• "Extreme Trains" hosted by Matt Bown

  • Discussion related to railroads/trains that show up in TV shows, commercials, movies, literature (books, poems and more), songs, the Internet, and more... Also includes discussion of well-known figures in the railroad industry or the rail enthusiast hobby.
Discussion related to railroads/trains that show up in TV shows, commercials, movies, literature (books, poems and more), songs, the Internet, and more... Also includes discussion of well-known figures in the railroad industry or the rail enthusiast hobby.

Moderator: Aa3rt

  • 158 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11
  by keeper1616
 
I don't mean to complicate matters, but technically, Matt was correct in his alleged statement (which was not made in the episode) that the railroad uses 4' 8" (give or take 1/2 inch, which doesn't apply to the average American). That is the same gauge as roman chariots (well, technically it was anywhere between 4' 8" and 4' 9", based on dig work done in Italy and Northern Europe).

Whats the big deal again? That he missed 1/2 an inch?
  by MEC407
 
Mr. Bown already addressed it so I'm not sure what the big deal is. He's only human, and I assume that applies to the rest of us as well...
moosespider21 wrote:Where did I say that? I said so much it's hard to remember. I'm sure it's not all going to be perfect..... Like when I said harmonic rock happens between 16-21 mph. Woops! I think it was caught before it made the show. After all what's a half inch between friends :-D Hope you guys enjoy the series. Later,
Matt
  by Agent at Clicquot
 
I watched the show. Overall, it was better than other railroad shows I've seen. I liked the loadout and rotary dumper sequences.

On the down side, Matt was too animated ... unless you're looking for an example of a foamer. Acting like that trackside is a good way to get called in by the crew of the train your shooting.

A perennial complaint: the overuse of time-lapse video to speed up big machines. It's used just about anytime a ship, truck or train is shown driving. As these shows are targeted at viewers who don't know the field, use of this technique is misleading.

It might be nice if they had someone that knew about trains and/or locomotives handling the informational graphics. The error in how dynamic braking operates is both typical and unforgivable.

* JB *
  by Mikejf
 
I also disliked all the flashy arm movements and the way they sped the trains up. It gave a false sense of acceleration. I couldn't hear all the horsepower strain against the train. Kind of reminds me of some kid shows my son used to watch.
Mike
  by CSX Conductor
 
And as far as the helpers, when they first coupled on, it showed 2 SD40-2's, then later an aerial shot showed more than two units, or was I seeing things?!?
  by Otto Vondrak
 
New York Daily News didn't care for Extreme Trains, either...

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... _easi.html
I love trains. I did not love "Extreme Trains."
It's not a bad show, or at least tomorrow night's opener, the first of eight episodes in the series, isn't bad. It just spends too much time on academic details and on trying to pump up an inflated sense of drama that the show doesn't need. Host Matt Bown, a certified train fanatic, rides a 130-car Norfolk Southern coal train on its 300-mile trip from a processing yard to the generating station where the coal helps produce electricity for a million homes.That proves trains are important, though at times it feels like the show is more determined to prove coal is important, which it obviously is also. More than half the country's electricity comes from coal-fired plants.
  by Kaback9
 
Otto Vondrak wrote:New York Daily News didn't care for Extreme Trains, either...

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainmen ... _easi.html
I love trains. I did not love "Extreme Trains."
It's not a bad show, or at least tomorrow night's opener, the first of eight episodes in the series, isn't bad. It just spends too much time on academic details and on trying to pump up an inflated sense of drama that the show doesn't need. Host Matt Bown, a certified train fanatic, rides a 130-car Norfolk Southern coal train on its 300-mile trip from a processing yard to the generating station where the coal helps produce electricity for a million homes.That proves trains are important, though at times it feels like the show is more determined to prove coal is important, which it obviously is also. More than half the country's electricity comes from coal-fired plants.
I think that review was spot on.
  by tj48
 
CSX Conductor wrote:And as far as the helpers, when they first coupled on, it showed 2 SD40-2's, then later an aerial shot showed more than two units, or was I seeing things?!?
No you were not, I noticed the same thing. Also the head end power kept changing from 2 units to 4 units. I realize that the show has to appeal to the general public, but follow THAT train from point to point. To me just throwing in footage of any NS coal train or helper operation (at one point they showed a overhead shot of "his" train but his full train was now empty and had 2 units instead of 4) cheapens the show. Over all the show to me was pretty good and I'll watch the next one.
  by Mountcastle
 
I happened to catch the show and I have to say that I thought Matt Bown did a great job hosting it. He brought alot of energy to the show that those engineers he was riding with seemed to utterly lack. And that's fine, of course, because they aren't television personalities: they're engineers.

