The Guardian: "Millions of trees at risk in secretive Network Rail felling programme"

[The Stationmaster]

The old photos are there to show that there's nothing to the "it's always been like that" line which some people have taken. A different world and a different railway may or may not affect how much worth it is to return it to that state but they do demonstrate that the lineside jungle is a mostly recent(ish) phenomena, that cutting it down isn't a change to how something's been for an awful long time. It's surprising how quickly changes to growth can get accepted as normal, even happens when I cut some stuff back in the garden to how it was just a couple of years ago ("surely it hasn't grown that much, but must've done if I can only now see things behind it I remember seeing two years before.")

 

And signals need to be seen now and did 50 years ago, even if they're different signals.

 

Quite interesting your latter comment.  Some years back I did some ISA (Independent Safety Assessment) on some new signals intended to be used on the WCML and although I was there to ensure correct methods etc were used I couldn't but help noticing that due to the slightly unusual shade of the yellow aspect if it was seen through leaves blowing about in the wind it appeared to be a very good imitation of BR colour light signal green.

 

And I do know of one place where a banner repeater has been erected in recent years despite the signal it relates to once having excellent sighting - now obscured by lineside foliage.

[caradoc]

It may be worth digging out the original Guardian piece, it was actually a balanced piece of journalism in which Network Rail were given every opportunity to give their side of the story. This thread though contains more than a few for whom the word "gammon" seems to have been coined given that the combination of "Guardian", "Friends of the Earth" and similar triggers have resulted in an intemperate reaction.

 

As to uploading old photos, interesting but irrelevant. It was a different world fifty or sixty years ago. Different railway too.

 

Sorry but I do not understand use of the word gammon in this context. Could you clarify please ?

[The Stationmaster]

Sorry but I do not understand use of the word gammon in this context. Could you clarify please ?

 

This Guarniad and independent articles would appear to give one meaning of it as some sort of insult used by left wing inclined characters although there are older meanings as well

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/18/politician-gammon-racist-stupid-steven-poole

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/gammon-left-wing-political-insult-twitter-racism-debate-right-charles-dickens-a8352281.html

 

It also appears to be linked to some other quasi-political viewpoint in respect of Brexit

 

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsbys-gammon-brexit-backers-dumfounded-1583929

 

Quite what it meant in the context of the post you refer to I haven't got a clue but obviously not as an insult (which is of course against the rules on RMweb)

[hayfield]

It may be worth digging out the original Guardian piece, it was actually a balanced piece of journalism in which Network Rail were given every opportunity to give their side of the story. This thread though contains more than a few for whom the word "gammon" seems to have been coined given that the combination of "Guardian", "Friends of the Earth" and similar triggers have resulted in an intemperate reaction.

 

As to uploading old photos, interesting but irrelevant. It was a different world fifty or sixty years ago. Different railway too.

 

 

Sorry to disagree with you but the older photos show well kept embankments, its a working railway not an embankment. the photos are very relevant as they show hoe the railway was kept for the 1st 100 years

 

The Guardian's headline was totally overkill and irresponsable, one could even say spreading hate to train companies, why should NR be more helpful to a totally inaccurate piece of lazy reporting from someone who has not even shown a basic understanding or railway matters. As for Friends of the Earth, to justify their existence, they cannot agree with this type of action, but I bet they will be the first to complain if a tree is blocking the line or leaves in the lines affecting the locos traction 

[whart57]

The photographs also show bare fields, low hedgerows and fewer houses. We now have more trees because the denuding of the landscape to supply wood for World Wars is now a tree's lifetime behind us. We also have a society that values natural environments more because we can see they are under threat, and we have spread our housing wider so that the railway has to fit into the environment, not treat its land as its personal empire. I can see that some here have difficulty with that, but that's how our world is different from the 1950s and why public companies - particularly state-owned companies - can't adopt the "my train set, I'll do what I like with it" approach any more.

