The Railways that Built Britain with Chris Tarrant

[Pacific231G]

The errors really did stand out in this one like the grouping date and the coronation rather than an A4. Let down by poor research I guess.

But I still enjoyed it, a TV show that's positive about railways is not to be sniffed at.

I actually enjoyed the second programme far more than the first despite its (very) many shortcoming and I found Tarrant far better in this programme especially when he was able to link his own family's experience to the large picture. The overall narrative seemed to follow a clearer, though very obvious, path but It was still quite unnecessarily careless and sloppy.

 

The 1932 Grouping was probably a script typo but someone should have spotted it and the relentless use of library footage as wallpaper, including the Coronation Scot standing in for Mallard,  was also annoying and I certainly didn't realise that the Highland Railway was involved in London's commuter services.

Less obvious errors were that von Schlieffen executed the plan that bore his name when he actually retired in 1906 and died the year before the war began. I don't know whether General Sir Henry Wilson's counter role in developing the use of railways in deploying the BEF was accurately described but don't suppose the producer does either.

 

The role of light railways in WW1 was quite well portrayed, though not Britain's very late adoption of them compared with Germany or France though when at the end the war turned into one of movement again they were probably less relevant to the final victory. The Soham incident in 1944 seemed adequately described and deserved to be told again- I'd forgotten that Driver Gimbert survived- as did the role of railways in the Dunkirk evacuation. I rather liked the analogy of the post war railways as a wounded soldier returning exhausted from war that no-one cared about.

 

I think the real problem was that they wrote the script, after minutes of research, and then splashed whatever footage they had available over it almost at random. If the only shots you have available of the 1930s streamliners in motion happen to be of Coronation Scott  plus Mallard not in motion then any halfway competent producer could write a script based on that. Some of the library shots were repeated more than once (you have to pay for it again so it doesn't save copyright fees) and that's such a complete no no that professional editing software actually warns you about it.

 

I thought Tarrant's pieces to camera were generally OK but a real weakness seems to be the producers not knowing how to write voice-over to pictures and that is such a a very basic but fundamental television craft that there's really no excuse.

[Kelly]

Just seen the second part. Aside from glaring errors pointed out here already, wasn't so bad, certainly an improvement over episode 1.

 

Though saying the soham explosion was the biggest in the war is iirc incorrect, the biggest I thought was the ammo depot for the RAF or the USAAF, which is still visible today iirc.

[Joseph_Pestell]

If it's any consolation, railways are not the only target of this sloppy television. Channel 5 seems to be running a whole batch of such programmes whose main purpose is to persuade people to phone or text a premium rate number. Last night's on Windsor Castle included the fascinating information that King John had a great grandson (William I) born 100 years before him.

 

King John was, apparently a very BAD king. So at least the producers have read up on Sellars and Yeatman.

[avonside1563]

Just seen the second part. Aside from glaring errors pointed out here already, wasn't so bad, certainly an improvement over episode 1.

 

Though saying the soham explosion was the biggest in the war is iirc incorrect, the biggest I thought was the ammo depot for the RAF or the USAAF, which is still visible today iirc.

You mean the explosion at RAF Fauld in Staffordshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fauld_explosion

[Kelly]

You mean the explosion at RAF Fauld in Staffordshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fauld_explosion

That's the one.

[The Stationmaster]

I actually enjoyed the second programme far more than the first despite its (very) many shortcoming and I found Tarrant far better in this programme especially when he was able to link his own family's experience to the large picture. The overall narrative seemed to follow a clearer, though very obvious, path but It was still quite unnecessarily careless and sloppy.

 

The 1932 Grouping was probably a script typo but someone should have spotted it and the relentless use of library footage as wallpaper, including the Coronation Scot standing in for Mallard,  was also annoying and I certainly didn't realise that the Highland Railway was involved in London's commuter services.

