Metropolitan Line 1910

[roythebus]

There's some early cine film of a journey northbound on the Metropolitan Railway out of Baker Street, circa 1918. That's interesting as it's all semaphore signals. you'll find a link to it on the FB Met group.

Otherwise route learning in those days was done by going out with the guard or motorman and actually looking at things in real life. Whilst the modern concept of doing things sitting in a classroom, it doesn't beat the hands on approach.

[silenthunter]

Feb 24, 2019 17:17:49 GMT @smnmy said:

Quite an old thread, but here goes -
There was an early Picc line driving simulator from the late 50s or early 60s that used a colour film shot from the front of a train - the speed of the projection was linked to the controller i think (maybe for 1959/62 stock?) It's about 15 mins long, goes through central London. They have it at the LT Museum, but it's not online - I did find this Circle one you might be interested in though, shot from a CP stock train.

www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/film-video/item/2016-1860

Things do change over time and this is the wrong forum for making generalisations (but I will do anyway - eek!): the 70s and 80s was a low point for investment in tube stations and infrastructure, so apart from the adverts and fashions the there won't be a lot of difference between these scenes and the late 60s, and the image quality is not that great to see these details anyway. Signage and so on will be older in a lot of stations at the time, there was no overall plan to standardise signage until the 90s.

There was a similar 'simulator' used for training drivers for the electric trains on the West Coast Main Line in the 1960s described in an Ian Allan annual I have; you could even set the signal aspects.

[lazythread]

Feb 25, 2019 11:51:02 GMT roythebus said:

There's some early cine film of a journey northbound on the Metropolitan Railway out of Baker Street, circa 1918. That's interesting as it's all semaphore signals. you'll find a link to it on the FB Met group.

Otherwise route learning in those days was done by going out with the guard or motorman and actually looking at things in real life. Whilst the modern concept of doing things sitting in a classroom, it doesn't beat the hands on approach.

If you look closely at 00:49 there is, I think, a unique glimpse of one of the two Metropolitan double-ended shuttle motor cars from 1910 at the head of a saloon stock train. They certainly aren't T stock cars which didn't appear until 1927.

[nickf]

I see in the video that each station is clearly identified by a large sign board. I am presuming that this is specially for the film being shot, but does anyone know for sure?

[class411]

Mar 10, 2019 12:30:53 GMT nickf said:

I see in the video that each station is clearly identified by a large sign board. I am presuming that this is specially for the film being shot, but does anyone know for sure?

That would be an enormous amount of trouble and expense to go to just for one film.

[norbitonflyer]

Mar 10, 2019 12:50:51 GMT class411 said:

Mar 10, 2019 12:30:53 GMT nickf said:

I see in the video that each station is clearly identified by a large sign board. I am presuming that this is specially for the film being shot, but does anyone know for sure?

That would be an enormous amount of trouble and expense to go to just for one film.

It depends on the purpose of the film - and some of them are in a position that they can't bee seen from the platform - see West Hampstead for example. They also lok rather temporary, and not it standard Metropolitan Railway style.

[class411]

Mar 10, 2019 14:41:57 GMT norbitonflyer said:

Mar 10, 2019 12:50:51 GMT class411 said:

That would be an enormous amount of trouble and expense to go to just for one film.

It depends on the purpose of the film - and some of them are in a position that they can't bee seen from the platform - see West Hampstead for example. They also lok rather temporary, and not it standard Metropolitan Railway style.

Whilst these things are true, it still seems very unlikely that they would to all the trouble of sourcing the materials, paying a sign-writer to produce the signs and have people working over the track at multiple stations, just for something that is only going to be used once, for a few seconds (and not very effectively at that), when there is the vastly cheaper and more efficacious of putting title cards with the station name in the edited product. It's not as if the film was an uninterrupted journey.

[nickf]

If the signs were not put there for identification purposes while watching the film, I can't think of another reason why. They are placed to be clearly visible from the driving position and of little use to anyone else. In 1910 I imagine that shooting movie films was an event in itself and a camera placed next to the driver must have had the company's knowledge and consent, as the signs must have had as well. But perhaps we'll never know for sure.

[class411]

Mar 10, 2019 17:32:07 GMT nickf said:

If the signs were not put there for identification purposes while watching the film, I can't think of another reason why. They are placed to be clearly visible from the driving position and of little use to anyone else. In 1910 I imagine that shooting movie films was an event in itself and a camera placed next to the driver must have had the company's knowledge and consent, as the signs must have had as well. But perhaps we'll never know for sure.

