BBC Documentary 'The Railways'

[Ferret]

Surely the TOC's vetted the programme before letting the BBC show their staff in good/bad light? Its a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!

I'm not sure they did! Rumour has it that some TOCs refused to take part because they felt it would show them in a bad light - and let's face it, despite Virgin's careful stage-managing, even they've come in for a kicking on several fora for the way that fare-dodger was dealt with and for parachuting the bearded one into the show.

 

[GNER 373]

I'm not sure they did! Rumour has it that some TOCs refused to take part because they felt it would show them in a bad light - and let's face it, despite Virgin's careful stage-managing, even they've come in for a kicking on several fora for the way that fare-dodger was dealt with and for parachuting the bearded one into the show.

Tis True! I wondered why The Bearded One as you call him even got a screening!? Maybe part of the 'deal' to let them film his trains. I thought he may appear in a longer segment later on in the show, in fact I was a little disappointed he didnt!

I have also read your arguments on this thread about the fare dodger and im with you to the point of it wasn't handled by the book...as in dealing with it on his train/duty of care/causing problems for colleagues, however the edit of this part of the show may or may not have alluded to miss parts out of the process that is normal practice when dealing with similar situations.

 

[Statto]

21:07 actually, loads of time.

You're looking at the Weekday timetable, as on Saturdays the last train is 20:11 & the last train on Saturdays have been around that time for a few years.

 

[HowardGWR]

So far, a visitor from Mars would think that the chief task of British railway companies is to transport drunks, but only run on Friday evenings or early mornings or bank holidays. He would assume that the engineering department has the task of making sure that the maximum number of commuters are delayed for hours every day on their way to work and that the staff do little else but joke to each other about these delays and otherwise slag off the pax behind their backs.

That's my take so far anyway.

 

[GNER 373]

So far, a visitor from Mars would think that the chief task of British railway companies is to transport drunks, but only run on Friday evenings or early mornings or bank holidays. He would assume that the engineering department has the task of making sure that the maximum number of commuters are delayed for hours every day on their way to work and that the staff do little else but joke to each other about these delays and otherwise slag off the pax behind their backs.

That's my take so far anyway.

Some episodes have been anti-railway staff/TOC, some anti-passenger, but from someone within the industry its one of the greatest places to be part of IMHO. Don't let an hours worth of program make you believe that this is an exact insight into everything that goes on. Yes, drunks are a problem, yes some railway staff forget who pays their wages, delays happen but to make a good program you need the extremities to be present or it wouldn't entertain! Maybe next week may help you feel better about it, no promises though

 

[jon0844]

Is it next week that they follow Bob Crow around for the whole programme as he campaigns for renationalisation?

 

[GNER 373]

Is it next week that they follow Bob Crow around for the whole programme as he campaigns for renationalisation?

Hahaha

 

[Hellfire]

Surely the TOC's vetted the programme before letting the BBC show their staff in good/bad light? Its a bit like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted!

Under BBC guidelines the TOC's would not have been allowed to vet the programme and would have had no say what when in it and what was left on the cutting room floor

Once they had given the necessary permissions for filming, essential because trains and stations are private property, then they just have to put up with what the producers think should go in.

Of course, a TOC could decline to take part at all.

Let's not forget this was an entertainment programme first and foremost, not a serious news investigation. In the latter case it would have been handled by journalists and a case could have been made for secret filming without the knowledge of the TOC if the BBC wanted to do a thorough investigation of an aspect of rail travel.

 

[GNER 373]

Under BBC guidelines the TOC's would not have been allowed to vet the programme and would have had no say what when in it and what was left on the cutting room floor

Once they had given the necessary permissions for filming, essential because trains and stations are private property, then they just have to put up with what the producers think should go in.

Of course, a TOC could decline to take part at all.

Let's not forget this was an entertainment programme first and foremost, not a serious news investigation. In the latter case it would have been handled by journalists and a case could have been made for secret filming without the knowledge of the TOC if the BBC wanted to do a thorough investigation of an aspect of rail travel.

Hmm, I didn't know that! Quite possible that a few TOC's have been kicking themselves then!!!

 

[jon0844]

I am sure that anyone could have specifically refused to be included, as indeed could members of the public that might have spotted the posters around King's Cross and contacted the production company to be edited out or ghosted etc.

If a TOC had been really upset about something, they could have sought an injunction but that would only really have been applicable if, as you say, there had been covert filming.

