Trains in movies

[Chris217]

Wasn't sure where to put this.
It's sort of a question regarding rolling stock though.

Watching the film Educating Rita
There is a railway station scene which
features a coach in BR blue and cream livery with the side number as M62000
And has a BR double arrow on the end door.

I suspect it's a made up number for the film
scene.But the film was shot in Dublin,so
a bit of a baffler this one.
Wasn't aware BR operated in Ireland or Northern Ireland,and certainly not in BR livery?

Does anyone recognise this stock and what the original number series/class of train it was. I think it was a DMU.

 

[GusB]

The makers of films and TV programmes don't really care for accuracy. When I first subscribed to Netflix, I watched all of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister". There was one episode which depicted the cast getting on a sleeper train with a Deltic hauling, but it left sounding like a 1st generation DMU.

 

[HaggisBotherer]

The makers of films and TV programmes don't really care for accuracy. When I first subscribed to Netflix, I watched all of "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister". There was one episode which depicted the cast getting on a sleeper train with a Deltic hauling, but it left sounding like a 1st generation DMU.

It's not that they 'don't really care' at all...

Film and TV making is a lengthy, complex and expensive business and film makers have to balance between telling the story and getting the scenes they want in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. So within the story they have to take a call on what are the elements they need to spend the most money and time on and what is too finicky, time-consuming or expensive to do, just to keep a minority interest group happy.

To the vast majority of the population a train is a train is a train is a train... and so using library footage (which may be silent or have sound unsuitable to include as part of the film's soundtrack) with the sound of 'a diesel train' is a compromise that 99.9% of the population isn't going to notice. By the law of averages most film makers won't be railway nerds, so they may well not know the difference between the sound of 'a Deltic' and 'a 1st generation DMU'.

Even if they did, it would take time and money of getting someone to trawl through sound archives to match a usable Deltic recording to that footage (even if it was possible, which it may not be - whan was the last time you heard the noise of wind in a microphone on a film or TV programme?)

I'm sure twitchers would get upset if there was a view of a blackbird with the soundtrack of a yellowhammer. But most train spotters wouldn't notice.

My Dad used to complain loudly every time he saw any footage of a steam locomotive and the sound of the exhaust didn't precisely tally with the revolution of the wheels

 

[sprinterguy]

I've not seen the film myself but a quick bit of Googling suggests that while it was filmed in Dublin it was set in Liverpool, so the film makers have actually gone to lengths to attempt to depict an appropriately liveried train for the purposes of the film.

I've had a look at a clip of the station scene, and while I am no Irish Rail aficionado it appears to me that the carriages shown are CIE ''Laminate" coaching stock: These were built in the early to mid fifties, and were being withdrawn or redeployed to Dublin area suburban services by the early eighties at the time the film was made, so would probably be readily available for a cheap repaint for the sake of one short scene in a film. That the scene was reputedly shot "at the old Dublin Connolly DART station" adds further credence to this idea.

 

[RLBH]

It's precisely the same in other fields. The (relatively old) movie Pearl Harbor is notorious in the naval community for scenes of destroyers built in the 1970s being sunk in the titular attack of 1940. The same stock recording of frogs is used for jungle/swamp scenes in virtually every film set in one, despite any herpetologist being able to tell you that the species croaking is resident only in a particular area of Central America. It's fairly common for a character to leave New York on one type of aircraft, and land in London on a completely different aircraft operated by a completely different aircraft.

Even the 1970 film Waterloo had similar shortcomings, despite being the most expensive film ever provided and being given such support by the Soviet Union (17,000 soldiers and an entire brigade of horse cavalry, all drilled in the fashion of 1815) that the director commanded the world's sixth largest army. Filmmakers just don't care about such things, unless it breaks the ability of the audience to buy into the story. Even then, their ability to care is limited by the budget.

 

[Mag_seven]

If there ever was a rail enthusiasts national sport, it would be spotting errors in continuity when it comes to railways on films and TV. To the non-enthusiast viewer it doesn't matter one jot whether its the sound of an HST superimposed onto footage of someone inside a Mark 2 coach, or footage of a Deltic leaving Kings Cross that suddenly changes to a Western arriving at Exeter later on.

