the platform wasn't level. Other wise a few timbers should suffice.

The most important thing is to paint the end grain with a heavy coat (or coats) of water proof paint. Oil paint is common but I've heard of people using a glue mix. The end grain will also soak the paint to some extent so be generous and keep an eye on it for the first few weeks. Moisture is lost quickest here and the uneven drying causes significant checking.

When stacked and stickered, the top must be loaded somehow. This holds the wood flat and helps to prevent cupping, bending etc. Heavy weights are the common solution - concrete blocks, steel beam etc. I used tie-bars at each support to pull down a steel 'soldier' and keep the timber loaded. Its neat and tidy but may be regarded as over kill. I had the bars and soldiers at hand.

I hope this helps. Its a few pointers I learnt from mistakes I made myself.

Eoin

Excellent. All the info I need. I have an area in mind for stacking behind an ISO container that will keep the driving rain away.
Good idea on one thickness, I was going to ask what would be a good thickness, 50mm seems about right.
I'll load the timber down with some bags of concrete that can go hard in the rain and should be heavy enough.

Thanks again guys.

 

[Offcut]

no offense wizer but the value of the property behind the tree should have no bearing on the report and decision to fell the tree. If the houses are an issue then a tree surgeon could bring the branches down to a height where it is unlikely to fall onto the houses. I was really more getting at the report and the decision to fell a tree that looks to be ok – most old trees suffer from rot or softening within the core – this seems to be quite normal. Just seems a shame to fell it when it has been there probably longer than most of us.

 

[Jason Pettitt]

I gotta say I think I agree with the conclusion of the report - but not how it gets there (not that I'm any kind of authority.) There's nothing significant about an old tree having 70% dysfunctional wood when 90% of the wood in a tree is dead and serves no structural or biological function - other than to rot and feed fungi. And it's no more a surprise to find fungi or rot on a tree than follicle mites or stomach bacteria in a person - living organisms simply don't exist in isolation. Neither is there any reason to think that a tree shouldn't have rodents or insects making holes around the bottom.

There are old trees aplenty that are hollow and have gaping holes down the sides that are in rude health and in no particular danger of coming down or damaging people and property. It's a little worrying that similar reports to this might condemn them.

What I think might concern me with this tree is that while hollow cylinders are inherently strong structures, even with gaping holes in the sides, that's not what you have here. What you see is one flat 'side' of good wood from ~3 to ~8 on the tomogram and a few opposing buttresses. The 'side' of good wood doesn't look to me to be sufficiently cylindrical to give it structural strength.

If there was sound wood from say 3 - 10 I'd have no worries about this tree which otherwise seems to be in good nick.

 

[Mreagleeyes]

If that tree is where I think it is I walk past it regularly on the way to one of my regular jobs. Any idea when the work might be done so I can keep an eye out? Selfishly, I'd love to see a big planker at work.

It's not for a few months, still need to inform everyone from the Police to the newspaper shop!!!.
I'll get back on here when I have decided on what will become of the timber. I'm also thinking about creating large block furniture.
We shall see.

 

[Mreagleeyes]

no offense wizer but the value of the property behind the tree should have no bearing on the report and decision to fell the tree. If the houses are an issue then a tree surgeon could bring the branches down to a height where it is unlikely to fall onto the houses. I was really more getting at the report and the decision to fell a tree that looks to be ok – most old trees suffer from rot or softening within the core – this seems to be quite normal. Just seems a shame to fell it when it has been there probably longer than most of us.

I agree with the trees staying up but from the report and what I've heard from the guy that did the survey the trunk is basically just a bark outer ring and failing on one side.
I'm going down sometime over the weekend and will get some pictures taken.