BBC Documentary 'The Railways'

[Buttsy]

When constructing the platform at Reading did they just place it over the existing track?
If so is this temporary or permanent?

I was thinking the same thing!

It's temporary to allow demolition of old buildings and the building of a new P11 and the rest behind. P10 will be one of the ones 'hit' at Easter and 'made good' in building terms.

 

[jimm]

Sorry, but the last 60 seconds was edited in purely to create negative sentiment at the end of a largely positive episode. If the editors deemed the footage that vital why not include it when that woman was banging on about it being illegal to be 'packed in'?

Like I said, the experience of passengers in the area is not all warm and glowing - and the day the line reopened after that bridge work, was, as the programme made clear, the day fares went up, that's why it went in the programme when it did, instead of when that woman was shouting out of the window.

You seem to be suggesting they should just have ignored the fare rises. Why? Like death and taxes, railway fare increases are always with us. It's not about positive or negative, it's about trying, within the constraints of a few short hours of TV, to try to convey as much of the wider picture of life on the railways as possible.

In that respect, I'd say that on the evidence of the programmes shown so far, it's doing a pretty good job. And whether you like it or not, fare increases are part of that picture and one which many people have a view about. Some people might well have wondered why fares had not been mentioned in the programme, had the editors done what you wanted. Frankly, considering the situation in the Thames Valley, it could well be argued that FGW got a pretty easy ride in the programme in the context of overcrowding.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Like I said, the experience of passengers in the area is not all warm and glowing - and the day the line reopened after that bridge work, was, as the programme made clear, the day fares went up, that's why it went in the programme when it did, instead of when that woman was shouting out of the window.

You seem to be suggesting they should just have ignored the fare rises. Why? Like death and taxes, railway fare increases are always with us. It's not about positive or negative, it's about trying, within the constraints of a few short hours of TV, to try to convey as much of the wider picture of life on the railways as possible.

In that respect, I'd say that on the evidence of the programmes shown so far, it's doing a pretty good job. And whether you like it or not, fare increases are part of that picture and one which many people have a view about. Some people might well have wondered why fares had not been mentioned in the programme, had the editors done what you wanted. Frankly, considering the situation in the Thames Valley, it could well be argued that FGW got a pretty easy ride in the programme in the context of overcrowding.

Going to have to agree with you on this one, fare rises are a big part of the railway now, yes they maybe could have done it better. Simply as the delay that was described in this scene was caused by a tree on the line and not a failed train or something but as jimm says fare increases are fairly big when it comes to commuters especially along the Thames valley. They showed the improvements and then showed who's paying for them essentially...

 

[BestWestern]

Sorry, but the last 60 seconds was edited in purely to create negative sentiment at the end of a largely positive episode. If the editors deemed the footage that vital why not include it when that woman was banging on about it being illegal to be 'packed in'?

That woman and her clearly exaggerated, camera-induced waffle is the reason these sort of shows can quickly become very irritating. She was clearly acting up, shouting her ill-informed mouth off, and most importantly talking complete and utter crap - so why spoil the episode by putting it in? I've no issues with the sections scattered throughout where they seem to have asked a passenger a question and filmed their genuine response, but opportunistic morons just trying to 'get on telly' add absolutely nothing to an otherwise rather intelligent production. Not only does the person concerned look like a laughable idiot, it drags the show down too.

I have to say I found this episode far less watchable than the previous one up in Northern land, I watched it on iPlayer and skipped a lot of it. The woman in the lost property seemed to have been chosen by somebody casting for Big Brother, and there was a general lack of interesting people or topics this time around. Still, we'll see what next week brings!

 

[AlexS]

Having been involved in the recovery of an ex-hound from my steam railway - the faff involved was ridiculous, we had to keep the thing over the weekend so the local dog warden could come and collect it on Monday - I put it in about 6 black bin bags with a sign saying 'seriously, don't open this bag if you value the contents of your stomach'. Would have been easier to chuck the poor bugger in a firebox and give it a proper send off.

