BR Tail Lamps

[Nick C]

On 26/11/2020 at 12:19, The Stationmaster said:

And alas you could never guarantee a fully fitted train to be complete unless you saw the tail lamp or if there was continuous track circuiting (and in one incident I know of although the tail lamp was there on the last vehicle the train wasn't actually complete!  Nor could you absolutely guarantee that the auto brake would apply if a fully fitted freight divided -  and I saw one instance where that actually happened with the front portion running more than a dozen miles until it only came to a stand when it reached its destination and the Driver applied the brake.

 

Plus of course there have been several incidents with air-braked trains failing to stop because one or more valves were closed - including at least two passenger trains.

[Co-tr-Paul]

Bardics started in 1965. There is a large Facebook group specialising in UK railway lamps .

Edited November 27, 2020 by Co-tr-Paul
Autospeel !

[Mattgod69]

A question relating to BR Oil Lit Tail lamps, is the white a specific colour i.e a RAL number?

 

Matt 

[Miserable]

On 27/11/2020 at 13:15, Nick C said:

 

Plus of course there have been several incidents with air-braked trains failing to stop because one or more valves were closed - including at least two passenger trains.

So the brake test was not carried out then, since continuity of 'the pipe' is the fundamental purpose of doing one. That's *really* scary if people are not doing that. It's the brake test that allow(ed) the guard to be able to report being complete with tail lamp without actually having to go and look.

[The Johnster]

Failure to perform the continuity test is a classic case of familiarity and what it breeds.  I was always highly disciplined about it, and insisted on performing one every time the continuity had been broken in any way, both on fully fitted and part fitted trains, and sometime had to argue the point with drivers, who would have been the first to be killed or injured in a runaway and whom one might have thought would have been more concerned than they were. 

[Miserable]

43 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

Failure to perform the continuity test is a classic case of familiarity and what it breeds.  I was always highly disciplined about it, and insisted on performing one every time the continuity had been broken in any way, both on fully fitted and part fitted trains, and sometime had to argue the point with drivers, who would have been the first to be killed or injured in a runaway and whom one might have thought would have been more concerned than they were. 

I have to say none of the drivers I worked with would go anywhere without a successful test, the very concept leaves me chilled - it's a No.1 fundamental basic of safety!

[Edwin_m]

On 25/11/2020 at 15:24, Miserable said:

I was a guard and then signalman, so I'm pretty au fait with the regs c. 1980. FWIW the guard was required to ring the signalman when the train had arrived in a loop (where the bobby couldn't see the tail lamp themselves) and report 'Train arrived complete with tail lamp' before the bobby could give 2-1 ('Train out of section') . If I had £1 for every Guard who then walked back a actually checked the lamp was there (which was entirely unnecessary) I'd be rich - there was no hand or lamp signal for doing such.

I guess if the tail lamp had been missing or unlit the train would have been pulled up on its way out of the loop or stopped at the next box.  So perhaps just as well to check on arrival.  

[LMS2968]

The reason for the guard to report 'Tail Lamp Complete' was because the train stopped before the Bobby could see for himself that the tail lamp was there. With the guard riding in the back cab, neither could he, so he would have to go back to look. Of course, had the rear of the train broken away this should have applied the automatic brake, so if this hadn't happened the guard could assume that the train was complete and the lamp in place. But by the same reasoning, so could the Bobby!

[Edwin_m]

It's possible the train divided just round the corner and the front portion continued into the loop as normal leaving the rear portion somewhere behind.  I believe the incident mentioned by Stationmaster was one where the compressor in the loco was powerful enough to make good the loss of air from the pipe, so the front portion continued as normal.  

 

As far as I'm aware signalmen weren't and aren't allowed to assume a train is complete unless they've actually seen the tail lamp or had some confirmation that it is present.  So I'm not sure why the continuous brake should be relied on to prove completeness in this case but in no other.  

 

These days tail lamp cameras are often used if there is a need to confirm the train complete before the rear has passed the box.  

[Miserable]

2 hours ago, LMS2968 said:

The reason for the guard to report 'Tail Lamp Complete' was because the train stopped before the Bobby could see for himself that the tail lamp was there. With the guard riding in the back cab, neither could he, so he would have to go back to look. Of course, had the rear of the train broken away this should have applied the automatic brake, so if this hadn't happened the guard could assume that the train was complete and the lamp in place. But by the same reasoning, so could the Bobby!

