Brightness of headlights during 1930s to 50s

2924 views
45 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 527 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Tuesday, August 14, 2018 1:29 PM

NDG

 

FYI.
 
Two Headlights.
 
CP 2527 with Two 2 Headlights on Test w wood consist.
 
Montreal West c. 1951.
 
 
 
Note Nachod Signal to left governing entrance to single track on curve, Montreal Tramways.
 

Impressive. Thank you very much for sharing!Thumbs UpIdea

  • Member since
    August, 2006
  • 16 posts
Posted by shunter on Thursday, August 16, 2018 5:37 AM
Not certain about U.S. Regulations but 32 Volts is regarded as 'Low Voltage, for safe workplace and non-qualified staff to attend in most countries. More than adequate to do the job. 'Hydro Man'
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 527 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Thursday, August 16, 2018 10:42 AM

 Thank you 'Hydro Man'! 

C&NW Class E4 4-6-4 Super Hudson probably had the greatest number of headlights when built.
Before 1956, headlight can be switched off before sunset  according to the States regulation. 
 

 

  • Member since
    February, 2002
  • From: Mpls/St.Paul
  • 10,736 posts
Posted by wjstix on Thursday, August 16, 2018 2:08 PM

On the CNW E-4, looks like it has two headlights, most likely one main headlight and one Mars light - similar to set-up on passenger diesels. What appears to be a third headlight on the top of the front of the engine might be a red emergency light, but since it appears to have some sort of grillwork where the light would be it might be a protective housing for the engine's horn. 

Stix
  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 527 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, August 17, 2018 2:18 AM

wjstix

On the CNW E-4, looks like it has two headlights, most likely one main headlight and one Mars light - similar to set-up on passenger diesels. What appears to be a third headlight on the top of the front of the engine might be a red emergency light, but since it appears to have some sort of grillwork where the light would be it might be a protective housing for the engine's horn. 

Thank you for your respond. Before the renowned Twin Cities 400 being dieselized, there un-streamlined locomotive, quote from wiki “The steam locomotives were upgraded to feature a 45° lamp on top of the boiler just ahead of the smokestack. These lights were intended to announce the approach of the train and could be seen for a great distance in rural areas. In 1937, one locomotive was equipped with a prototype Mars light, the first ever put into use.
I don’t know why only CNW and MILW, served on similar market or route had this special treatment. I guess It was because the train need to go through a lot of county side and smaller communities thus the engine needed to install more headlights for safety measure.
 
 
 
CNW E-2 Pacific
 
 
 
The CNW Hudson didn’t have the chance to haul the Twin Cities 400, since the management of CNW switched to diesel before they arrived from the shop, but these Super Hudson equipped these extra lights as built. I note MILW Class A and F7s also added Mars light to their front end in late 40s.


MILW #102, looked so beat up here, was the engine which had a gearing failure accident during high speed in 1950. Not long after the accident, MILW used Diesel instead of Steam to run their famous named train. 
  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,236 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, August 17, 2018 3:46 PM

Union Pacific had vertical headlights on some of the early Streamliners, the idea being similar to the angled headlights --  the projected fast-moving searchlight beam supposedly acting like spotlights at a Hollywood premiere to arrest the attention of nearby motorists and get them to Recognize High-Speed Death Is Near while still far away from crossings.

I have never seen a reference that said that it worked as expected, on any road that tried them.  To my knowledge all were removed or disabled early; whether or not this was due to ICC/FRA regulations requiring them to work all the time if installed I do not know.

Picture of an E-4 Hudson in Chapelon's LLAV (I use Carpenter's 1952 translation) appears to confirm that the 'upper' feature is, as I would have expected, the red light C&NW used to show a stop or emergency-brake application to facing trains on double track.  (I believe NYC tried implementing this at the very end of steam, with the little indicator in those Pyle double-sealed-beam headlight arrangements, but don't know that for sure.)

You do know there is a painting of the 'critical moment' when the main pin failed -- and it's linked in some posts on these forums!

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 3,287 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, August 17, 2018 4:45 PM

"Trouble at the mill"

...."What kind of trouble?"

"Apparently the flayrods gone askew on the treadle"

( Spanish Inquisition skit from Monty Python)

Did not the same thing happen to the S1? Or was it the S2? 

 

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,236 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, August 17, 2018 8:11 PM

Miningman
Did not the same thing happen to the S1?

