Tail Lamps

[Branch line]

Has anybody got a approximate date for last use of paraffin type red tail lights on Network Rail, I think they lasted longer on freight trains than passenger.The current flashing battery type have been around for a long time now.

 

[Cowley]

Has anybody got a approximate date for last use of paraffin type red tail lights on Network Rail, I think they lasted longer on freight trains than passenger.The current flashing battery type have been around for a long time now.

I remember seeing a big heap of them in Exeter Riverside yard some time around 1986/87 where they’d just been discarded.
I’ve always assumed that they were the last ones in use, but I’d be interested to know if that’s right.

 

[Ken H]

old style DMUs used to use paraffin lamps as tail lights. the bracket out the paraffin light over the fitted tail lamp. Then suddenly they started using the fitted electric tail lamp so no more paraffin lamps. Dont know why they ever used paraffin lamps when they were fitted with electric tail lamps. I think that was late 1970's.
I remember the guard moving the lamp between ends at Shipley where Keighley-Leeds trains reversed.

Mk 3 coaches were not fitted with integral electric tail lamps until they built the Mk3 sleepers which were. Then they built DVT's which were.

Southern 3rd rail EMU didnt have tail lamps but relied on a red bit in the roller blind to give a red glimmer from the back. Dunno about 4-SUB-s which had some sort of stencil device for the headcode number.

Wasnt there an experiment with a xenon flashing red tail lamp at one point?

Edit:- Didnt BARDIC lamps have a fitting so they could fit on a tail lamp bracket if needed?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

old style DMUs used to use paraffin lamps as tail lights. the bracket out the paraffin light over the fitted tail lamp. Then suddenly they started using the fitted electric tail lamp so no more paraffin lamps. Dont know why they ever used paraffin lamps when they were fitted with electric tail lamps. I think that was late 1970's.
I remember the guard moving the lamp between ends at Shipley where Keighley-Leeds trains reversed.

Mk 3 coaches were not fitted with integral electric tail lamps until they built the Mk3 sleepers which were. Then they built DVT's which were.

Southern 3rd rail EMU didnt have tail lamps but relied on a red bit in the roller blind to give a red glimmer from the back. Dunno about 4-SUB-s which had some sort of stencil device for the headcode number.

Wasnt there an experiment with a xenon flashing red tail lamp at one point?

Edit:- Didnt BARDIC lamps have a fitting so they could fit on a tail lamp bracket if needed?

Electric trail lamps (battery operated) came in from about 1980 , initially for oil and Freightlner trains , and rapidly applied to all workings - especially when loose coupled , brake van freight trains (and ballast trains) - dissapeared. Good thing to - they were an operational curse and ridiculous how in the late 20thC the last form of protection was a tinplate oil lamp.

They were misused - staff would drop them hard to put them out rather than blow out the flame , and they were stolen in large numbers for souveniers and to heat sheds and outside toilets (I kid you not) , as well as awkward and expensive with the need for lamp huts etc.

Battery lamps just needed a check about every 3 months. (with a sticker attached to show they had been seen - we were supposed to do this every ow and then)

Yes - Bardic lamps could be used as an emergency tail lamp or a marker light - under some circumstances. Or you could put one in a rear cab window. (but generally there was always a bracket)

 

[Branch line]

I remember seeing a documentary on television about Swindon Works, made I believe12 months before closure around 1985. It contained interviews with men still making these tail lamps.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I remember seeing a documentary on television about Swindon Works, made I believe12 months before closure around 1985. It contained interviews with men still making these tail lamps.

Almost a 19thC skill frankly - and very much a declining trade , as I said - madness that the railways still used such crap technology (on the continent they just used to hang a reflectorized disc on the back of a freight train and they got rid of unbraked freight trains before 1920 or so !)

Bad enough these wretched brake vans with side lights as well as tail lights , and the need to scrounge some sort of coal for the stove. (Nearest loaded traffic wagon was often a good source)

Freight guards used to carry a small coal shovel, firelighters , maybe a glass bottle of paraffin , detonators .....a veritable bomb in a bag...

 

[jonty14]

Dont know why they ever used paraffin lamps when they were fitted with electric tail lamps. I think that was late 1970's.

I was wondering that. You still see that today when locomotives are being towed. With modern lamps of course.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Southern 3rd rail EMU didnt have tail lamps but relied on a red bit in the roller blind to give a red glimmer from the back. Dunno about 4-SUB-s which had some sort of stencil device for the headcode number.

