Modern trains and modern lighting

[Journeyman]

I don't have an in-depth knowledge of 4 SUB electrical systems, but I would guess that they had 110V lamps in series groups of 6 run directly from the traction supply. So if one failed it would cut out 5 others, hardly half the lights in a carriage but maybe a quarter And I don't think it can be called a 'flawed design', it was just a logical way of doing things back in the day. But you raise an interesting question - did the higher third rail voltage in the units' later life cause more bulbs to pop?

No, two circuits per coach. No battery back up either.

 

[The exile]

Assuming that the OP was not referring to the difference between the brightest of normal lighting and the dimmest (not sure I've ever been on a Pendolino after dark...), the only services which I would consider suitable for a coach / plane style dimming of lights would be the seating portions of sleepers / other long-distance, limited stop overnight services - but even then with the proviso that the lighting level should return to normal for a period before and after each station stop.
However late at night / early in the morning they are, "normal" trains with many stops have a frequent coming and going completely incomparable with coach and air services. As I'm not one, I can't say much about the perceived feelings of security of women passengers, but I do know that if I were in a railway carriage with only one other passenger late at night, I'd rather be able to see their features clearly and be able to have a vague idea of what they were up to. As has already been mentioned, a plane has cabin crew and buttons to call them with (not to mention that if they only had two passengers, they'd be unlikely not to hear that someone was amiss) - a coach has a driver in the same "envelope". At a more practical level, it's much easier to ensure that you have got all your "bits and pieces" when you get off when there's proper lighting (and to ensure that someone else isn't helping themselves to your luggage). This is before we get into the realm of "trip hazards". At the very least, the light level should permit the reading of a ticket / safety notices etc without additional illumination. Doesn't have to have the quality of an interrogation cell, though.
That said, the most memorable overnight journey I had was when I realised that the back coach of the West Country - Scotland overnight (in its full-length days, so several miles down the platform, if even adjacent to it) was a BSO with the passenger accommodation at the very rear. Guard was using the one in the other portion - so "lights off" and enjoy 400+ miles entirely in the dark. Second most memorable was when the East German border guards didn't like the fact that our compartment lights would switch to "full on" - had to be suspicious....

 

[AM9]

No, two circuits per coach. No battery back up either.

I think that might be unlikely. The bulbs that were used were 'Rough Service' types that were designed to protect the filament from mechanical damage. Apart from additional mechanical support, the filament was also under run (which accounts for their much lower colour temperature that equivalent domestic quality bulbs), so they would cope with much higher over voltage surges and running supplies. don't forget that the move from 660VDC to a nominal 750VDC was a piecemeal process, and given that the first lines to have raised nominal voltages were by definition the heaviest used so that nominal voltage would frequently be much nearer the then standard of 660VDC.
Remember that the old EE507 fleet was pretty inefficient in energy terms compared to current rolling stock, so slightly less efficient internal lighting was not only lost in the use of series resistance control of the traction motors, but also the disruption from having to deal with lamp failures was a far greater cost.

 

[Journeyman]

I think that might be unlikely. The bulbs that were used were 'Rough Service' types that were designed to protect the filament from mechanical damage. Apart from additional mechanical support, the filament was also under run (which accounts for their much lower colour temperature that equivalent domestic quality bulbs), so they would cope with much higher over voltage surges and running supplies. don't forget that the move from 660VDC to a nominal 750VDC was a piecemeal process, and given that the first lines to have raised nominal voltages were by definition the heaviest used so that nominal voltage would frequently be much nearer the then standard of 660VDC.
Remember that the old EE507 fleet was pretty inefficient in energy terms compared to current rolling stock, so slightly less efficient internal lighting was not only lost in the use of series resistance control of the traction motors, but also the disruption from having to deal with lamp failures was a far greater cost.

The 4-SUBs, and all other non-mainline Southern Electric units prior to the EPBs, only had two lighting circuits per carriage, with specialised bulbs wired in series, operating at line voltage. It's widely documented in books.

 

[yorksrob]

And there I was thinking the point of taking a train was to get from location A to location B..

That's one of the trains selling points over air and car (at least for the driver).

 

[AM9]

The 4-SUBs, and all other non-mainline Southern Electric units prior to the EPBs, only had two lighting circuits per carriage, with specialised bulbs wired in series, operating at line voltage. It's widely documented in books.

I wasn't disagreeing with that, I was just alluding to the type of bulb in durability terms, i.e., low colour temperature and mechanically more rugged than a standard domestic incandescent type. It wasn't just the SR EMUs that had such poor lighting, my commuting experience was on MKI ac EMUs on the GEML, and those that wanted to read whilst travelling moaned when any bulbs failed and were relieved when a freshly outshopped unit came along when the white painted ceiling helped the inadequate lighting.
In more recent times, during commuting in Thumpers, it was amusing to see the lights breathe when the engine was on tickover. ISTR that the bulbe there were marked 85V which given that the thumpers were diesel electric, might have been the SR standard bulbs to which you refer.