Bear in mind that it's essential to have alot of personality in order to host a show like this; you can't simply be a know-it-all. If you were Casey Jones, himself, and had all the knowledge of railroading in the world but brought no personality, charisma or panache to hosting the show, it would be a bust.

Not everyone is a dyed-in-the-wool expert who can name every nut and bolt on a box car; there are people watching who want to be entertained who aren't certified engineers. And for those of us in the second category, well...if I had to listen to a presentation as dry as some of the complaints I've read on this thread I'd turn the channel after about five minutes and watch Project Runway instead.

Good job, Matt. Don't let the dogs get you down!
  by laika
 
GOLDEN-ARM wrote:
laika wrote: Golden Arm, please could you indicate where Matt said that track guage was 4'8''. I might be wrong but I don't think he ever said that track gauge was 4'8" or compared track gauge to Roman Chariots. Perhaps you are confused with another show.
Thanks,
L

No, I can't "show" you. I don't regularly sit at home, recording trailers (or whatever they are called) for upcoming television shows. It was both spoken, as a narration, and was supported by a graphic, stating that "railroad gauge is 4 foot, 8 inches the same as chariot wheels". This was done in promotion of the first episode. So, perhaps you are confused. You've been here like 4 days, and have made like 4 posts, and you suggest I can't question something? As far as questioning his being a "railroader", you must have missed the point. If you are doing a show, about the technical aspect of ANYTHING, you need to have a technical consultant, to review your stuff, for accuracy, no? (I'm sure you've all watched a movie, showing some incredibly false things about trains, and railroads. Wouldn't it be nice, to have a factual accounting, from a place called "The History Channel"?) I'm waiting for the episode, where they describe "tankers" being hauled....... :P
Lighten up Golden Arm.
You can question what ever you like.
I only asked where Matt said that the guage was 4'8".
And the answer is that he didn't sat it at all.
The statement was part of a History trailer that wasn't voiced by Matt.
Neither Matt nor the producers of the show have any say in Extreme Trains is promoted.
  by Chicagorail1
 
I was kind of bothered by that as well. You would think the producers would have found an Engineer to host a show about locomotives and the difficulties involved in moving trains. No offense to Conductors, but on road trains, once moving, a Conductor is nothing more then an extra set of eyes to look out for signals and danger. They do not in any way, shape or form have ANYTHING to do with running a train. And i can count on one hand the number of Conductors i have met in 10+ years who know even a 1/4 of the grades on my division and about the same number who even understand air brakes to the point they could run a train. It's not even in their job description. A Conductor does the ground work and the paperwork. Once moving, he is a set of eyes and handles the radio chores. Thats it. And to add insult to injury, the person they chose works for a regional most famous for incredibly slow, short, underpowered trains. The average train on PAR is around 50 cars. I have seen MANY that are 30 or less. And he works in an area with less then 10 trains a day in mostly DCS territory. It's like a shortline up there. This is the best guy they can find? He does not even know the track gauge and he is supposed to host a show about Locomotives? You would think CSX would have been able to provide plenty of great choices since after all, it is a real railroad.

The whole idea is to me, just as stupid as having a show about airplanes hosted by a flight attendant. Or a show about saling ships hosted by a deckhand. If you get my drift.

Congrats to Mr. Bown for landing the gig, but without even seeing the show yet, it's clear the producers are off to a bad start.[/quote]


And the conductors RUNS the REMOTE BOX on ALL Class 1 Railroads, because they say the ENGINEER is just another TOOL for the conductor to use. Like a radio or a switch key. It does not matter if its a monkey, human, or computer! He, I don't make this stuff up this went to court both in the US and Canada, and they both said the CONDUCTOR RUNS the train and the engineer is his tool to operate the controls. Do i think it is correct, NO! But the Conductor runs the train! The hogger is just my tool. I dont agree with it, but the railroads do.


