North Yorkshire Moors Railway General Discussion

One wonders if Natural England enforced changes in land management led to this summer's massive wild fire on the moors or at the very least made it much worse than it would otherwise been. Unfortunately these rewilding enthusiasts are in the ascendancy and won't be happy until the landscapes of the Dales and Moors that people love are replaced by scrubland and unmanaged forest, which probably hasn't existed since William the Conqueror harried the North.
The fact that the line side vegetation has been managed with no significant harm to the environment for in excess of 180 years means nothing to them, nor the fact that it has been regularly managed will have benefited some species.
The only action available is political lobbying which all railways should encourage their members to participate in.

Sawdust.

 

Meanwhile in Italy, restored historic passenger vehicles dating back to the 1930s have and are being restored for use on tourist trains on the mainline (including a sleeper train which operates internationally). Also often venturing onto closed lines which are kept in operable condition, with less vegetation growing in the four foot, than many NR lines do.
Again over regulation can be lobbied against.

Sawdust.

 

There's already some heavyweight pressure from other landowners arguing strongly that traditional practices, such as controlled burning to create fire breaks would have resulted in a far less devastating outcome.

 

I dont think the SSSI has, at least not since the NMYR started . Fen Bog is designated separately as a site of European Special Scientic Interest. My understanding is that when the railway closed the current extent of the SSSI regime was created. It was not expected that the line would re-open so we have the absurd result that even the trackbed has SSSI status. Unfortunately there is no statutory process to de-designate an SSSI. You're right that Natural England have amazing powers.

 

Previously it was successfully argued that the lineside was being kept in the same condition it was in when the railway was closed. I'm guessing that no longer satisfies the present zealots preventing growth across the country.

Sawdust.

 

Has Natural England actually exercised those powers with regard to the NYMR or is it yet another case of this is what is said and this is what we must do? I've no experience of Natural England but I found that the likes of the Environment Agency has many powers but took a practical approach to things when I had dealings with them.

 

From Grok AI;

### Right of Appeal for SSSI Management

Yes, there has long been a statutory right of appeal in England concerning the management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), including decisions related to Newtondale (designated 1955) and Beck Hole (designated 1960). This right applies to owners, occupiers, or consent holders who disagree with Natural England's (or its predecessors') management notices, refusals of consent for activities, or modifications to consents that could impact the site's features. Appeals are typically made to the Secretary of State (now handled by the Planning Inspectorate) within two months of the decision.

#### Key Historical and Legal Context
- **Origins and Evolution**: The right emerged under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which enabled early SSSI notifications and provided for objections or reviews of management requirements. It was strengthened by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, allowing appeals against management notices served to enforce protective measures. The Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Appeals) Regulations 2009 formalized the procedure, covering appeals on management notices (e.g., requiring restorative works) and consent decisions, with provisions for hearings or written representations.
- **Process**: Grounds for appeal include claims that the notice is unreasonable, that another party should bear responsibility, or that compensation is due for compliance costs. Successful appeals can lead to notice revocation, modification, or awards.

#### Application to These Sites
While no specific appeals related to Newtondale or Beck Hole management appear in public records (e.g., no documented cases of challenges to lineside or woodland management along the NYMR), the general right would apply to any disputes over their upkeep, such as vegetation control or habitat restoration. For instance, in 2019, a landowner was prosecuted for damaging Newtondale SSSI without appealing the enforcement, resulting in a fine rather than a contested management decision. The North Yorkshire Moors Railway coordinates with Natural England on lineside management within these SSSIs under consented operations, reducing the likelihood of appeals, but the right remains available if disputes arise.

For full details on appealing, see GOV.UK guidance on SSSI appeals.

End of AI
Plenty of law there for Lineisclear to get stuck into.
Sawdust.

 

I do remember the late Ken Kitching was interviewed under caution by the environment agency (or was it the National Rivers authority) after civil engineering work in Newtondale made the water in the beck became clouded with mud, when he was CEO.

Sawdust.

 

Yes. There is a formal assent permitting specified activities.

 

When does that date from and did it replace a previous assent?

Sawdust.

 

The irony is Derek Hanson used to have working parties of Conservation Volunteers (www.tcv.org.uk) on the railway a few times a year to help him maintain walls and fences and of course perform controlled burning during the appropriate times of the year. A task which Derek otherwise undertook almost single-handed.

Sawdust.

 

A change of subject….

Locomotion No 1 is coming to the NYMR, and operating passenger rides between Pickering and New Bridge on 25-26, 28-29 October, 1-2, 4-5 and 8-9 November at £10 per ride. See the NYMR website for further information.

 

I don’t have a copy of the current assent which I understand is updated from time to time. I suggest one of the recent successes has been the emergence of a strong well supported volunteer lineside conservation team. It’s helped restore good relations after the trauma of previous inappropriate work that very nearly led to a substantial fine.

 

What rewilding has been occuring near to the NYMR, on what scale and how has it been detrimental to the railway (or the terrain's ability to withstand wildfires)?