 

[RichW1]

Whilst being impressed with the investment going in to the railways, this documentary and my own experiences show just what a long way we have to go. 30 years or more of under investment before the large sums started going in (post Railtrack) have really shown the faults. We still have short Intercity's on routes where they were longer in the 1970's and 80's no doubt because companies want to 'sweat the asset' of each coach and obsurdly odd attitude to what trains should run on what services i.e Manchester - Central Belt - no Intercity, really? Then Edinburgh and Glasgow to Aberdeen, again no Intercity other than that from London. Again, better services were provided in the 1980's.

The programme to be more specific highlighted the overcrowding problems (again Intercity's not fit for 21st century traffic volumes). However, it has also highlighted the many things that aren't the rail systems fault and the ridiculous penalties imposed that just make life more difficult for investment and fares rises. The staff in the Leeds episode were a credit to the company, at the other end of the spectrum, those running Kings Cross were an absolute disgrace and David Brent's in charge of such an important hub and the responsibility that goes with it I felt was an absolute disgrace.

The programme has highlighted the biggest thing of all however.... The pathetic existence of a minority of the public with alcohol and the issues the brainless idiots cause. These people should be in cages not in wider society. I felt ashamed looking at that reflection on our country. I failed to see any evolution from the hairy ape to the drunken mess that occupied those trains and platforms. Does anyone else think alcohol should be banned on trains? I like a drink but I do not want to smell a brewery when I'm on a train in the afternoon.

 

[anthony263]

The first rail programme I've really been into since RailCops some 8-10 years ago.

Now there is a tv show I very much want to see back on the TV

 

[Tracky]

I like a drink but I do not want to smell a brewery when I'm on a train in the afternoon.

Your final statement is the problem with the relationship between drink and the railway. Banning drink from the railway will penalise those who just like a drink or two and so is harsh on many.

The problem is down to a society in which it is acceptable and even normal to be paralytic on a Friday night... or even earlier in the day.

 

[RichW1]

Agreed Tracky. I just get so frustrated at the paralytic state people get themselves into and find the damage they do as a result acceptable. It's as though their parents have never taught them manners or how to conduct themselves in public. The parents are probably just as bad. It looked awful on the programme and certainly put the case for prohibition!

 

[Ferret]

The staff in the Leeds episode were a credit to the company, at the other end of the spectrum, those running Kings Cross were an absolute disgrace and David Brent's in charge of such an important hub and the responsibility that goes with it I felt was an absolute disgrace.

Well put. I thought most of the staff in this one were quite good as well - it's a shame we were subjected to the muppet show in episode one. I'm sorry, but I really do not want people like those 2 berks at KGX working on the railway!

Overall, I thought this last episode was good. BUT, it's one thing moaning about overcrowding - trust me, even the staff moan about that - but what about delving into the many reasons why it happens? Of course that's beyond the capabilities of many of the dumbasses who masquerade as BBC journalists.....

 

[Dave1987]

Like many threads have pointed out on many lines the overcrowding is not curable due to lack of available paths (many lines are already heavily congested) and the trains that do run are as long as they can possibly be, and the lack of rolling stock. We seem to be very very keen to scrap everything in this country but are not prepared to pay the price for new stock that has all the modern conveniences such as wifi that people damand now. I think the Thameslink contract and IEP are prime example of how much new rolling stock costs.

 

[jimm]

Well put. I thought most of the staff in this one were quite good as well - it's a shame we were subjected to the muppet show in episode one. I'm sorry, but I really do not want people like those 2 berks at KGX working on the railway!

Overall, I thought this last episode was good. BUT, it's one thing moaning about overcrowding - trust me, even the staff moan about that - but what about delving into the many reasons why it happens? Of course that's beyond the capabilities of many of the dumbasses who masquerade as BBC journalists.....

