Planilla de costos y de relaciones beneficio/costo 5.5 Conclusiones

How lived ideologies of ‘the rural idyll’ and ‘a peaceful and quiet place’ presented a dialogical tension for participants can be seen in talk around the railway’s ‘disruptiveness’. Lived ideologies emphasised the environmental conditions associated with railways as a significant aspect of ‘place’ in terms of ‘disruption’. However, as ‘place’ meanings were fluid and dialogical, railways were negotiated within the ‘lived ideologies’ of ‘the rural idyll’ and ‘a peaceful and quiet place’ within participants’ talk.

To give a more detailed account of this negotiation, when I asked more direct questions specifically related to environmental conditions associated with railways (e.g. vibration, noise, visual intrusion), some participants presented the railway as only noticeable at times of day when everything else was “quiet”. Below are some examples from interviews with Kerry, Catherine, and Allen and Cheryl.

Excerpt 36

Kerry: I only notice it when I’m in bed because everything’s quiet, early morning

or Saturday mornings cos I’m obviously still in bed and its only if I’m awake

Excerpt 37

Catherine: Yeah you can, normally, you can’t when you’re downstairs because

we’ve got solid floors, you can upstairs if you’re lying on the bed or occasionally if there’s a big one and you just standing on the floor you can feel vibrations there but only if you’re not doing anything, it’s not like, I only notice it when I’m sat on the bed really but apart from that we don’t really get much, certainly because of the solid floor we don’t feel anything downstairs, these are concrete down here and they are only floorboards upstairs so

Excerpt 38

Allen: …probably more late at night when everything’s a lot quieter, less cars

143 stuff like that when it’s sort of quiet areas that you can sort of notice there’s a train going past and telly’s not on as loud, you’re not doing other things

The disruptiveness of the railway is minimised in that it is “only” “occasionally” experienced when participants are not doing other activities or when they are lying in bed late at night or at weekends. This minimised the railway’s significance within their place of residence which counters dominant discourses of railways as a ‘disruptive’ aspect of ‘place’. Allen listed all the other noises, which worked to provide further support for only noticing the trains when “everything’s a lot quieter”. The environmental conditions are presented as insignificant and as part of a wider ‘soundscape’ of place, situated within the wider context of everyday activities.

However, two activities associated with living alongside railways – freight/goods trains and railway maintenance work – were presented very differently and singled out as particularly ‘disruptive’. “Quiet” featured more prominently in talk about railways than “peaceful”, perhaps due to its meaning being more directly linked to the acoustic dimension of places. The two railways activities are now discussed in turn. I understand environmental conditions as dialogical in that the railway activities were both ‘disruptive’ and ‘undisruptive’ as participants shifted their positioning in relation to ‘place’.

The excerpts below are from later points in the interview once participants had largely established where they lived as ‘good’, ‘nice’, ‘quiet’, ‘peaceful’, ‘spacious’ and so on. In the excerpt below, I ask Jim about the railway for the first time and he focused specifically on freight traffic.

Excerpt 39

Jenna: Yeah so what’s the railway like

Jim: Now since they’ve done whatever they’ve done to the lines I don’t know

what it was, I don’t know if they’ve changed them or it’s I’d say about eighty per cent quieter, you still get the odd one or two trains, usually goods trains that make a row, and the windows are rattling but now you know, before, Sunday night, early Monday morning, you know like Sunday night, early Monday

144 morning, used to get four or five of them and either way the flat was rattling, shaking

Jenna: Are these goods trains sorry

Jim: Yeah the goods trains yeah

Jenna: Right did there used to be more of them

Jim: Yeah I don’t know if there was more, or since they’ve had the lines its

gone quieter because in the middle of the night you don’t hear them as much, you might just get the odd one or two that you hear but they don’t wake you up or anything

Jenna: So can you hear it

Jim: Yeah usually they are pretty long, I mean, once I counted the carriages of one and I think it was thirty, you know, you can imagine metal containers on them, the ground rubbles and everything but since they’ve done whatever they’ve done to the line its nowhere near as loud as it used to be

The significant event that Jim drew upon to articulate his experiences of living alongside the railway was the improvement works carried out on the lines. The improvement works were presented as changing the railway’s ‘disruptiveness’ for the better. However Jim emphasised the ‘disruptiveness’ of the goods trains in that they “make a row” through the night, “the flat was rattling, shaking”, and “the ground rumbles and everything”. His talk here also referred to both the past and the present, which enabled a more ‘disruptive’ account to be created. The freight trains were emphasised further in his recollection of once counting the number of carriages, which portrayed the passing of a freight train as a significant and enduring event. His talk problematised the railways presence in his residential environment as he portrayed a very ‘disruptive’ account of his sensory experience. However, Jim minimised the railways’ ‘disruptiveness’ as since improvement work has been carried out on the lines, the railway was “about eighty per cent quieter”, so “you don’t hear them as much” and it’s “nowhere near as loud as it used to be”. Quantifying discourse by giving a percentage strengthened Jim’s claim that the railway is quieter now than in previous times. Although the railway is presented as less problematic than it was prior to the improvements, it is still recognised as ‘disruptive’ in that Jim can

145 still hear the “odd one or two trains” which “make a row”.