I'm still not convinced.

The signs are only in focus for a tiny fraction of a second. In some cases the film is edited to cut away before the sign has even come into focus at all, and in others, although the camera passes the film it's impossible to read what the sign says.

You have to ask yourself why the responsible party would spend (in today's terms) tens of thousands of pounds producing signs, planning and authorising works, installing the signs and taking them down again, when it could just have used a rostrum camera to produce a few frames per station and splice them into the master. It would have been dramatically cheaper and, furthermore, the audience would actually have been able to read them reliably.

You have to agree that if they were put there for the film, they were a massive and expensive failure.

[norbitonflyer]

Mar 10, 2019 17:48:45 GMT class411 said:

In some cases the film is edited to cut away before the sign has even come into focus at all,

I don't think they were edits, but gaps in filming whilst the reels were being changed.

[metman]

Mar 10, 2019 10:18:43 GMT lazythread said:

Feb 25, 2019 11:51:02 GMT roythebus said:

There's some early cine film of a journey northbound on the Metropolitan Railway out of Baker Street, circa 1918. That's interesting as it's all semaphore signals. you'll find a link to it on the FB Met group.

Otherwise route learning in those days was done by going out with the guard or motorman and actually looking at things in real life. Whilst the modern concept of doing things sitting in a classroom, it doesn't beat the hands on approach.

If you look closely at 00:49 there is, I think, a unique glimpse of one of the two Metropolitan double-ended shuttle motor cars from 1910 at the head of a saloon stock train. They certainly aren't T stock cars which didn't appear until 1927.

Yes you are correct about the shuttle car. Newly converted the two compartment stock shuttle cars were also used with Saloon coaches when not on shuttle duties.

[class411]

Mar 10, 2019 22:05:30 GMT norbitonflyer said:

Mar 10, 2019 17:48:45 GMT class411 said:

In some cases the film is edited to cut away before the sign has even come into focus at all,

I don't think they were edits, but gaps in filming whilst the reels were being changed.

Excellent point.

In these days of memory cards smaller than a 2p piece that will hold well over a hundred hours of good quality video it's easy to forget that things were not always that straightforward.

I think that further evidence that the project was not important enough to have all those signs made and installed just for one use. Had it been so I suspect that it would have also been of sufficient importance to stop the train at a station before the film ran out, or even to employ two cameras.

[littlejohn]

There is also, at about 4.49, an advert for the Daily Mail on an overbridge which would also only be easily visible to the driver. Does this suggest that the signs were erected for the benefit of the viewing public?

[norbitonflyer]

It is possible that the people responsible for the signs were over-optimistic as to their visibility on film. It is also possible that the original film was less grainy than the reproduction we see here - what we have is probably a digitised version of a film made on more recent stock by filming a projected image of the original film.

But unless we can find out why the film was made in the first place, we can't tell what resources it would have been considered worth spending on producing it. (Did the daily Mail sponsor it?)

Comments on You Tube suggest that the non-electrified section (and possibly all of it) was filmed from an open wagon propelled by a locomotive. Stopping the train at random locations to change reels may have been out of the question without disrupting the timetable.

[class411]

Mar 11, 2019 12:37:55 GMT norbitonflyer said:

It is possible that the people responsible for the signs were over-optimistic as to their visibility on film. It is also possible that the original film was less grainy than the reproduction we see here - what we have is probably a digitised version of a film made on more recent stock by filming a projected image of the original film.

It's possible that the film may have been of better quality than it is now, but one thing that does not deteriorate is the focus.

We're watching this clip carefully, having had the signs pointed out to us so we are anticipating them. I seriously doubt that anyone watching the film once would be likely to be able to read the station names as they slip in and out of focus.

But unless we can find out why the film was made in the first place, we can't tell what resources it would have been considered worth spending on producing it. (Did the daily Mail sponsor it?)

Indeed. It's possible that the signs were there for the film but they just massively fouled it up.

Comments on You Tube suggest that the non-electrified section (and possibly all of it) was filmed from an open wagon propelled by a locomotive. Stopping the train at random locations to change reels may have been out of the question without disrupting the timetable.

Yes, that's why I suggested a station stop - although, again, I think that if they were spending the sort of money that would be needed to erect all those signs, they would have used two cameras.