 

[Journeyman]

I wasn't disagreeing with that, I was just alluding to the type of bulb in durability terms, i.e., low colour temperature and mechanically more rugged than a standard domestic incandescent type. It wasn't just the SR EMUs that had such poor lighting, my commuting experience was on MKI ac EMUs on the GEML, and those that wanted to read whilst travelling moaned when any bulbs failed and were relieved when a freshly outshopped unit came along when the white painted ceiling helped the inadequate lighting.
In more recent times, during commuting in Thumpers, it was amusing to see the lights breathe when the engine was on tickover. ISTR that the bulbe there were marked 85V which given that the thumpers were diesel electric, might have been the SR standard bulbs to which you refer.

Thumpers had their own non-standard bulbs. Most EMUs had 70v bulbs.

 

[yorksrob]

the light level should permit the reading of a ticket / safety notices etc without additional illumination. Doesn't have to have the quality of an interrogation cell, though.

Yes, that would seem to be a reasonable marker. One doesn't need to be in a floodlit carriage to achieve these.

I've been in many carriages with gentle lighting (including tungsten lit thumpers etc) and had no difficulty reading tickets, notices etc.

 

[Wolfie]

Yes, one couldn't step on a train in the 70/80's without being murdered in cold blood. That's why I'm not here - I'm actually a spectre, so can't hear any of your anti-real train diatribes.

"Real trains"? Really? How pathetic.

 

[yorksrob]

"Real trains"? Really? How pathetic.

Your post doesn't really add anything of value/interest.

 

[Journeyman]

Your post doesn't really add anything of value/interest.

Neither does reference to "real" trains, which just shows the completely out-of-touch opinions of enthusiasts who crave old junk that "normals" would nowadays refuse to travel on, for good reason.

 

[physics34]

I also find its am age thing. This will affect/annoy older people more. Not good if u suffer migraine or headaches.

 

[yorksrob]

Neither does reference to "real" trains, which just shows the completely out-of-touch opinions of enthusiasts who crave old junk that "normals" would nowadays refuse to travel on, for good reason.

And I've not seen any evidence to suggest that "normals" are eager to travel in harshly lit uncomfortably furnished train carriages.

Perhaps designers ought to learn a little from more softly furnished and gently lighted designs to come up with an interior that people actually feel comfortable in, for modern rolling stock.

 

[TheAlbanach_]

I suffer from headaches almost every day and migraines. I try and avoid travelling when it’s dark out because of how bright train interior lights are. It’s horrid. They don’t need to be that bright. Worst offender for me was the seated coach in the sleeper, there was a light shining down from the top of the window… who designed that and thought that was a good idea?!

 

[Journeyman]

And I've not seen any evidence to suggest that "normals" are eager to travel in harshly lit uncomfortably furnished train carriages.

Look at usage figures for the rail network over the last thirty years. Before COVID threw a spanner in the works, the numbers were going through the roof, and the introduction of new rolling stock often attracts new customers. The number of people using the Uckfield line, where ten-coach 171s now operate at peak periods, is a case in point. The Thumpers were, quite frankly, absolutely rancid, and however nice the lighting was in your opinion, they were driving customers away.

OK, there's a million and one variables involved, but there’s more than enough packed out IETs and Azumas out there to suggest the lighting isn't putting people off at all. It won't have even remotely crossed the minds of 99.999999% of customers (ditto underfloor engines).

I'm no great fan of the class 385s, which have fairly grim seats and poor window alignment, but since introduction, ScotRail have had absolutely no problem filling eight-car trains where previously six-car trains ran. I think the onus is on you to prove the lighting is putting people off. Clue: it isn't.

If you ask people why they don't use trains, the answers will be dominated by "they're too expensive", "they're not reliable enough" and "they're not convenient for me". Nowhere will you see "the lights are too bright".

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suffer from headaches almost every day and migraines. I try and avoid travelling when it’s dark out because of how bright train interior lights are. It’s horrid. They don’t need to be that bright. Worst offender for me was the seated coach in the sleeper, there was a light shining down from the top of the window… who designed that and thought that was a good idea?!

Unlike the other UK CAF kit the Mk5 and Mk5a coaches seem to have a European like interior, with e.g. the aircon inlets under the window. Lights on the windows are a similarly very European thing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2021 ==

FWIW I think the rest of the interior can make a huge difference. I find the GWR IET interior quite stark and it does feel over-lit. I don't find the same of the LNER interior, because the red seat covers and flecks of red in the carpet make for a warm feeling. TPE's dark blue sits somewhere in between.