Like Jim, Margaret, who had lived in her house near a railway since the 1970s, she also identified goods trains, and specifically the mail train, as being ‘disruptive’ in the past, but now passenger trains now “whizz” by, which portrayed railways as less ‘disruptive’.

Excerpt 40

Jenna: So have you noticed sort of, changes over the years to the railway

Margaret: Well yeah it’s far better even though the train, it just whizzes past

now, even with, I don’t even notice at night time, a lot of the time I fall asleep down here anyway I don’t even notice, they stopped the mail trains as well you see, that used to tear past, you always knew when that was going past

Throughout her interview, Margaret talked often about the past, having lived in her property a long time. She constructed the railway as “far better”, which appeared to imply that the railway was perhaps more ‘disruptive’ in the past. When physical aspects of the railway appear to have changed over time, such structural change enabled participants to account for their continued residence alongside the railway. Both Margaret and Jim positioned themselves as informed and knowledgeable about the railway in that their experiences are embedded within their length of residence in ‘place’.

Jim and Margaret’s talk around the passing trains involved temporality. The railway was portrayed as more ‘disruptive’ in the past that it is presently. Yet the past and the present were merged in talk about environmental conditions in that “the ground rubbles” (Jim) and trains “whiz” past (Margaret). In terms of positioning, earlier in her interview, Margaret positioned herself within the structural constraints of social housing in coming to live alongside railways. Jim also positioned himself as constrained due to his health and no longer being able to work. Being constrained perhaps enabled a more ‘disruptive’ account of railways to be presented in comparison to those who positioned themselves as choosing ‘place’. However, how participants positioned themselves shifted where they attributed greater agency towards themselves in adapting to

146 railways over time (see Chapter Eight). Justifying continued residency by constructing railways as better now than in the past appeared to be influenced by a speaker’s position of agency.

For those who chose ‘place’ within the structural constraints of buying a property (e.g. price range), presenting railways as ‘disruptive’ appeared to create ‘trouble’ for ‘identity’. Connor talked about his decision to buy his property next to the railway, and identified the freight trains as being a specific concern for him at the time of purchase.

Excerpt 41

Connor: …the only one, the only concern was the what do you call it, like

freight and they’re really early hours and they do make a hell of a row, the screeching and the clanging, what is it, they go through very slowly and then they’ll stop and then they’ll pick up again but been here eight years and I couldn’t tell you when they come on a regular basis now, you just get used to it yeah

Freight as his “only concern” appeared tocontradict his previous account of the railway as “of no concern” in buying his property (see Section 6.4). This perhaps provides an example of the inconsistency, fragmentation and contradiction within talk (Edley, 2001). However, Connor appeared to minimise the impact of freight by describing how over time “you just get used to it”, which negotiated his agency in terms of choosing to live where he does. By presenting the railway as something which “you just get used to”, Connor acknowledged the disruptiveness of the railway’s presence in his residential environment. The freight as the “only” concern in deciding to buy his property presented the railway as a significant feature of ‘place’, but as something negotiable within the constraints of buying a property.

Alongside freight trains, railway maintenance work was presented as particularly ‘disruptive’ in that it was often carried out on an infrequent basis and occurred during the night.

147

Donna: We love it, we love it, it’s very peaceful, lovely neighbours, even the

trains you know, we’ve got used to them, we don’t, the only thing that bothers us is when they are working on the railway and they don’t even have the decency to let us know but other than that no, it’s a nice, it’s a lovely area, very peaceful

Throughout her interview, Donna talked about “lov[ing]” where she lives, which portrayed an emotional relationship with ‘place’. “We love it” is powerful and difficult to challenge or counter with alternative explanations of living somewhere. Alongside her prominent use of ‘a quiet and peaceful place’, “love” works to disclaim the negative attribute in relation to ‘other’: “the trains”. Railway maintenance work, when “they don’t even have the decency to let us know” is highlighted as disrupting her “peaceful” place. Her extreme case formulation of the “only thing that bothers us” singles out maintenance work as ‘disruptive’. The railway activity moves from an object (the railway) to people (“they”), and thus the agency for disruption is attributed towards other people, which appeared to make it easier to complain about.

In comparison, other participants’ accounts of railway maintenance work were more negative. I have included excerpts from Roxanne’s interview below where she was critical of the maintenance work carried out during the night.