[Reorte]

The photographs also show bare fields, low hedgerows and fewer houses. We now have more trees because the denuding of the landscape to supply wood for World Wars is now a tree's lifetime behind us. We also have a society that values natural environments more because we can see they are under threat, and we have spread our housing wider so that the railway has to fit into the environment, not treat its land as its personal empire. I can see that some here have difficulty with that, but that's how our world is different from the 1950s and why public companies - particularly state-owned companies - can't adopt the "my train set, I'll do what I like with it" approach any more.

Value the natural environment more? Certainly doesn't feel like it most of the time (look how many people whinge about "nimbys" every time someone wants to build more obnoxious rubbish over it, desperate for any excuse to turn the country into a more overdeveloped, bland, depressing, unpleasant place). But the railway embankments weren't cut down for the world wars, they've just been allowed to grow up for the first time due to being left for the last few decades. Whilst I sometimes agree with the objection to the "this is my train set, I'll do what I like with it" in this particular case they're doing nothing wrong and doing what they need to. I'm all for more trees but that doesn't mean every single tree anywhere. Better to direct energy at planting more elsewhere than stopping them being cut down here.

[hayfield]

The photographs also show bare fields, low hedgerows and fewer houses. We now have more trees because the denuding of the landscape to supply wood for World Wars is now a tree's lifetime behind us. We also have a society that values natural environments more because we can see they are under threat, and we have spread our housing wider so that the railway has to fit into the environment, not treat its land as its personal empire. I can see that some here have difficulty with that, but that's how our world is different from the 1950s and why public companies - particularly state-owned companies - can't adopt the "my train set, I'll do what I like with it" approach any more.

 

the only thing you are right about from the 50's is its very different now, the railways are far busier. The land the railways own are for the use of the railways (all surplus land is sold off ASAP), linside land is there for the protection and benefit of railway operation, now if it can have a secondary use (wildlife habitat for example) then providing it's compatible with the main purpose (mass transportation) that's an added benefit. Maintaining a specific habitat may be at the expense of some wildlife but will benefit others

 

As for non existent trees being used for the world wars !! Only saplings were growing as the land adjacent to main lines were maintained/ burnt from lineside fires ??

 

As for those living next or near (I have owned a property with the main line at the bottom of the garden) to a railway with the exception of a very few cases moved there knowing there was a railway there. So its no good trying to alter things which are outside their land. Example I moved to my house 2 years ago, quite close there is a small private school, when the children are allowed to play its quite noisy which is a disturbance if I am in the garden, should I complain about the noise ? Of course not

 

If you are worried about wildlife habitats, then farming and roads are far more destructive to habitats, the former especially could do far more with minor effects that the railway could ever do

Edited May 22, 2018 by hayfield

[whart57]

None of the reasons you state are good reasons to complain about the Guardian and other papers reporting the conflict between NR and conservationists. Nor are they arguments justifying taking a sneering attitude to what was actually a piece of balanced journalism. There are two separate arguments here. One is over the actual vegetation management itself and no-one is arguing that NR should not clear vegetation in order to have a safe and efficient railway. The other argument, and one that is generating more heat is over the right of people to challenge what a company like NR are doing. Now I see the fact that NR is being challenged as a heartening sign that free speech and free association are still in good health in this country and the fact that papers like the Guardian report the challenges sympathetically as a sign there is still life in our traditional media. I get the impression others disagree with me and that protesting against NR is ignorance and impertinence.

[Wickham Green]

 

 

And signals need to be seen now and did 50 years ago, even if they're different signals.

It'll be interesting to see how policies develop when the only signals visible to the 'driver' are indicator lights on his panel telling him whether the computer's got the road ............................

[The Stationmaster]

the only thing you are right about from the 50's is its very different now, the railways are far busier. The land the railways own are for the use of the railways (all surplus land is sold off ASAP), linside land is there for the protection and benefit of railway operation, now if it can have a secondary use (wildlife habitat for example) then providing it's compatible with the main purpose (mass transportation) that's an added benefit. Maintaining a specific habitat may be at the expense of some wildlife but will benefit others

 

As for non existent trees being used for the world wars !! Only saplings were growing as the land adjacent to main lines were maintained/ burnt from lineside fires ??

