Sunday 20 December 2009

Full frontal

The emergence of Britain's first mainline diesel locomotives in 1947 presented a whole new challenge for the designers -- what livery should they wear?


The London Midland & Scottish Railway (for they were the first), rolled-out their glorious Number 10000 in shiny black, with a brushed aluminium band running around at waist-height, and burnished aluminium for the company's initials and the number.


The Southern Railway followed suit, their three prototype engines (10201-3) having the same shiny black paintwork and aluminium detailing:


It worked: these machines looked like nothing else on the railway, and their liveries reeked of modernity. But they were prototypes and, when production versions appeared, British Railways decided to paint them in their standard express colour, Brunswick Green:


The problem was that these machines tended to be faster than the steam engines they replaced, and they also tended to be much quieter. They didn't emit the tell-tale plumes of steam and smoke to warn of their approach.


For the gangs of men working on the track, the railway was becoming a much more dangerous place -- these new machines were hard to see.


The problem can be seen in the next picture -- since most of the railway was anyway coated with a layer of oily grime, everything starts to blend into the background:


The problem was particularly acute with the freight stock -- this is, unbelievably, a green Class 20:


Here's another 20, alongside another green/grunge-coloured locomotive -- but that one is sporting a yellow painted panel on its front, and notice how your eye is dragged to it:


This gorgeous Class 37, in as-supplied livery, doesn't look too inconspicuous.


And a number of experimental liveries were tested -- here a Western sits in desert sand:


Whereas most Class 31s (or "Brush Type 2s") were delivered looking like this:


A pair was delivered in an experimental livery, designed to test whether they were more visible. They sported "golden ochre" (a colour sometimes known on the railways, perhaps perversely, as "Stroudley's Improved Engine Green"):


Incidentally, that colour (or, rather, a slightly muted version of it) was the principle livery of the independent Midland & Great Northern Railway for much of its life.

Eventually, action was taken. Here's what the Blue Pullman looked like when it was introduced:


And here it is, sporting the standard solution to the problem of relative invisibility:


More subtle variations were tested on the journey to the full-yellow end, including these rather dashing "speed whiskers":


But soon multiple units were also kitted-out in full yellow ends -- here a Class 105 shows off the look.



Safety was then embedded in regulation, and since the 1960s all British mainline trains have to have significant areas of bright yellow paint on their front ends:


To this day, all rolling stock sports the yellow patch:


But no-one splashed on as much yellow as BR -- here a Class 37 and a Western sit side-by-side:


A pair of studies show contrasting treatments of a High Speed Train -- the first is British Rail's original livery design:


And here's how now-defunct private operate GNER met the regulations:


A full-frontal of a delightful Class 37:


The regulations only apply to mainline railways, and other operators have different rules -- London Underground, for example, paints a red warning panel on the front of its rolling stock:


Not very subtle, and here's how the trains designed to replace those will look:


The same rolling stock, on test:


But on the mainline the rules remain unchanged, which is why even the Eurostar has to sport a significant chunk of yellow on its nose:


The fact is, modern high speed trains operate at such speeds that the yellow is pointless -- there is insufficient reaction time to get out of the way, even if you do see the train approaching.


But the regulations remain in place, and it is now difficult to imagine British trains without their familiar yellow fronts.

3 comments:

Lee said...

Do you have any information about what caused those trains to stall in the Channel tunnel? What a nightmare for the people on board. Until this the tunnel seemed like a good idea, but perhaps they should have built a bridge instead.

LeDuc said...

No more information than anyone else. It does seem strange -- there have been electric trains running into looong tunnels in areas plagued by severe winters for a long time (the Alps, anyone?).

One theory I've read is that snow is blocking ventilation grilles around cooling equipment, and that equipment is only needed when the train enters the tunnels where ambient temperatures are 20C (although this was a problem more than a decade ago, and I think they now use different grilles in winter).

Another theory suggests it's more likely to be condensation caused by the humid tunnel air, which then knackers the electronics.

I wouldn't let it destroy your faith in the system. Compared to the non-availability of air routes, Eurostar is vastly more reliable. And a bridge is a much, much worse idea -- the English Channel has some of the worst weather conditions in Europe. In a ferocious wind I'd rather be in a tunnel underneath than on a bridge in the middle of it.

Uncutplus said...

"Full frontal" . . . indeed! Just imagine when I am reviewing the labels of your posts sometime in the future - and I click on "Full frontal" and what I get is the bright yellow of the latest locomotive! But I DO LIKE trains, too.

You do have a way with double entendre, so I am sure you meant to mislead us into seeing a smallish weenie instead of a massive machine.

David