Tail lamps

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

DCC users have had the ability to turn off tail lights on the latest D&E models for 4-5 years now, so the model world is getting there.

And even for older models that don't have this, it's easy enough to disconnect the tail lights and connect to spare function outputs, or just leave them disconnected if the locomotive spends all its time hauling a train.  Combined with the over-bright nature of model tail lights, this grates with me when an exhibition layout is otherwise to a high standard.  

[Wheatley]

Oil lamps continued on DMUs and locos because until the Rule Book was revised (1974 ?) the lamp (white metal thing) was the indication, not the red light, which only had to be lit if the journey was to take place in darkness, fog  falling snow or through a tunnel. 

 

After they were discontinued plenty of DMUs were stopped to check whether they were complete as the 40 watt bulbs were useless in bright sunlight. We had a spare oil tail lamp in the box at Huddersfield Junction which was occasionally waved at Huddersfield bound guards as a prompt to confirm whether the lights were on or not. 

Edited February 14 by Wheatley

[uax6]

1 hour ago, Edwin_m said:

And even for older models that don't have this, it's easy enough to disconnect the tail lights and connect to spare function outputs, or just leave them disconnected if the locomotive spends all its time hauling a train.  Combined with the over-bright nature of model tail lights, this grates with me when an exhibition layout is otherwise to a high standard.  

 

The problem with DMU's in particular is that they didn't have red lamps built in when first built, these were added later, and certainly when they were in green livery they should never show red built in lamps.... they must have an oil tail lamp.

The model manufacturers are creating a 'fake' history....

 

And I can assure you that some of the WIPAC LED clusters on 37's are almost impossible to see if the reds are lit in any sort of sunshine!

 

Andy G

[Edwin_m]

I recall oil lamps on DMUs up until around 1980.  I don't know if they got brighter bulbs at that time - there didn't seem to be any sort of lens to concentrate the light (which makes sense as the signalman would be observing it at an angle).  The original tail lamps on diesel locomotives must have been even harder to see, and when running light they tended to carry oil lamps even after DMUs no longer had them.  

[BernardTPM]

2 hours ago, Wheatley said:

Oil lamps continued on DMUs and locos because until the Rule Book was revised (1974 ?) the lamp (white metal thing) was the indication, not the red light, which only had to be lit if the journey was to take place in darkness, fog  falling snow or through a tunnel.

Revised in 1972, I believe. The lit in a tunnel rule only applied "where block apparatus had failed in a section where there is a tunnel" Rule 120

[Jeremy Cumberland]

1 hour ago, Wheatley said:

Oil lamps continued on DMUs and locos because until the Rule Book was revised (1974 ?)

The 1972 Rule Book I have doesn't have any provision for built-in lights except for locomotives. The 1988 Rule Book does, and also has provision for battery-powered tail lamps. I don't have anything between these dates.

 

The railcar.co.uk website pins it on the unions, but really they were only following the Rule Book, and I suspect it was the Rule Book more than any inadequacy of the lights themselves that meant that oil lamps were used on DMUs for so long. It also gives the date for using built-in tail lights (at least so far as class 127s were concerned), as 1982. From https://www.railcar.co.uk/type/class-127/description:

Quote

For many years the Class [127] carried tail lamps, even though they had marker lights built in. This was because union agreement over the use of the red bulbs in the marker lamps was not given until late 1982.

 

1 hour ago, uax6 said:

The problem with DMU's in particular is that they didn't have red lamps built in when first built

It varied, but most had provision for a red lens to be slotted into the ordinary white marker lights from new. Some didn't have marker lights of any description, and some only had a central roof-mounted light.

[45125]

2 hours ago, uax6 said:

 

The problem with DMU's in particular is that they didn't have red lamps built in when first built, these were added later, and certainly when they were in green livery they should never show red built in lamps.... they must have an oil tail lamp.

The model manufacturers are creating a 'fake' history....

 

And I can assure you that some of the WIPAC LED clusters on 37's are almost impossible to see if the reds are lit in any sort of sunshine!

 

Andy G

When first delivered most of the early DMUs had a red filter that was placed in the slot on the front of the marker lamp. 

 

The first battery tail lamps were not only used on oil trains, but some Freightliner and ECML air braked services.

 

Al Taylor

[melmerby]

5 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

DCC users have had the ability to turn off tail lights on the latest D&E models for 4-5 years now, so the model world is getting there.

Most of the better decoders have had this ability for much longer.

You feed one from F0f & the other from F0r and map it so when the leading one is on the trailing one is off.

