Around the world in 80 days..

[AndrueC]

Anyone seen it? I've been watching it and for the most part it's a nice enough show. I've never read the novel though.

 

But what has me curious is the railway bridge scene. If a TV show or film warrants it I can suspend my logic and knowledge of the real world so for S/F or fantasy I can accept that the story has its own set of rules and as long as it's consistent with its own rules I'm happy. But when you have dramas set in the real world I object to real world rule breaking. Like the helicopter scene at the end of Mission Impossible - that defies the laws of aerodynamics as does another helicopter scene near the start of one of the Bond movies (the helicopter moves forward slowly while the rotors are held at 45 degrees).

 

But back to AW80D am I missing something or was that scene utter *censored*? For those who didn't see it a train arrives at a viaduct. The viaduct is badly damaged and there's a hole for about twenty yards but the rails are intact. Philleas Fogg's solution is to:

* Drive the loco+one carriage very slowly across the gap.

* Have someone sitting on the front of the loco spreading sand. He claims that without the sand the wheels will slip and 'cut through the track like butter' because they are unsupported.

 

So my thoughts on this:

* Given it was a relatively short gap I'd have thought a good speed would be better to minimise the duration of stress on the rails. Downside of this is presumably increased vibration.

* I don't think loco wheels could ever cut through a rail, 'like butter' (if at all) and I fail to see what the rails being suspended over a gap v. sitting on the bridge matters in that respect. To me it seems that the only issue here is can the rails take the weight of the loco.

 

So I would have backed up, got a reasonable amount of speed and just gone for it but really my issue here is does Fogg's solution have any merit?

[Il Grifone]

Coming a bit late to this, but I can't see there is any way an unsupported rail could stand the weight of a locomotive.

The vibration/hammer blow from slipping wheels would make matters worse.

The weak spot in the rail is the fishplates, the failure of which would look 'like butter'.

My opinion veers towards the "utter *censored*" situation.

 

My recollection from reading the story many years ago was that M. Verne chose the 'rush it at top speed' solution, so I went to check and in fact that is the case, but the bridge is still intact but damaged. If I recall correctly, the film varies from the book in other ways. (Something not at all unknown in film versions).

The book is here: https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Verne/Eighty_Days.pdf   and the episode concerned is page 184 onwards.

[AyJay]

Also late to this topic and also seen the series.

This is not the first time I have seen the ‘going as slow as possible across the wobbly bridge’ approach, and I wonder if some of this is based upon the idea of being able to jump back quickly if you feel it going; which clearly you cannot do with a steam loco. As far as the sand goes, I wonder if because the running surface of the wheels are not horizontal, any slip might increase the tendency for the rails to splay out? As for the speed of crossing; I suppose that’s to reduce vibration.  But I would be tempted to take a good run at it and go as fast as possible, to reduce the exposure time.

[2E Sub Shed]

Were they influenced by the damaged bridge crossing in the film "North-West Frontier" ?, Wikipedia entry, you cannot draw out the cinematic suspense of crossing of the gap with a fast run up.

[Reorte]

Low speed - less shock on an already damaged structure. You'll fall through an unsupported bit. More speed - less time spent on the dodgy bit, hopefull you won't have dropped much on the unsupported bit, and there'll be enough strength left to push you back up (think jumping the gap, with the rails at the far end being a ramp back up).

 

Reality - train's falling whichever way. Can't grasp at all any link between unsupported rails and spreading sand.

 

I find these things as annoying in science fiction or fantasy too for that matter. Decent works of those have reality and their established exceptions. They're not an excuse for "anything goes." Wile E Coyote can get away with ignoring physics for a bit, but that's my limit.

Edited October 2, 2022 by Reorte

[jjb1970]

I recommend the old Michael Palin show of the same name, that was a great series.

 

Any TV or movie will bend things for the sake of entertainment but it needs to follow a certain set of rules to avoid people snapping out of their immersion in the material. If you suddenly say to yourself 'that's nonsense' then the house starts to collapse. Which is why sci-fi can get away with all sorts of liberties provided they are consistent with their own narrative and what is seen as believable, at the same time as something no less detached from reality can stick out like a sore thumb because it also contradicts the fictional reality created for that universe.

[Il Grifone]

I gather that this refers to a new series on British TV and not one of the various past efforts of varying quality.

Here in Italy, Watching British TV seems impossible (copyright questions?), but I'm returning to Airstrip One on Wednesday and can hopefully catch up online.

 

Presumably the track would have been the old US 39 foot standard length (possibly less in the 19th century?), so a twenty yard gap would have enough joints to ensure collapse....

 

The sand would help to prevent slipping, but IMHO the whole idea is doomed to failure.

You wouldn't catch me on it!

 

 

[Reorte]

17 hours ago, jjb1970 said:

I recommend the old Michael Palin show of the same name, that was a great series.

 

Any TV or movie will bend things for the sake of entertainment but it needs to follow a certain set of rules to avoid people snapping out of their immersion in the material. If you suddenly say to yourself 'that's nonsense' then the house starts to collapse. Which is why sci-fi can get away with all sorts of liberties provided they are consistent with their own narrative and what is seen as believable, at the same time as something no less detached from reality can stick out like a sore thumb because it also contradicts the fictional reality created for that universe.

A good starting point for sci-fi (or fantasy for that matter) is to explore a universe in which this or that happens to be true, whether it's faster than light spaceships, magic, whatever (or even scenarions that are potentially plausible, we just don't have them yet), so just accepting them is easy enough to do for willing suspension of disbelief. You do however end up with some trying to defend any old nonsense in them with "but it's science fiction!" as if that justifies anything goes, but in reality that's usually a sign of a bad writer, and just leaves me with a very dim opinion of the person defending it.

 

Obviously the bar is higher for some forms of entertainment - comedies can get away with more than a serious work.

[AndrueC]

For my science fiction I prefer the gritty and not too distant future worlds of CJ Cherryh although I do sometimes feel guilty proclaiming their realism when so many of them revolve around FTL. It's a bit of a grey area for me. Physics seems to have pretty much ruled out the possibility of FTL due to either causality violations or impossible energy requirements.

 

One of the things I loved about Ian M Banks' work was that although his stories are typically set in a time and place where the protagonists have almost magical technology available to them he still manages to expose the limitations and demonstrate the challenges that remain. A much lamented author.