Not to my knowledge.  And even with "7200hp" not particularly likely.

Or was it the S2?

Not a chance.  Those rods just connected the gear-driven axle sets to the outer pairs. 

What you need for this kind of catastrophe is an extended main pin, with dicey web thickness between pin and axle fits in the driver center (as you know, the T1 had the ABSOLUTE thinnest measurement here that Baldwin considered feasible, for the reduced piston thrust of  short-stroke "Atlantic" size cylinders, this with driver centers sized for 80"). 

Part of the 'secret agenda' with duplex drives was that the thrust of many modern engines with Timken lightweight rods got up into the range that main-pin stress raisers got established and propagated.  As I've said, I suspect that kind of catastrophic failure would become more and more documented as the urge to decrease rotating and reciprocating mass and lateral offset became greater (assuming big steam remained popular past the late Forties).

Add to this the fun, and perhaps unsurprisingly functionally under-documented, note by Chapelon in LLAV that if you subtract the lateral play observed in rod bearings from the permitted lateral, the 'logical' conclusion is that the rods are flexing laterally with every revolution.  While conveying substantial stress, and while the stress in the pins is all one way with rotation, that in the rods most certainly is not...

NO ONE expects the main pin failure!  Its chief effects inspire fear ... fear and surprise, surprise and fear, in attempting to provide ruthless efficiency...

and perhaps an almost fanatical devotion to Porta? Wink

  • Member since
    September, 2013
  • 3,287 posts
Posted by Miningman on Friday, August 17, 2018 9:19 PM

Nice summary, in the spirit of things a-la Monty Python. Thanks.

Perhaps one day real jocularity will return. 

I recall an issue of 'Trains' featuring a page with an Ariel photo of Crestline and the commentary running North-South column style alongside the picture outlining what it is we actually see. At first glance it appears all is well, lots of steam about but upon further investigation it is revealed that we are seeing dead and whitelined locomotives. I cannot remember the particulars exactly but I do recall the S1 being there, the 'Big Engine', I think perhaps the S2, some T1's , perhaps Q2's. One of the reporting sentences goes on to say that,( I think it was the S1, but someone here will recall correctly), that the main rod had let loose and flayed the entire side of the locomotive and here it was waiting for the bitter end. That the entire post war fleet of duplex drive and experimental locomotives were failures, now merely stored here and the era was over. 

I have the all time Trains issue Disc but will have to wait until I get back to my 'real' computer in the classroom and at my desk in my office. Someone can beat me to the punch. I'm just not certain which locomotive it was that had the flayed severely damaged side. 

 

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 527 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, August 18, 2018 5:55 AM

Overmod

......Union Pacific had vertical headlights on some of the early Streamliners, the idea being similar to the angled headlights --  the projected fast-moving searchlight beam supposedly acting like spotlights at a Hollywood premiere to arrest the attention of nearby motorists and get them to Recognize High-Speed Death Is Near while still far away from crossings.



Yes, the UP GE steam turbine locomotive had such vertical headlights on the roof of the driver cab, a very strange design in my book.

 

Overmod

......You do know there is a painting of the 'critical moment' when the main pin failed -- and it's linked in some posts on these forums!

Yes, this drawing is still in my MILW pics folder Stick out tongue. IIRC NYC's Super Hudson and MILW F7s used  Baker Valve Gear and Walschaerts Valve Gear respectively. I cannot remember the details, but the official explanation of this incident was “engine lubrication system failure” ……something like that, but I suspect it was caused by speeding. TE of both Hudson type from NYC and MILW were quite low, compared to PRR K4s, MILW or many people claimed that their F7s can go beyond 120mph but NYC only claimed 95mph. Why and how?

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 527 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, August 18, 2018 6:37 AM

Miningman

......One of the reporting sentences goes on to say that,( I think it was the S1, but someone here will recall correctly), that the main rod had let loose and flayed the entire side of the locomotive and here it was waiting for the bitter end. That the entire post war fleet of duplex drive and experimental locomotives were failures, now merely stored here and the era was over......

This is really interesting, Miningman, since I have read a similar story from a post on Facebook (please don't laugh at me) about the incident you mentioned. I tried to find the post again, but it wasn’t there anymore. 

