Why do British steam locomotives have small headlights, or none at all?

[pdkoester]

Since I have always lived in the United States, I never really gave much thought to the reason why there are no headlights or tiny lights on British steam engines. I did a simple AI search from Google. This is what it generated:

British steam engines often had small headlights, or even lacked them entirely, because the majority of British railway tracks were fenced off, meaning there was less need for a powerful headlight to warn pedestrians or road traffic as people couldn't readily access the tracks; this practice was established early on in railway development when effective headlights were not widely available, and the noise of the steam engine itself provided sufficient warning.

Seems like a lot of problems would be avoided if they would fence off the majority of railway tracks here. Probably will never happen in my lifetime, since it hasn't been a big thing brought over here.

I was just curious why the British steamers were so dim on headlight power, which I noticed thanks to Trainz.

The Flying Scotsman looked so different when it toured over here:

 

[marmalade32]

I always wondered that as well. Big american steamers here had large bulky headlights whilst britain had small ones. A good chunk being walled/fenced off now explains the fence in rosworth wale.

 

[UP5521]

The same thing applies to bells as another warning communication signal that is rarely used and seen on them as again, as someone else pointed out, the railroad on their side of the pond has the tracks fenced off, American, Canadian built steam engines carried both the headlight and bell since there is a operating rule under US Law that requires them, which is quite different to the rest of the world and their operating practices, although if I were to point out one thing that has not changed is the use of whistles but the codes depending on where you are, varies, the flying Scotsman is a fine example of that when she visited the USA from England on tour, you can clearly see the other whistle which happens to be a Southern railroad 3-chime and the warning bell, those were added prior.

 

[pdkoester]

I am guessing that is also why the whistle on steam engines are so different between the two areas, too.

 

[KotangaGirl]

The Flying Scotsman looked so different when it toured over here:

The 'Flying Scotsman' was specially modified with a head lamp and a bell to conform to American regulations.

I was just curious why the British steamers were so dim on headlight power

Because they aren't headlights. They are marker lamps to identify the class and type of train coupled behind the locomotive. Round while discs were used by some lines during daylight hours for the same purpose. For suburban passenger trains there were often special lamp and disc codes to denote the train's destination.

 

[pware]

I am always puzzled by why locos bother with having headlights (real ones). From the drivers point of view they would only illuminate a very limited distance ahead of the train (and none at all on a curve). Far too short a distance to be able to stop a speeding train if the driver spots a broken rail, or an obstruction on the track.

The only practical application that I can think of is to potentially warn others of the approaching train. But when you consider the number of cars that are hit by trains on crossings in broad daylight, even protected crossings, then one wonders if anything would be effective.

 

[wreeder]

I think in North America, it was less about the engineer being able to see and more about the train being seen by people and more importantly by animals. Much the same reason why North American locomotives had cow catchers and British locomotives did not. As cited above, British tracks were properly fenced off from the surrounding fields and level crossings while they existed, seem to be rarer with bridges being a more common way to get road traffic over tracks and for that matter over canals. Here outside of the bigger cities, tracks met roads at level crossings sometimes protected with gates, flashing lights and clanking bells but often with nothing more than a sign urging the driver to "Stop, Look and Listen". My childhood was filled with scary tales of ghost trains and fire breathing monsters that instilled a respect for the dangers surrounding trains that survives to this day.

 

[Enkidoh]

The reason for the discrepenacy between the UK and the US (and other countries) as to why the UK fenced their railway lines off completely where as the US and elsewhere didn't was simple pragmatism. The UK is a relatively small island nation that had rather large population centres reasonably close to each other and little in the way of true 'wild open spaces' (at least by the time the railways came), where as the US had a lot of ground to cover, that was mostly open plains with relatively few people scattered. It simply wasn't cost effective to fence in large stretches of track that might see a train once a week if that. So US locomotives had to protect those that might stray onto the track instead in the form of not only large headlights, but marker lights, loud deep whistles and bells, and the distinctive cowcatchers/pilot covers at the front.

The UK's obsessiveness with fencing off their railways entirelly might have also come about due to a notorious incident in the early history of railways - aka, the death of William Huskisson during the opening of the Liverpool to Manchester Railway where he innocently strode onto the track right into the path of the Rocket and had his leg crushed. Although it was his own fault, given Huskisson was a politician and a Member of Parliament, the UK government of the time probably sought to avoid any further tragedies and thus mandated the entire fencing off of all railway lines. The US probably decided on a more pragmatic solution and so insisted instead of adding cowcatchers to locomotives to reduce the risk of being dragged under the train if a person happened to stray into a train's path, and permenantly mounted headlights and bells and loud whistles as warning devices.

 

[pware]

permenantly mounted headlights and bells and loud whistles as warning devices

I am surprised that they did not insist on a man carrying a red flag walking in front of the locomotive as it travelled along the tracks

 

[wreeder]

I don't think the English love of fences and rock walls had much to do with the railroads. They were very fond of enclosing their property long before railroads were built.