And here we go again. More completely unjustified, unpleasant abuse of people. The series is made by a company who produce documentaries, not carry out investigative journalism. These programme have a different remit. Other programmes and pieces in news bulletins, made by journalists, have looked at overcrowding but don't let the facts get in the way, will you?

 

[stut]

The programme has highlighted the biggest thing of all however.... The pathetic existence of a minority of the public with alcohol and the issues the brainless idiots cause. These people should be in cages not in wider society. I felt ashamed looking at that reflection on our country. I failed to see any evolution from the hairy ape to the drunken mess that occupied those trains and platforms. Does anyone else think alcohol should be banned on trains? I like a drink but I do not want to smell a brewery when I'm on a train in the afternoon.

Would a ban have any effect, though? Most people I see drinking on trains are commuters with a mini-bottle of wine in a Friday night - the people causing trouble are getting drunk elsewhere.

Surely the answer isn't prohibition of something that most people can behave perfectly well with, but to tackle the behaviour. Where are the police in all of this?

 

[bnm]

Overall, I thought this last episode was good. BUT, it's one thing moaning about overcrowding - trust me, even the staff moan about that - but what about delving into the many reasons why it happens? Of course that's beyond the capabilities of many of the dumbasses who masquerade as BBC journalists.....

No doubt that last sentence was just trolling for a response. Never mind. Here goes...

It may well be beyond their capabilities, but this programme wasn't made by dumbass BBC journalists. An independent production by Century Films, commissioned by the BBC. This programme documents what goes on. It doesn't investigate it. The clue is in the programme type. Documentary. And that's the first word the BBC use to describe the series.

But any excuse to knock the BBC eh? But woe betide anyone who has a differing opinion to yours regarding your industry, Ferret.

 

[Ferret]

Not trolling at all. The standard of journalism at the BBC (and in general in the written press too) falls way short of what I think is acceptable. Lazy I think is the best word I can use to describe much of it.

But, the BBC likes to talk about investigative journalism - they could perform a public service by highlighting to the masses exactly what's wrong with the industry (as well as what's right) - perhaps this would then lead to a far better widespread understanding for the public, rather than the sort of ill-informed rant that one person launched into on the last episode of the show we are discussing. So, the question is, why am I yet to see a documentary from the Beeb, ITV or anyone else that really gets to the nub of the issue?

bnm, I haven't exactly aired my views on the industry! Fundamental flaw in your point there old bean!

 

[GodAtum]

The airlines have not banned alcohol but have a clause they they can ban you if they believe you are too drunk to travel. perhaps the same will work with the railways?

 

[jon0844]

but what about delving into the many reasons why it happens? Of course that's beyond the capabilities of many of the dumbasses who masquerade as BBC journalists.....

To be fair, the BBC commissioned this from a production company that isn't using trained journalists! This is an entertainment show, purporting to be a documentary (as are so many these days as broadcasters figured - and are sadly almost always correct - that people don't enjoy very factual, often slow, documentaries that might actually teach you something).

Whether we like it or not, more and more people don't really watch TV programmes these days for longer than a few minutes before getting bored, skipping on (if recorded on a PVR or watched on a catch-up service), changing channel and so on. Many will be watching while playing around on their smartphone or tablet, possibly using Twitter to comment on things live.

There are programme types which are regarded as high attention broadcasts, where people will genuinely show an interest and watch - things like Downton Abbey and other dramas. And then there's the low attention drivel, like X-Factor etc, where people are almost always watching it more in the background. I guess this programme fits in between, but nearer the low attention side. That's why X Factor etc will have loads of loud music, crowd cheering and other over the top sequences that get you to look up and pay attention; all done because we've been gradually dumbing down a nation that has the attention spa.. erm, wait, what were we talking about again?

I only watched the programme earlier today, and have to say that I wish I was there when that idiot asked if trains in France or Spain stop when there's a signalling failure. I'd be most concerned if they didn't!!

Edit: I see bnm has already detailed who made the programme.