[The Johnster]

6 hours ago, 45125 said:

When first delivered most of the early DMUs had a red filter that was placed in the slot on the front of the marker lamp. 

 

The first battery tail lamps were not only used on oil trains, but some Freightliner and ECML air braked services.

 

Al Taylor

The red filters, most of which were never used, were simple glass discs that would, if they had ever been used, have sat in a semicircular groove in the bottom half of the marker light housing.  They were stored in a polished wooden box with slots to hold them, mounted vertically on the front of the control desk in the cabs to the right of the driving position.  
 

I get annoyed to a probably irrational extent by green or all-over blue liveried dmus showing twin red marker tail lights on layouts, as well as 60s and 70s locos showing similar displays.  When two sets are coupled together or the loco is hauling a train and these insanely bright leds are showing where they shouldn’t, I am provoked into a silent and outwardly calm but nonetheless murderously incandescent rage, and have to calm myself down by going away to observe a layout where things are done properly…

[SM42]

1 hour ago, The Johnster said:

The red filters, most of which were never used, were simple glass discs that would, if they had ever been used, have sat in a semicircular groove in the bottom half of the marker light housing.  They were stored in a polished wooden box with slots to hold them, mounted vertically on the front of the control desk in the cabs to the right of the driving position.  
 

I get annoyed to a probably irrational extent by green or all-over blue liveried dmus showing twin red marker tail lights on layouts, as well as 60s and 70s locos showing similar displays.  When two sets are coupled together or the loco is hauling a train and these insanely bright leds are showing where they shouldn’t, I am provoked into a silent and outwardly calm but nonetheless murderously incandescent rage, and have to calm myself down by going away to observe a layout where things are done properly…

 

An endless source of frustration for many an operator  I daresay too

 

Andy

[Steadfast]

2 hours ago, The Johnster said:

 

I get annoyed to a probably irrational extent by green or all-over blue liveried dmus showing twin red marker tail lights on layouts, as well as 60s and 70s locos showing similar displays.  When two sets are coupled together or the loco is hauling a train and these insanely bright leds are showing where they shouldn’t, I am provoked into a silent and outwardly calm but nonetheless murderously incandescent rage, and have to calm myself down by going away to observe a layout where things are done properly…

 

53 minutes ago, SM42 said:

 

An endless source of frustration for many an operator  I daresay too

 

Andy

 

How many layout operators are unaware (or don't care) how it works in the real railway? I've even heard tail lights referred to as brake lights before...

 

Jo

[Nick C]

On 13/02/2024 at 22:50, uax6 said:

A tail lamp is really only of use to us Bobbies, to tell us that the train is complete. Its not really there to stop other trains hitting that one (though of course they do, especially on permissive sections and in yards etc), which seems to be the misconception that the general public seem to live with

 

There have been many things used as tail lamps over the years, from newspapers to bog roll!

As long as the next box knows what to expect, I don't see an problem with that - though I'm not sure how you'd keep a newspaper on a lamp bracket!

 

18 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Oil lamps might have been easier for signallers to see in daytime than illuminated tail lights. 

They are - in bright sunlight the red lights on a 60s Diesel are pretty hard to see unless you're almost directly behind it.

 

17 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

The real crime to me is seeing a model locomotive with tail lamps lit when hauling a train.  Any rail staff seeing this should report it immediately*, because if the train should become divided behind the loco in an Absolute Block area, the next signaller will consider the line as clear on seeing the tail lamp lit.  

 

*I once did so by shouting across to the driver on the avoiding lines at Derby.  He replied that it must have been like that all the way from St Pancras.  Oh well...

 

IMHO that's worse than no tail lamp at all - as it increases the risk of a wrong-side failure. Better to assume the line is blocked when it isn't, than to assume it's clear when it isn't...

[Michael Hodgson]

17 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

The real crime to me is seeing a model locomotive with tail lamps lit when hauling a train.  Any rail staff seeing this should report it immediately*, because if the train should become divided behind the loco in an Absolute Block area, the next signaller will consider the line as clear on seeing the tail lamp lit.  

 

*I once did so by shouting across to the driver on the avoiding lines at Derby.  He replied that it must have been like that all the way from St Pancras.  Oh well...

 

I agree but there's relatively little Absolute Block left, most of the network nowadays is Track Circuit Block, especially the main long-distance passenger routes.  The train may travel a very long way before any signalman will see it pass and actively look for a  tail lamp. 