It's all a long time back and my memories are rather hazy, but I think that the 4-SUBs still used oil lamps where the route indicator was a stencil, I don't recall seeing any with a battery lamp, although they may well have been used later on when they were introduced on freight services. A few 4-SUBs were fitted with a roller blind route indicator that was much the same as the EPBs, but most had a stencil indicator up until they were withdrawn. I do recall that an oil lamp was visible at a considerably greater distance than the red panel on the roller blind, which gave a pretty feeble red light. An oil lamp with a suitable lens can be seen for several hundred yards.

 

[30907]

It's all a long time back and my memories are rather hazy, but I think that the 4-SUBs still used oil lamps where the route indicator was a stencil, I don't recall seeing any with a battery lamp, although they may well have been used later on when they were introduced on freight services. A few 4-SUBs were fitted with a roller blind route indicator that was much the same as the EPBs, but most had a stencil indicator up until they were withdrawn. I do recall that an oil lamp was visible at a considerably greater distance than the red panel on the roller blind, which gave a pretty feeble red light. An oil lamp with a suitable lens can be seen for several hundred yards.

Even EP stock did not originally use red blinds. ISTR they came in in the early 60s, possibly at the same time as the smaller and thinner numerals. I believe there were safety concerns to be overcome before actual lamps could be phased out.

 

[CatfordCat]

This page (Southern Railway e-group) includes 2 photos of 2 / 4 EPB units with oil tail lamps. And fairly sure I have seen similar photos of SR DEMUs carrying tail lamps. Although fairly sure both were in the era before yellow ends (I personally don't remember that time)

4 SUB units certainly used separate tail lamps until withdrawal - I can't remember ever seeing one of the (few) roller blind fitted 4 SUBs showing red blanks at the rear but I also can't remember specifically seeing one with a tail lamp.

I am not sure that 4 SUBs had an adequate battery circuit that would have ensured the rear number blind would have stayed illuminated for a while if the traction current failed - I'm assuming that the EPB generation onward did.

Possibly the original requirement for EPB stock to carry a tail lamp may have been the railway inspectorate (or whatever it was called at the time) not initially being happy with a rear 'lamp' being powered by traction current.

 

[Ken H]

...
Possibly the original requirement for EPB stock to carry a tail lamp may have been the railway inspectorate (or whatever it was called at the time) not initially being happy with a rear 'lamp' being powered by traction current.

Hmmm.
Something must have changed that viewpoint both for modernisation plan DMU's and SR Emus to cease to carry tail lamps.

Was it when bardic lamps came in - i think guards and drivers carried them. And it has been mentioned a bardic lamp can fit on the tail lamp bracket.

or was it signalling rules that required a signalman to check the back of the train had a tail lamp in case the train had split in section, and that was modified to take account of MU's with integral tail lamps?

 

[30907]

This page (Southern Railway e-group) includes 2 photos of 2 / 4 EPB units with oil tail lamps. And fairly sure I have seen similar photos of SR DEMUs carrying tail lamps. Although fairly sure both were in the era before yellow ends (I personally don't remember that time)

I am not sure that 4 SUBs had an adequate battery circuit that would have ensured the rear number blind would have stayed illuminated for a while if the traction current failed - I'm assuming that the EPB generation onward did.

Possibly the original requirement for EPB stock to carry a tail lamp may have been the railway inspectorate (or whatever it was called at the time) not initially being happy with a rear 'lamp' being powered by traction current.

Those 2EPB photos must be early 60s as they have no yellow panel and the older style blinds I referred to

Hmmm.
Something must have changed that viewpoint both for modernisation plan DMU's and SR Emus to cease to carry tail lamps.

Was it when bardic lamps came in - i think guards and drivers carried them. And it has been mentioned a bardic lamp can fit on the tail lamp bracket.

or was it signalling rules that required a signalman to check the back of the train had a tail lamp in case the train had split in section, and that was modified to take account of MU's with integral tail lamps?

While trying to find an answer Google led me to this thread - scroll down to the long post by The Duke 71000.
https://digest.dapol.co.uk/forum/main-forum/diesel-aa/class-73-aa/7506-class-73-decorated-samples

"RED BLANKS were ONLY allowed to be used as a "tail marker", on stock that had a safe capacity to illuminate such blinds by Battery power for at least 24 hours continuously. (For EMU's this included all "1951" stock onwards. So certainly 4SUB and 5BEL units even when fitted with roll round blinds still had to carry a tail lamp.) Otherwise a tail lamp was required on the end of the train. Further RED BLINDS were NOT tolerated on ANY other Region (because no other region had made any alteration to its operational rules to permit such blinds). So even after the Southern Region had effectively re-claimed the Salisbury to Yeovil line. Trains found arriving at Exeter St. David's, using red blinds (Class 33's and TC stock most frequently). Found themselves "Impounded". The train was NOT allowed to move again until a red lamp was hung on the rear of the train, for the return journey at least as far as Yeovil....."