Less obvious errors were that von Schlieffen executed the plan that bore his name when he actually retired in 1906 and died the year before the war began. I don't know whether General Sir Henry Wilson's counter role in developing the use of railways in deploying the BEF was accurately described but don't suppose the producer does either.

 

The role of light railways in WW1 was quite well portrayed, though not Britain's very late adoption of them compared with Germany or France though when at the end the war turned into one of movement again they were probably less relevant to the final victory. The Soham incident in 1944 seemed adequately described and deserved to be told again- I'd forgotten that Driver Gimbert survived- as did the role of railways in the Dunkirk evacuation. I rather liked the analogy of the post war railways as a wounded soldier returning exhausted from war that no-one cared about.

 

I think the real problem was that they wrote the script, after minutes of research, and then splashed whatever footage they had available over it almost at random. If the only shots you have available of the 1930s streamliners in motion happen to be of Coronation Scott  plus Mallard not in motion then any halfway competent producer could write a script based on that. Some of the library shots were repeated more than once (you have to pay for it again so it doesn't save copyright fees) and that's such a complete no no that professional editing software actually warns you about it.

 

I thought Tarrant's pieces to camera were generally OK but the real weakness seems to be the producers not knowing how to write voice-over to pictures and that is such a a very basic but fundamental television craft that there's really no excuse.

 

While Wilson certainly seems to have had a considerable input in deciding the strength and composition of the BEF - a major change from previous ideas - and thus the units which would be involved it is very unlikely that he played any part in developing the railway plan within the UK as it was produced by a group of railway companies working to the military requirements given them by one of the army's Commands.  So while Wilson and his planners might well have said we require the 1st battalion of the Nonsuchshires to be ready at their base depot to deploy on Day X and to be at Southampton to board ship on Day X+Z the actual mechanics of planning how they would be moved from their depot to Southampton were in the hands of the Railways and not the army.

 

As it happened the Railways' plans reportedly worked perfectly with all trains arriving at Southampton punctually with the empty trains being quickly sent forward from Southampton for their next working.  At the same time the Railways were also running mobilisation trains to get various troops from their home areas to their depots and then in some cases to redistribute units which were not being embarked at Southampton.  Obviously the military plan was in the hands of the army but again the railway plan was in the hands of the railways.  Alas I don't know how matters were dealt with on the other side of the Channel.

 

Incidentally the British mobilisation and BEF deployment rail plans were stated after the war to have been totally successful - which is of course more than could be said for the Schlieffen Plan which had meticulously planned the move forward of various units and stores but had not learnt the lessons of the Franco-Prussian war's railway shortcomings which resulted in very disorganised clearance of wagons at forward stations and the delayed return of them and passenger stock to provide subsequent trains which then were either delayed or cancelled.

[PhilEakins]

I think The Stationmaster is a rather too dismissive of Wilson's role before the mobilisation of 1914.

 

I wrote a paper on that mobilisation during the PG Dip in Railway Studies (University of York) in which I considered the work Wilson did. Obviously I can't reproduce the whole thing here but among the opening paragraphs were:

 

 

This paper will finally conclude that, whilst Wilson’s contribution to the mobilisation of the BEF to 

fulfil the British War Office’s strategic understandings with the French high command, was an 

extremely important one: it was his procurement of a political agreement to engage expert civilian 

railwaymen directly in scheduling the necessary railway services which actually led directly to its 

successful conclusion. The task of producing the detailed mobilisation plans Wilson needed, and of 

executing them, was left to those better qualified so to do. Wilson himself maintained overall 

command and decision making when required.  

 

I concluded:

 

Wilson personally took charge and having convinced Haldane in January 1911 that the embargo 

against contact with the railway companies was completely counter-productive he personally urged 

Sir Herbert Walker to put urgency into the creation of the timetables needed to deliver the BEF to 

France. Even so, Wilson risked embarrassment if he had been asked to deliver on the July 

1911 memorandum. 