A Famous Quote from the AVP of the BNSF:
To surmise, the carriers stated, “…. it is ground service employees that control locomotives in conventional operations. They have the skill and the judgment about when to start, how fast to go, when to stop. That's all within the purview of ground service employees.”

http://www.bletgcacnic.org/Remote%20Con ... istory.htm
  by NV290
 
Chicagorail1 wrote:I was kind of bothered by that as well. You would think the producers would have found an Engineer to host a show about locomotives and the difficulties involved in moving trains. No offense to Conductors, but on road trains, once moving, a Conductor is nothing more then an extra set of eyes to look out for signals and danger. They do not in any way, shape or form have ANYTHING to do with running a train. And i can count on one hand the number of Conductors i have met in 10+ years who know even a 1/4 of the grades on my division and about the same number who even understand air brakes to the point they could run a train. It's not even in their job description. A Conductor does the ground work and the paperwork. Once moving, he is a set of eyes and handles the radio chores. Thats it. And to add insult to injury, the person they chose works for a regional most famous for incredibly slow, short, underpowered trains. The average train on PAR is around 50 cars. I have seen MANY that are 30 or less. And he works in an area with less then 10 trains a day in mostly DCS territory. It's like a shortline up there. This is the best guy they can find? He does not even know the track gauge and he is supposed to host a show about Locomotives? You would think CSX would have been able to provide plenty of great choices since after all, it is a real railroad.

The whole idea is to me, just as stupid as having a show about airplanes hosted by a flight attendant. Or a show about saling ships hosted by a deckhand. If you get my drift.

Congrats to Mr. Bown for landing the gig, but without even seeing the show yet, it's clear the producers are off to a bad start.

And the conductors RUNS the REMOTE BOX on ALL Class 1 Railroads, because they say the ENGINEER is just another TOOL for the conductor to use. Like a radio or a switch key. It does not matter if its a monkey, human, or computer! He, I don't make this stuff up this went to court both in the US and Canada, and they both said the CONDUCTOR RUNS the train and the engineer is his tool to operate the controls. Do i think it is correct, NO! But the Conductor runs the train! The hogger is just my tool. I dont agree with it, but the railroads do.


A Famous Quote from the AVP of the BNSF:
To surmise, the carriers stated, “…. it is ground service employees that control locomotives in conventional operations. They have the skill and the judgment about when to start, how fast to go, when to stop. That's all within the purview of ground service employees.”

http://www.bletgcacnic.org/Remote%20Con ... istory.htm[/quote]

You are talking about RCO. That is NOT what this is about. Remote Control Operators are trained to be RCO's. You don't just show up and are handed a remote. And RCO's operate ONLY in yards at restricted speed. Just because your an RCO does not mean you have any clue how to operate an actual train over the mainline. So the argument is not even valid. And to further clarify, Pan Am has ZERO RCO's. Which further makes the statement irrelevant.

As for the Conductor "Running the train". Nonesene. They are In Charge of the train. Telling an engineer when it's ok to go and where and when to stop. But not HOW to do any of that. They have ZERO input on braking and throttle settings and recieve no training to do so. They are not required to no mainline grades either. I went to Conductor and Engineer school for the class 1 i work for. They are too very different programs and two very different tasks. In fact, they are not even permitted to operate a Locomotive under any circumstances. Just because you sit in the cab of a loco and call signals and do the job breifings does not make you any sort of expert in locomotives or train handling.

I still stand by my statement that an ENGINEER should host a show about Locomotives and train handling as they are the only member of a train crew trained to do so. Just my opinion.
  by MEC407
 
Maybe they didn't receive any audition tapes from engineers... or maybe the ones they got were really boring and would have made the show a flop. You never know. It's entertainment, not an educational film. I hear what you're saying, NV290, and I don't disagree with it, but I'm sure there must be several reasons why they chose Mr. Bown over the other applicants.

Also, could the moderator please change the thread title to reflect the correct spelling of Mr. Bown's name? I'm sure he'd appreciate it. :wink:
  by CSX Conductor
 
Of course they didn't want to show that in the real world many freights take day to get over the road. :P :wink:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 11