Anyone know the answers to these questions?

[thenudehamster]

In their defence, its next to impossible to tell from the driver's seat.

 

To me the fault is in the design, rather than the driver.

 

Sorry, but that's a cop-out.

You can easily tell from the driver's seat because modern cars (and trucks and buses) have a green light on the instrument panel which tells you that the lights are on.. Driving in the dusk/twilight without head and tail lights happens because modern instrument panels are illuminated day and night, so there's no change in their appearance as it gets dark. Drivers simply do not pay attention to what is happening in and around their cars. GM introduced automatic headlights nearly 30 years ago to alleviate this problem - we had them on a 2002 Pontiac Grand Am, and they're fitted on my 2019 model Vauxhall Crossland. If you're driving without headlights, you've only yourself to blame. It's NOT a design fault, it's driver error.

 

 

Incidentally, if you think headlights on British trains are bright and distracting, have you seen what American locos look like? More lights than a fairground!

[JDW]

Going back to train headlights, are the lenses on the driver's side not angled differently to the ones on the secondman's side, so that the daytime one shines more forwards and the night time one is angled further down to avoid dazzling oncoming drivers at night?

[ejstubbs]

Sorry, but that's a cop-out.

You can easily tell from the driver's seat because modern cars (and trucks and buses) have a green light on the instrument panel which tells you that the lights are on.

 

My 2017 vintage car doesn't.  When I have the headlights set to 'auto', there is nothing to indicate whether or not they are on - unless it's actually dark enough to be able to see the light they're emitting.

 

It's a point of some debate on the forum for that model of car.  (The original version did have a light in the instrument panel to show when the headlights were on, even in auto.  For some reason no-one seems to know, it was removed in the facelift version.)

Edited November 19, 2018 by ejstubbs

[ejstubbs]

Running lights are an EU regulation (since 2010 IIRC) and come on automatically. These or dipped headlights are a requirement in most European countries. (Check before visiting!). British cars get them as its not worth not fitting them.

 

It's a directive (European Union Directive 2008/89/EC, to be precise), not a regulation, hence it's implemented differently in different EU countries (and the UK is a member of the EU at the moment, in case you hadn't noticed).   There will therefore have been a section added somewhere (probably to the C&U regs) to make DRLs compulsory under UK law.

 

EU regulations apply automatically (the technical term is "self-executing") - they don't need enabling legislation in each state like directives do, and the content of the regulation applies everywhere.  Individual states can provide supporting legislation which extends the regulation - or provides specific local rules if the regulation allows for it.  The most well-known one at the moment is the GDPR, which everyone was excited about earlier this year.

 

Seasonal joke:

 

He's making a list,

And checking it twice;

Gonna find out who's naughty and nice.

Santa Claus is in breach of Article 14 of the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679

Edited November 19, 2018 by ejstubbs

[Wickham Green]

It's interesting that the GWR and LNER had the same telegraphic code of Toad for a brake van, which was perpetrated in BR days (although not branded onto the vehicle).   I wonder what did the SR and LMS called their brake vans?

 

Thanks,

Bill

The Southern called their brakes Pillboxes, Queen Marys, Road Vans, Dance Halls etc.* ........ but the formal telegraphic name - as above - was TOAD for the lot.  ( I wonder if the 'committee' who came up with these codes - whenever - chose this word 'cos vans were always 'TOWED' ??!? )

 

*and, no doubt, a selection of colourful descriptions unsuitable for publishing here before the 'watershed'

Edited November 19, 2018 by Wickham Green

[Wheatley]

 

@bewricksfinest,

 

Whilst I don't at all disagree that that is what you were told, it still doesn't make any sense to me.  Why was a single light deemed to be better than two?

 

Post no. 4 by Pete the Elaner suggests it was to avoid dazzling oncoming drivers - but surely that would be more of a problam at night (when admittedly the cess-side light is lit whilst the other isn't) but if the headlights were angled downwards (like the dipped headlights on a car) it would still illuminate the track and make the loco more visible, but it wouldn't dazzle on-coming drivers due to their height above the track.

 

You second point still applies regardless of whether one light or two are lit at all times (think car headlamps here).

 

Please don't think I'm 'having a go' at you, I'm not.  I'm just trying to see the logic of having one headlamp that swaps sides according to whether it was day-time or night rather than having both lamps lit regardless of the time of day.

