In all of the British steam locomotive pictures I have seen I have never seen an engine with the typical North American headlight. How did the British engineers see straight ahead at night?
BlackieIn all of the British steam locomotive pictures I have seen I have never seen an engine with the typical North American headlight. How did the British engineers see straight ahead at night?
I don't think they needed to. They had absolute authority granted by each signal box to the next signal box, and those signals were lit, and virtually all turnouts in British practice, as I have experienced it in person on British-designed railways, were all within station limits and operated by a stationmaster/signal box. As far as I know, their rights-of-way were generally grade-separated and fenced so there was nothing there to see.
The headlight isn't nearly of much use for seeing the track as is imagined, unless one is truly running at restricted speed (able to stop in 1/2 the limit of vision) -- it's a warning device for vehicles at grade crossings, and a device for observing the position of the target on unprotected turnouts in the main track.
Everything I've ever been in the cab for when we ran over it or struck with a train at night we saw far too late to stop anyway -- trees, dogs, moose, rocks, nutria, deer, cows, etc.
RWM
Railway Man hit's the nail on the head yet again.
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
British trains have never had headlights, only marker lights to identify the type of train. As discussed above all routes are fully controlled by signals and fully fenced so drivers just look at the signals. All trains also carry a red rear light.
Turnouts on running lines are always interlocked with the signals so there is no need to be able to see the track.
BongoBritish trains have never had headlights, only marker lights to identify the type of train
Doesn't a headlight{s}, assist an engineer in determining just "where" he is on the railroad. Example: Running on a very dark night and in territory with not much civilization for reference of location, assisting him how fast he can be running etc.....
Quentin
ModelcarBongoBritish trains have never had headlights, only marker lights to identify the type of train Doesn't a headlight{s}, assist an engineer in determining just "where" he is on the railroad. Example: Running on a very dark night and in territory with not much civilization for reference of location, assisting him how fast he can be running etc.....
Yes, if he needs to know that. On a "dark" American-style railroading with inexpensive geometry (lots of curves and grades, temporary speed restrictions), he does. On a British Railway, he doesn't need to know exactly where he is because it's all the same. The lines were engineered to extreme standards of flatness and minimal curvature, enabling constant speed as governed by signal indication, and temporary speed restrictions are "box to box" not "milepost fraction to milepost fraction". Besides, when you run the same territory repeatedly for years, it's not like you don't know where you are. As a dispatcher, I could look at a console which consisted of nothing but a lit line showing that a train was between two track cuts, and be pretty certain where he was within 1/4 mile. Trains do the same thing over and over again, especially on a tightly scheduled system like a British passenger-heavy railway.
Railway man is right.
Here is an exeption, a picture of british steam engine with a big headlight for a unique operation. This is a pusher engine for steep grades , i suppose the headlight was for being able to see when approaching a train to push in the dark ((banking)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:58100_LickeyBanker3.jpg
I think even in britain train crews can hear and feel in the track where they are just as well as US crews.
TH&B Here is an exeption, a picture of british steam engine with a big headlight for a unique operation. This is a pusher engine for steep grades , i suppose the headlight was for being able to see when approaching a train to push in the dark ((banking)). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:58100_LickeyBanker3.jpg
That is the banker (helper) for the Lickey Incline which is the steepest incline on an English mainline (between Bristol and Birmingham). It is still open although not very noticeable in a diesel unit. AS surmised the headlight is so that the crew can see when buffering up to a train.
.....What was their "hangup" on headlights.....? That is, not installing them on a moving vehicle that was used at night....Just seems to defy logic.
Modelcar.....What was their "hangup" on headlights.....? That is, not installing them on a moving vehicle that was used at night....Just seems to defy logic.
Why pay for and maintain something of no value?
....Oh, the thought of "no value"....boy, that is a bit weird.....Do we consider headlights no value in this country....Don't think so.
I realize we're talking about the United Kingdom, but cheeze....a headlight is of no value....? Must be another reason. Couldn't think of changing tradition....from the past, possibly.
