locomotion: Dan Snow's history of Railways.

[melmerby]

I still never understand why programs like this have to be dumbed down for people who know nothing about the subject. They don't do it with, for example, Match of the Day

They used to show decent length highlights of two games but these days just seem to show the goals from practically all of them and little of the rest of the game, where quite often most of the interesting play is.

Bit like Ski Sunday where last week we had about 18 minutes skiing in a 45 min show, rest was flannel and waffle.

All programs seem to be like that nowadays to please the brain dead majority that seem to inhabit the UK

 

Keith

[Tony_S]

They used to show decent length highlights of two games but these days just seem to show the goals from practically all of them and little of the rest of the game, where quite often most of the interesting play is.

Bit like Ski Sunday where last week we had about 18 minutes skiing in a 45 min show, rest was flannel and waffle.

All programs seem to be like that nowadays to please the brain dead majority that seem to inhabit the UK

 

Keith

There seem to be a lot of full length football matches on the television, just not on the free channels.

It would appear that I've gone from dumb to brain dead for enjoying Mr Snow's programme. 

[Kenton]

But, never let too much real history get in the way of making a very nicely presented bit of telly.

But that is the problem here.

 

We are making the mistake that this program was intended to be about pure history or for the benefit of purist historians.

 

I would guess that vast majority of TV viewers gave up any interest in history at school and even those few with a passing interest would have been uninterested in a dry and purely factual rendition of railway history.

 

The program was only a small step away from light entertainment. A taster of history to potentially attract viewers into the subject and owed itself probably more to the Snow Family production machinery than to the BBC. Made for its saleability to the foreign viewer on Discovery Channel who hasn't a clue or a care about history or where specific featured cameos were located.

[Old Gringo]

Hello Kenton,

 

Good points that I can readily empathise with.

 

It's the missed opportunity that disappoints, to make (what was) an attractive programme using all the modern production values into the real story. 

 

Everything was there (somewhere!)  All it needed was a better script, (backed up by a bit more research), to turn it into entertainment that told the real story.

 

I suppose that in my declining years, I'll have to get used to this dumb and dumber world!!

 

All the best,

 

John.

 

Edit:  You'll find the greater part of the information I wrote in the earlier post, contained in a book aimed at children, one of the "How things developed series", published by the Educational Supply Association.  "Railways" by Leonora Fry was first published in 1951 and to my limited knowledge ran to seven editions by 1962.  In that last edition, Leonora brought us right up to date with a picture of things to come on page 85, with a Deltic! 

 

The other mine of information for the young railway historian was "Railways for Britain", by Patrick Thornhill and illustrated by R.Barnard Way, which goes way deeper into the pre-history and construction techniques.  One of the Methuen's Outlines series of reference books for boys and girls, published in 1954.  With minor adjustments, it might make a good script for somebody one day!

[BRealistic]

I think I may have found the programme just a little more bearable and interesting than most as it included a piece about the railway's first fatality... William Huskisson, MP for Liverpool at the time, and born 1770 in Warwickshire. My late aunt Nora was a Huskisson, and William was her great great great grandfather!

 

Family history is another time-consuming past-time of mine, and I was intrigued to find that the view of open fields one of my own great great great grandfathers had (on the edge of Birmingham at the time) was 'suddenly' blocked by a ginormous, blue-brick viaduct (and I mean ginormous!!) carrying the GWR line into Brum from Oxford. It was built across the Rea valley... one of the longest of it's day (started 1847) and my ggg grandfather happened to live on the opposite side of the road! It's nice when my two hobbies collide!

[Kenton]

It's the missed opportunity that disappoints, to make (what was) an attractive programme using all the modern production values into the real story. 

 

Sadly, perhaps, I find myself looking at from the perspective of Mrs Kenton. She actually enjoyed the program. Perhaps that was because of Dan Snow (she has met him at some dinner promo they did, and has the autograph) but certainly not due to the purist historical content and railways in general that rather bores her. She commented afterwards on several of the topics covered and on which I was unable (slightly embarrassingly) to be able to expand on. I therefore see the program as quite a success and taking it in the context in which it was probably produced, certainly doesn't warrant the highbrow criticism leveled at it in this topic.

 

But then we are quite a narrow group of viewers with more than a passing interest in the accuracy of such content. But I doubt if the Snow Family PR machine will take it as an indictment on their presentation.

[Michael Delamar]

IMO the best railway documentaries have no presenter, just a voice over from a man, not an enthusiast with a boring voice. someone with a radio or tv background.

