1970s tail lights on locos etc

[andyman7]

I know this has been raised before, but I was looking through a 1970s album on Flickr and it included a great shot of a class 47 light engine from the rear:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/the-evanses/14216374271/in/photostream/

 

(link as obviously it's not my shot).

 

A great reminder that the tail lamps were switched in singly, which never gets reproduced in RTR form! I remember the HSTs displaying only a single rear light when new too.

[RANGERS]

Twin tail lights were reserved for royal trains until a point in the '80s, can't remember exactly when it was.

[Rivercider]

If you go back further, into the 1960s, an oil tail lamp would have been  used, rather than the loco lamp.

 

cheers

[SRman]

If you go back further, into the 1960s, an oil tail lamp would have been  used, rather than the loco lamp.

 

cheers

 

... apart from SR-based locos or units with two-character roller blind headcodes, where two red blanks were accepted as the tail indication from the early 1960s onwards. 

[stovepipe]

This is a WR Brush Type 4 so I believe the tail lights on the home allocated locos would have conformed to the WR standard. This was one red tail light and one white light to front, as per the WR diesel hydraulics. This has been correctly modelled on the Dapol Baby Warship and Western locomotives at least.

[micknich2003]

At onetime two tail lights on the last booked train indicated to signalmen and crossing keepers etc, that an unscheduled train was to follow. In other words, do not close and go home at your usual booked time.

[keefer]

Twin tail lights were reserved for royal trains until a point in the '80s, can't remember exactly when it was.

There have been photos on here of the cl.47/7 push-pulls which discussed this feature. There was even a pic of a trailing DBSO which had 1 built-in tail lamp lit on one side and an oil-lamp on the other.

Mention was made of the 47's lamp switch being modified to allow both lamps lit.

It would seem to be late '70s that it came to be used for p-p trains, I'm sure I've seen it used on the cl 27/1&2 (although not quite as visible)

[The Stationmaster]

Twin tail lights were reserved for royal trains until a point in the '80s, can't remember exactly when it was.

I suspect it might be June1983 as twin red tail lights were required to be illuminated on all trains fitted with them in the Rule Book amendment issued at that time (although it could be a little earlier but I think not).

 

If you go back further, into the 1960s, an oil tail lamp would have been  used, rather than the loco lamp.

 

cheers

As far as I can trace the change was made in around October of 1971 when all the Rules regarding oil tail lamps on light engines were deleted.

 

This is a WR Brush Type 4 so I believe the tail lights on the home allocated locos would have conformed to the WR standard. This was one red tail light and one white light to front, as per the WR diesel hydraulics. This has been correctly modelled on the Dapol Baby Warship and Western locomotives at least.

There was no requirement in the Rule Book to have a white light illuminated at the front unless the lights had failed in the headcode/classification indicator box.  The WR Instruction specifically stated either headlamps or classification indicator to be lit and as locos fitted with classification indicators (i.e. headcode boxes) didn't have headlamps it would have been impossible for a WR diesel loco to have both lit.  the white light was there basically as an emergency thing/for when the loco was working on pilot duties - it was not a headlamp.

[kenw]

This is a WR Brush Type 4 so I believe the tail lights on the home allocated locos would have conformed to the WR standard. This was one red tail light and one white light to front,

 

I was at Gateshead from the late 70s and the WR locos we got on cross-countrys were no different from standard, two tail lights. Only one was used according to the rule book requirement.

 

 

I suspect it might be June1983 as twin red tail lights were required to be illuminated on all trains fitted with them in the Rule Book amendment issued at that time (although it could be a little earlier but I think not).

 

Probably. It was a change to rule book requirements to use both where built in tail lights fitted that brought in the change. Definitely early 80s, it was shortly after I passed for driving in June 81. I'd have thought 82 but could be 83.

 

 

Mention was made of the 47's lamp switch being modified to allow both lamps lit.

 

Yes, the 47s had a single center-off changeover switch for both tail lights, so it wasn't possible to have both on before this.

They were subsequently modified to conform to the rule change.

 

 

A great reminder that the tail lamps were switched in singly, which never gets reproduced in RTR form! 

 

Something more importantly they rarely get rights, very few models have the ability to switch the tail lights off independently of the front lights. How often do model locos run light engine? They're more usually run hauling trains. Tail lights weren't generally for the following train, that's the signals job! They had (have) a specific regulation purpose to indicate the trains complete and clear of the section. Tail lights on the loco (between any vehicles) could give a false such indication in case of a division so was a serious breach and any such train wouldn't get past the first signal box!!

 

Also, in the case of DMUs, the marker lights each contained two white bulbs, running on one with the other as a spare.

It was only around the same time as the change to using two tail lights that they were changed to having one white and one red bulb, giving the ability to display a tail light. Prior to this a paraffin tail lamp was used. So apart from their latest liveries, DMUs shouldn't have tail lights. And again, would never have them on between sets!!