The databases I could quickly find online only suggest 4-5 sites anywhere remotely close to the railway, ranging in size from 0.5 to 2 acres.

 

Moorland management not including controlled burning is not the same as rewilding…

 

A large portion on the national park owned moor in newton dale has been left to go wild, it is covered in bracken, which when dead in spring is very flammable, small trees, which will take many years to grow and shade out the bracken, if they are not burnt first, no fire breaks in it that I can see, a small area of bracken cut this year, not sure who organised that. The area of forestry cleared just north of Levisham has not been replanted and is a mass of over crowded silver birch trees. I beleive is planned to just leave it to do what ever it wants in terms of vegetation, although having previously been solid coniferous plantation it will impact what will grow there in future.
Years of controlled management of the moors are being disregarded by people who think they know better, being connected to the local farmers in the area I know there is a lot of bad feeling about how this summers fire was initially managed and able to spread so far.

 

I've been away for a few days, so I'm late in rejoining the party, as it were, and the discussion has moved on a lot - but I think that if one looks at the overall picture there are some unifying themes. Underlying a lot of the criticism here is the fact that @Lineisclear is quite a messianic proponent of the need for the NYMR to change its business model, because he sees the traditional heritage railway business model as being no longer applicable in the modern world. It doesn't seem to be a widely shared belief with others ~(in fact, with virtual no-one else who posts on here, but he is definitely an evangelical prophet - probably an admirer of Mrs Thatcher too, in that he shares the belief of being not for changing! What he doesn't seem to recognise is that the process of businesses changing over time is a process of evolution and is not normally one of revolution. Getting him to understand that his views tend to be on the extreme side, and to soften them, would be a good start - an enthusiastic advocate of what might be reasonable and achievable would be far more valuable than someone who provokes a lot of antagonism and seems implacable in their belief that much of what has been done to build the NYMR is no longer relevant! For example, running to Whitby was a big change, but surely it now has to be recognised that it has changed the character of the NYMR and that actually too much of the "good" aspects of being a heritage railway are being lost. In a nutshell, the NYMR is becoming less of a heritage railway and more of a transport system, and that needs to be reversed. As a heritage railway it was popular - and still is, when it holds heritage events, but it has cut back on many of them - and had much to offer, but now it needs to go back and restore that offering and build on it, otherwise it will shrink to offering little more than a couple of round trips to Whitby per day - and I don't think it could survive doing that; or if it does it will be in a greatly diminished form. In other words, the heritage railway model is still valid, but needs tweaks - not radical changes.

The issues concerning the lineside are another subject, but need to be regarded as part of the bigger offering. At the moment, the lineside vegetation is a hindrance. What must happen is that the NYMR must re-establish the right to maintain its corridor to reduce fire risks, at least to a reasonable degree. That is in the interests of the railway, its employees and the surrounding landowners. Once that has been done, the next step must be to start looking at
ways of monetising the railway's contribution to looking after its environment - at the moment there's a lot of effort going into butterfly surveys, building adder shelters and so on, but little return coming from it that I can see - yet it represents a potentially invaluable asset waiting to be exploited.

Another underlying theme, I feel, is that of management. Possibly, the cult of secrecy that has built up in recent years is being broken down - slowly! - but it seems to me that there are too many problem areas and we have a CEO at leading it who is inexperienced and trying to find a path through a series of quagmires. It's too late now to say that the wrong choice of candidate was made, but really the PLC Board needs to have a lot more diversity in appropriate areas. For example ~I do not see anyone there who can advise on dealings with local landowners or Natural England, and that should surely be a key role?

I could go on - we've heard talk of the railway becoming more of a "living museum", but who is leading on that, and what is being done? Who is looking at the catering options at Directorial level and formulating a plan for upgrading them to make them both more saleable and profitable? I can't see anyone o the PLC Board with that sort of expertise, yet it is a key area, but more importantly I can't see anyone even starting to think it needs to be addressed. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to see thoughts of the Pullman dining train being phased out as "more trouble that it's worth" , as that seems to be the current way of dealing with anything that perhaps needs a bit of fixing.

Really, I come back to the point that ~I think we have a CEO who is inexperienced and out of her depth, and is being asked - and expected - to do far too much, without meaningful support . A lot more helps is needed from a PLC Board that has been reconstructed to provide real help and support in areas that are needed but currently doesn't exist.












nutshell,

 

I think even the most brilliant GM and team would've had a hard time dealing with an almost total steam ban throughout most of the season.
It really has been very unfortunate.

Was Chris Price's talk of a basic timetable, in fact, an admission that drastic action was needed to prevent a major financial crisis?

 

In richer times high fire risk saw diesel piloting of trains through the Levisham - Goathland section, would that have been an acceptable solution? Or was it the case that there were inadequate resources to do that? One does wonder if the steam ban was quite handy cover in some part.

Sawdust.

 

Part of the reason for moorland rewilding is to slow the flow of water from the moors, and hopefully prevent the flooding which has struck Pickering previously. Worth bearing in mind in the context of increased events of heavy rainfall. Some interesting slides here: Presentation title