 

[AC47461]

As stated, film makers can only do so much, especially with stock and actual trains but I'm always amused at some of the errors that still creep in. There's a film whose title escapes me, where the scenes were shot in one of the London termini (I have a feeling it might have been Liverpool St) and the well shot atmospheric arrival of a steam train is somewhat at odds with the big, red cased NSE digital clock bolted to a pillar that appears through the clearing steam.....

i tend to find them more amusing than anything else, although as an enthusiast I always going to notice that, for example, the train in one of the Bond films was a dressed up class 20 and not the villain's personal getaway transport.....

 

[mallard]

The makers of films and TV programmes don't really care for accuracy.

I'm not sure about that... Some clearly care, but still make mistakes.

For example, the 2008 Jason Statham film "The Bank Job" has several scenes set on the London Underground. While the clear use of Aldwych for filming is perfectly acceptable (the dilapidated state of the disused station is perfect for portraying early-1970s LUL), the fact that the train is always 1972 Stock is a bit off for a film set in 1971. Why they couldn't just use the preserved 1938 stock that is entirely appropriate for the era I don't know. Maybe they thought the unpainted aluminium aesthetic better matched the tone of the film than LT Red?

The ending of the film is set at Paddington (main line) station. While the station's colour scheme clearly owes more to FirstGroup than 1971's BR, there is at least some post-processing applied to attempt to mask that. In a remarkable example proving that the filmmakers really did do their research, in one shot it's just about possible to see that the train on the platform (the entire scene is shot on platform 1, presumably because the rest of the station was open as normal while filming took place) is indeed headed by a "Western"! However, the fact that the carriages appear almost black is wrong; I'm sure some blue and grey coaches could have been sourced (it's likely that the carriages are in fact in maroon, which would have been just-about-ok; I'm sure some marron carriages were still in use in 1971; but the aforementioned post-processing makes them appear too dark).

Of course, some make very silly mistakes that even the average UK resident is likely to notice; the James Bond film "Skyfall", for example uses "tube" trains for a sequence that's supposed to be on the District line... And the lights remain on after the train is derailed; any regular tube user knows that the lights often go off in normal service when the train passes a "gap" in the live rails.

The then there's the BBC Sherlock episode "The Empty Hearse"; it clearly shows that some of the production team did their research, but others "phoned it in". The train interiors are exactly correct for District Line D78 stock (to the point that I expect they used recently-withdrawn trains for filming), but the external shots show 1995/1996 tube stock exclusively! I'll give them a pass on the storyline that requires the train to be re-formed in-tunnel, as it's from the original source material, if a slightly clumsy adaption.

 

[DarloRich]

It's not that they 'don't really care' at all...

Film and TV making is a lengthy, complex and expensive business and film makers have to balance between telling the story and getting the scenes they want in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost. So within the story they have to take a call on what are the elements they need to spend the most money and time on and what is too finicky, time-consuming or expensive to do, just to keep a minority interest group happy.

To the vast majority of the population a train is a train is a train is a train... and so using library footage (which may be silent or have sound unsuitable to include as part of the film's soundtrack) with the sound of 'a diesel train' is a compromise that 99.9% of the population isn't going to notice. By the law of averages most film makers won't be railway nerds, so they may well not know the difference between the sound of 'a Deltic' and 'a 1st generation DMU'.

Even if they did, it would take time and money of getting someone to trawl through sound archives to match a usable Deltic recording to that footage (even if it was possible, which it may not be - whan was the last time you heard the noise of wind in a microphone on a film or TV programme?)

I'm sure twitchers would get upset if there was a view of a blackbird with the soundtrack of a yellowhammer. But most train spotters wouldn't notice.

My Dad used to complain loudly every time he saw any footage of a steam locomotive and the sound of the exhaust didn't precisely tally with the revolution of the wheels

Agreed - but the post below shows you are wasting your time.

I'm not sure about that... Some clearly care, but still make mistakes.

