Ridiculous article about loco headlights

[Overmod]

York1

1832 ... 1932 ...

Oh, well, what's the difference anyway?

Here is a picture that was billed as the "Horatio Allen" of 1924, which would have still been rostered if not regularly operated in 1932.

This is from C.J. Allen's "The Steel Highway" of 1928, which you can find on Google Books and might be able to download -- note the absence of the spurious DB paint scheme.

As it turns out, this isn't really that likely to be the 'real' Horatio Allen.  See the outside ashpans??  Those were typical of the regular E-class 2-8-0s, but there is no real place for them on the experimental high-pressure engines.

Here is a 'representative' side view of 1400, about a year after construction.  Note the interesting (in the Chinese sense, perhaps) plumbing on and around the boiler.  If I remember correctly this was a two-cylinder compound.  I am always amused to see Loree was so cheap with the short little British-style cab that the name couldn't fit on it properly...

The original "Horatio Allen" (without the 'n' added in his name as the Wikipedia folks did in their image file title) was a consulting engineer on more than just the D&H of Stourbridge Lion fame.  You have to know a little history to separate the two, at least a little more than the MSN author did.

[SD70Dude]

You have to steer, I don't.....

The American response to the problem of unfenced ROWs was stronger cowcatchers and plows.

[Overmod]

SD70Dude

When running through fog or a blizzard headlights are worthless.  Turning them on actually makes visibility worse, just like driving a car in the same conditions.  Turning the headlight off can allow you to see the faint glow of signals from farther away, and as long as you're running on permissive indications or a clearance/track warrant without restrictions the track is considered "known to be clear", so being able to see the track in front of you doesn't really matter (not like you can stop on a dime anyway). 

This was the British logic, especially since as part of their 'road knowledge' they knew the precise location of all signals and points, and could anticipate any crossover action from trust combined with experience.  The great premise, of course, was that English railways by law are completely fenced and access-controlled, and not particularly subject to problems 'developing on the line' that would have to be seen and responded to.

I on the other hand don't go 60mph or better in limited visibility even when I know the road perfectly, knowing Murphy and Finagle as I do.  And I do respect the English at the height of their imperial power and prowess choosing to use logic about their physical systems to accomplish the astounding.

[SD70Dude]

Overmod

For fun, they could take up the reasons why in England, the country whose denizens never tire of pointing out they invented anything important to do with railways, headlights were never adopted.  For true hair-raising follow-on, they could explain something else:  someone once commented on the phenomenon that in a pea-souper they were treated to three expresses thundering through when you couldn't see 15 feet in front of you.  At the time this was proof of the superior skill of British enginemen... if you think about it a moment, it may be as terrifying to you as it is to me. 

When running through fog or a blizzard headlights are worthless.  Turning them on actually makes visibility worse, just like driving a car in the same conditions. 

Turning the headlight off can allow you to see the faint glow of signals from farther away, and as long as you're running on permissive indications or a clearance/track warrant without restrictions the track is considered "known to be clear", so being able to see the track in front of you doesn't really matter (not like you can stop on a dime anyway). 

[York1]

From the article:

"They needed some way to illuminate the path ahead of them, and in 1932, railroad pioneer Horatio Allen had the answer. "

1832 ... 1932 ...

Oh, well, what's the difference anyway?

[Overmod]

This is actually not wrong, although expressed with typical millennial snark and sloppily written... right down to a highly-amusing picture of a D&H locomotive, perhaps standing in for the compound 'Horatio Allen', colorized by some nitwit German so it has red running gear.  This is I think where the comical error in the date comes in: the first light was on the original long-distance railroad in the world (finished circa 1831, so 1832 is a credible date for the 'innovation') and was thoroughly covered in Sinclair's Development of the Locomotive Engine, which even a MSN hack could find on Google Books or read on hathitrust.  (I am too lazy to fact-check right now, but I do dimly remember something about how the effect of moving the train increased the blaze beyond what had been expected, and sparks may have caused an incident with the 'barrier car' adopted in similar impromptu fashion from a different "problem solution"...)

In my opinion, what the MSN author should then have done is examined the underdocumented history of locomotive headlights in the ensuing period -- they were NOT dim, and had interesting focus arrangements, but you won't figure either out from typical 'railfan wisdom'.  By the time you get to Eli Gilderfluke in the 1890s, you can bet all sorts of fascinating approaches had been proposed and tried...

He could also get some comic relief from early headlight practice on 'traction' and interurban railways, including the 'city' and 'country' lights.

For fun, they could take up the reasons why in England, the country whose denizens never tire of pointing out they invented anything important to do with railways, headlights were never adopted.  For true hair-raising follow-on, they could explain something else:  someone once commented on the phenomenon that in a pea-souper they were treated to three expresses thundering through when you couldn't see 15 feet in front of you.  At the time this was proof of the superior skill of British enginemen... if you think about it a moment, it may be as terrifying to you as it is to me.  

(I'm discreetly not going to discuss the faint glow and zillions of watts bit; MSN won't be listening to me, and no one here likely cares.)

[Euclid]

They did not set a car on fire.  If you read the article, it says they laid a bed of sand on the car, piled firewood on the sand, and lit the firewood.  I have heard this origin before, and there nothing hard to believe about it.  Although it does sound like it would have been unwieldly.  I am sure it was shortlived.  

[blue streak 1]

Does this article have any truth.  If not we need tostamp it out.

For The First Headlight, They Just Set A Car On Fire (msn.com)