"The Canal Map of Britain" at 8pm tonight on Channel 5

[IanD]

43 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

And didn't want to spend any money on research, or the script, or the presenter, or the director... you really think easy watching has to be badly written, badly narrated tosh aimed at people you hope have switched their brains right off?

It was Channel 5, I suppose, so maybe you're right. But I suspect no other channel would touch it with, well, a bargepole.

I really don't see why you're getting your knickers in a twist about this -- and I don't think it was a sterrible as you're making out.

 

You're not the intended audience, and neither am I, and neither is anyone else on CWDF -- and the same applies to pretty much every programme on the TV about canals, with the possible exception of Robbie's "Cruising the Cut" -- which people on here still nitpicked about... 😞 

 

"It's almost as if the programme makers were trying to come up with easy-watching TV for watchers after undemanding entertainment requiring no familiarity with the subject. " is a good summary, and I think it was just that. If that's not what you're looking for, don't watch it 🙂 

Edited March 16 by IanD

[Arthur Marshall]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

I really don't see why you're getting your knickers in a twist about this -- and I don't think it was a sterrible as you're making out.

 

You're not the intended audience, and neither am I, and neither is anyone else on CWDF -- and the same applies to pretty much every programme on the TV about canals, with the possible exception of Robbie's "Cruising the Cut" -- which people on here still nitpicked about... 😞 

 

"It's almost as if the programme makers were trying to come up with easy-watching TV for watchers after undemanding entertainment requiring no familiarity with the subject. " is a good summary, and I think it was just that. If that's not what you're looking for, don't watch it 🙂 

You mean a programme about canals is aimed at everyone who isn't interested in canals? Odd. I may well not watch next week's one on railways, even though I must be the intended audience, as I'm not interested in them.

It's lucky for David Attenborough that so few people are interested in animals, as obviously his programmes aren't aimed at anyone who is...

[Graham_Robinson]

5 hours ago, Ray T said:

 

 

Cheers @Ray T

 

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

36 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You mean a programme about canals is aimed at everyone who isn't interested in canals?

Perhaps some TV is aimed at the many folk who have lost their marbles and are living in care homes. 
 

maybe Chanel 5 should be renamed the Care Home Channel 

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, Arthur Marshall said:

You mean a programme about canals is aimed at everyone who isn't interested in canals? Odd. I may well not watch next week's one on railways, even though I must be the intended audience, as I'm not interested in them.

It's lucky for David Attenborough that so few people are interested in animals, as obviously his programmes aren't aimed at anyone who is...

Strawman argument again... 😉

 

What I said was that the programme is aimed at the 50+million people in the UK who don't live on or holiday on the canals or know much about them, not the 50000 or so people who do, some of who post on CWDF. Just like CART funding and priorities.

 

Is this really so hard to understand?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

How can one recommend a programme and not expect a discussion and critique?

 

[ditchcrawler]

35 minutes ago, IanD said:

Strawman argument again... 😉

 

What I said was that the programme is aimed at the 50+million people in the UK who don't live on or holiday on the canals or know much about them, not the 50000 or so people who do, some of who post on CWDF. Just like CART funding and priorities.

 

Is this really so hard to understand?

As someone on FB said, I didn't know they still had water in them.

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

As someone on FB said, I didn't know they still had water in them.

 

I'm sure the fact that over 15,000 people live on Narrow Boats would come as a surprise to C&RT.

[Laurie Booth]

6 hours ago, David Mack said:

And in the classic film The Railway Children, the train which is stopped by flags made from Jenny Agutter's petticoat was drawn by a 1930s locomotive, even though the film is set in Edwardian times!

And the train when it stops next to Agutter (who lived on a boat on the Thames) reversed away from her, they reversed the film to show it nearly hitting her. Pity the steam goes into the engine

 

4 hours ago, IanD said:

I really don't see why you're getting your knickers in a twist about this -- and I don't think it was a sterrible as you're making out.