I am not entirely sure what the situation would be if selective editing was used to completely change the meaning/context of something said but besides learning that in the job interview in episode 1 they make the interviewee look like he was answering a different question, I am not sure if anything could have been classed as misleading beyond the usual rule of television; don't believe anything you see!!

 

[Hellfire]

I should have added that it is possible that, as a matter of courtesy, the production company may have shown the completed programme to a TOC before transmission.

However, there would have been no obligation to do so and certainly no right of the TOC to demand that changes be made.

Again,the appearance of SRB would not have been there because that was a condition laid down by Virgin. However, I can quite understand why the producers wanted him in. For the viewer he is the high profile face of Virgin.

 

[notadriver]

Drivers could have refused to have been filmed. Not sure about other staff.

 

[loplop]

I've really been enjoying the programmes. Can't say I know a huge amount about the railways but I would hope (possibly incorrectly!) that most people watching would recognise that much of what's shown is to ensure good tv.

That said, I'm curious as to what extent drunks etc cause problems on the railways. Anyone care to comment on frequency/how they're handled?

 

[Hellfire]

I am sure that anyone could have specifically refused to be included, as indeed could members of the public that might have spotted the posters around King's Cross and contacted the production company to be edited out or ghosted etc.

If a TOC had been really upset about something, they could have sought an injunction but that would only really have been applicable if, as you say, there had been covert filming.

I am not entirely sure what the situation would be if selective editing was used to completely change the meaning/context of something said but besides learning that in the job interview in episode 1 they make the interviewee look like he was answering a different question, I am not sure if anything could have been classed as misleading beyond the usual rule of television; don't believe anything you see!!

Of course, any member of staff could have refused to take part. It's questionable whether a member of the public could have demanded to be "ghosted out." While the station is private property, once permission for filming has been given then the public, who have access to that property, can't make those sort of demands; the same applies if you appear in the background of something being filmed in the street.

You can be sure that the production company would have had a signed contract with the TOC which laid down all the conditions of filming and would have reiterated the editorial independence of the BBC, so the chances of an injunction are pretty remote.

Television is smoke and mirrors to a large extent. Each hour of completed programme could well have been cut down from several days of filming. Something is always going to disappear in an edit.

 

[Ferret]

I have also read your arguments on this thread about the fare dodger and im with you to the point of it wasn't handled by the book...as in dealing with it on his train/duty of care/causing problems for colleagues, however the edit of this part of the show may or may not have alluded to miss parts out of the process that is normal practice when dealing with similar situations.

I don't buy that - if you UFN'd or TIR'd him having got details, why would you still eject him at Crewe? And tbh, even a UFN isn't sufficient for what went on - that was a nailed on TI Report.

 

[jon0844]

While the station is private property, once permission for filming has been given then the public, who have access to that property, can't make those sort of demands; the same applies if you appear in the background of something being filmed in the street.

The posters did state you could contact the production company and gave details.

I am fully aware that you can't stop being filmed or photographed in public (sometimes I wish the police and others did!) but most production companies are usually quite good with reasonable requests, which will be judged individually. I suppose it all depends on what footage they might be asked to remove. A big difference if you're seen in the ticket hall when they're interviewing someone - or you're in a background shot that is very generic and could easily be replaced with something else.

In reality; nobody probably saw the posters or cared one bit so it wasn't an issue. TOCs were free to issue a memo to staff to tell them to be on best behaviour and that they were ambassadors for their employer etc.

When I've been on police raids as press, we've always been asked to mask out faces even in public areas where we could easily say we can do what we like, but you generally don't do that - especially if you want to go with them again.

You also have the issue of getting permission to film in private premises, which always amused me when watching shows like The Apprentice and just how hard it must be to film the 'few hours' they have to go around getting things!

 

[GNER 373]

Ferret - It was a nailed on MG11 if I'd been on board! Yeah your right had a UPFN or TIR been done then there would have been cause to issue zero fare tickets for the passenger to get to his destination. That takes away the need to offload the passenger at Crewe and cause problems for the next TM/Guard.

However, we may not have seen what happened properly for a number of reasons. I'm not saying that all TM's don't offload passengers instead of issuing TIR or UPFN but its always good to keep a broad mind!

 

[Hellfire]

The posters did state you could contact the production company and gave details.

I am fully aware that you can't stop being filmed or photographed in public (sometimes I wish the police and others did!) but most production companies are usually quite good with reasonable requests, which will be judged individually.

When I've been on police raids as press, we've always been asked to mask out faces even in public areas where we could easily say we can do what we like, but you generally don't do that - especially if you want to go with them again.