 

The risk from divided trains is nowhere near as big as it once was.  The main type type of train which did split was the unfitted loose-coupled goods with a manned brake van on the rear, but they're history.  A fully fitted train should stop automatically in the event of a coupling failure, although that too can fail in freak circumstances.  A train that does divide in TCB territory will show up as the block remaining occupied after the front of the train has vacated it, as the track circuit will still be shunted by the remaining vehicles, or where axle counters are used, the counts won't match.  So it's only really in AB territory that you still need to have a signalman looking for tail lamps, and even there a divided train should just stop as the brake pipe severs.

[Jeremy Cumberland]

37 minutes ago, Steadfast said:

How many layout operators are unaware (or don't care) how it works in the real railway? I've even heard tail lights referred to as brake lights before...

 

Jo

Many, and I think this is fine. Just like I am happy to see non-prototypical signalling on many layouts, where it is clear that the owner makes no pretense of prototypically-correct operation, but chooses to focus on other things instead.

 

There is also the practicality of moving tiny model oil lamps between vehicles when remarshalling trains.

 

The model-buying public do seem to be inordinately fond of bells and whistles, though, and working lights have been a selling feature of model trains for decades. Purchasers believe the working lights are realistic because the manufacturers tell them they are, so who is going to be the Jonah telling them that they'd do better to leave the lights turned off or disconnect the bulbs. Even when the lights are displayed correctly, they are almost all of them too bright, and a more realistic model for any period up to the late 80s would do better not to have working lights at all.

[iands]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

I agree but there's relatively little Absolute Block left, most of the network nowadays is Track Circuit Block, especially the main long-distance passenger routes.  The train may travel a very long way before any signalman will see it pass and actively look for a  tail lamp. 

 

The risk from divided trains is nowhere near as big as it once was.  The main type type of train which did split was the unfitted loose-coupled goods with a manned brake van on the rear, but they're history.  A fully fitted train should stop automatically in the event of a coupling failure, although that too can fail in freak circumstances.  A train that does divide in TCB territory will show up as the block remaining occupied after the front of the train has vacated it, as the track circuit will still be shunted by the remaining vehicles, or where axle counters are used, the counts won't match.  So it's only really in AB territory that you still need to have a signalman looking for tail lamps, and even there a divided train should just stop as the brake pipe severs.

When I started on the railway in 1973, we were 'instructed' when on or about the line to observe any passing train to see if it was 'carrying' a tail lamp (couldn't always tell if it was 'lit'). If not, then you had to contact the nearest signal box and advise the signalman. I personally did this for the next 46 years of my railway career. I only ever observed 'no tail lamp' on two occasions in all that time, although on one of the occasions, as I had an NRN mobile radio with me, I contacted Route Control instead - it was quicker!

[iands]

In case anyone wants to try and replicate (as accurately as possible) the 'flash' etc., of a portable/battery tail lamp, here is an extract of a previous Railway Group Standard.

Battery Tail Lamps.pdf

[Wickham Green too]

36 minutes ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

... Purchasers believe the working lights are realistic because the manufacturers tell them they are, ...

And - to veer slightly off topic - that's not just head & tail lights but internal lights too ...................... cab lights definitely shouldn't be on while in motion and passenger carriage lights should show no more than a glow worm ( during times of darkness, fog or falling snow or when passing through tunnels ONLY ) prior to the fluorescent revolution of the 70s/80s.

[Wheatley]

On 13/02/2024 at 22:50, uax6 said:

There have been many things used as tail lamps over the years, from newspapers to bog roll!

There is a Bradford Barton paperback called "Signalman" by Michael Burke, detailing his career around Manchester in the 1960s. 

 

The Platting Tail Lamp was a local custom whereby the tail lamp of a particular trip working from Miles Platting could be anything except an actual tail lamp, hung on the drawhook of the last vehicle*. 

 

"For a period a particularly lacy bra was popular with the shunters". 

 

(* Which is why the handle of a BR standard tail lamp is such an odd shape.)

 

 

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, iands said:

When I started on the railway in 1973, we were 'instructed' when on or about the line to observe any passing train to see if it was 'carrying' a tail lamp (couldn't always tell if it was 'lit'). If not, then you had to contact the nearest signal box and advise the signalman. I personally did this for the next 46 years of my railway career. I only ever observed 'no tail lamp' on two occasions in all that time, although on one of the occasions, as I had an NRN mobile radio with me, I contacted Route Control instead - it was quicker!

Same for me in 1987 - in the first section of the Rule Book that applied to all staff.  As I was mainly office-based but with a view of the railway, it sounded like an excellent justification for staring out of the window all day.  

 

1 hour ago, Michael Hodgson said:

 

I agree but there's relatively little Absolute Block left, most of the network nowadays is Track Circuit Block, especially the main long-distance passenger routes.  The train may travel a very long way before any signalman will see it pass and actively look for a  tail lamp. 