It was very definitely the the case when I was Guarding that the guard did not need to physically go and check the lamp because if the brake test had been completed the the train *had* to be complete. As you say, the guard only had to report 'complete with tail lamp' when the signalman had not has sight of it himself (read him/her). Golden rule No.1 of the railway - never assume anything - it's just conceivable that had the guard relieved the train the test may not have been done  A chance in a million, but million to one chances cause accidents all the time. When I moved to the SB about 10% of guards would sigh and go and have a completely unnecessary physical look - meanwhile I couldn't give 'train out of section' for the time it took them to walk back 37 PGS, sometimes leading to delays.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Miserable

[Miserable]

44 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

So I'm not sure why the continuous brake should be relied on to prove completeness in this case but in no other.  

But the fact it it was (is?).

[Edwin_m]

5 hours ago, Miserable said:

But the fact it it was (is?).

I can't speak for "was", but unlikely it still "is" I think.  Otherwise, as every train is continuously braked these days, there would be no need for Absolute Block signallers to observe tail lights in these situations.    The tail light cameras I mentioned show this isn't the case.  

[LMS2968]

8 hours ago, Miserable said:

It was very definitely the the case when I was Guarding that the guard did not need to physically go and check the lamp because if the brake test had been completed the the train *had* to be complete. 

But I go back to the point, if it was acceptable for the guard to assume the train is complete because it arrived at its allotted place in the loop without an automatic brake application, why did that not apply to the Bobby too? Why could the guard report 'Tail lamp compete' without actually checking, but the Bobby had to have confirmation based on the guard's assumption of something he hadn't confirmed?

[101]

11 hours ago, Miserable said:

It was very definitely the the case when I was Guarding that the guard did not need to physically go and check the lamp because if the brake test had been completed the the train *had* to be complete.

 

Well sorry but you weren't doing your job correctly, it has never been in the Rule book that a lack of a brake application ensures that a train is complete.

There have been numerous incidents over the years where a fully fitted train has continued forward after parting.

There are still locations where if the tail lamp camera is not working the signaller will request you , even on a DOO train, to physically check the train is complete with tail lamp.

 

[Michael Hodgson]

14 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

I guess if the tail lamp had been missing or unlit the train would have been pulled up on its way out of the loop or stopped at the next box.  So perhaps just as well to check on arrival.  

With so much of the network now worked under Track Circuit Block, there is nobody looking for tail lamps as the was the practice under Absolute Block.  These days a train can easily travel 100 miles with no tail lamp (or light out) before reaching AB territory where a signalman will suddenly shout. 

 

Or a train showing an intermediate tail lamp , something seen all too often on models!

 

I don't know whether any tail lamp proving circuitry is provided on modern EMUs & similar fixed formation sets as it is in many cars.  I don't imagine anything like that is available for freight trains though.

[Miserable]

2 hours ago, 101 said:

 

Well sorry but you weren't doing your job correctly, it has never been in the Rule book that a lack of a brake application ensures that a train is complete.

There have been numerous incidents over the years where a fully fitted train has continued forward after parting.

There are still locations where if the tail lamp camera is not working the signaller will request you , even on a DOO train, to physically check the train is complete with tail lamp.

 

I'm confused - the lack of a brake application indicates the brake test has failed and the train cannot proceed! That was(is) very definitely in the rules. I can't say what current practice are but the brake test was :

Signal the driver (one arm pumped up and down, with a white light at night) to create vacuum or air.

The driver 'traps' the vacuum/air - this disconnects the exhauster/compressor from the 'the pipe'. Any leaks will show up on the gauges.

The guard (or, for completeness, another authorised person where permitted) pulls the vacuum pipe of the dummy or opens the air valve (holding on to the air pipe, otherwise it will have a go at removing a knee cap) and the brake will be applied. It's obvious if there is a vacuum or air, and you can hear the brake cylinders working .

The guard (and etc) then replaces the vacuum pipe on the dummy or closes the air valve.

The driver pulls the brake off and the guard notes that the brakes come off.

On a freight there was(is) no requirement to check the brake physically applies, since if the last two wagons are not pipe only or carded as the rules state then brake is considered working. However, a lot (most?) guards would kick the blocks (clasp brakes) or tap a wheel with a lump of ballast (disc brakes - remembering only one wheel per axle has a brake usually).

On a passenger the guard was (is) required to physically check the brake works of the last coach - kicking blocks etc.

If all is good, and all the other preparation tasks are completed the train is good to go.

If at any time, for any reason, 'the pipe' is broken a further brake test must be undertaken. Even if that's just unhook the engine and the hook it back up again.