 

I'm probably going to have to run with "well it made sense to somebody" when they made the rules.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Art

 

 

With filament lamps one light points in front and ahead for daytime running. This makes the train more visible to PW staff and crossing users, but is angled low enough (in theory) that in daylight it will not dazzle oncoming drivers. The other light points to the cess at much shorter range to pick out lineside signs at night which, from the 1990s onwards were increasingly retro-reflective rather than oil lit (if lit at all). Neither are there to illuminate the track because the driver doesn't need to see the track.

 

If you use the daytime headlight at night you will dazzle the oncoming driver. If you use the night time headlight during the day you won't see the lineside signs any better so it's pointless. Both are not lit at the same time because both do not need to be lit at the same time.

 

The marker lights are there to allow you to judge distance;

• Lights close together - train is far away.
• Lights getting further apart - train is getting closer.
• Lights far apart - time you were moving.  

LEDs might be slightly different, I'll find out.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Wheatley

[The Stationmaster]

Back in the day, the 1970s when I was a freight guard at Canton. thought was still being given to the visibility of oncoming trains to per.way staff and others on or about the running lines.  A good deal of success, measurable in lower casualty figures, had been achieved by the yellow ends of trains, and of course the adoption of hi viz clothing which prompted drivers to blow their horns at the wearers, who had to acknowledge that they'd heard the horn.  

 

Lighting on locomotives was still pretty 'traditional'; it had moved on from paraffin lamps but the marker lights and illuminated headcode panels were no brighter.  The traditional view, that the driver did not need to see ahead of the train at night because the track was fenced against trespass and stray animals and the signalling ensured a clear section as far as the next signal, still held and the view on a dark night was about the first dozen sleepers ahead of the loco; the rest was down to route knowledge and AWS.

 

But there were still an unacceptable amount of accidents (I worded that badly, in a way that suggests that there is an acceptable amount; the tragedy is that cost effectiveness studies are undertaken on exactly that basis) involving staff on or about the track at night or poor visibility who had not seen or heard the train coming.  It was thought, correctly in my view, that many of these accidents took place in places where there were plenty of other lights and the train lights simply didn't stand out against a background of either railway or urban environments.  Out in the country fastnesses after dark you could see a train coming from miles away on a clear night despite it only being lit by a couple of 15watt bulbs, but away from that environment things were different!

 

Practice overseas was looked at.  North American trains, fitted up for areas where the track is unfenced, have always had good headlights, and the 'Mars' light was considered very effective in highlighting an approaching train to staff on the ground.  The power twin 120s and 37s for the Central Wales line, which has unfenced sections, had already been fitted with Lucas car rallying floodlights; I don't know what they did in Scotland.  I rode in the cab of one of the 120s on a Bristol-Cardiff service once and we had the Lucas on in the Severn Tunnel, the only time I've ever seen it (you don't want to see how much water is coming in, trust me!).  There was, I recall, a proposal to fit all trains with a triangular formation of 3 car type headlights set to 'dipped', readily identifiable and only possibly mistaken for an approaching Honda Electra-Glide.  I thought this was a very good idea.

 

The HST made a big difference.  The concept changed overnight almost; it was now considered unreasonable to expect a driver to run at 125mph in the dark without seeing where he was going, and the trains were fitted with proper headlights.  What difference they made is debatable, but new stock since that time has always had proper headlights and everything else has been retrofitted.  Drivers are now expected to look where they are going in the dark, and trains are more visible than they were.  

 

I am not qualified to comment on whether this makes driving trains at night more or less stressful...

 

The sole reason for providing the 'headlights' (actually they were spotlights - officially described as a 'fixed beam headlight',  they were definitely not 'rallying floodlights') on Class 120 dmus and Class 37s running over the Central wales Line was because the line had been introduced to virtually Light railway status and certain public highway level crossings had no sort of warning indications at all for approaching motorists but we completely open.  The idea being that the additional light would make the approaching train more visible to motorists and give Drivers a slightly better chance of seeing a road vehicle on the crossing and the lights were only required to be illuminated, during daylight or darkness, when approaching level crossing between Craven arms and Pantyffynon, it was prohibited to turn these lamps anywhere than on that section of route.  They certainly weren't provided to make the trains more visible to railway staff or to otherwise illuminate the track ahead for the Driver although they could be very handy when examining the line, definitely better than a Bardic lamp.

