Yellow fronts on trains

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

trentside

Established Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
14 Aug 2010
Messages
3,310
Location
The back cab
I recently read an article that suggested that when LU devised their new corporate livery, the railways inspectorate were unsure whether they should be made to adopt yellow fronts. They were persuaded otherwise thanks to the high intensity headlights fitted to the 1967 Stock.
 

Tiny Tim

Member
Joined
6 Jan 2012
Messages
463
Location
Devizes, Wiltshire.
Even Tornado is exempted from bearing a yellow front, and (as a new build) doesn't have 'grandfather rights'. It was deemed (by God knows who) that it wasn't appropriate for a steam loco, heritage or not.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,926
The rationale for yellow fronts does not apply to steam engines since they are far easier to see and hear coming than a diesel or an electric (which is where the thing comes from originally, WCML electrification, as I understand it).
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
23,428
No trains actually require 'yellow fronts'. All they need is a one square metre area of yellow, with a minimum dimension of 600 mm.

I doubt LU headlights make the main or only difference, because main line trains also require high intensity headlights nowadays, as well as their yellow patch. Dozens of derogations from group standards exist for LU stock, as a search on the RGS website shows, but an explicit statement on yellow panels is proving difficult to find. One possible reason I've read about over the years is that a combination of the low speed operation of LU trains, combined with different local rules for track access during operating hours was behind their derogation.

In the case of Tornado, there is a whole raft of derogations, including the yellow front, but unfortunately only the covering letter is available online, the appendices are not:

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Deviations/Derogation/05-150-DGN.pdf

This find was prompted by info on a1steam's website here:

http://www.a1steam.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=69&Itemid=101
 
Joined
7 Jan 2010
Messages
231
As a side note, does anyone know why some of the 395's have had the lower valance pods painted yellow after original build?

I assumed it was a mod as the % of yellow on the front wasn't enough but only some of the units have had it done.
 

mole90

Member
Joined
2 Oct 2011
Messages
15
Location
Gravesend
As a side note, does anyone know why some of the 395's have had the lower valance pods painted yellow after original build?

I assumed it was a mod as the % of yellow on the front wasn't enough but only some of the units have had it done.

I believe they've all been updated now - it signifies the end which has the disabled/easy access toilet.
 

Essexman

Member
Joined
15 Mar 2011
Messages
1,115
Question is, if trains have to have a yellow front, why don't cars have to be bright colours - there is far more chance of a collision and far more need for cars to be visible. THey current trend of many grey or silver cars must lead to accidents as these are far less visible than say bright red ones.

Answer is - government don't dare dictate colour to car users - what would likes of Jeremy Clarkson say.
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,393
Location
Between the parallel lines
Question is, if trains have to have a yellow front, why don't cars have to be bright colours - there is far more chance of a collision and far more need for cars to be visible. THey current trend of many grey or silver cars must lead to accidents as these are far less visible than say bright red ones.

Answer is - government don't dare dictate colour to car users - what would likes of Jeremy Clarkson say.

Henry Ford supposedly said that the Model T could only be ordered in black. I don't recall anyone complaining bitterly (whether or not this was an urban myth) about the cruelty of his statement.

Nowadays low-end economy cars and even luxury marques' base models have few colours available.

Restrictions like this may seem boring, draconian or something like this, but at the end of the day, many people don't really mind, except for heritage reasons.

Therefore, perhaps there would be a little less than the forecasted furore if cars had to be painted with extra reflective exterior trim, à la reflective jackets, or even in brighter colours, as you suggest.

It's a little off topic, but it might be interesting to consider. Cyclists wearing EN471 clothing are obviously more visible and probably safer in many situations, so the same logic possibly applies.
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,666
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
Henry Ford supposedly said that the Model T could only be ordered in black. I don't recall anyone complaining bitterly (whether or not this was an urban myth) about the cruelty of his statement.
It is an urban myth.
IIRC, you couldn't get them in black initially.

It's a little off topic, but it might be interesting to consider. Cyclists wearing EN471 clothing are obviously more visible and probably safer in many situations, so the same logic possibly applies.

Not always true.