 

You're not the intended audience, and neither am I, and neither is anyone else on CWDF -- and the same applies to pretty much every programme on the TV about canals, with the possible exception of Robbie's "Cruising the Cut" -- which people on here still nitpicked about... 😞 

 

"It's almost as if the programme makers were trying to come up with easy-watching TV for watchers after undemanding entertainment requiring no familiarity with the subject. " is a good summary, and I think it was just that. If that's not what you're looking for, don't watch it 🙂 

I liked the program.

[IanD]

2 hours ago, beerbeerbeerbeerbeer said:

How can one recommend a programme and not expect a discussion and critique?
 

Of course a discussion was expected, but some of the complaints just don't make sense given that it was a general interest TV programme about the canals not an in-depth online tutorial for students studying industrial archaeology... 😉

[Ex Brummie]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I'm sure the fact that over 15,000 people live on Narrow Boats would come as a surprise to C&RT.

It probably will, as while sitting at home "working", you don't really get to know what's really happening in the outside world.

[Arthur Marshall]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

Of course a discussion was expected, but some of the complaints just don't make sense given that it was a general interest TV programme about the canals not an in-depth online tutorial for students studying industrial archaeology... 😉

OK, fair enough. At least those who had the capacity to pay attention learnt that 25% of boat owners live on their boats, that the original navvies didn't have electric light and that nine year old kids should play with explosives.

Dead educational, this telly.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

6 hours ago, Ex Brummie said:

It probably will, as while sitting at home "working", you don't really get to know what's really happening in the outside world.

 

That is a considerably different figure to the C&RT 'Liveaboard Survey' - mind you, 'we' have always said that there will be a fair number who do not admit to living aboard for various nefarious, personal or tax reasons.

 

I wonder where the programme got the information from ?

[Tony Brooks]

As far as I am concerned, it was well up to Chanel 5 standards in that for the majority it was watchable, somewhat entertaining, but very shallow and obviously made down to a budget. Just a typical Chanel 5 offering.

[Sir Percy]

Talking heads, a voiceover and animated graphics are classic ingredients of a cheaply-made schedule filler. I think I recognised Mark Benton's voice; jocular style and accent most likely chosen for popular appeal.

 

Interesting though, that 'Cunk' was Liz McIvor, who previously wrote and presented 'Canals: The Making Of A Nation', shown on BBC, which some of you may have enjoyed. She was blonde in this programme, which I would assume was simply a personal choice and not a ploy for popular appeal.

 

As for making a programme cheaply, I don't imagine that it would have cost much (relatively) to make 'All ABoard! The Canal Trip', also shown on BBC as part of their 'slow TV' series. A drone camera follows a boat down the K&A for a couple of hours, accompanied by ambient sounds and the occasional informational note overlaid on screen.

[David Schweizer]

11 hours ago, IanD said:

Of course a discussion was expected, but some of the complaints just don't make sense given that it was a general interest TV programme about the canals not an in-depth online tutorial for students studying industrial archaeology... 😉

 

And that is not what I expected. If I wanted that, I would be looking for an appropriately qualified presenter, but isn't Mark Benton an actor?

[Arthur Marshall]

6 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

 

And that is not what I expected. If I wanted that, I would be looking for an appropriately qualified presenter, but isn't Mark Benton an actor?

I don't think the presenter matters much, they're only reading the script they're given, so they're all just actors really. I did the voiceover on a stack of steam railway videos some years ago, and the fact I didn't know what I was talking about was irrelevant*. Narration is just script and timing.

 

*ETA well, I presume it was. At least, they kept paying me to do another one!

Edited March 17 by Arthur Marshall

[robtheplod]

Its interesting as this shows how content is changing. Terrestrial TV is shallow taster sessions of lots of topics and those with specific interests now indulge themselves on YouTube where people with greater knowledge go into much more depth...