 

If that has been done correctly there is no way the train, both halves, can continue should the pipe part. If anyone thinks they can, please post a link to the appropriate RAIB reports and I'll happily be corrected.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Miserable

[The Stationmaster]

I  think the correct word is 'should' not 'would'.  I know, because it was on my then patch, of an air braked freight train which divided and subsequently  passed 3 signal boxes without anybody noticing that there was no tail lamp on it although the Signalman at the 4th 'box it passed saw there was no tail lamp and acted according;y.  And the Driver (who was a bit of a pr*tt to be honest) didn't notice that the compressors were working harder than normal - a Class 56 so more than enough compressor capacity to deal with a broken brake pipe so the train ran for c.14 miles after it had divided and actually only finally came to a stand at its destnation.  The first BR heard of the division was when a householder rang in to ask if anybody wanted the wagon which had come to a stand on the railway outside his house.

 

In another, much earlier, incident a partially fitted vacuum braked freight divided one night in thick fog up 'in the north west of England' and both portions were brought to a stand.  The front portion was permitted to set back onto the rear portion and after the Guard had recoupled the train and the brake continuity in the fitted portion  had been tested the train proceeded on its way without further incident.  But the Guard made one mistake and that came to light when the train arrived at Crewe and its formation did not agree with the ATI consist Crewe had received for the train - several wagons had vanished.  The line was immediately examined, still in thick fog, but nothing was found so normal working resumed.

 

But the next morning as the fog was lifting the enginemen on a passing train reported seeing 4 wagons at the bottom of an embankment - they'd derailed (I think a catch point had been involved) and had gone down the bank leaving no particular evidence on a dark and very foggy night.

 

There are various known instances of pipes parting and the cocks being closed by various objects on air braked trains which then failed to come to a stand with the brake continuity destroyed (which led to the mod of providing guards on the cock handles) and there was of course the unfortunate Edinburgh runaway where a Brake Pipe cock was closed after the Continuity Test had been carried out.

 

From my experience passenger shunting and hanging engines on trains in the early 1980s I would agree very much with 'the Johnster's comment that some Drivers were not  - how shall I put - over concerned that a Continuity Test should be carried on loco hauled passenger stock when a loco was attached at the opposite end of a train which was being reversed.  Many men, in both grades, were at times not a little surprised to hear that they were also supposed to carry out a Continuity Test with a vacuum braked train but with older staff this was hardly surprising because such a test was not always needed in every situation prior to 1960.

 

And in the end it all comes back to the final part of the belt & braces in respect of safety of the line where, except on Track Circuit Block lines. Signalmen are required to ensure that a train has passed 'complete with tail lamp' before giving Train Out of Section.  And in case anybody mistakenly thinks that a continuous brake renders that unnecessary do not overlook what happens if a train has to be assisted from the rear - the tail lamp(s) - more than anything else - tell the driver of the assistant loco/train where it is.

[101]

58 minutes ago, Miserable said:

 

On a freight there was(is) no requirement to check the brake physically applies, since if the last two wagons are not pipe only or carded as the rules state then brake is considered working. However, a lot (most?) guards would kick the blocks (clasp brakes) or tap a wheel with a lump of ballast (disc brakes - remembering only one wheel per axle has a brake usually).

 

 

 I'd be interested to know when and where you were a guard and who taught you all this.

I retired three years ago but it was still a requirement then to check the brakes were working on the last vehicle of a freight and I'd be surprised if it's changed since, and in fact when I started it was a requirement that you checked the last three were applying.

Just because there is air coming out of the rear of the train pipe and there are no cards on the vehicle does not mean you can rely on the brakes to be working, and the fact there are no cards on the vehicle does not ensure that it has not been isolated.

[Dagworth]

1 hour ago, Miserable said:

I'm confused - the lack of a brake application indicates the brake test has failed and the train cannot proceed! That was(is) very definitely in the rules. I can't say what current practice are but the brake test was :

Signal the driver (one arm pumped up and down, with a white light at night) to create vacuum or air.

The driver 'traps' the vacuum/air - this disconnects the exhauster/compressor from the 'the pipe'. Any leaks will show up on the gauges.

The guard (or, for completeness, another authorised person where permitted) pulls the vacuum pipe of the dummy or opens the air valve (holding on to the air pipe, otherwise it will have a go at removing a knee cap) and the brake will be applied. It's obvious if there is a vacuum or air, and you can hear the brake cylinders working .

The guard (and etc) then replaces the vacuum pipe on the dummy or closes the air valve.

The driver pulls the brake off and the guard notes that the brakes come off.

On a freight there was(is) no requirement to check the brake physically applies, since if the last two wagons are not pipe only or carded as the rules state then brake is considered working. However, a lot (most?) guards would kick the blocks (clasp brakes) or tap a wheel with a lump of ballast (disc brakes - remembering only one wheel per axle has a brake usually).

