6233 in LMS red and wider livery debate of locomotives/stock

The statistics for colour vision impairment is 25%of males and .025% of females and no one knows why there is such a vast difference. The most common is red/green colour blindness which is what you must have, I have a problem with blues/cyan/purples.

Even for those with perfect colour vision there will be differences as paint is to a certain extent transluscent so there will be subtle differences depending on the shade undercoat used. Many years ago, when I was a member of the HMRS there was much correspondence in the house magazine on why Midland Lake was a much deeper and richer colour than LMS red which had the same paint spec.(this was at a time when there were some who had personal recollection of the pre grouping companies). The conclusion was that it was because the Midland painted over a brown undercoat and the LMS used grey. More recently when Bahamas was put into BR livery the green was almost turquoise no doubt because it went straight on top of the LMS red.

 

Never thought I'd be bringing biology to discussions on railways, but here goes:

The big disparity between colour blindness in males and females is not a big mystery. In fact it's just an example of simple Mendelian genetics and inheritance. Most colour blindness is sex-linked, which means that the genes encoding for traits such as the ability to see red and green light is located on everyone's X chromosome. Biological females have two X chromosomes whereas biological males have one X and one tiny Y chromosome.

The faulty gene causing impaired colour perception is what's know as a recessive allele, which means that if a fully working copy on the homologous chromosome (we have two copies of DNA), then the colour blindness trait will not be expressed. Therefore, for biological females to have sex-linked colour blindness, both of their copies of the genes that affect colour perception would have to be the same faulty gene on both homologous chromosomes for their effect to be expressed, hence it is statistically rare and unlucky for a biological female to have the condition. Her father would have to be colourblind and her mother would have to be at least a carrier of the faulty gene to be in with a chance of having colour blindness.

Those of us who are biologically male do not have such a safety mechanism for sex-linked genes, because we only have that one X chromosome, and the Y chromosome is not homologous to the X. Therefore, if we inherit the faulty gene then unfortunately we are doomed to have colour blindness, because we have only one copy of the gene and therefore no possibility of a healthy dominant allele from suppressing the dodgy one's effect. If you were to do a punnet square of a cross between a healthy female and an affected male, you would find that any female offspring will become carriers of the faulty gene, and if they have children then the chance of having a boy with the condition would be 25%, even with a non-affected father.

Apologies for the massive non-railway related drift, here endeth the lesson.

Kind regards,
Chris

 

It may be a big thread drift but an interesting one, I've never had that explained before.

 

Well, 5594 Bhopal did... She was painted red by the LMS after the war.
Others did in pre-war red too - 5601 British Guiana for example.
Both of the above in BR era red reproduced in colour in "Big Four in Colour" by Jenkinson et al.

 

To help both people with colour blindness and lessen the maintenance burden, perhaps we should simply galvanise all steelwork. It would stop the endless debates about livery.

 

True, but not with BR ownership on the tender and a five digit number!

 

Nope, not if you're an aficionado of the Hull and Barnsley Railway (invisible green!)

Though I suspect if you're colour blind you'd be hard pressed to see the green in a black coat of paint, admittedly...

The issue isn't just the paint shade, I must point out, but the accuracy of the livery including numbering, lining out, emblem/crest/logo/etc. Just boiling it down to the shade of the main colour doesn't help the actual critical part of the debate which is, fundamentally, why an inaccurate livery is considered preferable over an accurate one.

 

Presumably because *someone* thinks it is nicer/more interesting/a good laugh/worth a try/magnificent. All subjective, you see.

 

My source was the HMRC book from some years ago, I've got 5601 receiving 1946 livery at a heavy general in 1947 and 5594 receiving "experimental" livery in. 1946 so this must have been red. It's still correct to say none would have received the later BR totem as carried by 45699.

 

I bet you'd swear that Stroudley's improved engine green looked yellow!

 

One suggestion, quite widely held, is that Stroudley was indeed colour blind.

Tom

 

5601 in LMS black in 1949

http://www.warwickshirerailways.com/lms/lnwrbns_br1974.htm

 

Doesn't sit as well on a Jub as it did on 46115 IMO.

 

But looks a whole lot better than 45690

 

Much as I like pairing right loco's with right stock (inevitably ends up with BR Green on mainline due to lack of LMS mainline stock) I do have to say the pre war Maroon looks better than post war Black on Jubs, it just looks like a half arsed eceonomy paintjob in that pic to me, though to be fair that probably exactly what it was.

 

I quite liked 6233 when it was turned out in this livery as well as 46115.

When Leander was first shown in steam following its most recent overhaul, in a base coat of black I wasn't too worried thinking it would be a nice change to see it in LMS black. I certainly did not expect its current livery!!

 

Leander is almost correct in its current livery, it was one of the Jubilees to receive BR Black livery but had BRITISH RAILWAYS on the tender rather than the totem. Galatea was also in black but with the totem and that would look a lot better than it does now.
For the really pedantic 6115 was spot on in 1946 livery as the the only Scot to be repainted in that style with smoke deflectors.

 

So it's not correct then.