[IanD]

1 hour ago, robtheplod said:

Its interesting as this shows how content is changing. Terrestrial TV is shallow taster sessions of lots of topics and those with specific interests now indulge themselves on YouTube where people with greater knowledge go into much more depth...

'twas ever thus, except in the old days you had to go to a library and borrow a book on specialist subjects if you wanted more detail and accuracy than TV could offer -- always assuming the library had one (they often didn't) or could get one in on inter-library loan (they often couldn't)... 😞 

 

If you can sort the gold from the dross, there's a *huge* amount of good material out there nowadays -- videos and reading -- on almost anything you can think of, no matter how obscure or specialised -- and it's much easier to access this material than it used to be, thanks to the internet.

 

Unfortunately there's also a massive swamp of complete cr*p -- which often looks the slickest! -- posted by people who either don't understand what they're talking about or are being deliberately misleading to promote their own interests... 😞 

Edited March 17 by IanD

[Ray T]

With regard to "credible history" I do miss my meetings with Mike Humphris. He had a fabulous memory and was always willing to talk to me about the boating life, warts and all! Not the pastiche we get on TV now!

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

19 hours ago, Laurie Booth said:

 

I liked the program.

Must admit I kind of liked it,

if I didn’t think too much about it. I’m sure me mom in care home would have loved it. 
 

It ticked the boxes didn’t it, a shot of the Pontycyllte and a geezer with a bowler hat. 
 

No mention of Tipton though!!

I don’t think the BCN got a mention at all did it? 😃

 

 

[Lady M]

Dudley Tunnel?

[fanshaft]

On 16/03/2024 at 14:37, Ray T said:

It was the effect of the railways which caused the operators and owner boatmen having to lower their charges to retain traffic and hence couldn't afford to keep a house on the land. The captain was the only one who was paid so his wife and children were "free" labour. Often boat families were quite large and children were "loaned" out to other boat owners who may not have had children. William Humphris "loaned" Jeanne, one of his daughters, to Jack and Rose Skinner but when she fell off the boat in a lock William blamed them and had his daughter back. 

I think the programme meant that older boys and girls were separated into the fore and aft cabins for obvious reasons, Not just children from other families.

I think the effect of the railway  competition has been overstated and some canals prospered up to nationalisation. Although the railways did win traffic from waterways for cargoes ideal for water carriage e.g. coal from a waterside Colliery to a waterside receiver, with no rail connection,   the railway couldn't compete because  of the need for transhipment to horse and cart for final delivery.  Goods trains were very slow, passenger trains had priority (as they do today) and rail wagons could be days in transit, shunted from siding to siding - some got lost!  (The IWA demonstrated this even in the 1950s).. Also for many , moving into a boat cabin or cabins was surely an improvement over the sort of primitive accommodation that most working people ' enjoyed'  - few if any would have owned or even rented a house? 

.

Edited March 20 by fanshaft

[Pluto]

Average freight train loads were surprisingly low, and it was on the initial phase ex-colliery that bulk coal was in large trains. The figures I have are:

1871          56.9 tons

1880          61.4 tons

1890          63.6 tons

1900          63.3 tons

1911          95.9 tons

Taken from: From Cain, Private Enterprise or Public Utility? Jour. Trans. Hist. 3rd ser 1980

So it was only by c1870 that a train carried more than a L&LC short boat. The First World War was probably the main factor in the decline of traffic on successful canals, when what became the Ministry of Transport in 1919 actively ignored or discouraged canal transport for much of the war. The lack of government support given to railways resulted in the sale of several large canal company fleets in 1921. The rise in road transport - many small purchasers of ex-army lorries charged rates which were uneconomic for large companies who now had to work to the eight hour day - and the decline in traditional industries resulted in the pre-2WW further decline in canals, and post war canalside collieries became worked out, and those producing gas coal had to stop with the introduction of North Sea gas. Railways only had a minor role in the decline of canal carrying.