On a passenger the guard was (is) required to physically check the brake works of the last coach - kicking blocks etc.

If all is good, and all the other preparation tasks are completed the train is good to go.

If at any time, for any reason, 'the pipe' is broken a further brake test must be undertaken. Even if that's just unhook the engine and the hook it back up again.

 

If that has been done correctly there is no way the train, both halves, can continue should the pipe part. If anyone thinks they can, please post a link to the appropriate RAIB reports and I'll happily be corrected.

Couple of errors there, create vacuum at night is a red light moved vertically up and down at shoulder height. 
 

As far as I can remember there is no mechanism that allows the vacuum to be trapped in the train pipe by the driver, air yes but not vac. 
 

Andi

[Miserable]

15 minutes ago, The Stationmaster said:

I  think the correct word is 'should' not 'would'.  I know, because it was on my then patch, of an air braked freight train which divided and subsequently  passed 3 signal boxes without anybody noticing that there was no tail lamp on it although the Signalman at the 4th 'box it passed saw there was no tail lamp and acted according;y.  And the Driver (who was a bit of a pr*tt to be honest) didn't notice that the compressors were working harder than normal - a Class 56 so more than enough compressor capacity to deal with a broken brake pipe so the train ran for c.14 miles after it had divided and actually only finally came to a stand at its destnation.  The first BR heard of the division was when a householder rang in to ask if anybody wanted the wagon which had come to a stand on the railway outside his house.

 

In another, much earlier, incident a partially fitted vacuum braked freight divided one night in thick fog up 'in the north west of England' and both portions were brought to a stand.  The front portion was permitted to set back onto the rear portion and after the Guard had recoupled the train and the brake continuity in the fitted portion  had been tested the train proceeded on its way without further incident.  But the Guard made one mistake and that came to light when the train arrived at Crewe and its formation did not agree with the ATI consist Crewe had received for the train - several wagons had vanished.  The line was immediately examined, still in thick fog, but nothing was found so normal working resumed.

 

But the next morning as the fog was lifting the enginemen on a passing train reported seeing 4 wagons at the bottom of an embankment - they'd derailed (I think a catch point had been involved) and had gone down the bank leaving no particular evidence on a dark and very foggy night.

 

There are various known instances of pipes parting and the cocks being closed by various objects on air braked trains which then failed to come to a stand with the brake continuity destroyed (which led to the mod of providing guards on the cock handles) and there was of course the unfortunate Edinburgh runaway where a Brake Pipe cock was closed after the Continuity Test had been carried out.

 

From my experience passenger shunting and hanging engines on trains in the early 1980s I would agree very much with 'the Johnster's comment that some Drivers were not  - how shall I put - over concerned that a Continuity Test should be carried on loco hauled passenger stock when a loco was attached at the opposite end of a train which was being reversed.  Many men, in both grades, were at times not a little surprised to hear that they were also supposed to carry out a Continuity Test with a vacuum braked train but with older staff this was hardly surprising because such a test was not always needed in every situation prior to 1960.

 

And in the end it all comes back to the final part of the belt & braces in respect of safety of the line where, except on Track Circuit Block lines. Signalmen are required to ensure that a train has passed 'complete with tail lamp' before giving Train Out of Section.  And in case anybody mistakenly thinks that a continuous brake renders that unnecessary do not overlook what happens if a train has to be assisted from the rear - the tail lamp(s) - more than anything else - tell the driver of the assistant loco/train where it is.

 

All the examples you give are where  the rules have not been followed. When banking/assisting uncoupling the assisting engine automatically performs a brake test! The 56 thing - can you link the RAIB report - strongly suspect there is more to that than meets the eye as is the case with most RAIB reports. I moved to the box in 1984 just as OMO trains started coming in (to beat the rush) and was never issued with any cock handle. The tail lamp's sole function was to show the train is complete. Detonators were/are used to show where a train awaiting assistance is, and where banking was authourised the start and end points would be specifically defined and lit (the lit bit was a little 'in theory' though).

[The Johnster]

I was taught that a brake continuity test had to be carried out whenever the continuous pipe had been breached for whatever reason, including locos attached to the rear of trains reversing.  The pipe is breached twice in this case, once when the original loco couples off and again when the new loco couples on to the other end of the train.  Only one test is needed of course, before the train is moved. 
 