[Butler Henderson]

Given the general standard of stuff on the tv relating to railways I thought it was quite good, quite evident they were jumping to the key dates as they judged them and hence various things would be skipped. The only thing that seemed odd was the navies and Woodhead slipped in before finishing off with the L&M. As to padding could that be for use on commercial channels, chop the padding out for the commercials and the program does not lose valuable content.

[bluebottle]

... But then we are quite a narrow group of viewers with more than a passing interest in the accuracy of such content. But I doubt if the Snow Family PR machine will take it as an indictment on their presentation.

 

I'd imagine that anybody with any knowledge of something which could be described as a minority interest is likely to be disappointed with a programme, on his speciality, aimed at the general public. It's easy to forget what it's like to know nothing about a subject of which one has now acquired some knowledge.

(Anecdote warning)

An overheard conversation between the caretaker and one of the cleaners at a local school:

Caretaker (who had been watching daytime TV): “And does tha know, Saturn's s' far away, that Sun looks like n'more'n a bright star. Nah then”.

Cleaner (trying to keep up): “Oh... But what do they do for light then?”

Caretaker ( with no more than a second's hesitation): “Well, I suppose they has their own arrangements...”

To be fair, I should mention that these were both excellent individuals (the caretaker fought in Burma, had one lung and was due for retirement). They just didn't know much about astronomy.

[petethemole]

But when BBC programmes are sold and shown on commercial channels they're not edited down (costs money); the time slots are longer. I found the first programme weak and agree there's too much padding, some very repetitive. I think a lot of the aspects that have been negatively received on here are down to the production team, not Dan Snow. For a contrast watch "Battlecastle", a  far more informative programme also fronted by him.

Pete

[Talltim]

There seem to be a lot of full length football matches on the television, just not on the free channels.

It would appear that I've gone from dumb to brain dead for enjoying Mr Snow's programme.

I quite enjoyed it, I like him (although not as much as Mrs Kenton!) and I thought what there was was quite nicely presented. It's just that there could have been three times more info fitted in the same program. Things like those mentioned in this thread, building across Chat Moss, where the mine tunnel is, the name and significance of the arch.

 

There seem to be a lot of full length football matches on the television, just not on the free channels.

It would appear that I've gone from dumb to brain dead for enjoying Mr Snow's programme.

I quite enjoyed it, I like him (although not as much as Mrs Kenton!) and I thought what there was was quite nicely presented. It's just that there could have been three times more info fitted in the same program. Things like those mentioned in this thread, building across Chat Moss, where the mine tunnel is, the name and significance of the arch.

[trisonic]

There seem to be a lot of full length football matches on the television, just not on the free channels.

It would appear that I've gone from dumb to brain dead for enjoying Mr Snow's programme. 

I don't think so, Tony.  As i inferred in my previous post; too much data in a program designed for the General Public would just have them reaching for the remote. These programs are not made for history or railway buffs.

I will watch it if it ever turns up on the box over here (very doubtful). All the other programs mentioned on here have never made it in my area.

 

Best, Pete.

[Jol Wilkinson]

By comparison, did anyone see Carved with Love on Thursday night. Episode two of a four part series on British woodwork dealt with Grinling Gibbons.

 

Narrated, not presented, I found it full of interest and without obvious "filling". It placed his remarkeable work in the context of the period, from which I felt conveyed much more than Dan Snow's program. Difficult to imagine two such different approaches to an historical subject.

[10800]

One of the issues with programmes like this is the assumption that the general viewing public is not capable of taking in and understanding more comprehensive details, nor actually interested in proper learning.  I find this insulting, and leads to questioning - as has been mentioned earlier - whether I am being patronised on programmes covering subjects that I am interested in but not so knowledgable about.  This attitude is down to the likes of Murdoch, Cowell et al where everything has to be dumbed down to 'entertainment' rather than education, and not helped by the advertising requirements in formats like Discovery Channel.  There are of course exceptions but few and far between.

 

I wonder what the programme on model railways (BBC4 next Wednesday) will be like?

[Guest oldlugger]

What a shame Bob Symes couldn't present this show or one like it. He has a splendid voice, looks great on camera and knows his stuff!

 

Simon

[Adam]

OK, so I've now seen - well, skimmed through - Dan Snow's programme and found it somewhat thin: there's half an hour's worth of content there, loosely structured and based on fairly minimal research.  

 

I suspect that the BBC 4 show will be relatively thoughtful, or at least thought about: that's the nature of the channel. If it were BBC 3 on the other hand... There have been several shows of that broad type on BBC 4, caravanners, coach travel, some quite in depth things about farming. All actually pretty good. I've made clear what my issues with Snow are: he's a reasonable presenter with several natural advantages passing himself off as a historian. Even after the better part of 20 years doing Time Team, Tony Robinson (who probably knows more than quite a few professional field archaeologists by now) doesn't call himself an archaeologist - he'd be rightly laughed at if he tried.