 

The original lights on HSTs did include one which could be classified in some respects as a headlight but it wasn't illuminated at all times and of course in any case it no way illuminated the track ahead to give a Driver a warning of anything at all apart from possibly sounding a last minute warning on the horn or retro=reflective signs.  And of course in reality on a British railway there is no need at all for a Driver to have a headlight on anything like a US scale because it simply isn't needed on a fenced railway thus lights in Britain have developed more as an additional warning of an approaching train rather than for any other purpose beyond their important and primary one of  illuminating of retro-reflective signs (which is what really spurred the use of a stronger light on traction units)

[45125]

The sole reason for providing the 'headlights' (actually they were spotlights - officially described as a 'fixed beam headlight',  they were definitely not 'rallying floodlights') on Class 120 dmus and Class 37s running over the Central wales Line was because the line had been introduced to virtually Light railway status and certain public highway level crossings had no sort of warning indications at all for approaching motorists but we completely open.  The idea being that the additional light would make the approaching train more visible to motorists and give Drivers a slightly better chance of seeing a road vehicle on the crossing and the lights were only required to be illuminated, during daylight or darkness, when approaching level crossing between Craven arms and Pantyffynon, it was prohibited to turn these lamps anywhere than on that section of route.  They certainly weren't provided to make the trains more visible to railway staff or to otherwise illuminate the track ahead for the Driver although they could be very handy when examining the line, definitely better than a Bardic lamp.

 

The original lights on HSTs did include one which could be classified in some respects as a headlight but it wasn't illuminated at all times and of course in any case it no way illuminated the track ahead to give a Driver a warning of anything at all apart from possibly sounding a last minute warning on the horn or retro=reflective signs.  And of course in reality on a British railway there is no need at all for a Driver to have a headlight on anything like a US scale because it simply isn't needed on a fenced railway thus lights in Britain have developed more as an additional warning of an approaching train rather than for any other purpose beyond their important and primary one of  illuminating of retro-reflective signs (which is what really spurred the use of a stronger light on traction units)

 

If memory serves me correctly the original fitment of headlights (which were not sealed beams and never have been) were fitted to pick up the reflective line side boards.

[royaloak]

Going back to train headlights, are the lenses on the driver's side not angled differently to the ones on the secondman's side, so that the daytime one shines more forwards and the night time one is angled further down to avoid dazzling oncoming drivers at night?

On trains with day and night headlights yes they are, they are also a different beam, some older trains just have a normal headlight and a reserve headlight.

 

Modern locos and units have both on at the same time although most can be dimmed at night, they are still stupidly bright/blinding.

[royaloak]

With filament lamps one light points in front and ahead for daytime running. This makes the train more visible to PW staff and crossing users, but is angled low enough (in theory) that in daylight it will not dazzle oncoming drivers. The other light points to the cess at much shorter range to pick out lineside signs at night which, from the 1990s onwards were increasingly retro-reflective rather than oil lit (if lit at all). Neither are there to illuminate the track because the driver doesn't need to see the track.

 

If you use the daytime headlight at night you will dazzle the oncoming driver. If you use the night time headlight during the day you won't see the lineside signs any better so it's pointless. Both are not lit at the same time because both do not need to be lit at the same time.

 

The marker lights are there to allow you to judge distance;

• Lights close together - train is far away.
• Lights getting further apart - train is getting closer.
• Lights far apart - time you were moving.  

LEDs might be slightly different, I'll find out.

Oh, why did you bring facts into this thread, it was quite funny reading some of the (completely wrong) replies.

 

LEDs are are no different if they are in the same sort of lighting unit, but modern trains headlights are compliant with different specifications.

[PatB]

According to the information appended to a drawing in the Model Railway Constructor Annual 1980, the telegraphic code for a piped BR 20 ton goods brake van was "Load fit". Treat with caution though, as it's obviously not a primary source.

[The Stationmaster]

According to the information appended to a drawing in the Model Railway Constructor Annual 1980, the telegraphic code for a piped BR 20 ton goods brake van was "Load fit". Treat with caution though, as it's obviously not a primary source.