[35b]

Aren’t we all forgetting something quite important - the sheer newness of cinematography in 1910?

This would have been cutting edge in it’s day, so the points that seem so odd to modern eyes need to be considered in light of the filming techniques of over a century ago.

[Chris M]

Were two cameras even available? Would two cameras, operators, their equipment, etc. fit on a wagon? Even if the answer to both of these is "yes" I strongly suspect it would have been significantly more expensive than signwriting.

[class411]

Mar 11, 2019 17:54:52 GMT Chris M said:

Were two cameras even available? Would two cameras, operators, their equipment, etc. fit on a wagon? Even if the answer to both of these is "yes" I strongly suspect it would have been significantly more expensive than signwriting.

Yes, there was more than one cine camera in 1910.

Yes, you would have been able to get two into a wagon.

You would not need two operators.

I really don't think hiring two cameras and an operator for a few hours would be more expensive than producing multiple signs and installing and uninstalling them on a working railway.

And none of that addresses the fact that the station names were only in focus for a fraction of a second at most stations, so they wouldn't even have done the job if that's what they had been intended for.

Also, as I previously mentioned, why on earth would anyone go to the expense of producing and erecting multiple signs, each of which would be used for about a quarter of a second, when they certainly had the ability to film a static card and have the station names appearing beautifully crisply for a sensible length of time at, a microscopic fraction of the cost of great big signs?

[billbedford]

Mar 10, 2019 17:48:45 GMT class411 said:

Mar 10, 2019 17:32:07 GMT nickf said:

If the signs were not put there for identification purposes while watching the film, I can't think of another reason why. They are placed to be clearly visible from the driving position and of little use to anyone else. In 1910 I imagine that shooting movie films was an event in itself and a camera placed next to the driver must have had the company's knowledge and consent, as the signs must have had as well. But perhaps we'll never know for sure.

I'm still not convinced.

The signs are only in focus for a tiny fraction of a second. In some cases the film is edited to cut away before the sign has even come into focus at all, and in others, although the camera passes the film it's impossible to read what the sign says.

You have to ask yourself why the responsible party would spend (in today's terms) tens of thousands of pounds producing signs, planning and authorising works, installing the signs and taking them down again, when it could just have used a rostrum camera to produce a few frames per station and splice them into the master. It would have been dramatically cheaper and, furthermore, the audience would actually have been able to read them reliably.

You have to agree that if they were put there for the film, they were a massive and expensive failure.

The cinema has always be built on illusions.

The signs look to me like they are painted on canvas, and even if they were mounted on a wooden frame, they would have been something that any competent theatre carpenter could have knocked together in a few hours. And I guess there would have been a lot of stage carpenters around in 1910 all eager for an extra cash in hand job...

[billbedford]

Mar 11, 2019 12:37:55 GMT norbitonflyer said:

Comments on You Tube suggest that the non-electrified section (and possibly all of it) was filmed from an open wagon propelled by a locomotive. Stopping the train at random locations to change reels may have been out of the question without disrupting the timetable.

That's how this type of film was made. Notice that there are no reflections from the cab windows and that the camera is able to pan from one side of the track to the other without picking up the driver or the cab structure. Also note that the train doesn't stop at any station that we can see, so it was likely to be a special for filming. 

[billbedford]

Mar 11, 2019 11:43:41 GMT littlejohn said:

There is also, at about 4.49, an advert for the Daily Mail on an overbridge which would also only be easily visible to the driver. Does this suggest that the signs were erected for the benefit of the viewing public?

That is definitely a canvas banner. Could it be that the Daily Mail sponsored this film? because <insert your own conspiracy theory here> 

[Chris M]

Back in that era the Daily Mail were more open to new technology and new ideas than they are today - they were sponsors of air prizes and the like - so no conspiracy needed really.

As for the cost of installation - that would be vastly smaller than it is today as there was almost no h&s to speak of. The railway had lots of labour available (stations had porters for example), with far fewer limits than today on what jobs they could do, whereas as skilled camera operator would not come cheap. The film really would not be cheap either.

One other thing to think about is whether we are seeing the film at the correct speed - frame rate wasn't standardised until the advent of sound films in the 1920s, and nominal frame rates between 16 and 26fps were common (but approximate with hand-cranked cameras).