Just as I started on the railway, there was a runaway concerning a fully fitted vacuum train of steel picked up at Motherwell steelworks, on which no test was ever done. It’s guard, an experienced old hand who should have known better, never got off the loco and accepted the train preparation certificate as proof that all was in order, so they set sail on the up WCML with the pipe not even connected up and all the brakes on the wagons isolated.  
 

Once over Beattock, the train picked up speed and could not be controlled, and eventually collided at high speed with the rear of an up coal train which was in the process of entering the up loop at Quintinshill; driver and guard were killed as was the guard of the coal train, and destruction was considerable.  It made a big impression on me, and ‘informed’ my attitude to brake continuity tests.  
 

Even then one had to take matters on trust when relieving trains prepped sometimes hundreds of miles away, as of course did the guard who relieved you in turn. 

[Miserable]

18 minutes ago, 101 said:

I'd be interested to know when and where you were a guard and who taught you all this.

I retired three years ago but it was still a requirement then to check the brakes were working on the last vehicle of a freight and I'd be surprised if it's changed since, and in fact when I started it was a requirement that you checked the last three were applying.

Just because there is air coming out of the rear of the train pipe and there are no cards on the vehicle does not mean you can rely on the brakes to be working, and the fact there are no cards on the vehicle does not ensure that it has not been isolated.

I was a guard 1979 to 1984 (I moved to the box before the the rush,to avoid ending up on the p-way). Those were the rules then. End of story. Guards had to undergo 16 weeks in the class room (14 in our case since we didn't do ticket training) under instruction form an Inspector (ours was a guy called Martin), followed by an exam at Division (Bristol), then being piloted by an established guard during route learning until such time as you felt confident to sign the route.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Miserable

[Nick C]

22 hours ago, Miserable said:

So the brake test was not carried out then, since continuity of 'the pipe' is the fundamental purpose of doing one. That's *really* scary if people are not doing that. It's the brake test that allow(ed) the guard to be able to report being complete with tail lamp without actually having to go and look.

In both the cases I was thinking of, the brake test was conducted - most recent was the caley sleeper at Edinburgh, the valve was knocked shut by the shunter while connecting the data cables to the loco, having done the test previously when at the rear of the set having done the division. Earlier, a Deltic hauled train o near Darlington (Feb 77) where a lump of rail had been left in the four-foot by vandals, knocked a traction motor cover off the underside of the loco, which then bounced up and knocked the valve on the train pipe closed.

[Miserable]

3 minutes ago, Nick C said:

In both the cases I was thinking of, the brake test was conducted - most recent was the caley sleeper at Edinburgh, the valve was knocked shut by the shunter while connecting the data cables to the loco, having done the test previously when at the rear of the set having done the division. Earlier, a Deltic hauled train o near Darlington (Feb 77) where a lump of rail had been left in the four-foot by vandals, knocked a traction motor cover off the underside of the loco, which then bounced up and knocked the valve on the train pipe closed.

I guess the first gets put down to an unfortunate accident, but really shouldn't have happened since the brake test should be the very last action of the preparation (bad habits/over familiarity, human nature sadly), the second is incredibly unlucky - the chances of a the valve being closed by debris when it was parallel, and close, to the pipe is minuscule - but as Terry Pratchett observed "million to one chances happen all the time". It doesn't however invalidate the brake test procedure.

[The Stationmaster]

10 minutes ago, Miserable said:

 

All the examples you give are where  the rules have not been followed. When banking/assisting uncoupling the assisting engine automatically performs a brake test! The 56 thing - can you link the RAIB report - strongly suspect there is more to that than meets the eye as is the case with most RAIB reports. I moved to the box in 1984 just as OMO trains started coming in (to beat the rush) and was never issued with any cock handle. The tail lamp's sole function was to show the train is complete. Detonators were/are used to show where a train awaiting assistance is, and where banking was authourised the start and end points would be specifically defined and lit (the lit bit was a little 'in theory' though).

I would suggest you read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.

 

As far as the breakaway on the air braked train is concerned all that didn't happen was that three Signalmen (one with a very good reason) failed to observe there was not a tail lamp on the train.  The breakaway did not occur because any Rules were broken and the train did not continue with an open brake  pipe on the back because any Rules were broken - how do you construe that Rules had been broken in connection with the breakaway?  

Even if the first Signalman had noticed that the tail lamp was missing the train would still have run for nearly 7 miles before it could be stopped.

 

And why do you demand an RAIB Report for an item which was not reportable to the RAIB - apart from the minor fact that the RAIB did not even exist at that time?   Are you suggesting that I am not telling the truth because that is certainly what your words suggest to me so I look forward to a very early apology from you in this thread.

 

Why on earth would a Signalman be issued with a Brake Pipe air cock handle?