Yellow front ends on new stock

[dorsetdesiro]

Judging from the class 230 thread, TfW seems to have backed away from "no yellow" as their 230's are now coming with yellow front ends.

SWR and GA's new trains also have yellow ends instead of originally proposed in the artist's impressions. Only TPE, LO, XR and HT have gone in the opposite.

Wasn't the yellow end policy relaxed by DfT, what made some operators change their minds?

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Judging from the class 230 thread, TfW seems to have backed away from "no yellow" as their 230's are now coming with yellow front ends.

SWR and GA's new trains also have yellow ends instead of originally proposed in the artist's impressions. Only TPE, LO, XR and HT have gone in the opposite.

Wasn't the yellow end policy relaxed by DfT, what made some operators change their minds?

Design choices.

 

[Energy]

I believe they have to go through quite a bit of paperwork to have a non yellow front so lots of companies may decide it isn't worth it or don't have time before the trains get painted.

 

[Domh245]

With GA at least, they kept the yellow front due to number of level crossings on the lines that they'd be operating. Loosing the yellow front would have increased the risk at the crossings (no, I'm not really quite sure either!), hence it's addition. I expect it's a similar rationale for SWR, who have quite a few crossings on their suburban network but there is also the side effect of then a single uniform livery across their entire fleet.

 

[ComUtoR]

You have to be able to meet the relevant lighting standards to remove the yellow front ends.

 

[dorsetdesiro]

With GA at least, they kept the yellow front due to number of level crossings on the lines that they'd be operating. Loosing the yellow front would have increased the risk at the crossings (no, I'm not really quite sure either!), hence it's addition. I expect it's a similar rationale for SWR, who have quite a few crossings on their suburban network but there is also the side effect of then a single uniform livery across their entire fleet.

Thanks! That made sense.

Understandble about GA especially with that close shave at the level crossing!

Within SWR the 701s would have looked peculiar as the only fleet with black ends but future stock could have had black ends too?

Now we know that is out of the question, I think the SWR fleet look far better with yellow ends as I really like the 701's yellow which helps against SWR's dreary drab livery which would be hard to see in less than light conditions without the yellow.

 

[43096]

Wasn't the yellow end policy relaxed by DfT, what made some operators change their minds?

It's nothing to do with DfT. RSSB and ORR are the bodies involved with the standards.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Merseyrail's 777s don't seem to have yellow ends (not the first one to arrive anyway).
But then the whole train is in Merseytravel's sickly yellow...
Having seen a video of the first run of a live 777, the front and rear lights (visually describing a large M on the unit ends) are, well, different!

WMR's first 196 is not yellow either, but the whole front end is a startling shade of orange.

 

[Goldfish62]

Judging from the class 230 thread, TfW seems to have backed away from "no yellow" as their 230's are now coming with yellow front ends.

When first outshopped the 230 had a very neat red panel where the yellow is now.

 

[Amaroussi]

I think that there is a legitimate concern about new trains having mostly black or dark grey front ends, although the concern does not necessarily call for all the trains to go back to using yellow fronts, well, at least for the purpose of this post.

It is actually a very common trope with new or refurbished rolling stock since around the 1990s, especially in Metros and Subways. Examples include the pre-refresh 1992 Stock of the London Underground, the New Technology Trains (R143/R160/R179) of the New York Subway, and the latest "carmillon" livery for the SNCF TGV inOui trains.

I think the trope has something to do with trying to appear futuristic or something. I think the MP89 fleet of the Paris Metro, and the new "Moskva" trains for the Moscow Metro, are strong examples of using mostly black or dark grey in the livery to appear futuristic.

It is understandable, but when many operators go for the trope, it can get a bit … monotonous?

 

[TRAX]

I think that there is a legitimate concern about new trains having mostly black or dark grey front ends, although the concern does not necessarily call for all the trains to go back to using yellow fronts, well, at least for the purpose of this post.

It is actually a very common trope with new or refurbished rolling stock since around the 1990s, especially in Metros and Subways. Examples include the pre-refresh 1992 Stock of the London Underground, the New Technology Trains (R143/R160/R179) of the New York Subway, and the latest "carmillon" livery for the SNCF TGV inOui trains.

I think the trope has something to do with trying to appear futuristic or something. I think the MP89 fleet of the Paris Metro, and the new "Moskva" trains for the Moscow Metro, are strong examples of using mostly black or dark grey in the livery to appear futuristic.

It is understandable, but when many operators go for the trope, it can get a bit … monotonous?

Re Paris Metro, the anthracite grey front ends are actually part of the livery, whether the sides have it too or not (which is exclusive to the MP 89 and MP 05), and is found on all stock classes (except the MF 77 and some MF 67, even refurbished).

 

[Amaroussi]

Re Paris Metro, the anthracite grey front ends are actually part of the livery, whether the sides have it too or not (which is exclusive to the MP 89 and MP 05), and is found on all stock classes (except the MF 77 and some MF 67, even refurbished).

I think it is fair to say that the RATP was a big fan of the anthracite grey front ends, and obviously they did it at a time when that style was fresh.

 

[PG]

I believe they have to go through quite a bit of paperwork to have a non yellow front so lots of companies may decide it isn't worth it or don't have time before the trains get painted.

So, basically, it is cheaper to have a yellow front, given that all that paperwork costs money.

With GA at least, they kept the yellow front due to number of level crossings on the lines that they'd be operating. Loosing the yellow front would have increased the risk at the crossings (no, I'm not really quite sure either!), hence it's addition. I expect it's a similar rationale for SWR, who have quite a few crossings on their suburban network but there is also the side effect of then a single uniform livery across their entire fleet.