 

[Ferret]

And here we go again. More completely unjustified, unpleasant abuse of people. The series is made by a company who produce documentaries, not carry out investigative journalism. These programme have a different remit. Other programmes and pieces in news bulletins, made by journalists, have looked at overcrowding but don't let the facts get in the way, will you?

Ok, fair enough - in which case, have there not been umpteen documentaries within the last few years talking about overcrowding? What's the point of yet another if it doesn't bring anything new to the table? We're back to talking about lazy journalism again aren't we?

 

[Wyvern]

The airlines have not banned alcohol but have a clause they they can ban you if they believe you are too drunk to travel. perhaps the same will work with the railways?

There are the Railway Bye laws but it needs people provided to enforce them.

 

[F Great Eastern]

Nobody uploaded this episode on to YouTube? I saw the last couple of episodes on there, but being outside the UK for the next week or two I can't use Iplayer.

 

[Ferret]

The airlines have not banned alcohol but have a clause they they can ban you if they believe you are too drunk to travel. perhaps the same will work with the railways?

The byelaws for that already exist, but as a rule are not enforced. This leads to the scenes we saw on episode 2 - give them an inch and.......


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Of course, what we don't know is whether the BBC asked them to make this documentary or whether they made it on the off chance they could sell it to the BBC. My money is on the first option though.

Jon's point about the nation as a whole is also valid - why do we always pander to the lowest common denominator?!

 

[TDK]

Your final statement is the problem with the relationship between drink and the railway. Banning drink from the railway will penalise those who just like a drink or two and so is harsh on many.

The problem is down to a society in which it is acceptable and even normal to be paralytic on a Friday night... or even earlier in the day.

It will also encourage drink driving
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Dont think HMRI or DOT would attend,more likely RAIB-but even then why?

Probably to investigate the incident as this is what the RIAB do. It could be down to the big blame factor on the railways and the delay costs. If the derailment was due to a partially applied parking brake or a poor maintained vehicle the freight company would have to cough up the readies for the delays however I belive that NR realised it was an infrastructure problem and called the RIAB off my self. Unfortunately the privatised railway industry is a money merry go round and the cost of delay attribution costs the tax payer, the TOC's and the passengers them selves a lot of money.

 

[yorksrob]

I think we're being a bit harsh on the Kings Cross staff.

True, there was one occasion when a passenger could have been given better advice, however, I don't agree with the notion that employees should be expected to look deleriously cheerful all of the time even if they are customer facing. Plus, the manager may have been a bit OTT, but at least he seemed engaged with the work and positive with his staff.

 

[bnm]

Of course, what we don't know is whether the BBC asked them to make this documentary or whether they made it on the off chance they could sell it to the BBC. My money is on the first option though.

You are right with the first option, but perhaps jonmorris0844's point about attention spans comes into play here. If you stay around for the credits to "The Railway: Keeping Britain on Track" you'll see there is a 'Commissioning Executive for the BBC'.

Still doesn't change the fact that this series is made by independent documentary film makers and not investigative journalists. Criticism of the BBC is wide of the mark.

Should there be a programme investigating overcrowding? Probably worthwhile and could be done better than the recent effort from Channel 4 where they felt the need to dumb it down by using Victor Meldrew Richard Wilson. I have no doubt however, were such a programme made, and to the highest journalistic standards (if that isn't an oxymoron!), that wagon-circling and criticism of the programme makers (particularly if it's the supposed 'lefty' BBC) will still go on here.

You can please some of the people some of the time.....

I'm very pleased with this current series.

 

[yorksrob]

Probably worthwhile and could be done better than the recent effort from Channel 4 where they felt the need to dumb it down by using Victor Meldrew Richard Wilson. I have no doubt however, were such a programme made, and to the highest journalistic standards (if that isn't an oxymoron!), that wagon-circling and criticism of the programme makers (particularly if it's the supposed 'lefty' BBC) will still go on here.

You can please some of the people some of the time.....