 

Whereas actually the code for a fitted or even a piped, freight brakevan was TOADFIT.  All in a single word and following the normal telegraphic code convention for indicating that a vehicle is fitted (e.g. Vanfit, Medfit etc).

 

PS That is from the primary source BTC BR 'Standard Codes for Telegrams' version published 01 July 1959.  Walnut rede.

[GeoffAlan]

Running lights are an EU regulation (since 2010 IIRC) and come on automatically. These or dipped headlights are a requirement in most European countries. (Check before visiting!). British cars get them as its not worth not fitting them.

 

The telegraph codes were revised during WWII (1942 IIRC) and standardised betwen the four companies. I believe the lesser railways had different codes for wagons (and coaches) of their own.

 

If one really wanted a macaw (feathered variety), it would have been necessary to say so using a proper telegraph message. Presumably a request for a crocodile would need a long explanation...

 

So no chance of making it snappy?

[Mark Saunders]

Whereas actually the code for a fitted or even a piped, freight brakevan was TOADFIT.  All in a single word and following the normal telegraphic code convention for indicating that a vehicle is fitted (e.g. Vanfit, Medfit etc).

 

PS That is from the primary source BTC BR 'Standard Codes for Telegrams' version published 01 July 1959.  Walnut rede.

 

Walnut Rede.

 

I fear this will not apply to this conversation!

 

Mark Saunders

[31A]

Walnut Rede.

 

I fear this will not apply to this conversation!

 

Mark Saunders

 

 

Furno

[The Stationmaster]

Walnut Rede.

 

I fear this will not apply to this conversation!

 

Mark Saunders

 

That is probably absolutely correct - but it was worth a try

 

And just to be seasonal (?) I actually used it in a recent reply regarding an OF's C*******s lunch - following my list of choices for each course.  In that case I knew the person receiving the codewords would be doing the necessary (or I will be receiving a rather unexpected meal in Kemble one day next month  )

[Mark Saunders]

That is probably absolutely correct - but it was worth a try

 

And just to be seasonal (?) I actually used it in a recent reply regarding an OF's C*******s lunch - following my list of choices for each course.  In that case I knew the person receiving the codewords would be doing the necessary (or I will be receiving a rather unexpected meal in Kemble one day next month  )

 

It has always surprised me that the book was never reprinted as most were still in regular use till the mid to late 80's at some locations/control offices!

[The Stationmaster]

It has always surprised me that the book was never reprinted as most were still in regular use till the mid to late 80's at some locations/control offices!

 

Effectively some of it was superseded when all the wagon codes changed following TOPS but they all appeared as separate printed booklets or cards.  I think there might have been a revised edition sometime in the 1960s as well.

[Gibbo675]

Hi Folks,

 

The telegraphic code names for stock were derived by using names that were mostly single syllable and be easily noted and not to be confused with other words when tapped out in Morse Code.

 

Have a play with this and see how different the words are when translated into Morse Code;

 

https://morsecode.scphillips.com/translator.html

 

Gibbo.

[Mark Saunders]

Hi Folks,

 

The telegraphic code names for stock were derived by using names that were mostly single syllable and be easily noted and not to be confused with other words when tapped out in Morse Code.

 

Have a play with this and see how different the words are when translated into Morse Code;

 

https://morsecode.scphillips.com/translator.html

 

Gibbo.

 

Telegram were paid for by the letter (or was it the word) so the fewer the cheaper!

[The Stationmaster]

Telegram were paid for by the letter (or was it the word) so the fewer the cheaper!

 

True, but most BR wires (for that is what we called telegrams) were sent internally so the cost wasmn't a pron blem except in teh time take to write, send, and read them.

Hi Folks,

 

The telegraphic code names for stock were derived by using names that were mostly single syllable and be easily noted and not to be confused with other words when tapped out in Morse Code.

 

Have a play with this and see how different the words are when translated into Morse Code;

 

https://morsecode.scphillips.com/translator.html

 

Gibbo.

 

In the 1959 code book the number of single syllable wagon names is massively outnumbered (by c 2:1) by the number of double or more syllable wagon codes.  If you then add the variants with additional letter codes to distinguish things like length or capacity (but not counting fitted variants) you end up with a difference of c.4:1 in favour of multi-syllable codes as compared with single syllable codes.  Generally as far as I'm aware most railway telegraph offices used single needle telegraphs so did not transmit in normal morse code.

[Mark Saunders]

True, but most BR wires (for that is what we called telegrams) were sent internally so the cost wasmn't a pron blem except in teh time take to write, send, and read them.

 

In the 1959 code book the number of single syllable wagon names is massively outnumbered (by c 2:1) by the number of double or more syllable wagon codes.  If you then add the variants with additional letter codes to distinguish things like length or capacity (but not counting fitted variants) you end up with a difference of c.4:1 in favour of multi-syllable codes as compared with single syllable codes.  Generally as far as I'm aware most railway telegraph offices used single needle telegraphs so did not transmit in normal morse code.

 

Old habits die hard and change takes time and the codes just evolved!

[kandc_au]

 

 

Daytime running lights for road vehicles make no sense either. In Sweden, all cars must have sidelights on at all times (which is why Volvos do), but this turns on the rears too. I can understand that.

But can you really see a car in broad daylight better when it has sidelights on? I doubt it. If the sun is in your eyes, you will at best see a silhouette.

Yellow cars are far more visible than a dark car with lights on but on the railway, yellow warning panels have just been removed from requirements as long as lights are up to standard. That must be one of the most backward steps I have ever heard.

Daytime running lights are a very practical thing whether you yourself like it or not.

Here in australia, the popularity of the dark car is incredible, especially in silvers and greys and if you get a dull day they can merge into the road and NOT be seen.

With LEDS being quite bright, having them as running lights is a great aid to seeing a car or NOT seeing a car.

While you have shorter distances to travel as such, over here, if you are driving hundreds of kms/day as over here it does help to insure you are more likely to see oncoming cars!

[Art Dent]

Interestingly here in the Uk this very issue of daytime running lights (DRLs) and the fact that they may be on at the front but not at the back has just been in the news.

 

For some reason (shrugs) when DRLs were intorduced having the rear lights come on when the front DRLs come on wasn't made mandatory.

 

This has been highlighted (no pun intended there) this week as the UK has had several days of mist/fog and general gloom and whilst you can see lots of cars coming towards you, you can't see many from behind.

 

People are seemingly relying on the DRLs instead of turning their dipped headlights on (which turns the lights on at both the front and the back).

 

What seems to have made the matter worse is the introduction by several manufacturers to fit 'Auto Headlamps' which again seems to put only the front headlamps on and not the rears and only when it gets really dark does the system put the rear lights on.  I think most people are completely unaware that this happens (I could have said they were in the dark ).

 

Here are just four articles on this from the last week.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjV8_OMuZLfAhWUs3EKHWuSCUwQFjAAegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.petrolprices.com%2Fnews%2Fdaytime-running-lights-creating-confusion-other-drivers%2F&usg=AOvVaw0JNggiqY-QPvo7pVupk5xt

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjV8_OMuZLfAhWUs3EKHWuSCUwQFjABegQICRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rac.co.uk%2Fdrive%2Fnews%2Fmotoring-news%2Fdaytime-running-lights-cause-night-time-danger-rac-research-reveals%2F&usg=AOvVaw3t9x-tmzflX7ChtPOTDYc_

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjV8_OMuZLfAhWUs3EKHWuSCUwQFjACegQIBRAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.honestjohn.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fdriving-1%2F2018-12%2Fdlr-confusion-for-drivers%2F&usg=AOvVaw2pLEPry0sVoPV9Ca0oRwrq

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjV8_OMuZLfAhWUs3EKHWuSCUwQFjADegQIBxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.autoexpress.co.uk%2Fcar-news%2F105391%2Fdrivers-confused-by-car-daytime-running-lights&usg=AOvVaw3-ekz9vw8VrajJSBppgKud

 

What I don't understand is with modern LED technology fitted to virtually every new car, why the lights front and rear aren't permanently on.  The power consumption of these LEDs is so low that it has a negligible effect on fuel economy - but then I am never amazed at the general stupidity of people when making important deciscions!

[SM42]

The often forgotten problem with DRLs is that the most vulnerable road users (cyclist and motorcyclists) can get lost in the sea of lights but this is not for this thread.

 

CYRUS

 

Andy