Three Men And A Mangle.

The railway line was on the Keighley-Bradford route via Queensbury - Thornton viaduct. Closed to passengers in 1955, most of the stations were miles (literally) from the places they purported to serve. Queensbury, one of the few triangular stations (the other notable one was Ambergate), was about 100 feet below and a mile away from Queensbury The line was lifted in stages as goods traffic continued, the Thornton - Denholme section went in 1963, the Thornton - Queensbury section in 1965: the last remnants lingered on to the 1970s.

The clutter seen on the viaduct was specially placed there by the BBC props people.


This intrigued me so I had to check for UK triangular stations:
United Kingdom:

Shipley has been triangular since only 1992. It is now one of two remaining triangular stations in the UK: the other being Earlestown station in Merseyside. Ambergate station was previously triangular but only retains one platform and Queensbury station was closed to passengers in 1955.
 
Well I DID!!

The more and more the cast grew, the less and less we
got to see (and love!!) the trio. Early on, Clegg, Compo, and Cyril
were about 20-24 minutes of the half hour. And they were great.
They were wonderful. They were what I watched for.

As the cast grew, and we added a bazillion characters, each
with his or her own 3 minutes of fame, the trio was down to
more like 10-12 minutes. Such a shame!! What a waste
of talent.

That wasn't sustainable in the long run, though. First, for the creative reasons others have already noted. But second, because of simple age and what the core actors could actually handle in terms of work load.

It was not a random move to add four new characters (Crusher, Pearl, Howard, and Marina) the year after John Comer died. I think his death made Clarke, Bell, and the BBC realize that given the age of the cast they were inevitably going to have to deal with actors leaving for health reasons or simply dying suddenly. The larger cast helps buffer for those eventualities. A small core cast would have had a very hard time every time they lost someone - they knew they got really lucky when Brian Wilde was a hit with audiences in replacing Michael Bates.

Its also not by chance that they added three new characters at the same time as Michael Aldridge came on as Seymour (Edie, Glenda, and Barry.) Again, it was a buffer to help with the new guy. Plus, they did a whole lot of episodes in Seymour's first full season.

Almost every sitcom I can think of that lasted a relatively long time (which is 5+ years or so) had casts that were big enough to handle departures. It's really the only way to make them work.
 
Have been sitting for over a week now on a significant milestone and wondering when to plunge in. Actually, first weekend I was away walking around Glasgow in massive crowds and on crowded underground getting to and from Ibrox for Commonwealth Games Rugby Sevens. Great crack.

Anyway I was keeping track of this thread and disagreeing with much that has been said so I thought to plunge in here and stir things up a wee bit – desist from haudin ma wheesht, as 'twere.

I do consider it a great pity that after Michael Aldridge sadly had to leave they brought back Brian Wilde. I always found the Foggy character irritating – met too many of them in real life – and felt he had shot his bolt in his first spell. And Brian Wilde tended to be disruptive. First there was his resistance to Alan J W Bell. As a matter of principle, no actor should be able to dictate as to who should be director. And then there was the matter of, at some time, Bill Owen and Peter Sallis became aware that Brian Wilde was being paid almost twice as much as them. In no way, shape or form could that be justified. But then we all know how profligate the BBC can be in paying the wrong people well over their worth – witness that decrepit nonentity who recently stood down from ‘Strictly Come Dancing’ – just as well before he fell down.

I do wonder if there would be any interest in conjecturing who might have done well as the third man after Michael Aldridge had to leave. It was a matter of regret to my mind that Fulton MacKay who had been considered earlier never got taken on. But sadly he died in 1987 so was no longer with us at the applicable time.

It is also maybe a pity that Frank Thornton was not considered earlier. I do think that after a period in the doldrums, Foggy’s second spell, when there was a lot of repetitive situations, the show picked up considerably when Roy Clarke had a completely new character with which to work. And, of course things improved even more when Billy Hardcastle came on the scene.

I never had any problem with a big cast situation. I suggest it would only have been problematical had things become confusing and to my mind they never did. There was another thread recently looking for episodes which lived up to the early days. I am of the school which felt that almost to the end there was very little deterioration in the entertainment once Truly came on the scene until sadly Clegg’s input diminished so much and in a way the show became, not ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ but the ‘Russ Abbot Show’ by Roy Clarke.

But two episodes which really stand out for me in that era were two with Bobby Ball – ‘Who's That Talking to Lenny?’ and ‘The Swan Man of Ilkley’. Not so keen on ‘Get Out of That, Then’ but, of course, by then Clegg had faded.

And one other brilliant and very different episode, ‘A Short Introduction To Cooper's Rules’.

I’m back but can be sure there will be those who wished I had stayed away. And now I can get back to the quick, sneaky, in and quickly out again attacks.

How many successful shows did he present? Fully justified his wages over the years I would say...
 
That wasn't sustainable in the long run, though. First, for the creative reasons others have already noted. But second, because of simple age and what the core actors could actually handle in terms of work load.