I think we must surely all agree, though, that the FGW HST lighting was horrid - even fGW agreed as they were rapidly all set down to "dim" on a permanent basis.

 

[AM9]

Yes, that would seem to be a reasonable marker. One doesn't need to be in a floodlit carriage to achieve these.

I've been in many carriages with gentle lighting (including tungsten lit thumpers etc) and had no difficulty reading tickets, notices etc.

Assuming normal sight. There's plenty of people who aren't that lucky. As humans live longer, failing eyesight is one of those bodily functions that is now more an issue where previously, many would become less active or even died by their mid-seventies through other ailments. How many adults over 60 would struggle to read the small print on paper rail tickets in the gentle lighting that give you personally no problems?

 

[The exile]

Assuming normal sight. There's plenty of people who aren't that lucky. As humans live longer, failing eyesight is one of those bodily functions that is now more an issue where previously, many would become less active or even died by their mid-seventies through other ailments. How many adults over 60 would struggle to read the small print on paper rail tickets in the gentle lighting that give you personally no problems?

Although presumably most that would would have the means to do something about it (ie put their glasses on). Would have thought that in terms of "brightness" the minimum for train lighting should be similar to average domestic lighting levels - not what is appropriate for a " candlelight supper" but also not an operating theatre - and pose no additional problems for people with poorer eyesight than they might expect to encounter elsewhere.

 

[py_megapixel]

I think we must surely all agree, though, that the FGW HST lighting was horrid - even fGW agreed as they were rapidly all set down to "dim" on a permanent basis.

And "dim" actually means just turn off half of the fixtures, if I remember correctly... one of the many disadvantages of fluorescent tubes compared to a properly designed LED lighting system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although presumably most that would would have the means to do something about it (ie put their glasses on). Would have thought that in terms of "brightness" the minimum for train lighting should be similar to average domestic lighting levels - not what is appropriate for a " candlelight supper" but also not an operating theatre - and pose no additional problems for people with poorer eyesight than they might expect to encounter elsewhere.

And there are plenty of modern/modernish trains that do have that sort of lighting level (and a warmer hue) - Desiros, for example. Not dull, but not unpleasantly bright either. I'm sure I recall Aventras not being over-lit either, nor FLIRTs.

 

[AM9]

Although presumably most that would would have the means to do something about it (ie put their glasses on). Would have thought that in terms of "brightness" the minimum for train lighting should be similar to average domestic lighting levels - not what is appropriate for a " candlelight supper" but also not an operating theatre - and pose no additional problems for people with poorer eyesight than they might expect to encounter elsewhere.

I don't have the figures to hand but a domestic lighting levels are for a familiar surrounding and I suggest that those referring to that have their own idea of light levels at home based on their own eyesight. Public transport however has to cater for anybody who is capable of travelling and there are rightly requirements to ensure that levels are high enough for all users. Don't forget that the lower the light level, the wider the iris opens and consequently there can be problems for some in obtaining sharp focus.

 

[py_megapixel]

Public transport however has to cater for anybody who is capable of travelling and there are rightly requirements to ensure that levels are high enough for all users. Don't forget that the lower the light level, the wider the iris opens and consequently there can be problems for some in obtaining sharp focus.

On the contrary, though, for those who suffer with migraines can find bright lighting highly unpleasant. And those with various neurodiversity conditions it can be overstimulating, adding to stress that they may experience.

You can't satisfy everyone with one light level, which is why I suggest that a relatively dim level of lighting, plus reading lamps above each seats that can be turned on and off as the passenger wishes, are the solution. If safety is a particular concern, the lamps could be on by default and turned off by the passenger rather than the other way around.

 

[Bikeman78]

I think we must surely all agree, though, that the FGW HST lighting was horrid - even fGW agreed as they were rapidly all set down to "dim" on a permanent basis.

Yes that was the dawn of the bright light era and they were indeed switched to half lighting most of the time.

 

[AM9]

On the contrary, though, for those who suffer with migraines can find bright lighting highly unpleasant. And those with various neurodiversity conditions it can be overstimulating, adding to stress that they may experience.

You can't satisfy everyone with one light level, which is why I suggest that a relatively dim level of lighting, plus reading lamps above each seats that can be turned on and off as the passenger wishes, are the solution. If safety is a particular concern, the lamps could be on by default and turned off by the passenger rather than the other way around.

The simple fact is that if the light is too bright, fixing it is simple, - a passenger carries a pair of sunglasses of the appropriate darkness. No problem as they can be carried in a pocket, handbag or in the hand. If it is too dim to safely move into and through the coach, or to feel safe by being able to clearly see others, then the unfortunate passenger has to carry a torch. In terms of the requirement to see others clearly, that would be quite some torch.
Then there's the potential for conflict when shining a torch towards others causing all those who want to travel in a dingy cosy snug to object. If the passenger had anxiety problems travelling in poorly lit trains before, the threat and abuse that they might get from using their torch might drive them to staying at home forever.

