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

[Simon11]

Caught the first half on tv, didn't have time to watch the 2nd half so will have to watch it on iPlayer at the weekend. Anyone know if they've done that tunnel section already where it had a very, very, very tight clearance to the escalator above and I think it was Met line tunnels underneath

It was the Northern line, not Met lines.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Do they perform open heart surgery on dead people?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Effectively. The patient is as close to being "dead" as is possible. The heart is stopped. If bypass is not possible, then the patient is cooled to the point they are indistinguishable from being dead - no pulse, no blood pressure and no brain activity. They are effectively in a state of suspended animation.

 

[gazzak]

When the programme concentrated on the engineering itself it was very interesting but, as is usual with today's dumbed-down documentaries, far too much time was spent on "characters" and human-interest stories.

Totally agree. Who really gives 2 hoots about Wolverhampton Wanderers? There must have been 30 minutes of good stuff in the whole hour, very disappointed.

 

[physics34]

found it a bit boring to be honest.

Not really interesting in the personal stories of the workers or whether Mr Posh's grade 1 listed house has a crack in it.

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't think they really mentioned the significant point that it's a mainline sized railway, with full size trains. If I didn't know already I'd have come away from the documentary thinking it was just another tube line...

 

[eastwestdivide]

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.

More parts to follow - hopefully they will also look at works away from the central section, and cover the river crossing to Abbey Wood, tying the new track into the existing network, and the spoil disposal operation.

As for the "characters", I thought it was OK to cover them like that - shows some of the cameraderie of people working in big teams like that, and emphasises that engineers are people too. If you wanted a dry technical presentation, you were in the wrong place.

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

 

[Lockwood]

So the same as 'The Tube' then in that it doesn't very well reflect the reality of the network and only shows a very singular and narrow section of it.

So, the documentary makers had... tunnel vision?

 

[GatwickDepress]

I quite liked it personally, there was a decent ratio of facts to human interest, and it was certainly both more informative and entertaining to the family than that bloody awful East Coast fluff piece.

So, the documentary makers had... tunnel vision?

*snicker*

 

[ModernRailways]

I can see a lot of people wanting it to be a lot more factual with more focus on the engineering/technical side than the people involved. I, for one, wouldn't watch it if it's purely technical since it gets way too boring. Having those people in there really helps to break up the show and explain things in an easier to understand way. I imagine views would be significantly lower if it was a pure documentary.

 

[AM9]

I can see a lot of people wanting it to be a lot more factual with more focus on the engineering/technical side than the people involved. I, for one, wouldn't watch it if it's purely technical since it gets way too boring. Having those people in there really helps to break up the show and explain things in an easier to understand way. I imagine views would be significantly lower if it was a pure documentary.

I agree. It's naive to expect a pure tech/enthusiasts programme to be screened at prime time on a major channel. If anybody wants an anorak special then they should watch one of the specialist cable or satellite channels, or maybe Quest.

 

[Squaddie]

I agree. It's naive to expect a pure tech/enthusiasts programme to be screened at prime time on a major channel. If anybody wants an anorak special then they should watch one of the specialist cable or satellite channels, or maybe Quest.

Crossrail is one of the biggest engineering projects in the world, and a talented documentary maker would surely have had more than enough material to make an engaging, interesting programme without either pandering to anoraks or having to resort to endless scenes of dull banter between workers or some posh bloke trying to run an auction house. It was, after all, on BBC2, and I'd have liked it to be more like the old "Horizon" strand of documentaries and less like The One Show.

 

[jon0844]

The BBC has to move with the times, and dumbed down stuff that is for a wider audience (read: easier to sell worldwide) is the future.

We have BBC Three giving us the news in 60 seconds. Radio One newsbeat that has a very interesting choice of what's worthy of fitting in a very short slot, and even this week a guide to the troubles in the Middle East in 80 seconds. Who knew you could explain all of the conflict in just over a minute?!

To be fair, people are now used to bitesize news and easy-to-watch-while-doing-something-else programming, so that's what they expect and eventually is all they'll ever know.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The BBC has to move with the times, and dumbed down stuff that is for a wider audience (read: easier to sell worldwide) is the future.