I can’t remember the detail, but it said one day when S1 was running at 100mph, one of the main rod loosed and destroyed part of the skirting and the engineer side windows, the “big engine” was lifted up a little by the loosed rod which was slammed into the ground, the crew applied emergency break and the train stopped without derailment. S1 was towed aside and stayed there for a month due to its huge side…… something like that. The story sounds familiar isn’t it?
 I have at least 4 books and 3 articles about Pennsy steam power but none of them mentioned such horrific accident which could be caused by design flaws, even the author who gave the harshest comment to S1 didn't mention such story or incident. The monthly mileage of S1 was about 50% of production T1, far below expectation but at least it was keep working, some months there was no record of service but until Dec 1945, the train was still waiting for repair parts and “expected” to return service after a few days. I went through the PRR Chronology from 1936 to 1948 many times, no such incident was recorded as well. 

24-wheel Twin Unit Dining Car designed for the new Trail Blazer in 1939.

  • Member since
    December, 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,923 posts
Posted by erikem on Saturday, August 18, 2018 11:44 AM

Overmod

Union Pacific had vertical headlights on some of the early Streamliners, the idea being similar to the angled headlights --  the projected fast-moving searchlight beam supposedly acting like spotlights at a Hollywood premiere to arrest the attention of nearby motorists and get them to Recognize High-Speed Death Is Near while still far away from crossings.

I have never seen a reference that said that it worked as expected, on any road that tried them.  To my knowledge all were removed or disabled early; whether or not this was due to ICC/FRA regulations requiring them to work all the time if installed I do not know.

Kratville's book on the UP Streamliners stated that the vertical lighs did not work as well as expected and thus were not repeated after the first few units. His book made no mention of removal due to ICC regulations, so my guess is that the UP did so on their own volition. His book did state that management was concerned about grade crossing accidents, hence that's why the vertical lights were installed in thefirst place. The installation of Mars lights shortly thereafter comes across as the next step in experimentation on improving visibility to the motorists at grade crossings.

  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 527 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Saturday, August 18, 2018 12:37 PM

UP  G.M. M-10003 to M-10006 (best looking early diesel imo)  and CB&Q Zephyr 9900 added extra headling/Mar lights above the driving cab




  • Member since
    April, 2018
  • 527 posts
Posted by Jones1945 on Friday, October 26, 2018 7:33 AM

Railway Age, 1948

This was my first post on Classic Trains forum. With the helps of our forum members and all the infomation provided by you guys; including important key words for seaching things on the internet , I can study more topic in depth from the publishment avalible on the web. Thank you everyone! Yes

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 6,236 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, October 26, 2018 4:19 PM

erikem
His book made no mention of removal due to ICC regulations, so my guess is that the UP did so on their own volition.

I bring up the point because it was painfully clear that the later experiments on SP with high-visibility lights of various kinds were terminated 'with extreme prejudice' thanks to the FRA mandating that any light, no matter how superfluous to nominal CFR requirements, had to be kept in perfect working order. 

The installation of Mars lights shortly thereafter comes across as the next step in experimentation on improving visibility to the motorists at grade crossings.

Yes, but there comes fairly quickly the idea, on UP as on other roads, of using the red Mars light strictly as a signal to facing trains, not as optical grade-crossing warning.  Whether that started as an 'excuse' to put red lenses on anticollision warning lights that didn't produce the desired degree of warning, I can't say.

  • Member since
    December, 2005
  • From: Cardiff, CA
  • 2,923 posts
Posted by erikem on Saturday, October 27, 2018 4:25 PM

Overmod

 

erikem
His book made no mention of removal due to ICC regulations, so my guess is that the UP did so on their own volition.

I bring up the point because it was painfully clear that the later experiments on SP with high-visibility lights of various kinds were terminated 'with extreme prejudice' thanks to the FRA mandating that any light, no matter how superfluous to nominal CFR requirements, had to be kept in perfect working order.

My understanding was tha the vertical headlight removal was done prior to WW2. Espee's "pouring on the lights" was going on until at least the late 1960's.

OTOH, I remember getting home well more than an hour late on evening due to a failure of the ditch lights on the Amtrak train taking from Irvine to Solana Beach. Solution was coupling our train to the later train just south of San Juan Capistrano.

Heck, even the FAA allows airliners to fly with a certai number of systems non-functioning...

SUBSCRIBER & MEMBER LOGIN

Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!

FREE NEWSLETTER SIGNUP

Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter