Flying Scotsman

The BBC recently broadcast this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b085k35h/robert-rauschenberg-pop-art-pioneer

It was very good but hardly for a mass audience. However, if there are esoteric but intelligent programmes about the arts on television, more people become interested in the arts. If there were more programmes about engineering that were not sensationalised, dumbed down pap, then more people would become interested in engineering.

 

Be good if the BBC did one on the Bulleid Pacific's, even the introduction of an express passenger loco in the time of war will get audience talking, the automotive engineering, welding over rivetting, then the rebuilding and the history of the saving of some, of how 35028 was saved, 35029 in York, maybe 35005 being overhauled in its birthplace, the Light Pacifics etc.

 

To which I say, one person's 'dumbed down pap' is another person's point of entry.

 

Missing my point entirely. Never mind.

 

Likewise, and indeed.

 

Thoroughly saddened to see that Sir Bill McAlpine has passed on...

http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/fawley/122843/saviour-of-flying-scotsman-dies.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sad news indeed.

 

Indeed he was a true character and a fine gentleman. Great loss.

 

Very sad news a true gent in the steam railway RIP Sir William.

 

I was pleased to hear that Sir Wiliam's sad passing was acknowledged during the running of the credits at the end of last night's episode. Vale, Sir William, and thank you.

 

Thought it was another good program last night, unlike some I would not get hung up on the continuity from Tornado's footplate leaving Newcastle.

Again thought presenter showed all and sundry a story with many twists and turns, and the NRM and operators will take many calls today I am sure.

Nothing but positives for me.

 

IMHO the second programme was a little rushed and the story deserved a 3rd programme. The purchase by the NRM could have ended the 2nd programme thus allowing more to be said about the involvement of both Pete Waterman and Roland Kennington in the story and a little more about Tony Marchington's ownership. The 3rd programme could then have dealt with the 10 year overhaul as the "problem" and the period from its release to traffic 2016 until today as the "success" with reference to the work of Ian Riley and his team to identify - and solve - the many problems that were encountered during the overhaul. My personal opinion was that the sequences of 60163 were used as a "filler" and need not have been included had other more relevant elements of 4472 / 60103's story been included.

Sorry to be critical but IMHO the story sunk to a low level of mass viewing that failed to tell the whole story by leaving out some of the interesting parts of the locomotive's story.

 

I really enjoyed both programmes but I do agree that a 3rd instalment would have explained better the incredible efforts to get 4472/60103 back to where it is now and the involvement of some of the more recent characters in the story. I guess the most recent restoration might be considered "too technical and therefore boring" for a mass audience. However, media organisations often underestimate the intelligence of their audiences. Regarding 60163, I thought it was good to emphasise that such steam locomotives can and are, being built in the UK today.

 

A very enjoyable programme. No mention of the word Leicester, in fact more could have been said about the fifties and the swansong of the A3s and A4s in service.

I thought the presenter was good. Who were the crews?

 

As a true documentary maybe Fred, but for something to keep the public interested, I don't think so.

Remember it was at a true mainstream time, and the Ian Riley repairs were covered in a documentary just after her re-launch, and the footage may not have been available.

It strikes me the program was originated after the first mainline run, and the furore it evoked.

 

Meh...every enthusiast can probably pick holes in the majority of mainstream programmes about railways and some will delight in doing so. For me, both episodes were entertaining and the obvious enthusiasm and excitement of the presenter made them all the more watchable. Big thumbs up to the production company and broadcaster

 

Any detail on the overhaul would inevitably have led to criticism of the NRM and various others - simply by stating that there were problems that had to be undone. Do you think the NRM would have been happy to have that sort of detail dragged across the mainstream tv screen?

 

I am not sure that they do. A view outlined to me by a media executive is that commercial television is reliant on advertisers and advertisers for mass market products are anxious to place their advertisements for obvious reasons where the audience includes the less discerning.

 

We frequently bemoan manpower shortages within 'the movement', yet the moment a TV programme steps up with an offering having the potential to attract new blood, there's a veritable fusilade of petty sniping, griping and whinging over the 'nth' detail.

Criticism of gross inaccuracies is one thing (and boy have there been some howlers over the years), but something like identifying a particular loco as built in 1931 rather than 1937 in all likelihood can be put down to someone's ruddy awful handwriting coming up against a production deadline. Transposing the livery, name or number of two or more locos could be down to a simple 'cut and paste' error. I recall seeing a screen graphic identifying one specific 57xx as a "Class 06". A quick mull over processes soon led to the conclusion someone in proof reading had missed something that an evidently non-gricing editor would later be highly unlikely to pick up ... i.e. that a running number isn't neccessarily the class number and that someone was totally unfamiliar with Whyte notation (with the added possibility that the original writer who was had got distracted before finishing his piece). Should such errors creep in? D'uh.... of course not .... but that's life .... argue 'prefection or nothing' and guess what you'll end up with?

When it comes to the detailed minutiae of our obsession, I think we need to ask ourselves how we'd feel if a dozen Emeritus Professors of Pure Mathematics slagged off a "Year 5" schools' mathematics programme called something like "Shapes" for it's failure to address the finer points of non-Euclidian geometry.

Sometimes, I wish Trin Tragula's invention existed.

 

Comments regarding going into detail about why 60103 was in such bad condition might well have opened a few cans of worms, for sure. We on here know a lot about it, of course, but as 2 of those responsible for the "Scotsman GTI" modifications are no longer with us to defend their decisions, then on balance it was probably a good thing to only state what the programme actually did. I was surprised that Pete Waterman wasn't involved, or indeed mentioned, though.