TV Alert: BBC 2's Documentary "15 Billion Pound Railway"

[meridian2]

It was dumbed down in the sense that it kept switching between three or four different stories, pretending that they were happening simultaneously ("Meanwhile, two stations west at Bond Street..."), and every time they switched story they had to remind us what was going on as if it were a week rather than ten minutes since we saw it. I don't know whether today's documentary makers have lost the art of putting together a grown-up programme or whether they are simply pandering to the diminished attention span of today's youngsters (who are probably also tweeting and updating their Facebook status while half-watching the programme).

I doubt those with 'Facebook status/es' would know what Crossrail is, let alone where it's being built.
As I said in my post which you conveniently forgot to quote, a generic program is far more likely to generate greater interest than a more esoteric one, even if you feel that's so below you it's not worthy of any channel other than cBeebies. :roll:

 

[Squaddie]

I doubt those with 'Facebook status/es' would know what Crossrail is, let alone where it's being built.
As I said in my post which you conveniently forgot to quote, a generic program is far more likely to generate greater interest than a more esoteric one, even if you feel that's so below you it's not worthy of any channel other than cBeebies. :roll:

Yes, I demand a little more from television than being spoon-fed information in bite-size pieces, and that's not something to be ashamed of. I don't expect a documentary on Crossrail to be as intellectually stimulating as, say, one of Mary Beard's wonderful programmes on the Roman Empire, but nor do I need to be told (twice) that some worker's football team won 4-0 that day. There must surely be enough material in a project of this size to make a documentary that is less fluffy while still managing to appeal to a wide audience.

 

[sprinterguy]

Yes, I demand a little more from television than being spoon-fed information in bite-size pieces, and that's not something to be ashamed of. I don't expect a documentary on Crossrail to be as intellectually stimulating as, say, one of Mary Beard's wonderful programmes on the Roman Empire, but nor do I need to be told (twice) that some worker's football team won 4-0 that day. There must surely be enough material in a project of this size to make a documentary that is less fluffy while still managing to appeal to a wide audience.

Hear hear. This is an ever-increasing annoyance that can be levelled at documentaries across a broad range of topics, but sticking solely with the transport angle, is it no longer possible to produce railway documentaries to the same high standards as the excellent "Train Now Departing” series and BRs’ “Running to Time” from the late eighties? Or is it (Proven to some extent by posts such as jonmorris0844s' above) that modern TV audiences are expected to be incapable of processing the same?

 

[gazzak]

There is only going to be one way to watch this series after seeing this, and that's by recording it. That way I can skip the "TV for the morbidly thick" parts.

Some of the best TV I've seen is on discovery when they cover big engineering projects, no dumbing down, just factual and it's outstanding. Maybe the BBC should try it?

 

[Busaholic]

Producers know and expect people to change channels and be sat on their phone/tablet/laptop. That's why you have loud noises, cheering etc to get attention. Something X Factor does so well. That's one example of a show that people don't really watch in the traditional sense any more.

It's now becoming more common for the production of other shows, including documentaries which I think is sad - but probably necessary. On the other hand, it's also known that people will turn off devices and pay full attention to certain things, like drama, so they don't get adopt the same techniques.

Of course you still do get some 'proper' in-depth journalist based productions, but even a lot of the well respected programmes like Panorama have been dumbed down in my opinion. Shorter, snappier, and picking on popular subjects for the most part. The reporting on some others (take any Dispatches episode) is also very often biased, or based on very little evidence. Sometimes there's incredible padding because there really wasn't enough material to work with.

I don't have a problem with making some things more entertaining, especially if you get more people to watch that may not otherwise but I am scared we'll gradually lose more of the quality productions we've had, or see broadcasters only going for the easy stuff that merely takes advantage of current opinion at the time.

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

Off topic, but read in paper today all four Panorama presenters have been given notice: in future it will be presented by the likes of Fiona Bruce (that was the name quoted). Now where's that Channel 5 schedule?