 

[yorksrob]

Look at usage figures for the rail network over the last thirty years. Before COVID threw a spanner in the works, the numbers were going through the roof, and the introduction of new rolling stock often attracts new customers. The number of people using the Uckfield line, where ten-coach 171s now operate at peak periods, is a case in point. The Thumpers were, quite frankly, absolutely rancid, and however nice the lighting was in your opinion, they were driving customers away.

OK, there's a million and one variables involved, but there’s more than enough packed out IETs and Azumas out there to suggest the lighting isn't putting people off at all. It won't have even remotely crossed the minds of 99.999999% of customers (ditto underfloor engines).

I'm no great fan of the class 385s, which have fairly grim seats and poor window alignment, but since introduction, ScotRail have had absolutely no problem filling eight-car trains where previously six-car trains ran. I think the onus is on you to prove the lighting is putting people off. Clue: it isn't.

If you ask people why they don't use trains, the answers will be dominated by "they're too expensive", "they're not reliable enough" and "they're not convenient for me". Nowhere will you see "the lights are too bright".

It helps that the 171's were built before the propensity for bright lighting and hard seats.

But as you say, cost and reliability are the main considerations for people booking train travel. That doesn't mean to say that they're satisfied with uncomfortable rolling stock.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2021 ==

Assuming normal sight. There's plenty of people who aren't that lucky. As humans live longer, failing eyesight is one of those bodily functions that is now more an issue where previously, many would become less active or even died by their mid-seventies through other ailments. How many adults over 60 would struggle to read the small print on paper rail tickets in the gentle lighting that give you personally no problems?

That assumes that they want to sit in a clinically bright environment. The elderly people I know prefer an environment that I would find dimly lit.

 

[AM9]

It helps that the 171's were built before the propensity for bright lighting and hard seats.

But as you say, cost and reliability are the main considerations for people booking train travel. That doesn't mean to say that they're satisfied with uncomfortable rolling stock.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2021 ==



That assumes that they want to sit in a clinically bright environment. The elderly people I know prefer an environment that I would find dimly lit.

Well anecdotes from anybody here prove nothing (even though I am 'elderly'). But the legal requirement is defined and new rolling stock will continue to adhere to it.

 

[Bikeman78]

The simple fact is that if the light is too bright, fixing it is simple, - a passenger carries a pair of sunglasses of the appropriate darkness. No problem as they can be carried in a pocket, handbag or in the hand. If it is too dim to safely move into and through the coach, or to feel safe by being able to clearly see others, then the unfortunate passenger has to carry a torch. In terms of the requirement to see others clearly, that would be quite some torch.
Then there's the potential for conflict when shining a torch towards others causing all those who want to travel in a dingy cosy snug to object. If the passenger had anxiety problems travelling in poorly lit trains before, the threat and abuse that they might get from using their torch might drive them to staying at home forever.

Can you give examples of poorly lit trains? I wouldn't call a 377 poorly lit but it's not as bright as the GWR HSTs were when they were refurbished in the late 2000s.

 

[yorksrob]

Well anecdotes from anybody here prove nothing (even though I am 'elderly'). But the legal requirement is defined and new rolling stock will continue to adhere to it.

But who came up with this legal requirement.

It's the assumption that because people naturally don't like wandering down dark alleys and subways, doesn't mean that they want to spend hours on end in an uncomfortably bright train.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can you give examples of poorly lit trains? I wouldn't call a 377 poorly lit but it's not as bright as the GWR HSTs were when they were refurbished in the late 2000s.

I was quite surprised when the LU S stock had a pleasant level of warm white, as its predecessors had interrogation room levels of a horrid "daylight" colour.

Pendolinos probably have the lowest level of ambient light of current UK mainline stock.

 

[Bikeman78]

But who came up with this legal requirement.

It's the assumption that because people naturally don't like wandering down dark alleys and subways, doesn't mean that they want to spend hours on end in an uncomfortably bright train.

The average street is of course far less brightly lit than any railway carriage. Even though they are far more brightly lit than they were in the 1980s. I recall the walk to the station back then (a third of a mile) was lit by around five lights with a 100W bulb in them!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2021 ==

I was quite surprised when the LU S stock had a pleasant level of warm white, as its predecessors had interrogation room levels of a horrid "daylight" colour.

Pendolinos probably have the lowest level of ambient light of current UK mainline stock.

Yes I think the S stock is excellent in just about every way. Air con, lighting and hustle alarms all set to a sensible level.