We have BBC Three giving us the news in 60 seconds. Radio One newsbeat that has a very interesting choice of what's worthy of fitting in a very short slot, and even this week a guide to the troubles in the Middle East in 80 seconds. Who knew you could explain all of the conflict in just over a minute?!

To be fair, people are now used to bitesize news and easy-to-watch-while-doing-something-else programming, so that's what they expect and eventually is all they'll ever know.

And yet you also have BBC news bulletins, a BBC news channel showing in depth analysis of the news. You have TV programmes like Panorama and Horizon, as well as radio programmes like The Moral Maze and The Big Questions

There's in dept analysis if you want it, and there's bitesize news if you want it. It's not a dumbing down of the BBC's output - it's simply more choice.

 

[theblackwatch]

And yet you also have BBC news bulletins, a BBC news channel showing in depth analysis of the news. You have TV programmes like Panorama and Horizon, as well as radio programmes like The Moral Maze and The Big Questions

There's in dept analysis if you want it, and there's bitesize news if you want it. It's not a dumbing down of the BBC's output - it's simply more choice.

Quite correct - some of us can remember when there was a choice of three channels on the TV...

 

[contrex]

some of us can remember when there was a choice of three channels on the TV...

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

 

[meridian2]

Sometimes, though, too much in-depth information is bad, and you have to moderate accordingly. This is a problem not exclusive to the BBC. Every program concerning something factual has to be balanced accordingly and this program managed to find that.
'Dumbed-down' is a subjective term used by people who disagree with the content of a program. It is neither reflective nor indicative of modern society. The program makers were well aware of the vast fount of knowledge there is out there concerning CrossRail, and they made a program which was a bite-size, easy-to-grasp for the layman (like me ) refresher, or starter, on the vast engineering feat needed to essentially 'thread' a new railway through a pre-existing metropolitan landscape. I thought adding the 'personal' touch of interviews with owners of buildings situated on the course of the railway, as well as the engineers involved (particularly those involved with the 'Eye of the Needle' section) gave the layman an insight into railway engineering. I certainly did not find it 'dumbed-down'. I found it balanced, concise and well-made.
'One of the biggest engineering projects' maybe, but if you don't add the personal touch to a program, no-one is going to care if you try and build a new Monorail above the streets of London. You go from a generic program to a more esoteric one, and that does not generate more audience figures, which is ultimately the goal of program makers.

 

[table38]

Quite correct - some of us can remember when there was a choice of three channels on the TV...

I'm also old enough to remember only two! Our TV was only a 405-line VHF one so we couldn't even get BBC2 when it started in 1964 as it was only broadcast on 625-line VHF. I remember going round to someone else's house to watch Play School

There were some strange Rediffusion cable systems too, but I never understood how they worked.

 

[Squaddie]

I certainly did not find it 'dumbed-down'. I found it balanced, concise and well-made.

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).

 

[Les Burrows]

I shall be watching with interest.

 

[AM9]

I'm also old enough to remember only two! Our TV was only a 405-line VHF one so we couldn't even get BBC2 when it started in 1964 as it was only broadcast on 625-line VHF. I remember going round to someone else's house to watch Play School

There were some strange Rediffusion cable systems too, but I never understood how they worked.

I can (just) remember when there was only one channel. TV sets had feint green/grey images and unless you were rich enough to have an aerial on the roof, you had to get a picture and then nobody could move until the programme was over. I remember the intermissions between programmes, particularly 'London To Brighton In 4 Minutes'. At a pre-school age, that was more interesting than most of the programmes!

Does somebody here claim to remember when there were no channels?

 

[davetheguard]

When the programme concentrated on the engineering itself it was very interesting but, as is usual with today's dumbed-down documentaries, far too much time was spent on "characters" and human-interest stories. It also jumped around a lot, with frequent and irritating recaps of things we had seen just minutes before. The most interesting part of the entire programme was the brief segment on the construction of Ofxord Circus ticket hall in 1963.

However, at least I now know why all those lasers and prisms are attached to buildings and stations all around the city.

Yes, yes, and yes!

I knew things were tight at Tottenham Court Road, but those 3D representations of the TBM just missing the Northern Line were really impressive.

And I hadn't known about all the lasers measuring movements or heard of "grout shafts" before.