The British railway companies never saw the need for headlights on locomotives; even when they began using diesels in the 1950's. I have wondered that the reason might be that a headlight might actually make signals more difficult to read. The LMS Southern and LNER all used upper quadrant signals and their locomotives had left hand drive. The driver ( engineer ) was the person responsible for reading signals on these railways. However, the GWR locomotives were right hand drive even though they operated their trains on the left. They also used lower quadrant signals and the fireman was the reader of signals. These signals were very difficult to read and the British did not begin to replace them until well into nationalization. Even with more modern signals; no headlights. For this American,I was amazed they never used headlights on their trains, but I think that headlights would have detracted from the clean lines of British steam.
I believe the only British Steamer to have been fitted with a headlight was when The Flying Scotsman toured the US. It was done as per US operating requirements. BTW, TH&B is that car a Chrysler Newport in your driveway, nice.
Quentin, I think you've never ridden on a locomotive and seen just how pathetic the headlight is, and what it does not illuminate. A car on a highway is driving within the vision limits of the headlights, or it wrecs. A train is almost always driving at a speed far in excess of its vision limits even in daylight, much less at night.
I'm taken aback by any notion there's only one way to do things in the world, and it's the U.S. way. I've spent a lot of time overseas working on railways, and I succeeded by never assuming that because I came from the U.S. I was smarter, better, or there was only one way to do things -- the U.S. way. I am just a dumb practical railway man, and if something isn't needed for safety or efficiency, I am pretty ruthless about ripping it off and throwing it away. On a British-style railway, headlights are a "security blanket" for the insecure. They didn't need them, so they didn't waste money and time with them.
I can assure you, from the rest of the world's point of view, they think we are definitely the weirdest country on earth.
ACF1001 I believe the only British Steamer to have been fitted with a headlight was when The Flying Scotsman toured the US. It was done as per US operating requirements. BTW, TH&B is that car a Chrysler Newport in your driveway, nice.
I think there was at least one other engine that toured to the US with a fitted headlight, but it was rare.
OS yes it's a ' 71 4 door , 440 4 speed manual (one of done produced) still runs. Are you a "Mopar fan" ?
Railway ManI can assure you, from the rest of the world's point of view, they think we are definitely the weirdest country on earth.
No problem with anything you had in your response. But I retain my opinion of wheither something like what we're talking about should have a headlight{s}.
I believe we rate a bit highter in the world than weirdest country on earth.....
You are also correct, I have never ridden an engine to experience what a headlight{s}, does for the track view ahead.
I have been in the United Kingdom and Asia. And on steel wheel to rail in both areas. But that doesn't make me an expert at all. All I'm saying is that is my opinion of the headlight issue.
I have ridden locomotives at night, and the headlight helps very little. My first experience was on the City of New Orleans, from Memphis to Grenada (with the blessing of the IC Tennessee Division superintendent), back in 1965. While I could see, I blew the horn for the public crossings, but when the sun was setting, I could not tell a mile post from a whistle post, so I gave the cord back to the engineer. My other two experiences on passenger engines (conductor or flagman and engineer blessing) were the same. I could read the signals, and that was about all. I did see the waterfall inside the Lookout Mountain tunnel, but it was "there it is, and it's gone." Even when proceeding at the maximum speed of ten miles an hour on the AT&N, not much could be seen (there was also conversation in the cab with the crews, to take my attention).
You can wonder how much help the fire on the car in front of the Best Friend of Charleston really helped the engineer.
Johnny
DeggestyYou can wonder how much help the fire on the car in front of the Best Friend of Charleston really helped the engineer
.....I thought about that very same "headlight" as I was writing on my headlight opinion.....
By the way....How is the performance of the later ditch lights.....? Do they help to "see" much closer to the engine along the R of W.....I realize the main headlights shine a distance down the track.
TH&B, Not to get off topic, for which I already am. I am a fan of all muscle cars not to mention cars in general. Trains are still my number one hobby though. The reason why I asked was because my grandfather had one. But, it had an automatic tranny. I don't remember if it had a slant 6 or a V8. I was only 7 at the time. Back to the subject. Could the other engine been the Coronation Special or the Mallard?
I, too, recall reading that British railways, being almost free of highway grade crossings and well fenced, did not develop a need for headlights as American and other railroads did. I also seem to recall that the placement of the lights indicated something about the type of train (as mentioned above, something akin to marker lights) but I can't find anything about it offhand right now. Maybe someone with A) a better organiazed library (who am I kidding? any organized library...), B) a better memory (again, who am I kidding? any memory) or C) way too much time on their hands (for once, I'm in the clear) can find/post it?