 

Henry Wilson was the right man, in the right place, and at the right time; he played an important 

role by removing the Government embargo and put resolve and urgency into planning for the BEF to 

fulfil its role in France when required. 

 

The the success of the planning for mobilisation in August 1914 can indeed be mainly attributed to 

Henry Wilson.  

 

The July 1911 memorandum mentioned was a promise to deliver troops to France in the event of a German invasion. Couldn't have been done as the Government(s) of the day had completely forbade planning contact between the army and the railways (represented latterly by the REC) before 1911. It was Wilson that kick started the process with the successes described.

 

Sorry to be long winded, but Wilson is not just a historical footnote.

 

[Edited for clarity]

[The Stationmaster]

Yes but - while Wilson undoubtedly provided the impetus and the military framework the railway plan was produced by railway people on the remit of the Railway Executive and working in accordance with the avenues of liaison which had been created by the establishment of the Communications Board and which could be said to have led to the REC and definitely at least one of its Sub-Committees (that dealing with the balancing of rolling stock during deployment of the BEF and mobilisation) taking over what had been part of the role of the railway War Council.

 

So yes, the actual railway operational plan and its subsidiary documents were produced by the railway industry but the thing Wilson ensured was that there was actually a plan to work to and that avenues of liaison existed.

[PhilEakins]

Yes - I think that was what I wrote, albeit less concisely ... 

 

A truly fascinating aspect of the history of railway operation, and one which dates back to the Boer War when a similar embarkation process, faultlessly executed at Southampton, served as the blueprint for 1914. I did enjoy that research. Got a good mark too!

 

P.

[Tim Hall]

So the Grouping happened in 1932.  Not a lot of people know that.

 

Chris

#

 

Ah, thought I'd misheard, but sadly not.....

[Hroth]

The suspense is killing me, I just had to ask.......

 

Did ANYONE bother to watch the last programme?

[Nelson Jackson]

I did and whilst some people may find the program to be a load of rubbish, I though the last one was ok and some of the archival footage was interesting to see.

[Coppercap]

I did and whilst some people may find the program to be a load of rubbish, I though the last one was ok and some of the archival footage was interesting to see.

Yes, the archive film was about the only decent thing about it. Typically though, showing the poor relationship between image and subject, when on the subject of BR sending steam to the scrapyard, the image came up of the Swindon dump..... with broad gauge engines!

[Coppercap]

The suspense is killing me, I just had to ask.......

 

Did ANYONE bother to watch the last programme?

Well, someone had to report how bad it was... (no better than before, really).

[russ p]

The amount of inaccuracies was far too many to list unfortunately

[Hroth]

Suppose I'll just have to look at the recording with the volume muted then, if only just to see the Swindon broad gauge dump! 

[Pacific231G]

I've just submitted a report to a client so was going to reward myself with watching part three. I think I may choose Rawhide instead or even do some modelling. Rawhide does have some trains in it though you have to ignore the anachronistic presence of AAR couplers. These certainly wouldn't have been in use in Kansas in 1870 when Eli Janney was probably still whittling his idea out of a block of wood during his lunch breaks. Nevertheless it's probably more historically accurate than the Railways that Built Britain.

[melmerby]

I've just submitted a report to a client so was going to reward myself with watching part three. I think I may choose Rawhide instead or even do some modelling. Rawhide does have some trains in it and, though you have to ignore the anachronistic presence of AAR couplers which certainly wouldn't have been in use in Kansas in 1870 when Eli Janney was probably still whittling his idea out of a block of wood during his lunch breaks, is probably more historically accurate.

Some nice views of period US couplers here:

http://www.shorpy.com/node/4535?size=_original#caption

 

Plus the three way point of course!

 

Keith

[micklner]

I enjoyed the series , ok lots of minor facts wrong, but to the normal viewer I cant see any problem. It keeps Railways in the public domain of interest.

[Pacific231G]

I enjoyed the series , ok lots of minor facts wrong, but to the normal viewer I cant see any problem. It keeps Railways in the public domain of interest.