 

As for those living next or near (I have owned a property with the main line at the bottom of the garden) to a railway with the exception of a very few cases moved there knowing there was a railway there. So its no good trying to alter things which are outside their land. Example I moved to my house 2 years ago, quite close there is a small private school, when the children are allowed to play its quite noisy which is a disturbance if I am in the garden, should I complain about the noise ? Of course not

 

If you are worried about wildlife habitats, then farming and roads are far more destructive to habitats, the former especially could do far more with minor effects that the railway could ever do

 

The principal destruction of habitats has indeed been down to agriculture (encouraged by various Govt initiatives) and taking of land for housing (also encouraged by Govt initiatives/pressure, as is happening again now).  trees on the railway lineside are basically a result of the end of steam traction and changes in the way the lineside has been maintained - from maintaining it to not maintaining it.  Thus the whole of the woodland growth adjacent to railways has occurred in  less than a generation and has now become so intrusive that NR has finally bit the bullet and decided to tackle it.

 

The way The Guarniad raised the subject was rather odd as it only raised it over 2 years after the tree and lineside jungle clearance got underway.  Quite why they came that late to the party remains to be explained but presumably it was a consequence of some irate person somewhere raising the matter when the clearance started near his garden?  Quite why that should suddenly lead to NR to be questioned over doing something within its own boundary for safety and operational reasons I still remain at a loss to understand because if the clearance was not done people would be asking, precisely as they reasonably have in the past, why NR is doing nothing about leaf fall and the consequential delay and cancellation of trains.  It seems that it cannot win whatever it does.

 

The Guarniad might have found some basic research of interest and use - including this rather old BBC article -

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/503221.stm

Edited May 22, 2018 by The Stationmaster

[caradoc]

None of the reasons you state are good reasons to complain about the Guardian and other papers reporting the conflict between NR and conservationists. Nor are they arguments justifying taking a sneering attitude to what was actually a piece of balanced journalism. There are two separate arguments here. One is over the actual vegetation management itself and no-one is arguing that NR should not clear vegetation in order to have a safe and efficient railway. The other argument, and one that is generating more heat is over the right of people to challenge what a company like NR are doing. Now I see the fact that NR is being challenged as a heartening sign that free speech and free association are still in good health in this country and the fact that papers like the Guardian report the challenges sympathetically as a sign there is still life in our traditional media. I get the impression others disagree with me and that protesting against NR is ignorance and impertinence.

 

Others do disagree with you, and with the way the Guardian reported the issue, but we live in a free and hopefully tolerant society in which we respect the right of others to hold differing views and to express those views. It is OK for Network Rail's actions to be challenged and for the company to explain its procedures, which it has done. It is also OK for members of RMWeb (some with a lifetime of service and experience in the rail industry) to explain why they support Network Rail's actions.

 

What is not OK is the use of derogatory language to describe anyone with whom they disagree - I note you have not yet clarified what you meant by 'gammon' in your post #297.

[beast66606]

 Now I see the fact that NR is being challenged as a heartening sign that free speech and free association are still in good health in this country and the fact that papers like the Guardian report the challenges sympathetically as a sign there is still life in our traditional media. I get the impression others disagree with me and that protesting against NR is ignorance and impertinence.

 

My bold.

 

Which is it ? free speech or others have to agree with you ? : this is a major bugbear of mine about modern life - "you can say what you want as long as it agrees with my view" - and if it doesn't you will be labelled an "ist"

[Andy Kirkham]

 

 I note you have not yet clarified what you meant by 'gammon' in your post #297.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2018/may/14/is-it-offensive-to-call-ruddy-faced-middle-aged-tories-gammons

[caradoc]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2018/may/14/is-it-offensive-to-call-ruddy-faced-middle-aged-tories-gammons

 

I never thought my face was ruddy - I'd better check in the mirror !