Railway Man I can assure you, from the rest of the world's point of view, they think we are definitely the weirdest country on earth.RWM
I can assure you, from the rest of the world's point of view, they think we are definitely the weirdest country on earth.RWM
Off-hand I think North-Korea and Bhutan are weirder than the US. And if you pressure me I might admit that my own country (the Netherlands) is as weird if not weirder than the US but I can't think of more countries. Note that they are all more or less social experiments....
Back to the topic. Remember that British railways and many continental European railways as well were fenced in or had watercarrying ditches like in the Netherlands. Makes it harder for say livestock to wander onto the tracks. Distances between places are small compared to the US so it is easy to guess where you are in the dark from sounds like crossing roads or small bridges in combination with timing. Add to that the fact that most engineers and firemen ran the same routes day in day out, day and night and often many times a day. You get a feel for the road that way and I believe that was part of the training of enginemen.
greetings,
Kevin C. Smith I, too, recall reading that British railways, being almost free of highway grade crossings and well fenced, did not develop a need for headlights as American and other railroads did. I also seem to recall that the placement of the lights indicated something about the type of train (as mentioned above, something akin to marker lights) but I can't find anything about it offhand right now. Maybe someone with A) a better organiazed library (who am I kidding? any organized library...), B) a better memory (again, who am I kidding? any memory) or C) way too much time on their hands (for once, I'm in the clear) can find/post it?
At one point in time the codes were as here:
http://www.greatwestern.org.uk/basic16.htm
The earliest diesels used the same codes but with white disks, then they went to an illuminated display of the headcode, including the train class, then to pure marker lights.
The main reason the UK's locomotives didn't need headlights dated back to the Enclosure Acts, which forced landowners to fence in their holdings, so other than few pockets of "common land," agricultural land is fenced off, and we don't have an open range. Likewise, the enabling Parliamentary legislation for railway lines stipulated that lines be fenced off. So trespass by humans or animals is thankfully less common than it might be.
Another factor would have been the the obligation in the Reglation of Railways Acts of 1880 something on drivers to sign a route card to acknowledge which segments of routes on which they were confident to work any kind of train, in any weather, at any time of day or night. So drivers didn't need a big light to tell them where they were at any time. They were expected to know by experience, which would mean the lie of the land, what lights would normally be visible, also sounds and smells! (I'm told one landmark for Great Western steam enginemen working into and out of London Paddington was the Nestles Instant Coffee factory in the outer suburbs)
The situation these days, however, is somewhat different. Back in the 1970s/1980s, the costs of running the Central Wales line were slashed by relaxing the signalling requirements for road crossings. British Rail accomplished this by turing the route into a "Light Railway" as defined in legislation back at the turn of the last century. Crossing keepers would be dispnsed with, speed restrictions (whose severity depended on ease of sighting) were imposed at what would now become "open crossings," and trains would be fitted with Headlights to enable road vehicle drivers to spot trains easier.
The working of that same route was later amended by the use of NSKT (non-signaller key token) controlled from just the one signalbox controlling movements along 80 or so miles of route. At the same time, all conventional BR signals (other than those controlling access to and from the main lines at each end) were removed, and were replaced by fixed signals in the shape of simple signs, and which were made of a very reflective material such that drivers could read them a long way off.
The effectiveness of that reflective material for speed limit signs has seen widespread use of headlights / marker lights to help drivers read same. So although our trains and locomtives don't have Headlights as powerful as those used in the US, our modern trains and locomotives are kitted out with lighting good enough to read our fixed lineside signs.
Perhaps a UK driver might put things over better than I can.
Hwyl,
Martin
All this info regarding British steam engines not to have headlights is really fascinating. It seems all kinds of money was spent to install fences and crossing protection, etc.....and I just am amazed some of this {might}, have been done to prevent the need of a headlight on an engine....That boggles the mind....!
None of this was done to "get around having to have a headlight." Fencing and crossing separations were done because it made for a more efficient, more reliable, and safer railway. If in the 19th century, you needed to mount a headlight on your locomotives, it's because your railway was cheaply built, inefficient, and unsafe. And considering just how little a 19th century headlight illuminated of the track ahead, it was a desperation move. All that the headlight really enabled the engineer to do was know whether the animal he was about to run over was a deer, a cow, or a mule.