English Enclosure Movement

 

[pfx]

UK loco lights weren't for illuminating the track ahead, but indicated the type of train. Ordinarily there would be three lamps on the solebar and one above the smokebox. Depending which ones were lit, would identify the type of train to railway staff, particularly signalling staff so they knew the right train was passing. As an example, the left and right lamp illuminated on the solebar would denote an express passenger train, whereas the lamp above the smokebox illuminated denotes a stopping passenger train.

Drivers navigated the lines using route knowledge, they'd know exactly where they were using visual indicators, something that would be far easier on the shorter distance travelled in the UK than it would be on US railroads.

 

[pdkoester]

I think in North America, it was less about the engineer being able to see and more about the train being seen by people and more importantly by animals. Much the same reason why North American locomotives had cow catchers and British locomotives did not. As cited above, British tracks were properly fenced off from the surrounding fields and level crossings while they existed, seem to be rarer with bridges being a more common way to get road traffic over tracks and for that matter over canals. Here outside of the bigger cities, tracks met roads at level crossings sometimes protected with gates, flashing lights and clanking bells but often with nothing more than a sign urging the driver to "Stop, Look and Listen". My childhood was filled with scary tales of ghost trains and fire breathing monsters that instilled a respect for the dangers surrounding trains that survives to this day.

Yes, the Gyralite on the Southern Pacific railroad for trains that are coming, and a red one for emergency indications:

 

[norfolksouthern37]

Consider that when British railways were built, the country was populated, fences, hedges etc were common to mark boundaries and already had been for some time.

When the railroads were made here in the USA and Canada there was almost NOTHING. The land is typically far more vast and expansive and harsh than a European has ever even considered. building the fence itself would be an engineering marvel and feat let alone the railroad. So we went with large illuminating lamps and structures on the locomotives designed to knock things out of the way if they get hit. I would venture to say railroading is almost an entirely different thing here than it is there.

 

[TSwenson]

I to will chime in on the geographic and social/population differences between the US & Canada and the UK & Europe. It is rather difficult for our European friends to comprehend just how vast the US and Canada is compared to Europe (Heck it's sometimes hard for folks from the US to understand how bi Canada is). However, it is not until folks from Europe are here that they do realize just how darn big the US is. It is eye opening dealing with European tourists, they are constantly amazed by how LONG it takes to get places (and not to get into the car centric nature of the US, or the kilometer/mile issue). For reference, the UK is 94.354 square miles with a population density of 727.8/sqmi, while New England (the best know similarly sized region) is 71,987 sqmi with a population density of 210/sqmi. Take this further and compare Scotland to Maine (where I reside) an the differences become even more drastic, Scotland is 30977 sqmi with a density of 181.3/sqmi, while Maine is 35385 sqmi with a density of 43.8/sqmi, big differences. Take the relatively old population of the UK compared to the relatively recent population of the US, and we have one one hand a society that has a rich ancient tradition compared to the "new" society of the US. Heck, Harvard University wont be as old as the University of Oxford was when Harvard was founded for another 121 years (2176).

When rail transport came about, the UK was a relatively small country that had been settled for centuries, while the new technology helped settle the US and Canada. In light of the vast differences, is it not sensible that there is a distinct difference in how the two go about doing things? A densely packed island versus a relatively empty continent... Yes sir, fenced right-of-way/permanent-way in the UK was probably inevitable from the beginning, with all the differences it spawns. In the "new world"... how about a nope on fences from a practicality stand point, add in some laissez-faire capitalism and the old manifest destiny, and that becomes a big fat nope. Even in relatively settled New England fencing right-of-way/permanent way wasn't/isn't a uniform thing, some areas are fenced, usually urban or agricultural (people or livestock), mostly for liability reasons. Many railroads actually do have some fencing in the US but it is usually the most basic, under maintained, and often hidden in lineside brush.

Now on to the lighting issue... at low speed a headlight is useful, its use is however, inversely proportional to speed. It seems to me that there were some decisions early on that steeply divided policy on headlight use. This is probably a whole discussion in it's self.

 

[Paulsw2]

Great explanation. Also worth adding, as someone suggested above, that the UK in the early 1800s was ending the period of 'the enclosures' when common land - which had been used for centuries by common folk - was turned into private property and fenced off by the land-owning aristocracy that dominated British social and economic life. Railway property was very quickly assigned as 'private property' and fenced off very much in line with this philosophy. There's a long tradition on Britain's railways of signage warning people about 'trespass' and invoking the railway bye-laws to fine people.

 

[TSwenson]

Great explanation. Also worth adding, as someone suggested above, that the UK in the early 1800s was ending the period of 'the enclosures' when common land - which had been used for centuries by common folk - was turned into private property and fenced off by the land-owning aristocracy that dominated British social and economic life. Railway property was very quickly assigned as 'private property' and fenced off very much in line with this philosophy. There's a long tradition on Britain's railways of signage warning people about 'trespass' and invoking the railway bye-laws to fine people.

I had forgotten that bit... It's been a couple decades since I poked around with that bit of British history, and I was reading about stonewalls back then and just happened to get a bit side tracked.
[EDIT] 35 years ago.... I did the math... and now I feel old...