[class411]

The film is definitely speeded up. You can tell by the oddly jerky movements of the people that is characteristic of 16fps played at 24/25fps. Even so, that would only increase the time available to see the station names by 50%.

The 'why else would they be there' argument certainly has merit. I also notice that all the signs had the word 'Station' at the end, even if it meant missing part of the actual name out - and signs within a station don't usually have 'Station' appended, so that's another point for their being there for the film. Yet another is that, if you notice, for the first part of the film (before the branch) they are cutting the film as the train leaves the station and jumping to a point just before the next station, implying that it was the going through the stations they were most interested in showing.

Against, we have the cost and effort involved in producing and installing the signs and the woeful performance.

On balance, I do now think that it is probable that the signs were there specifically for the film but that it was an almost complete cock-up. (At Kilburn, for example, the film is cut before the sign even starts to come into focus.) But as 35b pointed out, cinematography was still quite new and it nay well have been that nobody considered the depth of field implications when planning.

It's worth noting that they might have done a trial on a very bright day, found the result satisfactory, and then done the filming on a less bright day when a wider aperture would be needed and the depth of field would have gone to pot.

[norbitonflyer]

Mar 12, 2019 2:22:59 GMT Chris M said:

Back in that era the Daily Mail were more open to new technology and new ideas than they are today - they were sponsors of air prizes and the like - so no conspiracy needed really.

Indeed so, the DM was very much rooted in the spirit of the Edwardian Age. It still is.

Mar 12, 2019 2:22:59 GMT Chris M said:

One other thing to think about is whether we are seeing the film at the correct speed - frame rate wasn't standardised until the advent of sound films in the 1920s, and nominal frame rates between 16 and 26fps were common (but approximate with hand-cranked cameras).

How fast does the train appear to be moving? Does anyone have any contemporary platform lengths, or car lengths, to allow the time to be measured over a known distance? (or closing speed in the case of oncoming trains)

[brigham]

I'm familiar with this film, but every time I watch it I see something new.
It had never occurred to me that the station signs were put up for the benefit of the film; yet now it's pointed-out, it's totally obvious.
They are, in fact, an intrusion on the scene.

[countryman]

As this film was taken long before sound recording, I wonder who applied the soundtrack.

[class411]

Mar 12, 2019 10:11:27 GMT brigham said:

I'm familiar with this film, but every time I watch it I see something new.
It had never occurred to me that the station signs were put up for the benefit of the film; yet now it's pointed-out, it's totally obvious.

If you had to have it pointed out to you it can in no way be 'obvious'.

Far less 'totally obvious'.

[metman]

I personally believe the signs are there for the film or some other event and are not there in everyday use.

It is interesting to consider the vehicle in which it was filmed from. I was thinking the cab of a tank engine bunker first but the view would be poor. It could be from a brake van - the height is about right but they have pillars on those pre war dept brake vans. The suggestion of an open sided good van is reasonable but must have been horrible to work from! The jury is still out....

[t697]

Still on the thread but a different aspect; In the 1910 film it's clear the track layout at Baker St is different to today. I understand the main changes were made about 1914. Anyone got before and after plans or diagrams?

[alpinejohn]

That video looked very familiar. Indeed a search on YouTube finds some very similar videos uploaded some as far back as 10 years ago. Indeed more recently I enjoyed seeing a speeded up version of the whole trip in 2 minutes which was uploaded by Tim Dunn (Londonist)last year.

It looks like all these videos recycle BFI archive material.

It would be interesting to know who or perhaps (why) that footage was created - I suspect it must have had explicit support by the Metropolitan Railway given the presence of temporary banners hung from bridges on the approach to the various stations and what appears to be a special non-stop train and possibly the use of a dedicated filming platform mounted on a truck directly in front of the loco - as there is no sign of the loco despite some wide side to side pans. Obviously in the days before digital technology - hanging out some banners was probably the easiest way to clearly identify the various stations as the camera crew passed through. Nowadays it is easy to add captions with post production software but in 1910 what we see was probably cutting edge!

These films have overtones of the "MetroLand" advertising project whereby the Met owners were attempting to generate additional traffic and worked in collaboration with developers to build new MetroLand estates and stations which saw the suburbs extended out towards Buckinghamshire.

Sadly I doubt much of the Metropolitan railway archive material survived the transition into British Rail days let alone subsequent iterations which brought us to the route we see today.