 

The risk from divided trains is nowhere near as big as it once was.  The main type type of train which did split was the unfitted loose-coupled goods with a manned brake van on the rear, but they're history.  A fully fitted train should stop automatically in the event of a coupling failure, although that too can fail in freak circumstances.  A train that does divide in TCB territory will show up as the block remaining occupied after the front of the train has vacated it, as the track circuit will still be shunted by the remaining vehicles, or where axle counters are used, the counts won't match.  So it's only really in AB territory that you still need to have a signalman looking for tail lamps, and even there a divided train should just stop as the brake pipe severs.

It is indeed very unlikely to cause an accident, but so many railway accidents have been caused by a combination of unlikely circumstances.  An intermediate tail lamp lit might suggest that whoever was doing the coupling hadn't finished the job, for example not connecting and testing the brake pipes would be extremely dangerous.  

 

A split train can still become dangerous if not dealt with quickly, because the air brakes will leak off after time, and it could be minutes rather than hours.  This driver had a very lucky escape and appears to have been a victim of confirmation bias, ignoring several things that suggested his train had been divided rather than just suffered from vandalism.

 

https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/runaway-of-two-wagons-from-camden-road-tunnel

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

. Even when the lights are displayed correctly, they are almost all of them too bright, and a more realistic model for any period up to the late 80s would do better not to have working lights at all.

 

6 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

cab lights definitely shouldn't be on while in motion and passenger carriage lights should show no more than a glow worm ( during times of darkness, fog or falling snow or when passing through tunnels ONLY ) prior to the fluorescent revolution of the 70s/80s.

 

Absolutely; one would have been hard pressed to tell whether the carriage lights were on or not from outside in normal or even dull and gloomy daylight, or in well-lit stations.  The bulbs were pretty feeble 25w filaments (and could be dimmed by the passengers if they wanted to doze), working off what was IIRC a 20vdc dynamo-charged battery; a passenger train at night in open country looked like a gloworm.  Oil lamps, tail and signal (a correctly trimmed signal lamp was visible and readable in terms of colour a mile away in clear weather, and were bright enough at night for purpose in those days when the general environment was a lot darker; the level of street lighting, advertising,  working and security floodlights, and other lighting has increased exponentially over the last 60 years, as has the urbanised area that produces it.

 

Cab lighting would be off while the train was in motion, but the rear cab lights might be on.  Post 1969, freight guards rode in the secondmans' seat of the rear cabs of locomotives on fully-fitted trains, which were becoming increasingly the norm throughout the 70s and 80s and did not require brake vans, and there was no particular requirement for them to be in the dark, indeed, passing times and other information had to be recorded in the guard's journal and notebook, for which purpose one would switch the cab light on.  In practice one very often rode in the front cab with the driver, on his instruction/invitation; many drivers preferred the company and could use the guard as an ersatz secondman, providing observation of both sides of the train.

 

There was an assumption that the rear cab light on meant that the guard was reading his newspaper, and that off meant he was 'resting his eyes'.  I'm sure I could not possibly comment...

 

Loco headlights were unknown until the HST, and the same feeble 25w filament bulbs illumintated (if it can be called illumination) the marker lights or headcode panel lights, replicating the function of oil headlamps on steam engines,  At night, one would be unable to pick out more than half a dozen sleepers in front of the loco, and we trusted the signalling and the AWS absolutely.  Out in the countryside where there was little or no ambient lighting, one could pick out the glow of an oncoming headcode panel from a considerable distance, but seeing anything with it was a hiding to nothing. 

 

Lighting on layouts is often insanely bright and would be retina-destroyning if scaled up to full-size, and often too cold and blue in cast, but bright lights sell models unfortunately and on an exhibition layout must overcome the venue's ambient lighting and the layout lighting.  A good way to tone them down and diffuse led is to paint them over with clear matt varnish, or even a wash of acrylic off-white; 12v leds do not burn hot enough for this to be an issue.  Coach and cab lighting is effective at a very low level, just paint the inside of the roof white to reflect it.  Warm cast is essential for filament bulb lighting in coaches, cabs, buildings, dmu/emu destination blinds, and (especially) headcode panels.

Edited February 15 by The Johnster

[Michael Hodgson]

32 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

 Post 1969, freight guards rode in the secondmans' seat of the rear cabs of locomotives on fully-fitted trains, which were becoming increasingly the norm throughout the 70s and 80s and did not require brake vans, and there was no particular requirement for them to be in the dark, indeed, passing times and other information had to be recorded in the guard's journal and notebook, for which purpose one would switch the cab light on. 