This confirms that the RI were concerned about battery life. The SUBs etc didn't have the capability. I've left the rest of the paragraph in for amusement, but it's interesting that it was ONLY a SR thing for a long time.
Bardic lamps would be coincidence.
I don't know when DMUs started to use inbuilt tail lights, was it only with 70s refurbishment?

 

[Ken H]

Those 2EPB photos must be early 60s as they have no yellow panel and the older style blinds I referred to



While trying to find an answer Google led me to this thread - scroll down to the long post by The Duke 71000.
https://digest.dapol.co.uk/forum/main-forum/diesel-aa/class-73-aa/7506-class-73-decorated-samples

"RED BLANKS were ONLY allowed to be used as a "tail marker", on stock that had a safe capacity to illuminate such blinds by Battery power for at least 24 hours continuously. (For EMU's this included all "1951" stock onwards. So certainly 4SUB and 5BEL units even when fitted with roll round blinds still had to carry a tail lamp.) Otherwise a tail lamp was required on the end of the train. Further RED BLINDS were NOT tolerated on ANY other Region (because no other region had made any alteration to its operational rules to permit such blinds). So even after the Southern Region had effectively re-claimed the Salisbury to Yeovil line. Trains found arriving at Exeter St. David's, using red blinds (Class 33's and TC stock most frequently). Found themselves "Impounded". The train was NOT allowed to move again until a red lamp was hung on the rear of the train, for the return journey at least as far as Yeovil....."

This confirms that the RI were concerned about battery life. The SUBs etc didn't have the capability. I've left the rest of the paragraph in for amusement, but it's interesting that it was ONLY a SR thing for a long time.
Bardic lamps would be coincidence.
I don't know when DMUs started to use inbuilt tail lights, was it only with 70s refurbishment?

They ( inbuilt tail lamps on modernisation plan DMu's) existed but were unused. I remember thinking 'why cover an electric inbuilt tail lamp with a paraffin lamp?' but the change was sudden - i.e not restricted to modified units.

 

[MotCO]

Southern 3rd rail EMU didnt have tail lamps but relied on a red bit in the roller blind to give a red glimmer from the back. Dunno about 4-SUB-s which had some sort of stencil device for the headcode number.

I always thought that these were so inadequate. Why didn't they add a red light when they added the 'spotlight'?

 

[Ken H]

I always thought that these were so inadequate. Why didn't they add a red light when they added the 'spotlight'?

discipline. they had to change the number to red, and the red to a number when they changed ends. they didnt want units running round with a wrong number on the back.

 

[30907]

They ( inbuilt tail lamps on modernisation plan DMu's) existed but were unused. I remember thinking 'why cover an electric inbuilt tail lamp with a paraffin lamp?' but the change was sudden - i.e not restricted to modified units.

Thanks, never realised.

discipline. they had to change the number to red, and the red to a number when they changed ends. they didnt want units running round with a wrong number on the back.

The same discipline applied (or didn't, on some branch lines!) with tail lamps having to be moved physically vs switching white to red when changing ends (there have been threads on here about failing to do so, and I've seen it myself).

 

[Taunton]

As I understood it, the SUBs didn't have any low voltage circuits at all beyond the multiple unit controls, interior lights were at 750v (so needed a CMEE fitter to change them). There were no starting bells; I was surprised getting off one in the mid-1980s to fing the guard was doing a green flag for departure. So no apparent capability to do electric red rear lights if the power was off`. Don't know how they did emergency saloon/compartment lighting. Was there any?

The old Q stock on the Underground, lasted to the 1970s, had oil tail lamps as well. See here

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=u...UIHbuWDvoQ9QEwBHoECAUQDA#imgrc=B9Az9s-0JKXeNM:

 

[davetheguard]

They ( inbuilt tail lamps on modernisation plan DMu's) existed but were unused. I remember thinking 'why cover an electric inbuilt tail lamp with a paraffin lamp?' but the change was sudden - i.e not restricted to modified units.

If I remember correctly, there was only a white bulb inside the electric lamp on first generation DMU's. Then they were latter fitted with an additional (red) bulb and an instruction was issued to start using the red electric tail lamp from such & such a date. Some jumped the gun and were told off by management, as it could be mistaken for the Royal Train - previously only the Royal Train had displayed two tail lamps.

