I've really enjoyed this series..............................until tonight's edition about the NYMR. The programme followed the progress of 5428 'Eric Treacy' as it travelled from Whitby to Pickering. Much history about George Stephenson and George Hudson ensued which was very interesting but why, oh why, dumb the whole thing down by constantly referring to the loco as 'an engine called Eric' as if the whole thing was some Thomas the Tank Engine thing? Why not give the real reason for the loco's name? It ruined the whole gloriously scenic episode for this viewer

Edit:- I guess this should have been posted in the Angry Thread but I see no way of moving it there

Yes, 'Eric' annoyed me too. Apart from that, it was probably the best of the series so far. I found the commentary of the first one really sickly and I nearly didn't watch any more, but the Ffffffffestiniog episode was better. Good explanation of the design of the double Fffairlie. I think there's one more episode to come.

Cheers,

Chris

Looks interesting. I'll keep my eyes peeled for it here.

That "Eric" business would annoy me too. Bloody insult to one of the great photographers of the British railway.

I am afraid that I find the narration on many programmes of this ilk somewhat patronizing and often treat the viewer as a nincompoop. Which is a shame because the visuals and content are normally quite spectacular. I have only seen glimpses of this "from above" series and as an aside I will not be bothering with the Guy Martin programme.

Tim

PS oh yes... how may times have I heard a locomotive referred to as a train!

Quote from: Newportnobby on Yesterday at 09:17:06 PMI've really enjoyed this series..............................until tonight's edition about the NYMR. The programme followed the progress of 5428 'Eric Treacy' as it travelled from Whitby to Pickering. Much history about George Stephenson and George Hudson ensued which was very interesting but why, oh why, dumb the whole thing down by constantly referring to the loco as 'an engine called Eric' as if the whole thing was some Thomas the Tank Engine thing? Why not give the real reason for the loco's name? It ruined the whole gloriously scenic episode for this viewer

Edit:- I guess this should have been posted in the Angry Thread but I see no way of moving it there

Absolutely agree, camera work was great but the commentary left a lot.........

These and other similar programmes are like coffee table books, good for a quick look at but no substance. Good photography though.

Why can't they just concentrate on why the journey is special in it's own right, rather than tie it in to something else, or get the presenter to keep stopping and do funny "local" things. At least the Ffestiniog one tied it all in to slate, but no mention of the stupendous task of building the Deviation by volunteers, despite it being prominent in the film.

Ho hum, miserable old git signing off!

Dave

Watch the video with the audio muted, while playing some Elgar, Vaughan Williams or even late Mahler. Simples.