Presumably that was what had been agreed with the unions, but did it really matter which seat in the rear cab you occupied?

[melmerby]

7 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

A split train can still become dangerous if not dealt with quickly, because the air brakes will leak off after time, and it could be minutes rather than hours.  This driver had a very lucky escape and appears to have been a victim of confirmation bias, ignoring several things that suggested his train had been divided rather than just suffered from vandalism.

 

There's the well documented one of a electrically hauled freightliner train splitting on the downhill stretch into Carlisle from Shap (1984)

The alert signaller realised what had happend, the front portion was sent via the station and the points were changed behind the front portion to divert the runaway section around the goods lines where they came to grief at around 60mph, wrecking a bridge and a fair amount of track. The mess took months to clear up and the goods lines were closed permanently.

Edited February 15 by melmerby

[The Johnster]

Yes, it did to an extent.  The instruction was that you were to sit in the 2man's seat where you could not interfere with the controls, accidentally or otherwise.  The straight air loco and train  vacuum/air brakes could be applied in the rear cab (I'd have done it without a second thought if I ever thought it was needed, though), though the loco could not be put into forward or reverse gear or 'engine only' as the selector handle was locked out of use and could only be released by the driver's loco key.  The AWS was on that side as well, something else they didn't want us playing with. 

 

Heating, lighting, demister, and windscreen wipers for that side could all be accessed from the 2man's seat, as well as whatever cooking/food heating arrangements were provided.  On that side, you also could communcate with the driver by handsignal out of the windows, which was official way of doing it, or the normal way that everyone did, with the fire alarm test bell using the dmu buzzer code.  The drawback was that between you and the driver, only one side of the train was under observation most of the time, not that many of my drivers ever bothered to look back anyway though they should have on left-hand curves as a part of the general instruction to 'keep a good look out at all times'.

[The Johnster]

8 hours ago, iands said:

When I started on the railway in 1973, we were 'instructed' when on or about the line to observe any passing train to see if it was 'carrying' a tail lamp (couldn't always tell if it was 'lit'). If not, then you had to contact the nearest signal box and advise the signalman. I personally did this for the next 46 years of my railway career. I only ever observed 'no tail lamp' on two occasions in all that time, although on one of the occasions, as I had an NRN mobile radio with me, I contacted Route Control instead - it was quicker!

 

To this day I still check over every train I see, almost subconciously, for anything that would cause concern, including tail lamps, and would not hesitate to contact the railway by whatever means available if I saw anything wrong, including tail lamps...  Can't help myself, it's been hammered in to the point of becoming instinct. 

[The Johnster]

7 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

for example not connecting and testing the brake pipes would be extremely dangerous.  

 

 

Quintinshill late 1969 or early 70, can't remember now, but a minority element of railwaymen took the new back cab rules to mean that you didn't have to do anything much, and if both driver and guard were of this persuasion, things could get dangerously out of hand very easily indeed. 

 

Up class 6 vacuum braked steel train ran away down Beattock, was reckoned to be doing well over 100mph through Lockerbie, and demolished a good bit of a class 8 coal train drawing forward into QH up loop, driver and guard of steel train killed on the loco, guard of coal train killed in his van.  The steel, fully loaded bogie bolster Cs carrying billets, had been picked up at Motherwell, guard had not done a brake continuity test (or, apparently, examined the train at all, never got off the loco), accepted that the train was in order from the train preparartion certificate, shunter couples on, buzz buzz on the bell, and away, driver and guard had consumed alcohol in pub before booking on and beer bottle glass was found in the wreckage in association with what are euphemistically referred to as human remains.  The Guard had probably turned up the heaters, put his feet up on the desk, and 'rested his eyes' as soon as he gave right away, next stop relief at Carlisle, aren't they lovely when they're asleep...  Driver had no reason to and did not attempt to apply his train's unconnected, isolated, and completely useless vacuum brakes until after Beattock summit, and it was too late to do anything about it then.  The collision was so severe that, when the wreckage was cleared away, some 150tons of scrap metal could apparently not be accounted for, pulverised into atoms.

 

The consequences of not carrying out a full brake continuity test to your own satisfaction can indeed be extremely dangerous, if not deadly.  If you are lucky, the penaly for breaking rules is reprimand, sacking, sometimes a prison sentence.  The idea that rules are made to be broken, for the guidance of gentlemen and the instruction of idiots does not apply on the railway, where they are rules.  Remember where they were found, at the bottom of a bucket. 

 

Of blood.