That is the problem. British broadcasting both television and radio has a long and proud tradition of telling the truth and "normal viewers" expect that. If a documentary about railways, or anything else that some of the audience know about, is full of factual errors why would they expect medical, science, political or news programmes to be any different?  Regarding the audience as ignorant proles is a stupid attitude. While most of the audience know little about railways I'll guarantee that most of them know a great deal about something so, if the truth is regularly treated in such a cavalier fashion, trust will gradually be eroded.

 

Even during the war the BBC didn't lie to its audiences at home or abroad and that created enormous trust when it mattered most. Some mistakes are of course inevitable especially in situations like live news (where they are often apologised for) but not caring about them is unacceptable especially in a programme made well in advance of transmission with plenty of time to check.

 

If you are a public broadcaster you have a public responsiblity to tell the truth to the best of your ability.  

[Hroth]

I just watched some of it and gave up when they got to that ****** Marples.

 

The treatment of WHY British Railways stuck with steam after 1945 was badly handled and light to economical with the truth, description of the extent of experiment with diesels (locomotives and railcars) before the war was non-existent and the fact that the Southern Railway had an extensive electric suburban network emerged long after BR had been roasted for lacking foresight. Naturally the LMS, and LNER suburban electrics never came into the picture either.  There didn't seem to be a connection with the "20,000 loco numbers" listed in the Ian Allen ABCs or the cost of replacing even a proportion of those locos with diesel or electric equivalents at all.

 

Of course, the go-ahead West Germans were lauded for their wholesale re-equipping with diesel power after the war, but the script again neglected to say that the Americans funded it under the Marshall Plan (And I think we probably indirectly contributed because we were honourable enough to keep repaying our war debts to the Americans).

 

The consideration of the dieselisation of British Rail was also a farce, the idea of toe-dipping with the Pilot Scheme as originally envisaged in the 1955 Modernisation Plan wasn't explained and the script gave the impression that the locos were ordered off the drawing board (ok that happened, but only due to political pressure to cut costs after the Pilot Scheme had been initiated).  But I enjoyed the irony of the criticism of early BR diesels being delivered from cab of one of the earliest and longest lived class of pilot scheme locomotives, the EE Type 1/Class 20.

 

Then we came to Marples and I gave up.

 

(Perhaps I should have kept watching to see how Beeching was handled, or the political interference in the ATP project or...  Oh well.)

 

(edit for clumsy phrasing)

[Pacific231G]

Some nice views of period US couplers here:

http://www.shorpy.com/node/4535?size=_original#caption

 

Plus the three way point of course!

 

Keith

Excellent find Keith, absolutely chock full of period detail. It would be interesting to know how the switchstand handled the three way- would the switch rails natually revert to their straight centre position ?

[jacko]

Having seen part 2 'live', I managed to watch parts 1 and 3 on catch up last night and enjoyed them for the most part. I can see there's some inaccuracy there but I certainly can't understand why there's so much vehemence towards the programmes. Would you rather watch the real housewives of Beverley hills or something?

[Coppercap]

Having seen part 2 'live', I managed to watch parts 1 and 3 on catch up last night and enjoyed them for the most part. I can see there's some inaccuracy there but I certainly can't understand why there's so much vehemence towards the programmes. Would you rather watch the real housewives of Beverley hills or something?

In my case there are plenty of other things I could do than watch TV - I don't just watch TV for the sake of it - but when there's something on that appears right up my street, or just appeals to me, I usually watch it, but afterwards I often come away disappointed. There's been a few period drama series on in the last few months that were 'recommended' in TV guides, but then afterwards the critics pulled apart - and I agreed with the critics, sometimes not even bothering beyond the first episode.

[bike2steam]

I must admit that on Monday evening I saw part of the Chris Tarrant programme on Channel 5, and was unimpressed, so went back to adding tender pick-ups to a 1990's vintage Bachmann Modified Hall (Mere Hall).