When was the Golden Age of Steam?

On 2 Sep, 16:30, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
> In article <1biuwxjivsp9y$.1xcnwqg57ltab....@40tude.net>,
> Chris Tolley <cj...@supanet.com> wrote:

> >Does a golden age have to be recent enough for people to remember it,
> >and if so, aren't they mixing up significance with nostalgia?
>
> I think Sir Neil Cossons made this point some years ago, to be greeted
> with howls of horror (that notably risible editorial in Steam Railway
> being a prime example)...

It's pretty well established here, I think, that many or perhaps most
railway enthusiasts hanker back to the trains they vaguely remember
from childhood. Hence the misty-eyed nostalgia for the wonderful,
perfect, never-did-anything-wrong, passenger-not-customer-dammit-
focussed BR of the seventies - and the increasing number of preserved
diesels at places like the ELR.

Let's face it - the main reason people gripe about Voyagers is that
they are new. Precisely the same types of people griped about the
introduction of HSTs, Mk I's, corridor connections and, probably,
continuous brakes. Similarly when improvements to, say, level
crossing, are suggested there are always one or two people [1] who
immediately claim that everything is perfect, no improvement is
therefore possible, let alone needed and car drivers just need to
follow the Highway Code.

Ian

[1] Well, one person [2].
[2] Nice try.

On 2 Sep, 19:55, a...@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
> In article <q3evk.104041$AE1.66...@newsfe28.ams2>,
> Charlie Hulme  <i...@davenportstation.org.uk> wrote:

> >It was the golden age of trainspotting ...
>
> Ah - you mean the period of a passing fad, like hula-hoops..

And was it the golden age of trainspotting anyway, or is that just
what more recent trainspotters were told by their Dads? Think of the
books especially for trainspotters - like "Caerphilly Castle" - which
the GWR published in the 20's.

Ian

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

> On reflection, there's also the point that hula-hoops involve rather more
> physical activity than standing on a platform end.

There's also the point that transpotting often leads to
a deep understanding of railway operations and the
geography of the UK. Including, in the 1950s, the
ability to reel off a list of British colonies...

> And I do wonder how
> many of those 50-somes still practice the other core feature of the
> classical train-spotting fad (illegal entry into industrial workplaces)..
>

I dare say they would if they could!

Charlie

Charlie Hulme wrote:

> Except you don't see the same people from the 1950s, now pensioners,
> with their hula hoops,

That's because the little hard bits get under their plate. Wotsits are
about all they can manage now.

Cheers

mark-r

In article <man0p5xkit.ln2@news.aber.ac.uk>,
azb@aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:

> ... A Tartan 55 would have
> been a sight to behold.

Was there not a wallpapered steam loco in somewhat more modern times? A
Black 5 or the like?

Sam

Jeremy Double wrote:
>
> This opinion about passenger environment has nothing to do with the age
> of the stock or nostalgia, it's based on my criteria for what makes a
> good travelling experience.

Absolutely. The Virgin fanboys have difficulty accepting that people dislike
Voyagerlinos because they're appallingly badly designed. I'd expected better after
Branson's wearisome mouthing off about the stock they'd inherited from BR.

Alan

i.g.batten@batten.eu.org wrote:

> Never mind the aftermath of the depression...

We're talking about the golden age of steam, not the golden age of the planet!

Alan

> Pendolinos do have smaller windows

And I suspect the people at Greyrigg might say ``hmm, strong shells,
strong windows, rather good''.

> one sees fewer clouds. And there are also some Pendolino seats next to a
> blank wall, which does indeed offer a restricted view. But how many is
> that? I dunno for first, but for standard, I reckon there are 147
> non-aisle seats, of which there are 10 next to blanks.

Seats that I, and I suspect more than a few people who want to read or
use a computer, are perfectly happy with. I can still see outside via
the windows opposite, but I don't find myself as distracted by the
constant flick of the OLE in the corner of my eye and there's less
variability in lighting conditions. You can also rest your head
against the side of the train, whereas doing that to a window will
have your fillings out with the high-frequency vibration close-coupled
to your skull.

ian

On 5 Sep, 06:58, i.g.bat...@batten.eu.org wrote:

> Seats that I, and I suspect more than a few people who want to read or
> use a computer, are perfectly happy with.

I have regularly seen people choose "wall" seats in mostly-empty
Voyagers. Dunno why - though they seem to be popular with people who
want to sleep on the train.

Ian

>> Pendolinos do have smaller windows
>
> And I suspect the people at Greyrigg might say ``hmm, strong shells,
> strong windows, rather good''.
>

And the people at Ladbroke Grove might say 'hmm, fewer,
and tiny, windows, harder to escape, not so good'.

>> one sees fewer clouds. And there are also some Pendolino seats next to a
>> blank wall, which does indeed offer a restricted view. But how many is
>> that? I dunno for first, but for standard, I reckon there are 147
>> non-aisle seats, of which there are 10 next to blanks.
>
> Seats that I, and I suspect more than a few people who want to read or
> use a computer, are perfectly happy with.

Maybe they should be made an option on the reservation
systems then. All I have ever heard from
non-railway-minded friends and colleagues is the likes
of 'Bloody Virgin Trains put me in a seat with no window!'

Charlie