 

[edwin_m]

Early on they presented an animated map, clearly showing trains from Reading and Heathrow through to Shenfield and Abbey Wood, so they at least hinted at the fact that it's more than a tube line.

...

Did note one caption typo though, "principle" engineer. Hope his principles won't be engineered if he comes up against any difficulties.

Someone also mentioned at least twice that the tunnels were 7.2m diameter 9or some similar figure).

Incorrect use of "Principle" in job titles is widespread in the rail industry - one of those things that will probably be accepted as right eventually because so many people get it wrong. The confusion may have started with the perfectly valid job title of "Principles tester" - someone who tests that signaling complies with the basic standards that were known as the Signalling Principles.

I thought there was lots of good stuff but they spent a bit too long on Bonhams. Seeing a load of old cars being pushed through a narrow gap didn't really compare with a TBM doing the same thing!

 

[ModernRailways]

Some of the best TV I've seen is on discovery when they cover big engineering projects, no dumbing down, just factual and it's outstanding. Maybe the BBC should try it?

And if you watch through the end of the credits, a good number of times the BBC has made it, or have played a role in the making of it!

 

[Bald Rick]

Totally agree. Who really gives 2 hoots about Wolverhampton Wanderers?

Ahem *raises arm*

 

[aylesbury]

Interesting programme these days they have to dumb down ,liked the bits about the TBM ,s will watch next one.

 

[Kite159]

Shame it wasn't on BBC4 so the dumbing down would have been less.

Although at least it wasn't a channel 4/5 documentary with dramatic turn of events

 

[Moonshot]

I ve just watched this on I player......tend to agree with the dumb down comments on here.

 

[SF-02]

Hear hear. This is an ever-increasing annoyance that can be levelled at documentaries across a broad range of topics, but sticking solely with the transport angle, is it no longer possible to produce railway documentaries to the same high standards as the excellent "Train Now Departing” series and BRs’ “Running to Time” from the late eighties? Or is it (Proven to some extent by posts such as jonmorris0844s' above) that modern TV audiences are expected to be incapable of processing the same?

UK TV has dumbed down a hell of a lot. Treat viewers with intelligence. Interesting that the Americans, who some in the UK love to sneer at, have been producing more intelligent comedy, drama and even documentaries the past few years which have been very successful. UK commissioning editors and producers think audiences in the UK aren't intelligent enough so must be spoon fed. Their own speeches, and reports, confirm this.

 

[jon0844]

It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation.

I have no doubt at all that producers would prefer to do things the old way. So less of the 'coming up' and splitting up interesting and jumping back and forth so you have to stay and watch the whole programme to see what happens in each case.

But, the problem is that people do have short attention spans and do channel hop, so what do you do? If you're showing this as more of an entertainment programme than something destined for a dedicated documentary channel, you have to make it entertaining.

From seeing episode one, it's clear that this will be something that can be easily sold abroad, and very little needs to be changed. Maybe the narration will be re-done by someone with a local accent (i.e. America, just as we get a British voice usually narrating a US documentary) but it's all set up for ad breaks etc.

If it was done too seriously, perhaps less people would watch. And thus, the BBC and others could argue that doing it this way actually means more people get to see something and learn about things they otherwise wouldn't.

 

[keredwh]

We see it as dumbing down because we're interested in the technical aspects of the project but the programme makers see it in terms of attracting an audience. We're probably in the minority so they will always make a programme which appeals to a mass market to keep their audience figures up.

My firm had some experience of being filmed for a documentary a few years ago. The director was drooling at the mouth as he could 'make some good telly' out of what we did, actually making things with moving parts, as opposed to filming companies that just wrote software which was what he normally had to do.

 

[jon0844]

I feel the same about any documentary, not just something I already have an interest in.

It's quite obvious how many programmes are now made (or how they're edited) in order to provide entertainment, spark controversy, or simply be more 'saleable'.

The broadcasters in many ways are only giving us what we want.

 

[pitdiver]

I think the reason that it is broadcast and repeated in small chunks is because the BBC have to consider selling the programmes to stations that show commercials eg Gold, Dave etc. You will see it in pros like helicopter rescues. After an advert it is thought necessary to a catchup after the adverts.

