RMweb Premium jamie92208 Posted January 16, 2013 RMweb Premium Share Posted January 16, 2013 I've taped it but have still to watch it. However I did see his trailer interview on BBC Breakfast yesterday morning. He was woffling about which was the first railway and spent all his time concentrating on the North east with no mention of the Middleton let alone Salamanca. I'll see what it's really like when I get round to watching it. Jamie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 He's no Fred Dibnah Nor Anthony Burton. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coppercap Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Much the same opinion as David (Pacific 231G) and I was irritated by a very foreign sounding engine whistle as a sort of background noise just about anytime something that was or was meant to be a steam engine moved. The graphics done on old prints were rather charming I thought, the little Rocket model that kept on making faded focus appearances definitely was not. And the 'whistle' when talking about the Rocket also suggested that the Rocket had one - which it didn't at the opening of the Liverpool and Manchester. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastwestdivide Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 He's no Fred Dibnah Nor Anthony Burton. Or even Guy Martin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Revolution Ben Posted January 16, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2013 Hello all, I actually thought it was rather good; the brief is clearly to "bring the story to life" as well as highlighting the (sometimes forgotten) importance and impact of the railways - arguably Britain's greatest gift to the world. This it did this by focussing on engineering challenges (Chat Moss), social change (society looking from the sea to the land for transportation needs) and the personalities (Huskisson, Stephenson et al) and I thought it succeeded. Of course, in an hour there are bound to be omissions and it is always possible to argue over what should or should not have been included; I suspect elements about the Rainhill trials or Trevithick may well have been filmed and then omitted due to pressures of time; when making a programme it's almost impossible not to "over film" and then have to leave stuff out. Also, I was ready to be irritated by Dan Snow but, while yes - some of the "action" may have been slightly over-egged, I found him engaging and above all genuinely interested and enthused about the subject. There was one aerial shot of what looked like a foreign train that seemed a little incongruous when the programme was still focussed on rail development in England (not the tease at the end) but beyond that it seemed free of any glaring errors, though I admit my knowledge of early steam is not exhaustive. I admit I didn't learn much I didn't already know but then I suspect I, like most members of this forum, am hardly the "average" viewer for a show like this. It's also hard to tell people something they *do* already know without it sounding a little patronising, which may explain why some here would feel they were being talked down to. I imagine many of us would have preferred more information, detail and discussion about the actual railway vehicles involved (beyond "Rocket") but I am not sure that would have been of interest to the general viewer. cheers Ben A. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calimero Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 15 minutes was my lot, loads of waffle for what most people know already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Whenever I've been involved with TV programs (nothing to do with Railways) it's always been hammered home that it should appeal to the most people without getting bogged down with too many details. Frankly I could make a three hour program detailing the differences between 1957, '58 '59 and 1960 Les Paul Standards.....most people would be yawning before I finished 1957... Best, Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Simon Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Hi, Watched it and thought it was OK to a point. I felt that some of the Graphics were interesting and it was nice to see some of the ways they would back then. However, i felt that it did concentrate more on a history of the Industrial Revelotion and it's workers, rather than a history of the Railways. As others have said no mention of Richard Trevithick or the Rainhill Trails and seemed to poo poo all the engines before Rocket as not important when they actually were. I felt that it should of covered alot more than it did. Will see what happens in the next one! Simon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ess1uk Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The bit I didn't get was why he was walking along Victoria Embankment on the Thames whilst talking about Liverpool an Manchester? Ok he did mention parliament, but a bit disjointed none the less. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Now, I haven't seen the programme - and probably won't, I find Dan Snow's 'Indiana Snow' (not my coinage, though I wish it were) style extremely irritating - and should declare an interest in that I work as a historian for a living and find Snow's claims to be a historian insulting. It isn't that he has no interest in history, he clearly does, but based on the experiences of some involved with the Roman thing before Christmas, and my own when consulted by a researcher working for him for something else entirely, my impression is that he editorialies wildly and has little interest in evidence or debate and produces television with no depth whatsoever - that's actually relatively unusual based on my limited experience of doing history things with the media. In this case the programmes are about the man rather than the topic. His take on the Roman Empire for example, was incredulity that it wasn't run wholly by the army (a view described by someone involved in the programme as 'tosh' - equally, most of the 'new discoveries' are relatively well known but unsurveyed: the use of satelite imaging was the interesting bit). Now for the purposes of entertaining TV that's fine, but it doesn't make him a Historian in the same way that I play - very badly - and enjoy Cricket but wouldn't class myself as a Cricketer: knowing which way round to hold a bat is a start, but so is a good undergraduate degree, no more. 'Horrible Histories' do this sort of popular history brilliantly as does James May, when away from the pantomine that is Top Gear. A social history (or technological history, or whatever) of the railways would be very interesting: and probably of a wider interest to those who aren't generally specifically interested in railways, but on a forum like this, the train's the thing. I just wouldn't have Snow present it. Climbing down from the soapbox now... Adam Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 15 minutes was my lot, loads of waffle for what most people know already. While the program was fairly flawed in concept, what he did explain is probably not known by most people. Only those with an interest in the history of railways will know about Chat Moss, etc. I learned something about wagon ways and their place in the evolution of transport. One remarkable point was that IKB didn't get a mention. Courtesy of the media most people do think that he was solely responsible for the Industrial Revolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisf Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I'm not sure whether the enthusiasm displayed by Dan Snow was real or contrived but I would have preferred a more dispassionate delivery. The sight of a presenter walking off set at the end of a shot irritates me more than somewhat but wouldn't it be boring if we all had the same taste. The trouble with a broad subject like this is that there is far more to dsicuss than time allows. With a total of only three hours on screen the balance of subjects covered must suffer. A proper job on, say, Robert Stephenson could easily demand more than that, as anyone who has had the privilege of hearing Dr Michael Bailey OBE on that particular subject will tell you. Inevitably there were a few missed opportunites. The segment on the life and death of William Huskisson MP neglected to mention that at the time of his death he was President of the Board of Trade - the Minister responsible for railways! It will be interesting to see how the other two programmes are structured. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 One remarkable point was that IKB didn't get a mention. ... That was the single positive aspect of this opening episode, which other wise was 'History-lite' as per earlier comments. IKB had nothing to do with getting steam railway technology underway, only jumping on the band wagon (with a number of his own concepts that subsequently proved resounding failures) once earlier pioneers - of whom the Stephensons were in the front rank - had proven the concept. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I seem to be alone, but I enjoyed it. Good stuff aimed at the general TV audience, not aimed at us who know it all, anyway. A nice basic grounding by a guy who has a decent TV presence and no grating regional accent. A bit too much of the arty close-ups of whirling machinery but otherwise very watchable. Dan Snow did a piece on the 1812 war (when the Canadians successfully invaded the USA) - I now understand why the White House is white and the significance of Fort York in Toronto. I'd ignored it on previous visits - now I understand its significance I need to go pay a visit. If DS does that for railways, that's great! CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jol Wilkinson Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Chris, as you point out, the program is aimed at the general TV audience. Does that however excuse the waste of time with repeated video fills and other shots that were presumably intended to create atmosphere but conveyed little else. I guess that the one hour show had about 40 minutes of wothwhile content, but then that would be good going compared with some factual programmes on the commercial channels. Like you I got something new from it, but would appreciate rather more. Jol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I missed it due indulging in my other hobby of astronomy (a beautifully clear sky last night). I had planned to catch up on iPlayer but based on the feedback here I may not bother. Does anyone know what next week's installment will focus on? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 That was the single positive aspect of this opening episode, which other wise was 'History-lite' as per earlier comments. IKB had nothing to do with getting steam railway technology underway, only jumping on the band wagon (with a number of his own concepts that subsequently proved resounding failures) once earlier pioneers - of whom the Stephensons were in the front rank - had proven the concept. That's a particularly skewed view of IKB, but sadly one that's not uncommon. The programmes are essentially about railways and whilst there is no denying that IKB's locomotives were not satisfactory, he brought artistry and architecture to railway construction in a way that had not been done before. The GWR was bigger and more beautiful than anything that went before it and once Gooch brought Stephenson principles to the locomotive design, GWR locomotives were running at far faster speeds on the broad gauge than anything running on 'the coal waggon gauge'. So it is fair to say IKB didn't have anything to do with getting steam railway technology under way, but once it was under way, he provided the means to exploit it. Even his 'failed concepts' were genuine attempts to overcome the shortcomings of the technology of the day (baulk road/broken iron rails, atmospheric railway/poor hill-climbing of locomotives or static winding engines). I will be surprised if he doesn't warrant a mention in the second or third programmes. I think the general TV audience thing is exactly what leads to the insertion of video clips that we might see as pointless. Having worked both in front of and behind the camera on programmes, I'm sure that DS is primarily a presenter of material compiled by others. CHRIS LEIGH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Re6/6 Posted January 16, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2013 As Chris says, it's not for our edification, after all we know all about that stuff, don't we? Although for a general 'hoi-poloi' audience, I quite enjoyed it. I don't know what people find wrong with Dan Snow. I find him a likeable, enthusiastic and articulate bloke.(as I do with Dan Cruikshank as it happens)... But hey..what do I know? Regarding irritation with some TV railway programmes an otherwise likeable presentation by Micheal Portillo was ruined by badly cut-in overhead shots of completly different trains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Gilbert Posted January 16, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2013 I thought the canal shots gas some useful reference material! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Harrap Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 As expected, it was rubbish, Brian Have you ever considered, when watching a TV prog you at least know a little about the subject discussed just how little 'they' actually tell you. Then you realise, when watching some prog where you have no knowlege, how little you are going to learn because 'they' aren't really going to tell you very much anyway. It's good to ride the ole hobby horse now and again, Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clay Country Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I rather enjoyed it, obviously it has to be targeted at a wide audience and I thought the story was told in an engaging way. As Ben mentioned above, I was slgihtly taken aback by the appearance of a Czech Pendolino in one of the aerial shots (a lot of which looked like they had been taken straight from Michael Portillo's series, which might explain the stray foreign train) but I can't imagine many viewers noticed this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovex Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I feel rather glad I missed it. What next "Dan Snow's social history of model railways"? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coldgunner Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I personally thought it was quite good. We need to remember that this isn't aimed at us enthusiasts. It seemed that it could appeal quite well to the general populace, and in the words of my mum, "Very interesting". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted January 16, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2013 as you point out, the program is aimed at the general TV audience. Does that however excuse the waste of time with repeated video fills and other shots that were presumably intended to create atmosphere but conveyed little else. I guess that the one hour show had about 40 minutes of wothwhile content, but then that would be good going compared with some factual programmes on the commercial channels. Jol That is a very important point Jol and one that grated with me - there seemed to be umpteen repeats of various 'fill' shots or sequences very much in the manner of Follicle Finders 'Heir Hunters' in its earlier series. I'm not at all sure about the purpose of these 'fills ' - is it something to do with people having a limited attention span or saving on filming time - they simply don't make sense to me and if Professor Mary Beard can do without them why shouldn't any other sort of 'explanatory' programme manage that too? And, as you have said, this sort of thing actually reduces the amount of 'proper' content which in this case was something of a shame when some areas were left uncovered. Incidentally I was surprised to hear George Stephenson described as 'a mining engineer' which he very definitely wasn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Tony_S Posted January 16, 2013 RMweb Gold Share Posted January 16, 2013 I enjoyed it. I've read / been told the Chat Moss story many times but seeing the bog walk was interesting. I think mining engineer meant something different in the 19th century than it does today. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.