 

An interesting comparison would be the programme Mark Urban fronted on the same channel in the same slot a day earlier (basically on the lives of several veterans of the fifth battalion, the Royal Tank Regiment in WWII). Detailed, thoughtful and considered and fronted by someone with a direct interest - having served in the regiment in Germany in the '80s. Not hugely in depth - the bare minimum of 'boys and toys' stuff and episodic rather than narrative. It was the better for that, nicely detailed and well-structured while not being a topic I am hugely interested in or know much about. I took the trouble to watch the second part in any event. I'll have a look for 'Carved with Love' Jol, it sounds interesting. I won't be watching the rest of Snow's series, I have history to be doing.

 

Adam

Adam

[The Stationmaster]

OK, so I've now seen - well, skimmed through - Dan Snow's programme and found it somewhat thin: there's half an hour's worth of content there, loosely structured and based on fairly minimal research.  

 

I suspect that the BBC 4 show will be relatively thoughtful, or at least thought about: that's the nature of the channel. If it were BBC 3 on the other hand... There have been several shows of that broad type on BBC 4, caravanners, coach travel, some quite in depth things about farming. All actually pretty good. I've made clear what my issues with Snow are: he's a reasonable presenter with several natural advantages passing himself off as a historian. 

 

Adam

Dan Snow has 1st in History from Balliol College which I suppose makes him a 'historian' in the exact sense of the term.  But just where do you draw the bar to call someone anything - my daughter works in a supermarket to fund her PhD, she has a BA and an MA in history subjects and has contributed to specialist magazines and delivered talks at conferences (including one in the USA) but she's never appeared on or researched a tv programme.  So which of them out of her and Dan Snow is 'a historian'?

 

Television has altered our perception of history as a subject being delivered but it is still that - a subject being delivered.

[OFFTHE RAILS]

A friend of mine (knowing I'm interested in railways and model railways - and he's not !) made a point (over our weekly pint(s)of saying how much he enjoyed Dan Snow's programme and told me all about the things he'd learned. So on that basis I think the programme has been very successful....

Ian

[Adam]

Well, Ambrose Bierce in 'The Devil's Dictionary' reckoned a historian to be 'A broad gauge gossip'. 

 

I'm biased on this since being 'a historian' is what I actually do for what passes for a living. I actually do original research (and this strikes me as a minimum) and teach and publish things here and there. And I would hesitate to call myself a historian, it's my trade, yes, but really, I'm a junior university academic with limited job security but I've worked hard for what skill I have and to get my students their degrees and what I do has no relation to what Dan Snow does. Yet that is what he calls himself - his twitter handle is 'thehistoryguy' but he makes his living basically doing undergraduate standard presentations (hence the relatively low level of understanding and erratic structure all derived from the works of others, based on limited preparation) to camera. His books are similar - having leafed through them in Waterstones I recognised what he'd read to get to that level of understanding.

 

I've no problem with that, but his brand is based on something that those of us that actually do it for a living find somewhat insulting. By way of an analogy: he also has a rowing Blue, but I wonder whether he'd serious present himself to Steve Redgrave as a rower. It might be true to an extent but I doubt it would go down all that well.

 

Ambrose Bierce was right, by the way. All this is a personal hang-up albeit shared by most historians I know. Partly, of course, this is because our research gets used uncredited for someone else's profit and gets mangled in the process, often in the expectation by TV researchers that we're happy to give up hours of our time for free. Ok, so that's partly personal experience (not Snow related I should add) but it's a common complaint from various friends and colleagues. Your daughter is the historian Mike [as are you, if it comes to that], Dan Snow is the TV presenter and personality and that's fine, he's very good at it. If he wants to set himself up as a historian, he should be happy to be judged as one. 

 

Adam

[dibber25]

A shame this thread is hung up on who has the right to call himself an historian. Surely, as in any 'tag' there are differing degrees. In some circles I would describe myself as a railway historian - in places where I didn't want to describe myself as a railway journallist. I've spent nearly 50 years writing about railways and most of the stuff I've written has been about the historical aspects. Yet I have no qualification as such, I never went to university or did any history studies after the age of 16 and I've only ever done three pieces of original research, the WR gas turbines, Barnum & Bailey's circus trains in the UK/Europe, and to a lesser extent, the Invergarry & Fort Augustus Railway. Mainstream TV is produced for a 'typical' audience, some would call it dumbed down, others would say it was precisely targeted. There are degrees of expertise among viewers just as there are among programme producers, and the programme producers will have had rather more to do with the content than Dan Snow did. In my experience the last thing you would want as a presenter is a real historian, unless by chance he also happened to be a good TV presenter. The likes of Fred Dibnah and Bob Symes, personable and knowledgeable as they were and are, merely confirm the stereotype public perception that we're all eccentric. This programme is a sprat to catch a mackerel - if it gets a few more people interested in railways it will have done a good job.

