VT - Marylebone Flyer (Inter-City) - Re-scheduled for April 6th

Would someone's video title make any difference? What's happened has happened & is no secret, especially to NR.

 

I understand you might have had a bad day, but there is no need for that...

 

The difference between a ban, and no ban, is not the title of someones video on Youtube. The railway industry is much more pragmatic than that. It has to be, its had bad press since William Huskinsson, MP for Liverpool, was run over by Stephenson's ​Rocket.

 

Bearing in mind the amount of time and effort which Ben puts in with all things Tyseley, together with extremely helpful input on this forum, I can well understand his frustration at the heading to the video. Probably speaking his instant thoughts, and whether over the top or not, lets put it to bed now that the contributor (great vids incidentally) has changed the wording. Perhaps its just that we're all getting very concerned at what the future holds for organizing tours resulting in a bit of tetchiness. Have a good day everyone and in the meantime, I'm certainly looking forward to seeing the fabulous Castle through Reading shortly. .....what she was made for !......Pete

 

But it wont help. Not everyone would watch the clip, some would simply see the sensationalised title and presume the worst. There ARE some people within Network Rail who would be quite happy to say goodbye to mainline steam, and simple things like the above do not help and it is only a fool who thinks otherwise. The clip of the photter nearly being hit at Thurston whilst recording 70013 is still shown in a selection of NR briefings today, yet that was 3(?) years ago. The more we can do to help ourselves the better.

 

I can fully understand why Ben feels frustrated. This is the second "high profile" train in recent months that Vintage Trains have worked painstakingly hard to organise which didn't turn out as planned through no fault of theirs. Remember what happened to their "Castle to Sotland" last year........... exactly the same. Fire risks don't suddenly arise on the day of a tour, they develop in the days prior to the tour. Maybe all parties need to get together and develop a "Code of Practice" which sets out how to identify and deal with such a developing situaton and which is acceptable to promoters, operators and customers.

 

Maybe oil-burning is a solution to this, and perhaps the future for mainline steam expresses? Am I right to think that has less fire risk?

 

Change 5043 to 5039 Rhuddlan Castle & put vents in the cab roof? :smile:

 

Also increasingly more expensive, the welsh narrow gauge oil burners are rapidly being converted back to coal for a reason.

 

I agree, that might be his opinion but there was no need to plaster it all over a public forum. Especially from someone in his position, at the end of the day he is a company employee with a public face, so not very professional.

 

Afternoon all

Couple of pictures below from me. Tried to keep the 47 out the best I could.



Having decided against white water rafting and following an e-mail from the better half (who incidently read through me like a book by saying, James.....why aren't we in the pullman coaches) I've fallen for the Devonion in June. Much better fix I feel than rafting.

All the best

James

P.S. Who was the driver I have pictured, said gentleman when I spoke with him sounded quite emotional, summed up the mood at the time, him, I and everyone else concerned.

 

Nice footage there James, you certainly got about!!

And nice to meet you too - always nice to put a face to a name.

Here's my efforts from Saturday.

Dave Ryding Photography | 5043 Earl of Mount Edgcumbe "The Marylebone Flyer" 06.04.13.

 

This is absolutely crazy. I don't what his video was called but that surely doesn't matter. Here was a guy filming the Castle whereupon he noticed smoke in the lineside and continued filming. There is not one person on this planet who would not have done the same and why would he. This guy is probably as big a steam fan as anyone and yet he has been chastised by a member of VT for daring to put it on You Tube.

I agree with an earlier poster, NR will not be influenced one way or the other over this video. They know it happened. They know it caused some disruption and because of it, the Sunday trip to Exeter had an enforced diesel on the back DOING THE WORK to avoid just what we saw in the video, lineside fires.

Message to all video and cameramen. Do not be deterred. Without you guys we would not relive the brilliant images, some unpalatable it is true, that we enjoy on You Tube. It is the REAL WORLD and we should not be denied seeing it.

 

I beg to differ, don't forget there was a use of a swear word (albeit a mild one) in the comment as well, not what you expect from a company rep (not quite sure of his position) when talking to the public, especially as it was aimed at one particular person.
If I was spoken to in public like that by an employee of a company, I would soon be complaining to his/her boss.
Fair enough, he & the rest of VT are probably upset about the day's events, but there is no need to air your dirty washing in public.

 

A reckless view which shows a lack of understanding re just how such clips posted on public forums are used in or out of real context to prove a point.

 

As John Macenroe once said, "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!"

I don't know about a reckless view but that was a most odd retort and completely over the top. Prey God tell me how the post I made can be reckless when all I did was to comment on what this guy did on the day; filmed a lineside fire.

If was footage of a serious crash or someone dead in the street then I would be very critical. But for goodness sake get the thing into perspective.

I firmly believe that it is this kind of response that does harm to the reputation of this forum because free speech should always be KING. If you think a comment is reckless, take the time to fully explain why.

In my line of business, this communication would have been screwed up and thrown in the bin for its lack of clarity.

 

I totally agree, we all know terrorist organisations like al-quaida has used flames as overlays in its videos before.... It would be horrific if one was made issuing a fatwa against the back drop of a flaming embankment with 5043 passing and a bunch of clerics dancing superimposed on the running plate running with class 47s instead of ak47s
All photographers beware the risks of how you label the video and who watches it...

even worse the Americans may go looking for clues to see where it was filmed.

Your next meal could be in Guantanamo.

 

I wouldn't have said your original post was reckless, more naive. Though you're losing the point of Ben's original post. It wasn't the content, more the sensationalised Title. It was open for manipulation by someone, and trust me it does happen! I don't think Ben's response was over-the-top at all, he was simply flagging something he knew could have repercussions elsewhere. No offence to yourself, but I think Ben knows more of the goings on with Network Rail and associated companies than those condoning his posting.

 

I disagree here to.
that teenager who made the news with her tweets... Made it because of the combination of her position and her tweets, not either or.
now if Ben made that video... It would be the same thing, but he didn't and it isn't.
sure he shouldn't condone it and he has the right to express dissatisfaction, but lets not get carried away... A polite private message would have been far more appropriate and far less damaging to both parties...

as it is...

1. we have a video renamed so that no one understand whats going on but everyone's talking about
2. 3 pages of bad words about Vintage trains.

who wins ?