You also have the issue of getting permission to film in private premises, which always amused me when watching shows like The Apprentice and just how hard it must be to film the 'few hours' they have to go around getting things!

Yes it would be a bit awkward if you told the wife you were on a business trip to Aberdeen and then appeared on film at Reading

 

[Ferret]

Ferret - It was a nailed on MG11 if I'd been on board! Yeah your right had a UPFN or TIR been done then there would have been cause to issue zero fare tickets for the passenger to get to his destination. That takes away the need to offload the passenger at Crewe and cause problems for the next TM/Guard.

However, we may not have seen what happened properly for a number of reasons. I'm not saying that all TM's don't offload passengers instead of issuing TIR or UPFN but its always good to keep a broad mind!

Well, unless you're absolutely certain (which I am!) of course!

Alas, I can't MG11 anybody, but I can TIR people and that's usually just as effective. He'd have been the subject of a TIR had it been my train. Still, one possibility I've not considered right up until now is that the footage from the film company may have been passed to the BTP for them to investigate. Not ideal, but at least that would be something.

 

[D1009]

Been nattering to an East Coast employee this morning who tells me that (from episode one), the cleaner who moaned about well, just about everything has had the sack, the singing platform information woman has been disciplined over something from the show, and David Brent received a promotion and is now working as a Manager of all East Coast stations.

I have formed the view that East Coast management handled the situation very badly compared to Virgin. Whilst TOCs cannot control what is filmed once given permission, they can control to what the film crew are given access and when.

 

[313103]

Is it next week that they follow Bob Crow around for the whole programme as he campaigns for renationalisation?

Well after seeing some of the stuff this program has highlighted i would think it would be good idea for renationalisation.

Filming Bob Crow may however not be as interesting as you may think, the boring day to day business of running a trade union is not very interesting to those who like or beilive in trade unions, let alone those who loathe Bob Crow and trade unions.

 

[Ferret]

I'd have to agree there D1009. East Coast seemed to give access to everybody, and maybe that wasn't the wisest thing to do.

 

[GNER 373]

Well, unless you're absolutely certain (which I am!) of course!

Alas, I can't MG11 anybody, but I can TIR people and that's usually just as effective. He'd have been the subject of a TIR had it been my train. Still, one possibility I've not considered right up until now is that the footage from the film company may have been passed to the BTP for them to investigate. Not ideal, but at least that would be something.

Very good point! Yep, I'd have done the same if I was a TM however it is the specific TM's call that is final.

 

[W230]

My best episode so far for me was the one centered around Leeds, which seemed to have a lot of railway issues.

Mine too. I also felt it helped to show more railway related issues (from point of view of NR/BTP/TOCs).

Of course, any member of staff could have refused to take part. It's questionable whether a member of the public could have demanded to be "ghosted out." While the station is private property, once permission for filming has been given then the public, who have access to that property, can't make those sort of demands; the same applies if you appear in the background of something being filmed in the street.

I still can't work out why they blur out certain pictures on the front of the Metro? Although everytime I see someone sat on a bench hiding behind a paper I always find myself thinking that it's probably just a member of the production staff.

 

[Geezertronic]

I still can't work out why they blur out certain pictures on the front of the Metro?

Covering advertisements from being shown?

 

[Ferret]

Very good point! Yep, I'd have done the same if I was a TM however it is the specific TM's call that is final.

Well, that chap's face was pixelated out if I remember correctly. Maybe putting 2+2 together and making 5, but the reason for doing that maybe that there are ongoing legal proceedings. The TM should still have dealt with it himself though!

 

[bnm]

Looking forward to the next episode. We might then move on from the character assassination of the Virgin TM. :roll:

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Looking forward to the next episode. We might then move on from the character assassination of the Virgin TM. :roll:

I do enjoy the hypocrisy on here sometimes, how many times are posters told they can't question things as they weren't there?

 

[W230]

Covering advertisements from being shown?

Not advertisements but photos of people in the paper. That's what is confusing me - if it's deemed fit to show it in a paper I can't see why the Beeb would then blur it out. And it wasn't just one photo either but several. :?

 

[tsr]

Not advertisements but photos of people in the paper. That's what is confusing me - if it's deemed fit to show it in a paper I can't see why the Beeb would then blur it out. And it wasn't just one photo either but several. :?

Possibly because they don't know if they have the "rights" (using the term in rather a vague sense) to publish the photo that an other news source may have exclusive or differing authority to display.

It did make me wonder for a bit, too!