In all of the British steam locomotive pictures I have seen I have never seen an engine with the typical North American headlight. How did the British engineers see straight ahead at night?
I don’t think they needed to. They had absolute authority granted by each signal box to the next signal box, and those signals were lit, and virtually all turnouts in British practice, as I have experienced it in person on British-designed railways, were all within station limits and operated by a stationmaster/signal box. As far as I know, their rights-of-way were generally grade-separated and fenced so there was nothing there to see.
The headlight isn’t nearly of much use for seeing the track as is imagined, unless one is truly running at restricted speed (able to stop in 1/2 the limit of vision) – it’s a warning device for vehicles at grade crossings, and a device for observing the position of the target on unprotected turnouts in the main track.
Everything I’ve ever been in the cab for when we ran over it or struck with a train at night we saw far too late to stop anyway – trees, dogs, moose, rocks, nutria, deer, cows, etc.
RWM
Railway Man hit’s the nail on the head yet again.
[tup]
British trains have never had headlights, only marker lights to identify the type of train. As discussed above all routes are fully controlled by signals and fully fenced so drivers just look at the signals. All trains also carry a red rear light.
Turnouts on running lines are always interlocked with the signals so there is no need to be able to see the track.
Doesn’t a headlight{s}, assist an engineer in determining just “where” he is on the railroad. Example: Running on a very dark night and in territory with not much civilization for reference of location, assisting him how fast he can be running etc…
Yes, if he needs to know that. On a “dark” American-style railroading with inexpensive geometry (lots of curves and grades, temporary speed restrictions), he does. On a British Railway, he doesn’t need to know exactly where he is because it’s all the same. The lines were engineered to extreme standards of flatness and minimal curvature, enabling constant speed as governed by signal indication, and temporary speed restrictions are “box to box” not “milepost fraction to milepost fraction”. Besides, when you run the same territory repeatedly for years, it’s not like you don’t know where you are. As a dispatcher, I could look at a console which consisted of nothing but a lit line showing that a train was between two track cuts, and be pretty certain where he was within 1/4 mile. Trains do the same thing over and over again, especially on a tightly scheduled system like a British passenger-heavy railway.
RWM
Railway man is right.
Here is an exeption, a picture of british steam engine with a big headlight for a unique operation. This is a pusher engine for steep grades , i suppose the headlight was for being able to see when approaching a train to push in the dark ((banking)).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:58100_LickeyBanker3.jpg
I think even in britain train crews can hear and feel in the track where they are just as well as US crews.
That is the banker (helper) for the Lickey Incline which is the steepest incline on an English mainline (between Bristol and Birmingham). It is still open although not very noticeable in a diesel unit. AS surmised the headlight is so that the crew can see when buffering up to a train.
…What was their “hangup” on headlights…? That is, not installing them on a moving vehicle that was used at night…Just seems to defy logic.
Why pay for and maintain something of no value?
RWM
…Oh, the thought of “no value”…boy, that is a bit weird…Do we consider headlights no value in this country…Don’t think so.
I realize we’re talking about the United Kingdom, but cheeze…a headlight is of no value…? Must be another reason. Couldn’t think of changing tradition…from the past, possibly.
The British railway companies never saw the need for headlights on locomotives; even when they began using diesels in the 1950’s. I have wondered that the reason might be that a headlight might actually make signals more difficult to read. The LMS Southern and LNER all used upper quadrant signals and their locomotives had left hand drive. The driver ( engineer ) was the person responsible for reading signals on these railways. However, the GWR locomotives were right hand drive even though they operated their trains on the left. They also used lower quadrant signals and the fireman was the reader of signals. These signals were very difficult to read and the British did not begin to replace them until well into nationalization. Even with more modern signals; no headlights. For this American,I was amazed they never used headlights on their trains, but I think that headlights would have detracted from the clean lines of British steam.
I believe the only British Steamer to have been fitted with a headlight was when The Flying Scotsman toured the US. It was done as per US operating requirements. BTW, TH&B is that car a Chrysler Newport in your driveway, nice.[tup]
Quentin, I think you’ve never ridden on a locomotive and seen just how pathetic the headlight is, and what it does not illuminate. A car on a highway is driving within the vision limits of the headlights, or it wrecs. A train is almost always driving at a speed far in excess of its vision limits even in daylight, much less at night.
I’m taken aback by any notion there’s only one way to do things in the world, and it’s the U.S. way. I’ve spent a lot of time overseas working on railways, and I succeeded by never assuming that because I came from the U.S. I was smarter, better, or there was only one way to do things – the U.S. way. I am just a dumb practical railway man, and if something isn’t needed for safety or efficiency, I am pretty ruthless about ripping it off and throwing it away. On a British-style railway, headlights are a “security blanket” for the insecure. They didn’t need them, so they didn’t waste money and time with them.
I can assure you, from the rest of the world’s point of view, they think we are definitely the weirdest country on earth.
RWM
I think there was at least one other engine that toured to the US with a fitted headlight, but it was rare.
OS yes it’s a ’ 71 4 door , 440 4 speed manual (one of done produced) still runs. Are you a “Mopar fan” ?
No problem with anything you had in your response. But I retain my opinion of wheither something like what we’re talking about should have a headlight{s}.
I believe we rate a bit highter in the world than weirdest country on earth…
You are also correct, I have never ridden an engine to experience what a headlight{s}, does for the track view ahead.
I have been in the United Kingdom and Asia. And on steel wheel to rail in both areas. But that doesn’t make me an expert at all. All I’m saying is that is my opinion of the headlight issue.
I have ridden locomotives at night, and the headlight helps very little. My first experience was on the City of New Orleans, from Memphis to Grenada (with the blessing of the IC Tennessee Division superintendent), back in 1965. While I could see, I blew the horn for the public crossings, but when the sun was setting, I could not tell a mile post from a whistle post, so I gave the cord back to the engineer. My other two experiences on passenger engines (conductor or flagman and engineer blessing) were the same. I could read the signals, and that was about all. I did see the waterfall inside the Lookout Mountain tunnel, but it was “there it is, and it’s gone.” Even when proceeding at the maximum speed of ten miles an hour on the AT&N, not much could be seen (there was also conversation in the cab with the crews, to take my attention).
You can wonder how much help the fire on the car in front of the Best Friend of Charleston really helped the engineer.
Johnny
…I thought about that very same “headlight” as I was writing on my headlight opinion…
By the way…How is the performance of the later ditch lights…? Do they help to “see” much closer to the engine along the R of W…I realize the main headlights shine a distance down the track.
TH&B, Not to get off topic, for which I already am. [#oops] I am a fan of all muscle cars not to mention cars in general. Trains are still my number one hobby though. The reason why I asked was because my grandfather had one. But, it had an automatic tranny. I don’t remember if it had a slant 6 or a V8. I was only 7 at the time. Back to the subject. Could the other engine been the Coronation Special or the Mallard?