North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

Thank you.

As with everything, there is a balance to be had. I'm talking about the appearence of the trackbed, not the lineside. As with roadside verges, railway linesides are an absolute haven for wildlife, because they are (largely) undisturbed by humans. So I am all for their remaining undisturbed. (Unfortunately, many councils don't seem to have made the connection between cost-saving and being wildlife friendly, so continue to blitz roadside verges with mowers).

As I'm sure you'll agree, I don't agree.

 

Also a significant tripping hazard to those who need to be trackside.
The weeds also damage the underbody equipment on the Tamper and Ballast Regulator.

 

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but in the current weather isn't there a tension between the benefits to wildlife of "undisturbed" lineside and the risk to steam haulage if the lineside hasn't been maintained in something approaching the 'old-fashioned' manner?

Didn't the NYMR get a grant of some kind towards work benefitting wildlife? It would be amazingly counter productive if that work then made it more difficult for the railway to run steam trains.

 

I think there is a lot more to "good for wildlife" than just "let the verges grow in an undisturbed way". Left to its own devices, you would get one particular habitat like that (a kind of low scrubby bush) but it isn't necessarily the most species rich, nor a particularly rare habitat.

The wider point about tension between managing the line side for wildlife, and managing it for trains might be true, but I think you could do both. A lot depends on methods, but in principle a tight-cropped line side could encourage certain species (such as reptiles) while also minimising fire risk. The issue would come down to (human) resources to manage things that way; sending along a flail or a weed killing train is probably not going to "cut it" (pun intended) in wildlife terms but might be the low-resource way to manage things if the primary desire is to keep the trains running.

Tom

 

But for a substantial proportion of the NYMR, where the lineside (and bizarrely even the trackbed) is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, the railway's options are limited by what Natural England, as guardians of the SSSI, will permit.

 

There is a huge misunderstanding as to what 'managing for wildlife' means, the clue is in the name - you continue to manage, but with wildlife in mind.
Railtrack's proclamation about 'linear nature reserves' at the same time as withdrawing all vegetation management, has probably done a lot of damage here and clouded opinion. A lineside managed for wildlife still requires cutting back, but maybe at different times of the year to previously. A healthy lineside that is ecologically rich should in theory be alive, not dead and therefore have a lower fire load.
However, I have had similar conversations with managers at work about adjusting grounds maintenance regimes and their eyes light up and the next question is 'how much money can we save'. That is completely missing the point and will end up with even bigger bills further down the line.
Living alongside wildlife is just that, finding ways to mutually and beneficially co-exist, it's not an 'either / or'.

 

Looking at the state of the NYMRs line at the moment surely the vegetation is going to make for very slippery conditions when it eventually rains.
It will be like trying to gain adhesion in vegetable soup. Good luck with Repton in that.

 

Looks like the Q6 has been for a spin on the Pickering turntable, now facing North..

 

NYMR participates in the Wild Newtondale and Linking Levisham landscape projects as well as working with the Forestry England Pifelhead Wood felling access plan, obviously these have lineside impact.

 

The lineside team are doing a fantastic job on maintaining the lineside to the benefit of wildlife whist minimising the risk of lineside fires - hardly counter-productive, and don’t know why you thought so.

A key risk is beyond the lineside, particularly caused by bracken which dies down each year over winter and then if there is a dry spring (as this year, I understand the driest on record) it becomes tinder dry particularly before the green shoots have come through. I’m no expert but wonder if in BR days the land beyond the fence was more managed eg more sheep to stop the bracken spreading.

 

The question might be asked whether the NYMR's participation in those schemes results in any financial benefit to the railway, or is it just "good neighbourliness"?

 

I thought so because the two things are not mutually inclusive. While not exactly a 'scorched earth' policy, the maintenance of the lineside in the steam age was quite thorough in the cutting back of lineside vegetation - more so than is the case on many (most?) preserved lines today (for whatever reason). That surely reduced the risk of lineside fires beyond what is possible today if certain habitats/locations are not treated thus. It is not exactly an either/or, but wherever you start to use a management regime to benefit wildlife which is different to what you would be doing if you were not factoring wildlife into your plan, you cannot de facto be minimising the risk of lineside fires.

 

I think you are conflating a nature corridor and a the enthusiast concept of a green tunnel (in the sense of a line side passing on both sides through dense scrubby woodland, with reduction in views).

I think you can have a nature corridor (i.e. a strip of land with high wildlife value) that is not just "let's allow nature to take over". If you simply stop maintaining ground, you get a rapid takeover of thicket / scrub, which shades the ground and prevents wildflowers from growing. By contrast, if you cut back to a grassy bank, you promote wildflower growth, and that will have a knock-on impact on many insect species. (And wildflower meadows are now some of the most-threatened natural environments, certainly far more threatened than woodland).

That suggests to me that it should be possible to manage the linesides in a way that (by cutting back plants such as bramble, bracken etc, and preventing tree growth) can provide both a valuable wildlife habitat and make the lineside better for trains (reduced fire risk, reduced physical load on cutting / embankment sides, reduced collision risk from overhanging branches, reduced impact of "leaves on the line" etc).

It would be resource-intensive and require environmental knowledge (and enthusiasm) about how best to manage it, but I don't see the two aims as necessarily in opposition. What it does require though is a broader imagination of what constitutes a landscape of high ecological value than just a blanket "trees are good" mantra. (And the even more dangerous corollary, that therefore "cutting down trees is bad").

Tom

 

Doubt it as the Turntable looks still to be broken with a stop sign on the approach track.

 

I don't think that green tunnels are necessarily cursed by the scrubby woodland you point to, with silver birch etc. muscling their way in and creating new heathland on the former trackbed - I've travelled more than a few which have simply been the result of existing woodland being allowed to grow to the point where views are completely removed.

The problem, also seen on the motorways and main line network, is that "nature corridor" and "left to run wild" are conflated, neglecting the role of humans in creating and maintaining the natural landscape we're used to.

 

Indeed, it is that conflation of “nature corridor” and “left to run wild” that I think is wrong, not least in a railway context.

Tom

 

I seem to remember that the cutting to the south of the (now disconnected at the station end) run round loop was featured on a TV programme as a result of the wildflowers growing there. I wonder if they still do, or has "wilder nature" taken over whilst attention has focused on other areas?

 

It’s been facing this way since it came back from Shildon

 

Thanks, first time I had seen it on webcam. Also was making a rather strange noise ‘bearing’? Replaced by the Brush type 4 on the remainder of its duties.