I'm very pleased with this current series.

Not been dumbed down by using Sergeant Lewis then

 

[Ferret]

I'm glad you made mention of the Victor Meldrew documentary - this is light years ahead of that. The Meldrew show was little more than a hatchet-job, with no hint of anything approaching an impartial view of any of the issues.

On the whole, I'm enjoying the series too. Apart from the embarassing managers at Kings Cross, who really don't do the industry any favours, it has been quite balanced in terms of showing the good and the bad.

The only real gripe I've had about the show is the way it deals with the overcrowding issue. Of course, it had to mention it because ignoring the problem would lead to accusations of not presenting a true picture. I just question what the benefits of just showing a passenger moaning about it being 'illegal' to be crammed in like this actually are. Like I say, it doesn't bring anything new to the arguments does it?

As for criticising the BBC - ultimately, whose TV channel is it? They have full editorial control about what gets shown. Perhaps I'm in for a pleasant surprise and there's a 'Panorama' show coming up in the next few months... Am I holding my breath? Not on your nelly!

 

[Ploughman]

http://www.focusrailsafety.com/wp/courses/railway/controller-of-site-safety-coss/

This suggests they are 4 months to have their assesment,

Not what I said.
From being a new starter, which I got the impression he was approx 5 months previously.
He has been made a COSS within that time. There always used to be a time to gain experience of working in the rail environment especially trackside.
I was of the opinion that that period of time was at least 6 months possibly longer.

The statement you have made is to the fact that he will be assessed 4 months after taking the COSS exam with a further assessment at a later date.

 

[68000]

I thought he said he got his current role 5 months ago, that does not mean he started on the railway 5 months ago

 

[bnm]

Not been dumbed down by using Sergeant Lewis then

Inspector Lewis now!

Difference here though is Kevin Whately is reading a script. Richard Wilson in the Channel 4 documentary was trading on his alter ego and passing his own comment,. Although it would be naïve to think that he wasn't being guided by the programme makers. I certainly "don't believe it!"

 

[jimm]

Not trolling at all. The standard of journalism at the BBC (and in general in the written press too) falls way short of what I think is acceptable. Lazy I think is the best word I can use to describe much of it.

But, the BBC likes to talk about investigative journalism - they could perform a public service by highlighting to the masses exactly what's wrong with the industry (as well as what's right) - perhaps this would then lead to a far better widespread understanding for the public, rather than the sort of ill-informed rant that one person launched into on the last episode of the show we are discussing. So, the question is, why am I yet to see a documentary from the Beeb, ITV or anyone else that really gets to the nub of the issue?

Whereas everyone employed in every other line of work than journalism in this country is an absolutely irreproachable example of shining dedication to the cause... I could go through a list of all the conductors working trains on my local route and the descriptions I would give to them would range from outstanding to can't really be bothered - and I don't think I'm going to be unique in that experience.

So one woman launched into a rant in a 30-second segment of an hour-long programme, so what? You could make all the TV programmes you like, but it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to people with attitudes like those of some members of the great British public seen in this series so far.

The only real gripe I've had about the show is the way it deals with the overcrowding issue. Of course, it had to mention it because ignoring the problem would lead to accusations of not presenting a true picture. I just question what the benefits of just showing a passenger moaning about it being 'illegal' to be crammed in like this actually are. Like I say, it doesn't bring anything new to the arguments does it?

You can hardly do something about Thames Valley services without talking about overcrowding, because it is an ever-present fact of life there, same as it is on many other parts of the network, as the previous week's episode showed. To be fair to FGW, the use of 180s and the Basingstoke 150s, thus freeing Turbos to strengthen other services, and adding extra TSOs into some of the HST fleet since last spring has undoubtedly helped matters.

Why should the programme have to bring anything new to the situation? it is just reflecting something that's going on out there, same as the ranting woman reflected another theme running through the series so far - the less than charming way so many people seem to behave when they get anywhere near a train.