[jbqfc]

i am a bit of a tree hugger but there is more wildlife habitat than trees and woodland 

The thing is that even after the trees have been cut down it will still be a wildlife habitat just a different one 

maybe what network rail should do is seed the banks with wild flower as this would be a great help to the bees and other pollinators 

also they could plant small shrubs  this would give cover for small birds and mammals  

john 

[The Stationmaster]

i am a bit of a tree hugger but there is more wildlife habitat than trees and woodland 

The thing is that even after the trees have been cut down it will still be a wildlife habitat just a different one 

maybe what network rail should do is seed the banks with wild flower as this would be a great help to the bees and other pollinators 

also they could plant small shrubs  this would give cover for small birds and mammals  

john 

 

Exactly - getting rid of the trees and dense undergrowth would, hopefully, help to restore the situation for past lineside flora and fauna which have lost their long established habitats because the profusion of trees, brambles, and other undergrowth have taken over railway embankments and cutting sides.

[jjb1970]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2018/may/14/is-it-offensive-to-call-ruddy-faced-middle-aged-tories-gammons

That's a rather witty and clever article!

[hayfield]

None of the reasons you state are good reasons to complain about the Guardian and other papers reporting the conflict between NR and conservationists. Nor are they arguments justifying taking a sneering attitude to what was actually a piece of balanced journalism. There are two separate arguments here. One is over the actual vegetation management itself and no-one is arguing that NR should not clear vegetation in order to have a safe and efficient railway. The other argument, and one that is generating more heat is over the right of people to challenge what a company like NR are doing. Now I see the fact that NR is being challenged as a heartening sign that free speech and free association are still in good health in this country and the fact that papers like the Guardian report the challenges sympathetically as a sign there is still life in our traditional media. I get the impression others disagree with me and that protesting against NR is ignorance and impertinence.

 

 

What's balanced about the headline they used, neither was the story well researched or the author seemed to know much about both why it was being done or what happened before.

 

If it were the Mail writing this they would be accused about poor journalism and for creating a hate campaign against Network Rail and its contractors, those complaining seem to totally ignore what the power networks are doing under/near their lines and councils actions at the sides of roads, both of which are equally if not more destructive than the railways. Now if the Mail was so irresponsible I would complain about their actions just as I am about the Guardian

 

By all means disagree or have a different point of view, but remember safety of the travelling public is paramount, secondly any possible undermining of the infrastructure must be avoided, lastly delays should where possible be avoided  

[Foulounoux]

I remember back in the 1960s East Kent keeping an old Guy Arab II with a Utility body cut down for that purpose in Herne Bay shed. As a naive nine year old I thought it was a relic from the days when double deckers were open topped .   In my defence I think Airfix had just brought out their kit of the London General B type. I believe that Guy Arab was replaced by a "Puffin" sometime in the 70s

I can recall that bus from the 70's. We however volunteered for the manual version the open top route up to Reculver

[Flying Pig]

i am a bit of a tree hugger but there is more wildlife habitat than trees and woodland 

The thing is that even after the trees have been cut down it will still be a wildlife habitat just a different one 

maybe what network rail should do is seed the banks with wild flower as this would be a great help to the bees and other pollinators 

also they could plant small shrubs  this would give cover for small birds and mammals  

john

 

I saw a TV programme a number of years ago which pointed out that until modernisation railway embankments represented a relic of unimproved grassland managed largely without chemicals that had mostly disappeared from the wider countryside. Ideally, the flora the should be left to regenerate from the seed bank still in the soil, if this is still viable, so as to peserve local genetic diversity, with planting only where absolutely necessary. What will flourish depends on the subsequent management regime, but shrubs will almost certainly plant themselves.

[whart57]

I can recall that bus from the 70's. We however volunteered for the manual version the open top route up to Reculver

 

The bus used on the open top route to Reculver was a Guy Arab III though. The open top Arab IIs, of the same batch as the tree cutting bus did the Thanet coast open top route. It started from Minnis Bay near Birchington but I don't know whether it went all the way to Ramsgate or terminated somewhere like Cliftonville.

