Locomotive Cab Specifications - Minimum Driver Head Height

[lehomme]

Hello all,

Does anyone know where I can find any technical specifications for locomotive cabs?

Specifically, I would like to know if there is any minimum height that the driver's head must be. Obviously, the higher they are, the further ahead they can see, but I'm guessing that the gradients you find on the railway lines are not sufficient to cause blind crests, even if their head is only a metre from the top of the rail.

Strange question, I know, but I'm sure it's not the first one on this forum!

Thanks!

 

[Rugd1022]

As long as I've been on the railway I've never heard of any 'minimum height' rule, but I can say that there are several 'blind crests' on gradients, two on my route card which spring to mind are the top of the Lickey and the Fast Lines summit at Sharnbrook on the Midland Mainline

 

[Ploughman]

Another situation would be dips at overline structures.
The taller you are the less you see ahead.

I think that signal sighting would be more an indicator for the determination of a drivers eyeline.

Besides which, as in any road vehicle, seats are adjustable for height aren't they?

 

[edwin_m]

GE/RT8037 (linked from below) says that the driver's eye level is assumed to be 2.75m above rail for signal sighting purposes. On a quick search I can't find a standard that actually defines the driving position.

http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Railway_...CTID=0x0120004056689ED395F341BD318CF79DEDFD63

 

[lehomme]

Okay, so the theory behind this question was that I was imagining a (very) streamlined train front end, almost like the Pink Panther's car, though behind a windscreen obviously. I guess the driver's head would be at buffer height. Would the visibility at this height be a problem?

 

[GB]

To be honest, at buffer height I don't think the driver would have a good field of view but more importantly, would put him/her in a much greater danger in the event of a collision.

 

[asylumxl]

There isn't really a regulation for driver height, but rather a minimum distance they must be able to see with a normal human field of view.



i seem to remember it being 10m ahead at rail level and 2.5m each side at rail level.

 

[bronzeonion]

Slightly off topic, but regarding visibility from the cab. How on earth will the driver see his shunter on the ground or guard/shunter on the platform when coupling up on the new Class 68? Same problem with propelling, how will the driver lean out whilst driving?

 

[455driver]

Slightly off topic, but regarding visibility from the cab. How on earth will the driver see his shunter on the ground or guard/shunter on the platform when coupling up on the new Class 68? Same problem with propelling, how will the driver lean out whilst driving?

Form over function!

TBH on most modern units it isnt easy to drive and stick your head out the window to see.

 

[bronzeonion]

Form over function!

TBH on most modern units it isnt easy to drive and stick your head out the window to see.

That's true, your 455's look alright but the 450's?! I would've thought being able to do that on a locomotive though would be important enough for them to have thought about.

 

[edwin_m]

The "nose" on the latest stock is intended to incorporate some energy absorption, so I would say it is a case of safety over both form and function. Wouldn't make a lot of difference in a train-to-train collision but would probably be good to have if hitting a truck on a level crossing. And from a visibility point of view surely no worse than the noses on class 37 etc?

Wouldn't the shunter stand off to one side somewhere with a good view both from the cab and to the couplings, and guide the driver by hand signals?

 

[455driver]

The driver still needs to be able to look back and a small drop window (in the right place) isnt that complicated to design in at an early stage is it?

 

[bronzeonion]

The "nose" on the latest stock is intended to incorporate some energy absorption, so I would say it is a case of safety over both form and function. Wouldn't make a lot of difference in a train-to-train collision but would probably be good to have if hitting a truck on a level crossing. And from a visibility point of view surely no worse than the noses on class 37 etc?

Wouldn't the shunter stand off to one side somewhere with a good view both from the cab and to the couplings, and guide the driver by hand signals?

The nose is not the problem, the problem is where the driver is sat and where the windows are!

Coupling up a loco to something, the driver would normally lean out of the window following the shunters hand signals.

 

[BantamMenace]

If we have parking sensors and reversing cameras on cars these days have they never been thought of adaption for fitting on locos?