The logic question was never "How do we get rid of the need for a headlight." The logic question was much more fundamental, and was "How can we make our railways efficient, safe, and reliable." The answer was "flat, straight, fenced, and grade-separated, so cows and wagons and people don't wander onto them, get hit, and disrupt our schedules." British railways being built in a compact and industrialized nation could afford to make the necessary investment in grade-separations. U.S. railways were development railways and could not, so had to suffer with crooked, steep, and unfenced railways. Today, grade-crossing collisions and trespasser collisions are an immense problem for U.S. railways. One of the Class 1s recently told me that it had added up all the causes of train delay and their costs and found that grade-crossing collisions were the single biggest cause of train delay. In the future, all important U.S. railways will be 100% grade separated and fenced.
But we will still have headlights, because now the U.S., auto-centric culture thinks that all proper vehicles have to have them. The decision will not be made on an engineering, scientific, or economic basis, it will be made on a security-blanket basis.
ModelcarAll this info regarding British steam engines not to have headlights is really fascinating. It seems all kinds of money was spent to install fences and crossing protection, etc.....and I just am amazed some of this {might}, have been done to prevent the need of a headlight on an engine....That boggles the mind....!
You are putting the cart before the horse. In Britain the concept of the railways being a private right of way is much stronger, and also historic public rights of way HAD to be respected. Many of the lines were built through already very well settled areas and the train frequency was high. Just about all road crossings were grade separated. Level crossings were very few in number, each fully gated, interlocked with the signals, and manned full time. These gates were normally left blocking the road, and would be opened, if safe to do so, when a vehicle or shepherd with his flock of sheep needed to cross. Waits could be lengthy on major lines, since delaying an express by giving it a caution signal because the crossing was still open was a cardinal sin.
By the time things like electric lights and generators were invented, British railway practice was already well established. As other posters have pointed out, experience had shown there was little real need for headlights so there was no value to add them.
Perhaps forgotten by many, even here in the steam era headlights were often turned off during daylight hours. Their constant use started with diesels. I presume the trains were no longer as visible without the plume of exhaust from the steam engine. So even this side of the Atlantic you can see that a major purpose of the headlight was visibility by others. In Britain, with a controlled right of way, this was not an issue.
John
cx500 Perhaps forgotten by many, even here in the steam era headlights were often turned off during daylight hours. Their constant use started with diesels. I presume the trains were no longer as visible without the plume of exhaust from the steam engine. So even this side of the Atlantic you can see that a major purpose of the headlight was visibility by others. In Britain, with a controlled right of way, this was not an issue. John
The "always-on headlight" was indeed a grade-crossing safety device in the U.S., but on many railways it started firmly in the steam era. I think it was more a reaction to the rapidly increasing fatality rate as motor vehicle traffic ramped up than the lack of visibility of the diesel-electric. (And as our steam brethern will tell us, the steam engine was supposed to be fired with a clear exhaust.) In 1938, a D&RGW fast freight pulled by a 4-6-6-4 collided with a school bus at a crossing in Midvale, Utah, during daylight, killing 23 children and the bus driver, the single-worst motor vehicle wreck in the U.S. to that time in terms of fatalities. That was a significant impetus for turning the headlight on during daylight hours.
Railway ManBut we will still have headlights, because now the U.S., auto-centric culture thinks that all proper vehicles have to have them
Yes, I'm sure our RR's here in the US will always have headlights.....Why wouldn't they..."security-blanket basis.......", Is that the reason, doubt it.
Having lived next to railroads for all my life, I can't really believe that the incredibly bright headlight doesn't help the engineer see ahead. Seems to me in my old house on the tracks that when a train was coming at night, the tracks would be lit up like by a floodlight for a block or more ahead of the engine.
As noted, headlights, Mars lights etc. help people see the engine too. Ditch Lights aren't really meant to light up the ditches...older diesels had "ditch lights" that shone under the front and rear steps, largely to help crewmen getting on and off in the dark (although they did help light up the area a bit). Modern ditch lights are there to help make the engine more visible at grade crossings etc. much more than to help the crew see ahead.
BTW British engines don't have bells either.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.