For example, the 2008 Jason Statham film "The Bank Job" has several scenes set on the London Underground. While the clear use of Aldwych for filming is perfectly acceptable (the dilapidated state of the disused station is perfect for portraying early-1970s LUL), the fact that the train is always 1972 Stock is a bit off for a film set in 1971. Why they couldn't just use the preserved 1938 stock that is entirely appropriate for the era I don't know. Maybe they thought the unpainted aluminium aesthetic better matched the tone of the film than LT Red?

The ending of the film is set at Paddington (main line) station. While the station's colour scheme clearly owes more to FirstGroup than 1971's BR, there is at least some post-processing applied to attempt to mask that. In a remarkable example proving that the filmmakers really did do their research, in one shot it's just about possible to see that the train on the platform (the entire scene is shot on platform 1, presumably because the rest of the station was open as normal while filming took place) is indeed headed by a "Western"! However, the fact that the carriages appear almost black is wrong; I'm sure some blue and grey coaches could have been sourced (it's likely that the carriages are in fact in maroon, which would have been just-about-ok; I'm sure some marron carriages were still in use in 1971; but the aforementioned post-processing makes them appear too dark).

Of course, some make very silly mistakes that even the average UK resident is likely to notice; the James Bond film "Skyfall", for example uses "tube" trains for a sequence that's supposed to be on the District line... And the lights remain on after the train is derailed; any regular tube user knows that the lights often go off in normal service when the train passes a "gap" in the live rails.

The then there's the BBC Sherlock episode "The Empty Hearse"; it clearly shows that some of the production team did their research, but others "phoned it in". The train interiors are exactly correct for District Line D78 stock (to the point that I expect they used recently-withdrawn trains for filming), but the external shots show 1995/1996 tube stock exclusively! I'll give them a pass on the storyline that requires the train to be re-formed in-tunnel, as it's from the original source material, if a slightly clumsy adaption.

 

[John Webb]

"Educating Rita" had the railway scene filmed at Dublin Heuston station - the coaching stock was painted in BR colours for the film. Information on this and many other films can be found in "Horton's Guide to Britain's Railways in Feature Films", first published in 2007. There is also "Railways on the Screen" by (the late) John Huntley, published in 1993, so not so up-to-date, but covers much more than feature films.

 

[mallard]

Agreed - but the post below shows you are wasting your time.

What's that supposed to mean? Is it supposed to be an insult or a lazy attempt to dismiss my point?

I simply posted my own observations, showing that much of the time filmmakers do do substantial research to make settings accurate and that often inaccuracies are more "mistakes" than "we don't care". The rest of the time when they truly "don't care" (as in the "Skyfall" example), it's often on the level of "it breaks the immersion for the majority of people familiar with the setting" rather than the "wrong sound effect" that only a serious rail enthusiast would notice.

Is it really wrong to want historical/setting accuracy in movies and TV? Do you not think that aids in immersion and appreciation of media? Or are you happy of the thinly-veiled propaganda that features in so-called "historical" films by the likes of Mel Gibson?

 

[Master29]

Going straight, the follow up series to Porridge alternates between the west coast and the East. The series was set in Cumbria but they were seen using overhead electrified sections but I`m sure Fletcher got off a Deltic hauled service. The East coast wasn`t electrified then. Just one example. Not really a problem as a classic series but more of an observation. How often do you hear piston aircraft sounds to jet aircraft!! Airplane clearly sends this up well with a piston engined Boeing 707.

 

[Chris217]

Some fantastic replies.
Thank you.
Being long time rail enthusiasts
we can all spot errors in films and tv.
We won't mention Michael Portillo's tv shows lol.
One of my most recent observations of railway errors was in the film The Darkest Hour. An excellent film,but the 1953 tube train in 1940...come on!

As mentioned above,the dressed up class 20 in Goldeneye. Funny it sounded like a 20 when it was ticking over,but sounded like something totally different when it started moving!

@Haggisbotherer,I loved your reply with regards to your dad's observations.

 

[J-Rod]

What's that supposed to mean? Is it supposed to be an insult or a lazy attempt to dismiss my point?

I simply posted my own observations, showing that much of the time filmmakers do do substantial research to make settings accurate and that often inaccuracies are more "mistakes" than "we don't care". The rest of the time when they truly "don't care" (as in the "Skyfall" example), it's often on the level of "it breaks the immersion for the majority of people familiar with the setting" rather than the "wrong sound effect" that only a serious rail enthusiast would notice.

Is it really wrong to want historical/setting accuracy in movies and TV? Do you not think that aids in immersion and appreciation of media? Or are you happy of the thinly-veiled propaganda that features in so-called "historical" films by the likes of Mel Gibson?

I think it sort of falls inbetween the two points - genuine mistakes (as the scene in question wasn't considered that important) and then taking artistic liberties to illustrate a point (i.e, to show travel across the Atlantic, the taking off from JFK in a 747 and then landing at Heathrow in a 777).

However, on a personal note, it is a bit amusing when you spot something that just shouldn't be there when the piece was set. Then it gets really annoying and distracting cos you can't unsee it. Like 50s BR Crests in something set in the 30s, for example. How much are LMS vinyls, anyway?!

 

[DarloRich]

What's that supposed to mean? Is it supposed to be an insult or a lazy attempt to dismiss my point?

I simply posted my own observations, showing that much of the time filmmakers do do substantial research to make settings accurate and that often inaccuracies are more "mistakes" than "we don't care". The rest of the time when they truly "don't care" (as in the "Skyfall" example), it's often on the level of "it breaks the immersion for the majority of people familiar with the setting" rather than the "wrong sound effect" that only a serious rail enthusiast would notice.

Is it really wrong to want historical/setting accuracy in movies and TV? Do you not think that aids in immersion and appreciation of media? Or are you happy of the thinly-veiled propaganda that features in so-called "historical" films by the likes of Mel Gibson?

it is supposed to mean you and others here seem to base their judgement on the quality or enjoyment of a film on how they portray trains. I know real people don't give a stuff. The issue with Skyfall that seems to get you riled up is of no importance to the real world. Does using the wrong tube train materially effect the film or the story the film is trying to tell? Does it mean people stopped watching and left the pictures. No. It doesn't matter a jot UNLESS the depiction of railways or their operation is fundamental to the plot of the film.
Does using a maroon carriage rather than a blue one matter? No. More worrying about the Bank Job is not maroon carriages but the fact that it isnt a very good film!

As @HaggisBotherer noted there are trade offs between time, cost, practicality and availability of resources in the creation of a film that mean portraying exactly the right color of carriage is low on the list of requirements because for 99 out of 100 people any old carriage ( and old not colour is the key factor) will do - if only posters here could grasp that simple point.

 

[mallard]

The issue with Skyfall that seems to get you riled up is of no importance to the real world.

It's a movie. Of course it's "of no importance to the real world"! I mention that one because multiple non-enthusiast (but reasonably familiar with the London Underground) friends of mine noticed problems with it. Of course, that film, like most, is largely targeted at Americans, so inaccuracies that many Britons would spot obviously don't matter to the production company. Besides, James Bond isn't really set in the "real world" anyway.

Does using a maroon carriage rather than a blue one matter? No.

I agree. I actually said that ("maroon, which would have been just-about-ok"). My overall impression was that film was very well researched for railway accuracy, with a few minor issues; 1972 stock in a 1971 setting; obviously representing 1959/1962 or even near-identical 1967 stock, if only the scenes had been set on the Victoria Line and the fact that 1971's Paddington Station doesn't exist anymore and repainting it for the movie and filling it with period-accurate trains would have been unreasonable. The fact that the production company went so far as to hire a "Western" that's barely visible in the final movie (although it may have been intended to be seen more) and the attempt to mask the horrifically ugly FirstGroup "vandalism" to the station shows a definite commitment to accuracy; it's just a shame that the post-processing for the latter affected the appearance of the train so much. Clearly they cared about such things so it's nonsense to claim that production companies never do.

The "Sherlock" example is similar; my guess is that some confusion occurred among the production staff. The main station mentioned in the script is Westminster. That's served by both the District/Circle lines and the Jubilee. My suspicion is that some staff assumed the story revolved around the District Line (which makes more sense for the overall story) while others thought it was the Jubilee; hence the interiors matching the District while the exteriors matched the Jubilee. A comical, but fairly easy to understand, mistake by a team that seemed to be at least trying to be accurate.

As @HaggisBotherer noted there are trade offs between time, cost, practicality and availability of resources in the creation of a film that mean portraying exactly the right color of carriage is low on the list of requirements because for 99 out of 100 people any old carriage ( and old not colour is the key factor) will do - if only posters here could grasp that simple point.

I agree...? Although it's still sometimes entertaining to point out the "mistakes" in movies sometimes and blatant mistakes do affect people's enjoyment. Watch more-or-less any film with a medieval setting with someone whose even remotely familiar with history... It can be hilarious sometimes. So many filmmakers seem to confuse Dungeons and Dragons or Tolkien with real-world history.

 

[J-Rod]

oh yeah - one other thing, who could forget the HST through The Time Window in Quadrophenia.

Mind you, that film has so many historical inaccuracies after a certain point you're just waiting for Dr Who to turn up.

 

[trebor79]

Goldeneye and the dressed up 20 is fun. Those scenes were shot in the sugar factory which was being demolished at the time. There is briefly a "missile" in view, which is actually a beet pulp drier, painted green with some fins and a nose cone. The gear ring is still fitted! 99% of people wouldn't notice, but I do because I know what it is. I imagine it's similar for non rail enthusiasts watching a film with the "wrong" train in it.

 

[dubscottie]

The train scenes in Educating Rita were filmed in Dublin Pearse station. The scenes where she is boarding/alighting from the train were shot in the now removed south facing bay platform where the two coaches are sitting in this picture (Not Mine).

https://www.flickr.com/photos/steve75c/6649012623/in/album-72157624573930984/

To the right of the coaches was once a entrance that took you down to the old taxi ramp. That is where the scene of them leaving the station was filmed. The taxi ramp has long since disappeared under a development.

 

[03_179]

Wasn't there a Michael Douglas film made at St Pancras that was supposed to be set in WWII and I think in Germany but the glaring error was the NSE clicking clock in many scenes. so they had to reshoot the whole thing. LOL

 

[Chris217]

There's a film called Death Train.
And supposedly shot in West Germany I think,and one railway scene had a Network South East DMU clearly seen in the shot lol.

 

[Class455]

Not really a film but 456013 was used in a Colgate Total Advert recently

 

[AC47461]

Wasn't there a Michael Douglas film made at St Pancras that was supposed to be set in WWII and I think in Germany but the glaring error was the NSE clicking clock in many scenes. so they had to reshoot the whole thing. LOL

Ah, that'll probably be the one I was thinking of in my post

 

[AC47461]

The other one that always made me laugh was in the live action Thunderbirds film, which was apparently set in 2020 (the original series was 2065), when the rescue on the monorail is taking place near the end, the camera pans round and Hungerford Bridge appears in view in the background.....complete with a couple of Connex SouthEast white and yellow liveried 4VEPs crossing it. Pretty poor film though, although my kids like it.

 

[broadgage]

I recall a world war 1 drama with a scene in a railway depot or goods shed. Various locos that looked at least roughly in date, but the glaring error was in the fluorescent lighting of the depot. Simple carelessness since a slightly different camera angle would not have included the lights.

 

[a_c_skinner]

You all forgot this.

 

[HaggisBotherer]

it is supposed to mean you and others here seem to base their judgement on the quality or enjoyment of a film on how they portray trains. I know real people don't give a stuff. The issue with Skyfall that seems to get you riled up is of no importance to the real world. Does using the wrong tube train materially effect the film or the story the film is trying to tell? Does it mean people stopped watching and left the pictures. No. It doesn't matter a jot UNLESS the depiction of railways or their operation is fundamental to the plot of the film.
Does using a maroon carriage rather than a blue one matter? No. More worrying about the Bank Job is not maroon carriages but the fact that it isnt a very good film!

As @HaggisBotherer noted there are trade offs between time, cost, practicality and availability of resources in the creation of a film that mean portraying exactly the right color of carriage is low on the list of requirements because for 99 out of 100 people any old carriage ( and old not colour is the key factor) will do - if only posters here could grasp that simple point.