It was not a random move to add four new characters (Crusher, Pearl, Howard, and Marina) the year after John Comer died. I think his death made Clarke, Bell, and the BBC realize that given the age of the cast they were inevitably going to have to deal with actors leaving for health reasons or simply dying suddenly. The larger cast helps buffer for those eventualities. A small core cast would have had a very hard time every time they lost someone - they knew they got really lucky when Brian Wilde was a hit with audiences in replacing Michael Bates.

Its also not by chance that they added three new characters at the same time as Michael Aldridge came on as Seymour (Edie, Glenda, and Barry.) Again, it was a buffer to help with the new guy. Plus, they did a whole lot of episodes in Seymour's first full season.

Almost every sitcom I can think of that lasted a relatively long time (which is 5+ years or so) had casts that were big enough to handle departures. It's really the only way to make them work.

Is this something Alan Bell talks about in his book btw? I hadn`t really thought about that aspect of bringing Pearl, Howard and Marina into the show and had only considered the success of the stage play at that time.

It`s true that most long running shows do expand the cast over time but they don`t all appear in every episode of a show. In Only Fools and Horses, for example, characters like Mickey Pearce and Sid were used when needed but they weren`t there every week.

In fact, thinking about it, I think this is where Summer Wine differs from many other shows. Most other really long running shows are American and if you think about a show like Friends, they never really increased the main cast beyond the main 6. They would introduce other characters who would appear sporadically over time which seems a more natural way to do it. The Summer Wine cast always bumping into Smiler, Eli, Howard, Barry etc. was clumsy and couldn`t always be explained organically in the script.
 
This intrigued me so I had to check for UK triangular stations:
United Kingdom:

Shipley has been triangular since only 1992. It is now one of two remaining triangular stations in the UK: the other being Earlestown station in Merseyside. Ambergate station was previously triangular but only retains one platform and Queensbury station was closed to passengers in 1955.


Thanks for that detail: I had forgotten the Merseyside one. Shipley as you state only became triangular in 1992. Prior to that there had to be a reversal for Leeds- Skipton trains that called at Shipley.

The old through trains never stopped there, I believe the Beeching Plan would have abolished the branch to Forster Square thus closing Shipley as there were no platforms on the Leeds-Skipton lines. That line was to have been singled with intermediate stations at Bingley and Keighley only, and all track beyond Skipton lifted (hence no Settle-Carlisle nor what is now known as the Bentham Line (formerly Little North Western)).
 
Just thinking - this thread is a very good example of going off topic, just like the conversations in Summer Wine.

:42: :42: :42: :42:
 
...... The Summer Wine cast always bumping into Smiler, Eli, Howard, Barry etc. was clumsy and couldn`t always be explained organically in the script.



Intrigued by this comment. I bump into all sorts of people as I walk round Keighley - and in any location you will meet the same people time and time again. We use the same routes at about the same time each day or each week (as creatures principally of habit) and thus only to be expected that I will see same people all the time. Clegg could hardly avoid Howard - they lived next door and as Clegg's was a common starting point Howard is almost expected to be in attendance!

Or have I missed - completely - the thrust of your argument? Such decrepitude is always possible even though I am nowhere as old as a certain presenter who annoys Big Unc!!
 
OK here goes.

Have been sitting for over a week now on a significant milestone and wondering when to plunge in.

Wondered what was keeping you!!

And Brian Wilde tended to be disruptive. First there was his resistance to Alan J W Bell. As a matter of principle, no actor should be able to dictate as to who should be director. ‘Russ Abbot Show’ by Roy Clarke.

Couldn't agree more.

It was a matter of regret to my mind that Fulton MacKay who had been considered earlier never got taken on. But sadly he died in 1987 so was no longer with us at the applicable time.

Spot on, I think he would have been great.


I’m back but can be sure there will be those who wished I had stayed away.

Not by me.


:22:

Agree, concur completely ...
 
Intrigued by this comment. I bump into all sorts of people as I walk round Keighley - and in any location you will meet the same people time and time again. We use the same routes at about the same time each day or each week (as creatures principally of habit) and thus only to be expected that I will see same people all the time. Clegg could hardly avoid Howard - they lived next door and as Clegg's was a common starting point Howard is almost expected to be in attendance!

Yes, I very much go along with that. There is something real life about it.

It`s true that most long running shows do expand the cast over time but they don`t all appear in every episode of a show. In Only Fools and Horses, for example, characters like Mickey Pearce and Sid were used when needed but they weren`t there every week.

In fact, thinking about it, I think this is where Summer Wine differs from many other shows. Most other really long running shows are American and if you think about a show like Friends, they never really increased the main cast beyond the main 6. They would introduce other characters who would appear sporadically over time which seems a more natural way to do it.

I cannot see why one show should follow the same routine as any other, and I would certainly not hold up any US show as a criterion for comedy.
 
How many successful shows did he present? Fully justified his wages over the years I would say...

A ghastly man who treated fellow performers appallingly and off stage is inclined to throw his weight about.

I am trying to recall successful shows he presented - Sunday Night at the London Palladium (I think). Norman Vaughn for one was every bit as good. The Generation Game - Larry Grayson every bit as good. Strictly come dancing will carry on just as well or as badly without him.

