Top Gear strikes again?

Martin - I suspect Clarkson does a very good job of acting like he knows nothing but speed - however he has in the past put together some pretty well thought out programmes on other topics (albeit in typical Clarkson style). The one about the destroyer raid on St Nazaire in WWII for example was a pretty good tribute to the men who risked or gave their lives. If nothing else I doubt he's have made it through his run on Tornado without a fair bit of knowledge creeping in, to say nothing of all the safety briefings. As old Les Dawson used to prove with his piano, sometimes its one thing to do something well, its another level again to be able to do it badly well!

 

I think the "near miss" with the 08 was achieved by script writing than Clarkson's incompetence!

 

Normally done by starting face to face and reversing away, then running the tape backwards. Easier with a diesel than with steam of course, as the exhaust is all wrong with the latter. No doubt in this CGI age there are other ways.

 

Clarkson also did a serious series of programmes about V.C. winners including his father in law at Arnhem.
Colin.

 

All TV personalities have a personality for the camera and a real personality. A fellow mini-owner friend of mine once met Jeremy and was amazed to discover that he knew as much, if not more about Minis than my friend does!

 

My guess is the 08 was mainly used to carry the camera to film the cars...

 

As its all contrived for entertainment, I do feel that top gear needs to change the format of the specials now. Although there were some funny bits in that show, that format is starting to get a bit threadbare now. You can predict about 75% of whats about to happen. Only the toilet bit made me burst out laughing.

 

Errm, I think you'll find the "near miss" with the shunter was a) staged and b) probably achieved by some fancy camera work and editing. The whole thing was a series of edits from a number of takes.

 

Mr. Clarkson is a man who hides his light very carefully under an unkempt bushel! Remember his programme arguing Brunel should be the "Greatest Briton"? It was a good piece and very well presented. No, for all their clowning around on Top Gear you should never under-estimate any of the team (especially James may when it comes to railways....).

Foxy

 

It could have been toned down a bit and still been excellent, I agree. It goes about 25% too far.

 

Did I imagine it or did both "trains" swap tracks on more than one occasion disregarding continuity. Still, the BBC paid [sorry, us licence payers paid] to have the whole of GCR at their disposal, I presume, and everything filmed was planned in the tiniest of detail no doubt.
The bearings (?) of the track trolleys, used to carry the caravan body, must have been a tad warm if Mr Clarkson did indeed achieve anything approaching the "80mph" claimed!

 

If you watch it again, you'll see that the caravan that Clarkson was pulling had the same wheels as the car, running on the caravans axles.

 

Clarkson is no mug, I don't take him seriously on Top Gear, but I've read some of his books (there are many), and he knows his stuff . And he's a damned good business man, I wish my bank account was £1 behind his. Mrs.V can't stand the man, she refuses to watch him or read him. :noidea:

 

Leaving the 'artistic licence' on one side, two points come out of it:-

1) Reason for the demise of the 'Single Driver' locomotive, and,

2) The cost of rolling stock today. Gresley main line coaches in the 1930s cost between £2500 and £3500 each. Taking £3000 as the average and the year 1935, according to the National Archives this gives a 2005 price of £110,940. So why do modern coaches cost something in the region of ten times that?

 

You're right there Eightpot - for all the joking and clear comedy intent, the piece did highlight that the cost of rolling stock is what makes many rail services need subsidy (and actual new build cost is the one area where most British trains are actually not as m,uch ahead of the costs in the rest of Europe, especially allowing for the much smaller market for UK gauge stock) - but also just how flimsy some "stock" is - I don't know if the "scum class" caravan had been weakened, but the Peak apparently demolished it with little more than a scratch or two on the Peak. Okay, so caravans are not designed to carry passengers when moving and often disintgrate when involved in RTAs (or are brought into the near presence of one J Clarkson!) but how much stronger is the bodywork of buses, given the ease with which the roof of double-deckers can be sliced off by rail bridges.

I must say, I am quite keen on rail vehicles being pretty strong when you consider the closing speed of a collision can be up to 250mph in the UK. That said, does this really mean that the new IEP vehicles look set to cost nearly £4 million per carriage, yet Eurostar's new Siemans units, with all the kit for Channel Tunnel use, are only just over £ million per carriage ("only"!, what an I saying!!!)

Steven

 

Greeley coaches were made of wood, I'd imagine that's a lot cheaper.

 

Gresley coaches were made of teak, and even back in the 1920s it was an expensive wood - which is why (and also in an attempt to assist British industry in the recession of the time) the LNER trialled all-steel coaches built by Metro-Cammell. It's a shame that the the same consideration can't be applied today.

 

Quite a lot, but its the same with most tv continuity and trains, it doesn't match up much.

 

In the same recession the GWR carried on making 2-8-0T and put them straight into store to keep the workforce employed and to stop skill drift. Can you imagine a private company doing that today????