+1

I agree...? Although it's still sometimes entertaining to point out the "mistakes" in movies sometimes

Equally, while it may be 'entertaining' to those who are keen to show off their 'superior' knowledge by pulling the minutiae of films apart (my father again), it is profoundly irritating when they insist on doing it in the presence of the vast majority of people, who just want to enjoy a film for its plot and a bit of brain switchoff entertainment.

My girlfriend and I made the mistake of telling her father that we watched Darkest Hour on DVD the other day. Without even letting us finish he launched into a lengthy diatribe about how Churchill never travelled on the Underground. Which of course we both knew, but it didn't stop him talking at us about it for half an hour. FFS, it's only a film, just enjoy it for what it is!

Or are you happy of the thinly-veiled propaganda that features in so-called "historical" films by the likes of Mel Gibson?

Thinly-veiled propaganda? Oh no, my friend, they are historical FACT. At least they are according to the ABE 'stuff that happened 800 years ago is still all your fault' brigade up here north of the border

 

[J-Rod]

My girlfriend and I made the mistake of telling her father that we watched Darkest Hour on DVD the other day. Without even letting us finish he launched into a lengthy diatribe about how Churchill never travelled on the Underground. Which of course we both knew, but it didn't stop him talking at us about it for half an hour. FFS, it's only a film, just enjoy it for what it is!

Oh I didn't know that. *Reminds self to bring that up loudly and forcefully next time someone mentions that film*

 

[bluegoblin7]

It's a movie. Of course it's "of no importance to the real world"! I mention that one because multiple non-enthusiast (but reasonably familiar with the London Underground) friends of mine noticed problems with it. Of course, that film, like most, is largely targeted at Americans, so inaccuracies that many Britons would spot obviously don't matter to the production company. Besides, James Bond isn't really set in the "real world" anyway.

The "Sherlock" example is similar; my guess is that some confusion occurred among the production staff. The main station mentioned in the script is Westminster. That's served by both the District/Circle lines and the Jubilee. My suspicion is that some staff assumed the story revolved around the District Line (which makes more sense for the overall story) while others thought it was the Jubilee; hence the interiors matching the District while the exteriors matched the Jubilee. A comical, but fairly easy to understand, mistake by a team that seemed to be at least trying to be accurate.

If you are 'reasonably familiar with the London Underground' then you will know the giant hoops that any and all intending film makers have to jump through to be able to produce things on the network. There are very strict rules and regulations that have to be followed, and for many scenes the only way of filming them is to use one of two areas on the network - Charing Cross (disused) or Aldwych (disused).

Both of these constraints are what has led to the anachronisms that appear in both Sherlock and Skyfall - and without them there would simply not have been any Tube-related content at all.

Sure, the Skyfall budget is a lot bigger, which enabled them to build two mock-up cars of 1996TS to match the scenes filmed in Charing Cross disused (masquerading at the District line), but with Sherlock it's the best that could be done. Track access in particular is somewhat unprecedented for film crew, so the only option was going to be entering through the 1972 stock train at Aldwych. Likewise, for moving scenes requiring the precision of the production (rather than just incidental background, a lot of which is in fact done 'guerilla' [see Silent Witness, and I believe also the new HBO 'Brexit' drama]) Charing Cross is the only place this can happen - so by necessity 1996 stock.

As for your film depicting a 1972 stock train in 1971... again, what's the alternative? At the time of that film being shot the 1938 stock unit was out of commission undergoing a heavy overhaul at Acton Works. Even if it had been available, the costs of firstly transferring the 1972 stock unit off the branch and then getting the 1938 stock onto the branch are not insignificant - and then, of course, you've got to repeat it all again when you're done. By this stage you've spent your entire budget without filming a single scene...

Sherlock was actually a very thoroughly researched production and there was no confusion amongst the production staff. The D78 stock interior used was a mock-up built after hours of research, and was extremely accurate for the briefest of usage. As you've stated, you're doing nothing more than 'guessing', and clutching at straws...

...maybe go and research just how much of a challenge some of this stuff is.

 

[Craig2601]

I remember watching The Interview film with Seth Rogen in it, in the train scene it shows them on a Diesel engine hauled sleeper service, but an “external shot” shows a Swiss regional electric train!