When I was driving, one evening last week, I nearly moved away from a bus stop into a cyclist because I couldn't see him in my mirrors. He was wearing a load of high vis clothes. However, because he had no lights, I wasn't able to see him until he was next to me.
High vis makes a difference, but it's useless with no lights on the bike.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,507
Location
UK
With cars now having daylight running lights, hopefully we'll see an improvement in road safety. As for cyclists - if they don't have lights, then they've got a death wish. These 'ninjas' should wise up, given how vulnerable they are.

Given the recent weeks of bad weather, I've been unfortunate enough to drive on motorways with some rather varied road surfaces, such that some stretches suffer from far more spray than others. The amount of silver/grey cars driving without lights that almost disappear is amazing - and I can't believe these motorists don't put on their lights (presumably the ones that think the lights are only to help them see). Oh, and then there are the others that think that when it rains you put full beam on and fog lights... thank goodness we have stricter tests for train drivers!

Given the shape of most cars, I doubt painting the bonnet yellow would make much difference - but lights definitely do.
 
Joined
27 Feb 2007
Messages
276
why don't cars have to be bright colours - there is far more chance of a collision and far more need for cars to be visible...Answer is - government don't dare dictate colour to car users - what would likes of Jeremy Clarkson say.

...but then cars are rather better placed to manoeuvre to avoid a collision. Not much grounds to parade the chip on one's shoulder methinks...
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
4,392
Location
Nottingham
Question is, if trains have to have a yellow front, why don't cars have to be bright colours - there is far more chance of a collision and far more need for cars to be visible. THey current trend of many grey or silver cars must lead to accidents as these are far less visible than say bright red ones.

Maybe because yellow pannels are nothing to do with collisions and more to do with the safety of network rail staff, whereas in most cases when work is being done on a road, the road (or lane on a motorway) will be closed?

And with regards to lights, I'm not a fan of side lights. If conditions are such that you are scared you cant be see/cant see others without lights. you may as well put full lights on (not full beam obviously) and make sure you can be seen :)
 

tsr

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2011
Messages
7,393
Location
Between the parallel lines
It is an urban myth.

I thought it might be. I still don't recall anyone publicly deriding said statement as particularly unjust.

Not always true.

When I was driving, one evening last week, I nearly moved away from a bus stop into a cyclist because I couldn't see him in my mirrors. He was wearing a load of high vis clothes. However, because he had no lights, I wasn't able to see him until he was next to me.
High vis makes a difference, but it's useless with no lights on the bike.

No, quite. But hi-vis clothing can be a useful safety improvement in many situations, when laws and precautions are also taken seriously. I will happily advise or vent polite but vigorous fury on (depending on the situation) any cyclist without working lights where these are needed - I am happy to say that on the frequent occasions when I cycle, I do always use lights as required by both relevant laws and the conditions.

With cars now having daylight running lights, hopefully we'll see an improvement in road safety. As for cyclists - if they don't have lights, then they've got a death wish. These 'ninjas' should wise up, given how vulnerable they are.

Given the recent weeks of bad weather, I've been unfortunate enough to drive on motorways with some rather varied road surfaces, such that some stretches suffer from far more spray than others. The amount of silver/grey cars driving without lights that almost disappear is amazing - and I can't believe these motorists don't put on their lights (presumably the ones that think the lights are only to help them see). Oh, and then there are the others that think that when it rains you put full beam on and fog lights... thank goodness we have stricter tests for train drivers!

I agree with what you say, except for your point about daylight running lights. I find these incredibly distracting and way too bright to be used in most normal conditions in daylight hours - just as distracting as fog lights being used in conditions as good visibility - but that's just how my brain works, I suppose.

Given the shape of most cars, I doubt painting the bonnet yellow would make much difference - but lights definitely do.

No, indeed - I was sort of suggesting painting the whole car in a more visible colour, or perhaps adding larger amounts of bright or reflective trim than the reflectors specified currently.

Maybe because yellow panels are nothing to do with collisions and more to do with the safety of network rail staff, whereas in most cases when work is being done on a road, the road (or lane on a motorway) will be closed?

I can think of a number of situations where workers have to enter live carriageway areas. Enhanced vehicle visibility would be welcomed in these scenarios. These include:

- Manual snow clearance and gritting in confined areas of road
- Management of some road signs and cone layouts where working within a barriered zone is not possible
- Debris clearance
- Emergency maintenance involving mobile works vehicles
- Some manual traffic direction situations

And with regards to lights, I'm not a fan of side lights. If conditions are such that you are scared you can't be see/can't see others without lights, you may as well put full lights on (not full beam obviously) and make sure you can be seen :)

Your point is very often valid, but sidelights may be useful just after dawn or before dusk, and may be useful for drivers without parking light controls on their vehicles (which is, admittedly, a slightly different situation).