As you say, shame about some of the characters though; perhaps "Wolverhampton Wanderers" will return to obscurity from now on. And I'm not talking about the football team.....

 

[Busaholic]

I can (just) remember when there was only one channel. TV sets had feint green/grey images and unless you were rich enough to have an aerial on the roof, you had to get a picture and then nobody could move until the programme was over. I remember the intermissions between programmes, particularly 'London To Brighton In 4 Minutes'. At a pre-school age, that was more interesting than most of the programmes!

Does somebody here claim to remember when there were no channels?

I can easily remember when there was only one, not that we had a TV. Watched the Coronation at a schoolfriend's house a mile away ( nearest TV in area).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sometimes, though, too much in-depth information is bad, and you have to moderate accordingly. This is a problem not exclusive to the BBC. Every program concerning something factual has to be balanced accordingly and this program managed to find that.
'Dumbed-down' is a subjective term used by people who disagree with the content of a program. It is neither reflective nor indicative of modern society. The program makers were well aware of the vast fount of knowledge there is out there concerning CrossRail, and they made a program which was a bite-size, easy-to-grasp for the layman (like me ) refresher, or starter, on the vast engineering feat needed to essentially 'thread' a new railway through a pre-existing metropolitan landscape. I thought adding the 'personal' touch of interviews with owners of buildings situated on the course of the railway, as well as the engineers involved (particularly those involved with the 'Eye of the Needle' section) gave the layman an insight into railway engineering. I certainly did not find it 'dumbed-down'. I found it balanced, concise and well-made.
'One of the biggest engineering projects' maybe, but if you don't add the personal touch to a program, no-one is going to care if you try and build a new Monorail above the streets of London. You go from a generic program to a more esoteric one, and that does not generate more audience figures, which is ultimately the goal of program makers.

Quite agree with you - jumping around a bit is just how documentaries are made nowadays and dumbing down was almost non-existent. There are two more programmes so no doubt similar criticism will surface but I for one will be watching with interest.

 

[table38]

Quite agree with you - jumping around a bit is just how documentaries are made nowadays and dumbing down was almost non-existent. There are two more programmes so no doubt similar criticism will surface but I for one will be watching with interest.

Luckily it wasn't on Channel 5, where you seem to get 2 minutes of "coming up after the break", then the adverts, then 2 minutes of recap "before the break". (OK, I exaggerate, but it seems like 2 minutes!). Fortunately I rarely watch these in real time and can fast-forward the padding

 

[LewFinnis]

I suspect some of the repetition is to allow it to be shown on other channels at a later date, where ad breaks have to be allowed for. I think it struck a good balance between the technical side (not too technical) and the 'human interest' side, and without the exaggerated hype that Channel 5 goes in for!

 

[40129]

Watched both the 15 Billion Pound Railway and the Victoria Line program tonight and have to say I found the latter far more informative. It actually reminded me of some of the engineering programs I've seen on Discovery. Shame the BBC feels it has to dumb down documentaries these days

 

[thelem]

It was dumbed down in the sense that it kept switching between three or four different stories, pretending that they were happening simultaneously

This is my pet peeve of modern factual tv. I imagine they do it so that you keep watching to hear the end of the story, rather than if they had it as four separate stories there's almost a prompt for you to stop watching when they finish one story and start the next.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I suspect some of the repetition is to allow it to be shown on other channels at a later date, where ad breaks have to be allowed for.

That's exactly why we are subjected to constant 're-caps' on this and many other programmes on TV.
Surely, in this age of digital, it must be possible for producers of such programmes to make available to the BBC a slicker version, with the 'coming up' and 'before-the-break' sections removed?
Mind you, some shows that occupy a 60-minute slot on ad-saturated channels would be shrunk to about 35 minutes, if the adverts and re-hashed material were completed removed !!!

 

[jon0844]

I assume everyone has seen the gift shop sketch from Mitchell and Webb?

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

 

[Muzer]

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).

My mum is much more likely to do so than I am while watching a programme. Please don't tar all us young people with the same brush - you old lot can be just as bad!

Anyway, my theory is that these recaps are for people who turn on halfway through the programme and wonder what's going on. It makes sense to me.

 

[jon0844]

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