CHRIS LEIGH

[trisonic]

I must be using the old invisible ink again....

 

Best, Pete.

[Guest oldlugger]

A shame this thread is hung up on who has the right to call himself an historian. Surely, as in any 'tag' there are differing degrees. In some circles I would describe myself as a railway historian - in places where I didn't want to describe myself as a railway journallist. I've spent nearly 50 years writing about railways and most of the stuff I've written has been about the historical aspects. Yet I have no qualification as such, I never went to university or did any history studies after the age of 16 and I've only ever done three pieces of original research, the WR gas turbines, Barnum & Bailey's circus trains in the UK/Europe, and to a lesser extent, the Invergarry & Fort Augustus Railway. Mainstream TV is produced for a 'typical' audience, some would call it dumbed down, others would say it was precisely targeted. There are degrees of expertise among viewers just as there are among programme producers, and the programme producers will have had rather more to do with the content than Dan Snow did. In my experience the last thing you would want as a presenter is a real historian, unless by chance he also happened to be a good TV presenter. The likes of Fred Dibnah and Bob Symes, personable and knowledgeable as they were and are, merely confirm the stereotype public perception that we're all eccentric. This programme is a sprat to catch a mackerel - if it gets a few more people interested in railways it will have done a good job.

CHRIS LEIGH

 

Hardly! Without going off topic too much, Bob Symes (when he worked as a TV presenter) had a wonderful way of engaging the audience, railway minded or not, without giving the impression that he was the figure head, representing of a bunch of spotty; bathroom redundant; bespectacled weirdos. His persona was a rare quality in this respect. I work in in the film industry, and finding characters of this caliber to convey information on often seen "dull" subject matter, like railways, is extremely hard. One can employ character actors to do the job at the expense of technical insight, but to actually locate a true TV personality like Bob who knows his railways, is a tough one. Sadly, the Beeb and ITV tend to employ the big names that the general public know, hoping that alone will sell the show, but as we know only too well this backfires more than it succeeds, as it is a showcase for the presenter, rather than for the subject matter itself. Ultimately any residual information gleaned from a series such as this will soon be forgotten by the non railway fraternity, having only been half an hour or so of something to watch whilst quaffing large helpings of boil in the bag cod in sauce and oven chips with ketchup.

 

Cheers

Simon

[Guest oldlugger]

Calm down a bit Simon......its Tv for the general audience not the mythical people you talk of

 

Does anyone still eat things like boil in the bag? I thought they were Drivers?

 

Calm down? Who's revved up? Am I not allowed to make an observation on this forum any longer without all and sundry jumping on me?? I hardly bother posting here anymore (including my layout thread) because of this apparent censorship that has developed in recent months. If you read between the lines of the scribblings I posted above you'll see that it is very much tongue in cheek. Humour bi-passes must be as popular as plastic surgery these days.

 

Simon

[Lambton58]

A friend of mine (knowing I'm interested in railways and model railways - and he's not !) made a point (over our weekly pint(s)of saying how much he enjoyed Dan Snow's programme and told me all about the things he'd learned. So on that basis I think the programme has been very successful....

Ian

Both I and Mrs Lambton58 enjoyed the programme and found it interesting.  It would have been nice to have named Trevithick, but given that it was a programme not aimed at the informed(?) enthusiast audience I thought it did a reasonable job of putting railways in a historical context.  I'm looking forward to the rest of the series. 

 

If you missed 1st time around, I'd also suggest the repeat of Why the Industrial Revolution happened here on BBC2 next Tuesday

 

Ralph

Lambton58

[melmerby]

Just got round to seeing this programme and I thought it wasn't as bad as some seem to suggest.

 

My biggest gripe is the somewhat disjointed nature of it, you could be mistaken to think that Woodhead tunnel was part of the Liverpool - Manchester construction work for instance!

 

Not telling you what you were looking at as well was a disappointment, or maybe the average viewer isn't bothered.

We saw the remains of the much modified original Rocket for instance but didn't see the replica which shows what it looked like when built.

 

Keith