Some vehicles on the roads do not have sidelights - a few models of milk floats spring to mind! ;)
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,926
Maybe because yellow pannels are nothing to do with collisions and more to do with the safety of network rail staff, whereas in most cases when work is being done on a road, the road (or lane on a motorway) will be closed?

Once I saw a council workman running on and off a road while it was open to traffic, each time dumping a shoveload of tarmac into a pothole.

IT was a little ridiculous, but he obviously couldn't tamp it properly so it did not last long.
 

Essexman

Member
Joined
15 Mar 2011
Messages
1,115
I know the yellow fronts on trains are mainly for benefit of track workers rather than to stop trains bumping into each other, but cars collide both with each other and with pedestrians. From experience of driving and walking I find that brightly coloured cars are easier to see than grey or silver ones, especially in poor weather. Millions are spent on the railways to improve safety but having all cars painted in bright colours would cost nothing - it just wouldn't be accepted by the public.
 

PTF62

Member
Joined
26 Jun 2008
Messages
192
Millions are spent on the railways to improve safety but having all cars painted in bright colours would cost nothing - it just wouldn't be accepted by the public.

The new problem is the 'silent killers', the electric and hybrid cars. Lethal to the partially sighted and damned dangerous to cyclists (they sneak up behind).

And despite the obvious dangers, the manufacturers of these cars are behaving like the tobacco companies and refusing to implement solutions unless forced to by legislation. Buy a new Toyota Prius in the US and it makes a noise when on the move. Buy one in Europe and it doesn't.
 

dcd

Member
Joined
28 Jan 2011
Messages
525
Location
Romsey
I agree with what you say, except for your point about daylight running lights. I find these incredibly distracting and way too bright to be used in most normal conditions in daylight hours - just as distracting as fog lights being used in conditions as good visibility - but that's just how my brain works, I suppose.

Using fog lights when visibility is not bad is illegal see highway code


236
You MUST NOT use front or rear fog lights unless visibility is seriously reduced (see Rule 226) as they dazzle other road users and can obscure your brake lights. You MUST switch them off when visibility improves.
[Law RVLR regs 25 & 27]
 

90019

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2008
Messages
6,666
Location
Edinburgh/Leeds
having all cars painted in bright colours would cost nothing

How did you work that one out then?

Have you ever seen how much it costs to paint a car properly?

The new problem is the 'silent killers', the electric and hybrid cars. Lethal to the partially sighted and damned dangerous to cyclists (they sneak up behind).

[youtube]NwbxqPuzmBE[/youtube]

:D
 

Phil6219

Member
Joined
15 Jul 2011
Messages
578
Location
Manchester, UK
Good! Whatever it takes to get the damned things off the road.

The noisemakers are banned due to noise abatement, not the hybrids - unfortunately.

I'm all for running lights given that I was nearly mowed down a few years ago by someone driving a silver people carrier pulling out of a petrol station in the twilight hours - it was only because I always look back again when starting to cross that I saw hew come flying out with no lights on.

Phil 8-)
 

ex-railwayman

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2012
Messages
159
Location
East Midlands
All steam locos is a good example of "grandfather rights" exemption

Hmm, one would hesitate to logically think which part of many steam locomotives would have been painted yellow, not only mainline ones, but, Jinty's and other smaller engines, there is no area big enough to paint to warn anyone in the distance on a lot of these models, which all had different front ends to them, would be one obvious reason, the boiler door for example, which would be just a blob in the distance, to any track worker, and a few later steamers had large smoke deflectors, which may obstruct the headlong view at an angle, and a few engines had very high chimneys, would you have to paint these as well, don't forget many steam locomotives came in different liveries, Brunswick Green, Maroon, Blue, Black, GWR Green, Grey, you couldn't decimate these with complete yellow ends, and I very much doubt that anyone could possibly agree to paint the whole of the front of a Duchess or A4 Pacific, etc, canary yellow, they'd be damn well hung......;)

Cheerz. ex-railwayman.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top