 

[Ken H]

If I remember correctly, there was only a white bulb inside the electric lamp on first generation DMU's. Then they were latter fitted with an additional (red) bulb and an instruction was issued to start using the red electric tail lamp from such & such a date. Some jumped the gun and were told off by management, as it could be mistaken for the Royal Train - previously only the Royal Train had displayed two tail lamps.

2 car class 101 royal train!!!!

 

[Taunton]

it could be mistaken for the Royal Train - previously only the Royal Train had displayed two tail lamps.

Cornish Riviera Express had 17

 

[John Webb]

Cornish Riviera Express had 17

In the days when it had slip coaches......

 

[HaggisBotherer]

I always thought that these were so inadequate. Why didn't they add a red light when they added the 'spotlight'?

Because the only purpose of a tail lamp / red rear roller blind is to show that the train is complete. As long as they were visible to the necessary staff en route (who, by nature, would invariably be close to the track), then their role was satisfied.

Modern LED tail lights aren't bright because they necessarily have to be bright, they are bright because that's the lighting technology used.

If I remember correctly, there was only a white bulb inside the electric lamp on first generation DMU's. Then they were latter fitted with an additional (red) bulb

Correct, it was a 1980s modification.

 

[edwin_m]

Because the only purpose of a tail lamp / red rear roller blind is to show that the train is complete. As long as they were visible to the necessary staff en route (who, by nature, would invariably be close to the track), then their role was satisfied.

Modern LED tail lights aren't bright because they necessarily have to be bright, they are bright because that's the lighting technology used.

The tail lamp also provides a defence against collision, when permissive working takes place, when trains are talked past failed signals, or after a SPAD. There have been several accidents when the strong light from a colour light signal ahead drowned out the weak glow of an oil tail lamp on a train in between.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The tail lamp also provides a defence against collision, when permissive working takes place, when trains are talked past failed signals, or after a SPAD. There have been several accidents when the strong light from a colour light signal ahead drowned out the weak glow of an oil tail lamp on a train in between.

Spot on - a tail lamp was the last defence for a stopped train. There were special instructions for a train - not having a brake van with full tail and side lights on a permissive goods line for these very reasons....even LT when they had guard operated trains that a check be made on the tail lights when stopped unusually out of course.

Consider collisions at Kensal Green on the DC lines , and at I think Warrington between a stopped Freightliner and a Speedlink train. Both in the 1980's.

Makes one consider European processes were below the UK , when a simple reflectorized plate (unlit) used to be deemed OK. Not sure what they do these days.

 

[edwin_m]

Consider collisions at Kensal Green on the DC lines , and at I think Warrington between a stopped Freightliner and a Speedlink train. Both in the 1980's.

Kensal Green appears to have been one of several accidents resulting from the stop-and-proceed signalling formerly fitted on the DC lines. This system allowed trains to approach the rear of others on a fairly routine basis so adequte tail lamps were essential. The report doesn't comment on tail lamps other than to note the Tube train that was hit had twin electric ones, but Tube tail lamps are positioned very low and I wonder if that put them out of the primary field of view of the driver of the following Class 313, who would have been much higher off the track.
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=1183

The collision was entirely due to Driver Belcher, who, on proceeding past KG8 signal on a marker light authority, did not drive his train with sufficient caution to enable him to stop short of any obstruction. After the accident a number tests were carried out with a similar train along the same section of line in the circumstances described by Driver Belcher and in every case the test train was stopped well short of a mark indicating the position of the rear of the LUL train on the day of the accident. I have no doubt that the signalling equipment was working correctly and that no Main Aspect Yellow was displayed to Mr. Belcher as he claimed.

I think you're thinking of Wigan not Warrington.
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=810

T. W. Layland told me that he was the driver of the station shunting locomotive at Wigan. He was taking his locomotive into No. 3 platform to pick up a van when he noticed that the tail lamp on the rear of the Freightliner train, then standing at signal WN 44, was out. After coupling up to the van he asked the shunter
to tell the Station Supervisor about the lamp and said he would re-light it on his way back. He took his locomotive back out of the platform and as he was slowing down preparing to stop and travelling at, he thought, about 4 mile/h, he was overtaken by the Speedlink train and saw it crash into the rear of the Freightliner train

The Speedlink was signalled into an occupied section by a position light but elsewhere in the report it says the Freightliner was well nigh invisible without a tail lamp. So a case of the oil lamp going out rather than being too weak.

