RMweb Gold gwrrob Posted October 22, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 22, 2012 I enjoyed it for what it was and with an engineering background especially enjoyed the workshop scenes with the line boring of the con-rod .Nice to know the axles are still in shape too after all these years and skills are available to make bits needed.Long may it continue.For all its faults it was still was a free advert for the SVR.I look forward to travelling behind the 51xx at Christmas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted October 22, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2012 The reason I pick holes in it is very simple - people who don't know the difference (i.e, in many cases, 'the general public') will believe every word of it because they saw the chap doing it and because 'it was on tv'. I don't argue at all with what was shown - a good range of some basic railwaywork of the old kind and generally it was shown quite well but it was not properly explained nor were some of the tasks put in their proper context. Boilersmiths did boiler work, they didn't get to drive locos or do PWay work, and they didn't get the 'reward' of going out on a loco which they had just worked on except in very special or particular circumstances. It would be just as easy to have scripted it historically accurately showing the same range of jobs as they are done today - I don't think there was much mention of boilersmiths having to go into a red hot firebox for instance even tho' it was almost an everyday part of their job (I realise it could hardly be shown on tv of course). I agree absolutely with Debs' point about showing these tasks and the skilled, and often tough, manual work involved but please let us have them properly explained - would it have cost the programme makers any more to do so? If a new model loco came out and there were some pretty glaring mistakes on it, I don't see that it is "nit picking" to point them out in the interests of letting people know what is wrong so they don't accept it as being correct. Same with a telly program. It makes me wonder who actually wrote the "script" or even if there was much of one. It certainly wasn't anybody with any in depth railway knowledge. How many times was the loco described as a "train"? It is a shame as I am sure that the script could have been stuck under the nose of somebody at the SVR and they would have corrected a whole host of mistakes in a very short time. Still, I am sure it was good publicity for the SVR and I would rather have a railway related telly program with some mistakes in it than none at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chriswright03 Posted October 22, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 22, 2012 Having just seen this as we recorded it I thought it was good but then I think Guy Martin is a breath of fresh air with the presentation. OK there were mistakes but they are not his and and he after all is just fronting the show. It is all part of the dumbing down that we all know about and complain about and I don't see that changing as lets face it that is what many tv watchers want otherwise it would not have happened in the first place. I saw Guy Martin when he did the narrow boat programme and I enjoyed that. I thought then he could be the next Fred Dibnah because he has an easy natural way of presenting and comes across well. He is like that in real life. He drinks in our local occasionally and my wife works with his sister. What you see is what he is and when he talks of grafting that is because in these parts that is what it used to be called and he is a grafter. He is also an excellent motorcyclist and hopefully one day he will win a race at the TT races. Perhaps we can forgive the tv way of daft mistakes brought about by lazy researchers and be glad that an interest is being taken in our historic railways and not once was the word anorak mentioned. Perhaps if you look at his next programmes you might appreciate his way and worry less about silly mistakes not of his making. Regards Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
micklner Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 The reason I pick holes in it is very simple - people who don't know the difference (i.e, in many cases, 'the general public') will believe every word of it because they saw the chap doing it and because 'it was on tv'. I don't argue at all with what was shown - a good range of some basic railwaywork of the old kind and generally it was shown quite well but it was not properly explained nor were some of the tasks put in their proper context. Boilersmiths did boiler work, they didn't get to drive locos or do PWay work, and they didn't get the 'reward' of going out on a loco which they had just worked on except in very special or particular circumstances. It would be just as easy to have scripted it historically accurately showing the same range of jobs as they are done today - I don't think there was much mention of boilersmiths having to go into a red hot firebox for instance even tho' it was almost an everyday part of their job (I realise it could hardly be shown on tv of course). I agree absolutely with Debs' point about showing these tasks and the skilled, and often tough, manual work involved but please let us have them properly explained - would it have cost the programme makers any more to do so? I fully agree. But this a entertainment show not a historical/factual programme. It is aimed at the general public most of which now a Steam train runs on steam (perhaps!!) not much else and are not bothered to know or need or want to understand much more, they are not interested in the boring(to them ) historical exact facts. It gave numerous basic facts about how a Steam engine works, is maintained and what it runs on. The fact that Guy got to drive the Engine was the ideal way to finish the programme. Its a bit of fun nothing more or less. I am sure if Fred Dibnah (God bless him) was with us still he would have a chuckle as I did. It does a lot of good for the preservation movement in general. Hopefully the other five programmes will be as much fun as this one!!. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJones Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Can you imagine Guy being let loose round Fred's workshop? That'd be a program worth seeing! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium t-b-g Posted October 22, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2012 Can you imagine Guy being let loose round Fred's workshop? That'd be a program worth seeing! Fred's place is up for sale.......... Any takers? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted October 22, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 22, 2012 I think Guy Martin is a breath of fresh air with the presentation. I just find his manner extremely annoying I saw Guy Martin when he did the narrow boat programme and I enjoyed that. I thought then he could be the next Fred Dibnah because he has an easy natural way of presenting and comes across well. Regards Chris I also saw the narrow boat programme and thought it just seemed like two blokes arseing about for the sake of it, making useless tin cans and cups and a steam powered shower, nothing like Fred's honest approach. The programmes on renovating the narrow boat "Dover" were IMHO much better. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I enjoyed it, when I was watching it I had a vision of railway enthusiasts on the edge of their seats with notebook and pen in hand waiting for mistakes, noting each mistake down and saying it out loud with an adenoidal voice, then rushing to the computer to express their anger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chriswright03 Posted October 23, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 23, 2012 I just find his manner extremely annoying I can understand that Keith as I too find some presenters much the same. It is that Bovril thing I suppose. Which is partly why I watch very little on the TV. Was watching the Classic Car restoration programme but it is so contrived and has really annoying presenters. Subject of a different thread of course. I also saw the narrow boat programme and thought it just seemed like two blokes arseing about for the sake of it, making useless tin cans and cups and a steam powered shower, nothing like Fred's honest approach. The programmes on renovating the narrow boat "Dover" were IMHO much better. Keith Didn't see the Dover one so cannot comment. I just find this one works for me but I understand that it won't for everyone. That is life though. Regards Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
clecklewyke Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 It is that Bovril thing I suppose. (nitpicking on) Marmite, surely (nitpicking off) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Blandford1969 Posted October 23, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 23, 2012 Didn't seem much like an overhaul to me, more parts of an exam. But at least the often unsung and unacknowledged side of the railway has been portrayed with a passion rarely seen. Your right it was a V and P - sadly 5164 is near the end of her ticket and the boilersmiths have said they will repair the superheater elements three times and then it will be withdrawn from traffic. She is a good engine (this time round, the first time she was restored she would not steam) While the use of volunteer train yard was a bit of an insult to the paid staff who do much of the work it was excellent how the program did show the fine tollerances that are worked to and the high level of skill involved. Duncan did sound very relieved when they finally stopped at Highley even if it was well short, but that illustrated, even if not explained that there is more skill in stopping than in starting. All in all it was an enjoyable program and perfect timing with our share issue now open where we aim to raise 3 million pounds for various projects including the restoration of 4930 Hagley Hall, the rebuilding of Bridgnorth and finishing off of Kidderminster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackRat Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Lets have a bit of a reality check here, it was a general sort of entertainment show which did exactly what it said on the tin, showed railways and engineering in a good light, and was presented in an excellent way ,by a real character whose enthusiasm for the engineering and 'graft' (as he put it) clearly came over. I look forward to the rest and wont be getting to out of shape re any minor mistakes. Its entertainment after all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaneofFife Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I agree with Blackrat and quite a few others here. I can hear Guy now saying "get over yourselves" to those who seem to like to find little holes in things and insert rather large sticks of dynamite and blow em up. It was a light hearted TV show - come on most people watching wouldnt really have given a fig about the accuracy, they wouldnt be using the information for impressing mates down the pub and I doubt anything they heard from Guy would go into their next missive on railways back at Uni so cant we cut the guy (pun intended) and the scriptwriters/editors some slack and just accept it for what it is. Ive never understood quite how seriously some take our wonderful hobby nor the over analysis of every word. I dare say some would rather have no railway programs on TV if they werent accurate to the enth degree. Only railway enthusiasts would pick up on any misgivings but its not life or death. If it was a DVD for enthusiasts then thats different but how many people would have watched this short program with a view to using the information for another purpose where that purpose relied on its accuracy? Very few if any. I thought Guys sparky enthusiasm made a nice change on TV and I wasnt really that concerned about how accurate what he was telling me was. Yes it covered our past/history but I dont believe they were out to be quite as factual and detailed as Dibnah. I do think he could make a worth successor to Dibnah if he decided to go down the highly detailed and accurate route for other shows. Put it this way I will certainly be watching the whole series but not to nit pick everything he says or does Im just glad to be able to watch a railway program on freeview with a cup of tea - its far better than some of the other rubbish on TV right now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave47549 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinmore Manor Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I can vouch for how superb the film 'Closer to the Edge' is too Alastair, Simon Cowell raved about it, Chris Evans the same, Frank Williams had a copy for Christmas and his family got so sick of listening to him telling them how good it was that he started telling the dog (according to his blog anyway!) I leant it to my parents, not exactly bike fans, they kept it on the back burner for ages before finally watching it and they absolutely loved it! Guy was so so lucky to get away with that crash at Ballagarey, a number of others haven't been so lucky there. Looking forward to getting back over there for next years TT Agree with some of the others on here that it is quite sad that when our hobby/interest gets showcased on prime time TV that instead of revelling in the welcome exposure it seems to be time to pick every hole possible in the programme. Enjoy it for what it was, a light entertainment programme! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Delamar Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 recommend this.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 40-something Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I havent seen the programme yet, its recorded and I'll watch at the weekend. If the narrow boat show was anything to go by then I'll thoroughly enjoy the show and this series. Guy's enthusiasm for all things engineering is great, he is a grafter, works hard, plays hard. A proper grease monkey that many many many of his generation (and others) could learn a thing or 2 from. How many 30 year old truck engineers do you know that go to work in a manky boiler suit that drive a Vantage V12, bought and paid for himself by risking his life in pursuit of his hobby? To the nay-sayers who say he's no Fred Dibnah, of course he isnt, who is? He's not trying to be. Cut the guy some slack Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium melmerby Posted October 23, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 23, 2012 Guy's enthusiasm for all things engineering is great, he is a grafter, works hard, plays hard. A proper grease monkey that many many many of his generation (and others) could learn a thing or 2 from. How many 30 year old truck engineers do you know that go to work in a manky boiler suit that drive a Vantage V12, bought and paid for himself by risking his life in pursuit of his hobby? To the nay-sayers who say he's no Fred Dibnah, of course he isnt, who is? He's not trying to be. I'm not denying that, I just don't like his presenting manner. - it just grates with me. Incidentally even with it's shortcomings, I still enjoyed the programme despite the irrelevances of watchmaking (and he hadn't even washed his hands!) and shovel forging. Keith Edit: I would have liked to see how they replaced the firebox stays that were found to be faulty be we skipped onto something else! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 And Fred Dibnah got details wrong too, especially when he moved into areas of industry away from his own expertise, steam and boilers. His programme on the iron & steel industry contained several though 99% of the audience wouldn't have known and couldn't have cared less. This is not to denigrate Fred, far from it, he was honest, enthusiastic but most importantly, for a general TV audience, entertaining. You couldn't help but warm to him. Guy Martin could readily fill this role for a whole new generation of mainstream audience, to whom the number of wheels on a prairie tank isn't, and never will be, of the slightest interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mike Bellamy Posted October 24, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 24, 2012 I still enjoyed the programme despite the irrelevances of watchmaking (and he hadn't even washed his hands!) and shovel forging. The relevance of the watchmaking was that until the railways were developed there was no real need for accurate time - how many of the 'general public' watching an entertaining and informative TV programme would have known that - I'm sure it's not on the top of the list of things that have been taught in schools. How many of todays youngsters know what a blacksmith is or what he does - to this modern society a shovel is made in China and sold in B&Q Mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold RedgateModels Posted October 24, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 24, 2012 Watched it for the second time last night with George, my bet is he'll want it on tonight too - oh the joys of catch-up TV Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold chriswright03 Posted October 24, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted October 24, 2012 (nitpicking on) Marmite, surely (nitpicking off) Ah but that could have been a deliberate mistake on my part to see if any of the specialists picked it up. Anyway it was the scriptwriters that did it not me! Regards Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iL Dottore Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 I haven't seen the programme yet, but I should be able to catch the repeat, I enjoyed his narrowboat series (and, yes, it was at times two blokes messing about), but he is enthusiastic and likeable. Regarding accuracy, I think that the crap TV that is promoted (Britain's got X-Factor Cooking Talent etc.) because the self appointed "elite" in the media (or so they like to think themselves) actually believe that everyone but themselves is thick and can't [a] think and understand anything complicated. So I wouldn't be surprised that the early drafts of the script for this programme were accurate but that some producer somewhere thought it should be made "understandable"... i.e. dumbed down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Mallard60022 Posted October 24, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted October 24, 2012 Sorry to disappoint you all folks but Ms Bradbury is not always rescued from mountain tops in a helicopter, she gets escorted down by me and that's really, really nice. P (Nose expands dramatically............) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talltim Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Why do programs about interests other than sport have to be dumbed down for general consumption? I have no interest in watching programs about my hobby that know less about them than I do. Sports programs on the other hand seem to have no problem with in-depth technical analysis and nitpicky fact and figure correctness. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.