Curiosity gets the better of me - have any official bodies, e.g. RAIB or RSSB etc, said anywhere about the increased risk at level crossings?

 

[Domh245]

Curiosity gets the better of me - have any official bodies, e.g. RAIB or RSSB etc, said anywhere about the increased risk at level crossings?

The standard that sets out visibility (and audibility) of trains has this in Appendix E (which is a whole section providing guidance on factors to consider in risk assessments for changing the front colour when a unit is retrofitted with compliant lamps)

In any suitable and sufficient risk assessment, it will be beneficial to consider:

a) All operating conditions likely to be experienced by that train.​

b) The impact on the safety of railway workers, passengers and members of the public.​

c) The impact on safety at level crossings.​

d) The effect of front end colour on the perceived position of a stationary train when a driver is undertaking a permissive move into a platform already occupied by another unit.​

e) Reliability and maintenance of the head lamps.​

​

It also refers to CSM RA (common safety method for risk assessment - which I'm sure if read will reveal exactly how these are carried out to determine risk and what the acceptable thresholds are but I haven't read it!) and Appendix F of the standard gives some guidance on the risk assessment process - again quoting from it:

The following factors are deemed to have an impact on the effectiveness of head lamps and are useful to consider in a risk assessment when a change in head lamp type is considered. The list is not exhaustive. These factors can be considered where appropriate and additional factors included if necessary.
...
e) Frequency of level crossings:

i) Lines with more level crossings will be more exposed to the risk associated with those level crossings. Head lamps are one of the measures to control that risk and the type (luminous intensity) of head lamp will affect the level of risk exposure.​

f) Level crossings:

i) A change in head lamps will have a greater effect on level crossing types which rely on the user seeing the train, such as footpath crossings and user worked crossings, particularly where miniature warning lights or telephones are not provided.​

ii) How often a level crossing is used as this affects the risk exposure, therefore it is a key consideration in the assessment.​

iii) This could potentially have a large effect on the risk at a level crossing but will be difficult to quantify so a qualitative assessment instead can aid the decision making process​

Now admittedly both cases refer to retrofitting a train with the upgraded lights and then ditching the yellow front rather than completely new build, but the thoughts behind it will be the same I'm sure. That said, I personally am unconvinced that if you have a unit with the compliant lights (especially the BMAC units as fitted to Hitachi and CAF stock), painting the front yellow will make any sort of tangible improvement to the visibility of the train at Level Crossings, but the RSSB evidently do.

 

[furnessvale]

Now admittedly both cases refer to retrofitting a train with the upgraded lights and then ditching the yellow front rather than completely new build, but the thoughts behind it will be the same I'm sure. That said, I personally am unconvinced that if you have a unit with the compliant lights (especially the BMAC units as fitted to Hitachi and CAF stock), painting the front yellow will make any sort of tangible improvement to the visibility of the train at Level Crossings, but the RSSB evidently do.

Just a thought. Can a unit with a yellow front end "limp" home if the headlights fail? Would a train without a yellow front be a complete failure and have to be taken out of service if its "bright" headlights failed?

If so, not only is removal of the yellow front taking away an existing safety feature for no good reason, it is adding to potential failure modes.

 

[PG]

That said, I personally am unconvinced that if you have a unit with the compliant lights (especially the BMAC units as fitted to Hitachi and CAF stock), painting the front yellow will make any sort of tangible improvement to the visibility of the train at Level Crossings, but the RSSB evidently do.

I'd be of the same opinion as you, however as you say RSSB evidently do.

Thanks for those links.

 

[themiller]

Just a thought. Can a unit with a yellow front end "limp" home if the headlights fail? Would a train without a yellow front be a complete failure and have to be taken out of service if its "bright" headlights failed?

If so, not only is removal of the yellow front taking away an existing safety feature for no good reason, it is adding to potential failure modes.

The front end has marker lights and two high intensity lights. Only one of the latter is illuminated at any time with the other acting as a backup. The chances of both being defective is extremely small. If both have failed, there are still the maker lights to give positional information to a track worker with the unit/loco running at reduced speed. On the subject of yellow ends, I’ve seen a train that’s hit so many flies on its journey that the yellow panel is almost invisible. Add to that the conventional lights on older trains and the first thing that you’re likely to notice is the track vibration or the bulk of the front end.

 

[TRAX]

I think it is fair to say that the RATP was a big fan of the anthracite grey front ends, and obviously they did it at a time when that style was fresh.

Yes indeed, and they are still doing it on all their railway stock (not just the metro), and SNCF do it too.

 

[50039]

Much of the yellow has gone from the new LNWR 350 livery - just the gangway doors now

 

[Domh245]

Just on that, whilst it's obviously a large reduction on the 350/1s, it's not actually that much of a reduction on the /2 and /3s which previously had split black/yellow doors. With some rough approximation based on a front-on image of a unit, it's only about a 15% reduction in the size of the yellow area, but it is also a single uninterrupted piece, rather than one punctuated by the lights/gangway rubbing plates, etc

 

[50039]

Just on that, whilst it's obviously a large reduction on the 350/1s, it's not actually that much of a reduction on the /2 and /3s which previously had split black/yellow doors. With some rough approximation based on a front-on image of a unit, it's only about a 15% reduction in the size of the yellow area, but it is also a single uninterrupted piece, rather than one punctuated by the lights/gangway rubbing plates, etc

True - but the previous ‘outer’ yellow wrapped around the sides, so it seemed more..

 

[irish_rail]

What gets me with black ends is I've had, on occasion terrible sunlight reflection off the black front of xrail stuff which temporarily dazzles me. Not good when approaching a red signal. But I suppose looks are what counts nowadays (tho in my opinion black fronts look terrible anyway!)