As well as Wigan, the one I was thinking of when writing my previous post was Coppenhall Junction.
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=284

The Mid-day Scot had also stopped at signal no. 114 which was held at red by the presence of the Birmingham train ahead. The train crew tried to telephone to Coppenhall Junction signalbox in accordance with the Rules, but they were unsuccessful because all the signal telephones on the Up lines had failed just previously. The driver then acted on his own initiative and, without seeing or ascertaining that the line was clear to the next signal as required by the Rules, he passed the signal at red and proceeded forward at a speed much in excess of that demanded by the circumstances. He saw the next signal (no. 110) change From red to yellow for the Birmingham train, and it seems that he assumed that it had become clear for his train and accelerated. Neither he nor the fireman saw the Birmingham train until the last moment and consequently the brakes were applied only just before the impact.
...
[the driver] said that he did not see the light of the tail lamp of the train ahead at all nor the outline of the train itself until just before the impact, and he thought that this was on account of the powerful light of the signal.

Makes one consider European processes were below the UK , when a simple reflectorized plate (unlit) used to be deemed OK. Not sure what they do these days.

I guess they are still in use, as there was a picture on the FLIRT thread of one on a delivery run in the UK carrying these reflectors. I guess it was mitigated by the tradtional use of much brighter headlights on European stock, now also mandatory in the UK. At least (unlike the lamp at Wigan) a reflector can't go out! More recent designs of portable tail lamp in the UK carry a red reflector but I'm not aware of any train having built-in reflectors, apart from tram-trains which require them for street running.

After a number of serious rear-enders Irish Rail seemed very diligent about making their loco-hauled stock visible from the rear - I think usual practice was two lamps and various orange patches.

 

[edwin_m]

Re-reading the Wigan report I posted above reminded me that it contains some information of interest to the OP's question:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docsummary.php?docID=810

In the previous 5 years 2 other collisions had been reported to the Railway Inspectorate which involved the failure of the oil tail lamp on the rear of Freightliner trains. I asked both British Railways and Mssrs. Freightliners whether they had any evidence as to the unreliablity of oil tail lamps on the rear of Freightliner trains, especially when the last vehicle in the train is unladen and the lamp is subjected to severe buffetting by the wind. British Railways said they had no such evidence and Messrs. Freightliners said that oil tail lamps were generaly dependable provided they were filled and trimmed correctly and remarked that originally a draught shield had been fitted inboard of the lamp bracket of their vehicles. However, the shield fouled the 'Bardic' battery electric tail lamps that were introduced some 10 years ago and, in consequence, most of these shields had been either distorted or removed.

British Railways informed me that 1000 battery electric tail lamps (Bardic) were ordered in 1971 for use on specific trains as they believed they might prove more economical in the long term than oil lamps. They were particularly required for trains carrying highly flammable liquids and were also used on certain trains running to regular schedules, which included Freightliner trains, where their movement and re-charging could be properly controlled. However, the anticipated economies from their use were not achieved so it was decided not to replace those lost or damaged. By 1983 the numbers of these lamps available for service had been so reduced that instructions were issued that their use on Freightliner trains was no longer mandatory.

More recently, British Railways have been testing four new types of electric tail lamp that emit a flashing light and which should prove more economical than the earlier Bardic ones. The use of a flashing instead of a steady light increases battery life from 40 hours to many weeks and, being fitted with a state of charge indicator, there should be little risk of a battery becoming discharged during a journey. Three of the lamps are variations of the Dorman 'Traffilite' used to protect road works, one of them being extensively used on the German Federal Railways. The fourth lamp has been developed by British Railways' Research Department at Derby and has a light source consisting of a cluster of 8 light-emitting diodes. All of the lamps were of adequate conspicuity but the 'Derby' lamp had the considerable added advantages that there was not a single tungsten filament light bulb to fail and that its battery life was expected to be about 12 months, many times longer than that of the other types.

It is the Railways' intention to replace all oil tail lamps with electric lamps in the next 2 or 3 years and, from the information available to me, I would favour adoption of the 'Derby' lamp on account of its potentially greater reliability. I urge the Railway to bring their tests to a speedy conclusion and eliminate the anachronistic oil tail lamps as soon as practicable. As soon as the new lamps become available, their use on Freightliner trains should be given priority.

The report is dated April 1985 although the collision was in 1984.

The Coppenhall report I linked in my previous post also includes some suggestions of adopting electric tail lamps as far back as 1962.

 

[Branch line]

Thank you Edwin_m your posting gives me the answer I was looking for in my original posting, in fact the first person to come up with some hard facts.Well done.