[hayfield]

Whenever you turn over soil, seeds are disturbed and start to germinate.

 

When ever change occurs some see a loss of a habitat, others see a regeneration with a whole new habitat emerging. Now providing no endangered species are affected this type of management could be seen as beneficial 

 

We feed the birds in the garden, some see it as supporting wildlife, others see it as artificially affecting nature ? 

[Mike Storey]

What's balanced about the headline they used, neither was the story well researched or the author seemed to know much about both why it was being done or what happened before.

 

If it were the Mail writing this they would be accused about poor journalism and for creating a hate campaign against Network Rail and its contractors, those complaining seem to totally ignore what the power networks are doing under/near their lines and councils actions at the sides of roads, both of which are equally if not more destructive than the railways. Now if the Mail was so irresponsible I would complain about their actions just as I am about the Guardian

 

By all means disagree or have a different point of view, but remember safety of the travelling public is paramount, secondly any possible undermining of the infrastructure must be avoided, lastly delays should where possible be avoided  

 

I know you have a real "thing" about the Grauniad, and I have the opposite view mostly (given the G is run by the non-dividend Scott Trust registered and tax paying in the UK, and not as you or someone of your opinion tried to claim, an "off-shore" account, which is actually much more true, and provable, of the DT (Barclay Bros in the CI's) and DM (Rothermere, registered Non-Dom) , but I agree the headline was very silly. But the bulk of the article was actually reasonably balanced, even if some of the "facts", extracted reportedly from an internal policy memo or statement, appear wayward. However, NR have neither denied the existence of the internal document, but nor have they clarified why it was issued. They panicked in response to the G article, but their face was then saved by an even more badly researched article in the DT (which seemed to poach heavily from the Guardian one), which inflated the numbers to totally ridiculous proportions (from the G's 1 million trees over 5 years, to the DT's 13 million trees to be cut down over 5 years) and drew some even more asinine conclusions. The response to that from NR was nice and comfortable, and several more pages were added to their website on vegetation management, including conveniently, a page by Mark Carne, which easily refuted it on the numbers of trees alone, given there are only 6 million within NR's boundaries.

 

So I have sympathy with Whart57's views. There, I said it. Damn me to hell. And I was a career railwayman/woman, sworn to defend the industry to my dying breath, in breach of which I would be sent to the railway's Guantanomo (in Swindon somewhere I believe).

 

But the salient point being missed, whichever news outlet we purport to be the most wholesome purveyor of the truth, and nothing but....., is that there are photos and accounts of NR, or its contractors, apparently not sticking to its declared policy, particularly over the nesting season. Even if those pics are fake news, concocted by some Ukrainian or Kremlin cell, I think it rather odd that NR have declared a "moratorium" on vegetation clearance currently due to Jo Johnson's "review", except where urgent safety considerations necessitates immediate action. Er, right. But your policy says that is exactly what you intended to do during the nesting season, which is now, so why would you have been doing otherwise? Why would you need to declare a suspension of all such works, bar safety, when your policy says you are doing that already? Has anyone on here actually read the source documents?

 

Don't you, and all those who have, quite rightly, gone on and on and on and on and on, about safety, think that is a little odd?

 

Ergo, something smells, and not inconsiderably badly.....

[The Stationmaster]

Mind you there are several interesting things about the The Gruaniad article.  Firstly there is the utterly ludicrous headline - something which has been going on for at least two years and was being talked about even longer ago, including mentions in the national press, was hardly 'secretive' - in fact travelling around the railway network it has been blindingly obvious for quite a while.  So was the headline simply being perjorative or was it just there to 'rouse the rabble' so to speak; but whichever use of the word 'secretive' was not accurate.

 

The other interesting thing about the article is that factual content has been altered three times since it was originally published on the 'net which suggests to me that it was either originally inaccurately researched as far as background matter was concerned or no attempt was made to clarify matters before publication.  This was perhaps not helped by NR's initial reaction to the piece but no doubt that can, as is so often the case, be put down to PR people not being in touch with the detail of what is happening in various parts of the industry in which they work.  That in itself would hardly be surprising in this case as lineside clearance has been going on for so long without attracting the attention of the national press it could well come as something of a surprise that a newspaper has finally noticed what is happening beyond its office doors.