 

[jon0844]

It also enables you to fill an hour episode with a lot less material.

 

[Kite159]

I think the reason that it is broadcast and repeated in small chunks is because the BBC have to consider selling the programmes to stations that show commercials eg Gold, Dave etc. You will see it in pros like helicopter rescues. After an advert it is thought necessary to a catchup after the adverts.

Doesn't the BBC have a controlling stake in the company behind Gold/Dave etc?

 

[Andrewlong]

I enjoyed the documentary but there was too much emphasis on personalities rather than on substance. However it was much better than the East Coast documentary which was more like a soap and I stopped watching it.

 

[rebmcr]

I think it had a nice amount of technical coverage of the automatic theodolites, the TBMs, and the grout pits. Certainly a lot more than a fully dumbed-down show would have had.

We'll probably get onto tracks/signalling/ATO/rolling stock in future episodes/seasons.

 

[londonbridge]

I can remember when the choice was two, and some people still had one-channel TVs. Analogue TV timeline:
1936 BBC TV launched VHF 405 lines
1939 BBC TV stopped for duration of WW2
1945 BBC TV restarted
1955 ITV launched VHF 405 lines
1957 We got a telly, BBC + ITV (I was 5 years old)
1964 BBC 2 launched, UHF 625 lines
1967 BBC 2 colour transmissions
1969 BBC 1 and ITV duplicated on UHF colour 625 lines
1982 Channel 4 launched, UHF only
1985 VHF 405 line shutdown
1995 Channel 5 launched
2012 Analog shutdown complete

Channel 5 launched in 1997.

 

[stut]

If you had a drinking game based on the number of times they said "eye of the needle", I reckon you'd be on the floor by the end of the programme...

 

[merlodlliw]

I think the reason that it is broadcast and repeated in small chunks is because the BBC have to consider selling the programmes to stations that show commercials eg Gold, Dave etc. You will see it in pros like helicopter rescues. After an advert it is thought necessary to a catchup after the adverts.

You are correct, the BBC sales abroad are huge,mostly to those countries that have adverts, BBC World will show the programme with adverts.Have you noticed on BBC radio two they have trailers at various times.these are for foreign stations who buy the programmes and use adverts.

 

[Wolfie]

Ahem *raises arm*

Make that two who support Wolves - the name is a bit of a clue!

 

[westv]

First programme was interesting but there's only so much more tunnelling info I can take!

 

[Cherry_Picker]

First programme was interesting but there's only so much more tunnelling info I can take!

Would you say it's boring?


I'm enjoying it. When they try to dramatise stuff it can be annoying ("will they manage to dig the tunnel?" - of course they bloody will...) but just seeing some of the specifics of the job is very interesting.

The old boy who is in charge of the new tunnel at Woolwich was worth his spot on the show, I'd imagine he has got some amazing stories about how the job has changed during his time.

 

[John Webb]

Having lived in Woolwich for 32 years, used the Connaught Tunnel to get to Stratford to trainspot in the late 1950s and for getting to work for two years in 1967-69, today's programme was fascinating for me.

 

[Drsatan]

I enjoyed watching the program, although I was a bit puzzled a photo of a London Tilbury & Southend tank locomotive was shown when describing the Connaught tunnel. I'm fairly certain they never worked on the North London Line?

Other than that, thought this episode was better than the previous one, as it focused less on the businesses affected by Crossrail, which I thought detracted from the first episode.

 

[306024]

First programme was interesting but there's only so much more tunnelling info I can take!

I presume you switched off at 21.32 then

Having lived in Woolwich for 32 years, used the Connaught Tunnel to get to Stratford to trainspot in the late 1950s and for getting to work for two years in 1967-69, today's programme was fascinating for me.

Similar for me. I thought it was a good programme with the right mix of fact and personality. Yes Bermingham Senior can be proud of his career.

 

[Fincra5]

Couldn't they have just ordered stock that fit the tunnels :P 313's Did (I know they were on 3rd rail but still...)