Until recently the BBC can only be described as completely profligate over paying out thinking it had to pay over the odds to get a so-called big star when it could quite easily have found someone on the way up who would be every bit as good.
 
A ghastly man who treated fellow performers appallingly and off stage is inclined to throw his weight about.

I am trying to recall successful shows he presented - Sunday Night at the London Palladium (I think). Norman Vaughn for one was every bit as good. The Generation Game - Larry Grayson every bit as good. Strictly come dancing will carry on just as well or as badly without him.

Until recently the BBC can only be described as completely profligate over paying out thinking it had to pay over the odds to get a so-called big star when it could quite easily have found someone on the way up who would be every bit as good.

:29:

Considering some of the other allegations and revelations concerning BBC presenters, this is pretty trivial stuff isn`t it.

Bill Owen was, by all accounts, a difficult person to work with at times. Russ Abbot is apparently a sweetheart. Does it really matter to the viewing public?

Even beginning to debate whether Bruce Forsyth has been a massively successful host is nonsensical. His 60 year career speaks for itself.

Did Bruce make mistakes towards the end of strictly? Of course he did. He`s 86 years old and people slow down. But some of the comments that were made about him at the time represent society`s attitude towards older people. Don`t treat them with patience or understanding. Get them out of our sight...
 
I cannot see why one show should follow the same routine as any other, and I would certainly not hold up any US show as a criterion for comedy.

Oh yeah, those Americans know nothing about comedy. :42:

In terms of long running comedies, the U.S. obviously has a lot of experience. So many shows like Bewitched, Happy Days, Frasier, Cheers, The Simpsons, Married With Children etc. have run for hundreds of episodes so they must be doing something right.
 
Intrigued by this comment. I bump into all sorts of people as I walk round Keighley - and in any location you will meet the same people time and time again. We use the same routes at about the same time each day or each week (as creatures principally of habit) and thus only to be expected that I will see same people all the time. Clegg could hardly avoid Howard - they lived next door and as Clegg's was a common starting point Howard is almost expected to be in attendance!

Or have I missed - completely - the thrust of your argument? Such decrepitude is always possible even though I am nowhere as old as a certain presenter who annoys Big Unc!!

Well, here is my two penn`orth...

In the early series of the show the focus was on the plot and the characters had to fit around that. So if Nora, Ivy, Sid or Wally weren`t going to make a contribution then they weren`t included.

In the later series of the show the focus was on the characters and the plot had to fit around that.
All of those characters were going to be included even if they didn`t always add to the story.

I can completely understand that some do meet many of the same people when they go out. But not the identical same set of characters every week. Now if Summer Wine had done the same and included many, but not all, of those characters then I personally think it would have benefited the show. Sometimes omitting the likes of Smiler, Marina, Pearl, Auntie Wainwright, Barry etc. could have given the scripts a chance to breathe and would have meant that they could have avoided crowbarring in characters which happened sometimes in my opinion.

Obviously there are some who feel the later series are as good if not better than the early years though which is fair enough.
 
Is that the one where Clegg and Compo untie the washing line and Norah falls flat on her face trying to hang a sheet onto nothing ??... wonderful.
 
Is that the one where Clegg and Compo untie the washing line and Norah falls flat on her face trying to hang a sheet onto nothing ??... wonderful.

Yes Norm, one of the best scenes going :D
 
In the early series of the show the focus was on the plot and the characters had to fit around that. So if Nora, Ivy, Sid or Wally weren`t going to make a contribution then they weren`t included.

My very favorite episode is Full Steam Behind, in which there were,
I believe, only the three guys.
 
My very favorite episode is Full Steam Behind, in which there were,
I believe, only the three guys.

I concur that 'Full Steam Behind' was a brilliant episode and very much a favourite of mine. Mind, we do have to recognise that in addition to the three guys there were the engines and trains which made a big addition to the cast - well, certainly to we railway buffs. But then, 'Last Post and Pigeon' was also a big favourite of mine and that had an enormous cast (including Gladys, the pigeon).

I just cannot feel any hangup whatsoever on size of cast. Shakespeare plays had massive casts and they only lasted around two hours. Most of them were pretty good.
 
Oh yeah, those Americans know nothing about comedy. :42:

In terms of long running comedies, the U.S. obviously has a lot of experience. So many shows like Bewitched, Happy Days, Frasier, Cheers, The Simpsons, Married With Children etc. have run for hundreds of episodes so they must be doing something right.

Whoops - very clumsy wording on my part and profound apologies. Point I wanted to make was that American comedy practices should be no criterion for UK comedy. Two nations separated by a common language and all that.

Noted your list of shows and that with Bewitched and Happy Days you went way back. I thought The Simpsons was a cartoon and fundamentally cannot stand it. Have never seen Married with Children. But I have always enjoyed Frasier and particularly Cheers. (Maybe another of the same ilk is Taxi). Both are very good shows but I am struck by how different is the size of regular cast with Cheers being much the larger as was the case with Taxi. And in both the latter cases, most regular cast were in most episodes.
 
Back
Top