Excerpt 43

Roxanne: The only other thing that winds me up is when you’ve got the

workmen out there, early hours of the morning

Jenna: The sort of maintenance

Roxanne: Yeah they’re out there like three o’clock in the morning banging and

that winds you up, especially cos I was working nights then right ok, so when I come home, it wasn’t too bad cos obviously in the day I was asleep anyway but when I wasn’t on my nights or when I was due for a night shift, and I’d try get some sleep they’d be banging and shouting.

Roxanne wanted to talk about the railway maintenance work, which is presented as the “only other thing” which “winds her up”. For Roxanne, the

148 “shouting and banging” disrupted her sleep, which was emphasised through her positioning as a shift worker. Again she talked simultaneously about the past and the present in that she no longer does shift work but still, the ‘disruption’ during the early hours of the morning “winds her up”. Unlike other participants talk around the railway maintenance (see Excerpt 42), Roxanne did not appear to minimise the railway’s ‘disruptiveness’ and positioned herself as ‘annoyed’, a term which she used herself to describe her feelings about the railway elsewhere in her interview. Being annoyed about the railway appeared to be supported by how Roxanne positioned herself as constrained in relation to ‘place’. Presenting the railway as ‘disruptive’ seemed to enable Roxanne to convey agency in relation to a ‘place’ that she was offered by the council.

Roxanne also presented a negative account of ‘place’ in talk around other aspects of the railway. Roxanne’s property was adjacent to a railway junction where rail traffic stopped at the lights to wait for a clear passing.

Excerpt 44

Jenna: The lights?

Roxanne: For the trains so they actually stop right outside mine, not good when you’re sunbathing in summer no

Jenna: What do you feel like sort of using your garden?

Roxanne: The views?

Jenna: Well yeah I don’t know how you use it?

Roxanne: I’ve put them conifers down the bottom, I put them all across the

bottom so you know to hide them, privacy, it does wind you up, the privacy

Being able to see the railway, and vice versa (people on the train being able to see Roxanne in her garden) was portrayed as intrusive in that it was “not good when you’re sunbathing in the summer”. Even though Roxanne was constrained in relation to ‘place’, where she lives still has implications for her ‘identity’ in that she continues to reside there. Planting trees (“I’ve put them conifers down the bottom”) conveyed her agency in that she had taken action to manage the disruptiveness of the railway. For Roxanne, the railway invaded her privacy therefore the trees or greenery functioned as a ‘barrier’ between her

149 garden and the railway. Railways were portrayed as significant by other participants in terms of being a visual intrusion (see Section 6.4). Participants who lived in places where the railway was ‘out of sight’ presented this scenario as favourable. Unlike where Roxanne lived, the railway alongside Donna’s property was in a cutting and thus out of sight (see Excerpts 45 and 46 below).

Excerpt 45

Donna: Yeah it wouldn’t bother me to move to another railway line, we’ve,

we’ve got quite a long back garden so were quite, we’re not built on top of it, we’ve got quite a big back garden which probably helps and we’ve got a few, we’ve got fruit trees all the down the bottom of the garden so we can’t see anything so that’s probably a plus

Jenna: Yeah so the, you’ve sort of got greenery Donna: Yeah so you can’t see the railway at all

Excerpt 46

Jenna: So is the railway line lower?

Donna: It is lower yeah, there’s all the fruit trees at the bottom and the railway,

we’ve got the fence at the end of the garden, we’ve got the fruit trees then the fence behind them, then there’s a slight gap, then another railway fence, and then there’s a drop so its sunken down a bit the railway line which is better

In the excerpts above, Donna presented the railway as better as it is out of view. The distance between her property and the railway due to her “big back garden”also lessened the railway’s presence in her place of residence. Her list of the different features of her garden – the fruit trees, the fence, the drop – work to distance and emphasise the separation of the railway from her property. At the same time, ‘the rural idyll’ is arguably incorporated in that she has space and a large garden with fruit trees and greenery. Donna presented where she lives within this ‘lived ideology’, which appeared to counter the centrifugal force of the railway.

Other participants talked about situations where trees or greenery were removed by the various authorities (local council or Network Rail), which made

150 the railway more visible to them. Where trees/greenery had been cut back, participants’ talked about how the trees were a positive and wanted aspect of ‘place’.

Excerpt 47

Jenna: Yeah sometimes the greenery, some people like it there

Jim: Yeah I’m like that you know, I mean, the bloke next door he nearly cried,

they’ve took the trees down but now he’s not bothered about it now cos what me and him were going to do, we were going to plant some bushes again on this side you know, he said, oh know we might as well leave it, as time went on, just let it grow and see what happens well it’s like a chain link fence if you understand, so you can see right through the to the railway line

Jim positioned himself as a person who likes trees and greenery but also deflected his talk to “the bloke next door” who was very upset (”he nearly cried”). In the same way as Roxanne, he also attributed agency to himself and the neighbour in that they were going to plant some bushes in the attempt to make up for their ‘loss’. What is interesting is that the absence of the trees appears ‘disruptive’, as the resulting effects are that Jim “can see right through