 

As it happens from direct personal experience many years ago this particular newspaper gives the impression of being more than happy to resort to invention, or what it thinks it ought to say, rather than bothering to actually establish the facts.  My cousin was murdered in a vicious shotgun attack which killed both him and his girlfriend and the perpetrator, her former boyfriend, then turned the gun on himself.  Such an event obviously appeals to 'the nationals' as a news story because of the 'human interest angle' (even if it involves murdered humans) so it was covered by all the national newspapers.  Of the entirety of the national press the one that got it so completely wrong and had clearly not even bothered to check details released by the police as was The Grauniad - instead it posted some downright lies and, surprisingly, slanderous rubbish.  I might have expected that of The Sun but its reporting was totally accurate while The Daily Mirror published the most detailed accurate account of all and The Independent maintained its dignity and printed an accurate but brief (two sentences) report of the killings.  As far as I'm concerned The Grauniad has previous form, and it doesn't seem to have got much better in its journalism.

 

However having said that this thread is really about the lineside and not about personal attacks on fellow members of RMweb or discussing the relative merits of the national press where we are, inevitably, bound to have different views based on whatever bias or past experience we might happen to have.  So perhaps we can now keep quiet about newspapers.

[Mike Storey]

Mind you there are several interesting things about the The Gruaniad article.  Firstly there is the utterly ludicrous headline - something which has been going on for at least two years and was being talked about even longer ago, including mentions in the national press, was hardly 'secretive' - in fact travelling around the railway network it has been blindingly obvious for quite a while.  So was the headline simply being perjorative or was it just there to 'rouse the rabble' so to speak; but whichever use of the word 'secretive' was not accurate.

 

The other interesting thing about the article is that factual content has been altered three times since it was originally published on the 'net which suggests to me that it was either originally inaccurately researched as far as background matter was concerned or no attempt was made to clarify matters before publication.  This was perhaps not helped by NR's initial reaction to the piece but no doubt that can, as is so often the case, be put down to PR people not being in touch with the detail of what is happening in various parts of the industry in which they work.  That in itself would hardly be surprising in this case as lineside clearance has been going on for so long without attracting the attention of the national press it could well come as something of a surprise that a newspaper has finally noticed what is happening beyond its office doors.

 

As it happens from direct personal experience many years ago this particular newspaper gives the impression of being more than happy to resort to invention, or what it thinks it ought to say, rather than bothering to actually establish the facts.  My cousin was murdered in a vicious shotgun attack which killed both him and his girlfriend and the perpetrator, her former boyfriend, then turned the gun on himself.  Such an event obviously appeals to 'the nationals' as a news story because of the 'human interest angle' (even if it involves murdered humans) so it was covered by all the national newspapers.  Of the entirety of the national press the one that got it so completely wrong and had clearly not even bothered to check details released by the police as was The Grauniad - instead it posted some downright lies and, surprisingly, slanderous rubbish.  I might have expected that of The Sun but its reporting was totally accurate while The Daily Mirror published the most detailed accurate account of all and The Independent maintained its dignity and printed an accurate but brief (two sentences) report of the killings.  As far as I'm concerned The Grauniad has previous form, and it doesn't seem to have got much better in its journalism.

 

However having said that this thread is really about the lineside and not about personal attacks on fellow members of RMweb or discussing the relative merits of the national press where we are, inevitably, bound to have different views based on whatever bias or past experience we might happen to have.  So perhaps we can now keep quiet about newspapers.

 

Quite so. I could say almost exactly the same, although not of a murder, but of a matter which would have personally affected my professional integrity, along with several of my colleagues, about the Sunday Times, so let's keep anecdotal opinions about papers out of it.

 

So the reaction to the issue about NR's statement of a moratorium on something which their policy stated would not happen anyway, is???