Silenced automobile crossings

[Euclid]

wanswheel

“Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. While the railroad does not endorse quiet zones, it does comply with provisions outlined in the federal law.”

http://www.up.com/real_estate/roadxing/industry/horn_quiet/index.htm

 

 

 

I have always been a bit surprised that U.P. has stated publicly that quiet zone crossings are more dangerous than non-quiet zone crossings.  The official general premise expressed by other organizations seems to be that quiet zone crossings are not more dangerous because safety features are added to compensate for the removal of the horn warning.

I wonder what position the FRA takes on this matter.  From what I have read, the approval process for quiet crossings is quite scientific in calculating the risk and making sure that none is added by the conversion to a quiet crossing.  So I am not sure how U.P. comes to their conclusion that quiet zone crossings are more dangerous than non-quiet zone crossings.

Does anybody here know of other railroads or organizations that have stated the quiet zones are more dangerous than non-quiet zones? 

 

[Paul of Covington]

   Earlier, rfpjohn mentioned that the whistle posts were still in place a quiet zone crossing.  Aren't there indications on the whistle posts that they are quiet zones?

[jeffhergert]

Paul of Covington

   Earlier, rfpjohn mentioned that the whistle posts were still in place a quiet zone crossing.  Aren't there indications on the whistle posts that they are quiet zones?

 

On UP whistle posts (which are an "X" instead of the "W" used by other railroads) there is an additional plate with "QZ" on it.

Jeff

[CShaveRR]

I've seen some whistle posts (don't remember the railroad) that have a line drawn through the "W" to indicate the quiet zone.

In our county-wide-and-then-some quiet zone here, there are no whistle posts for grade crossings, unless the horn is to be sounded.  Between Lombard and Chicago there are two crossings that require horn use.  One of those is eventually (not holding my breath) to be eliminated by a CREATE-funded grade separation.

[rfpjohn]

At this particular crossing, the whistle posts are still in place. We have another long-standing quiet zone through a town, where no whistle posts are in place for the crossings involved. Quiet zones are found in the timetable special instructions, or in a division bulletin in the case of the latest one which was established after the current timetable came out. There are no special wayside signs designating a quiet zone on my carrier.

[Falcon48]

CShaveRR

I've seen some whistle posts (don't remember the railroad) that have a line drawn through the "W" to indicate the quiet zone.

In our county-wide-and-then-some quiet zone here, there are no whistle posts for grade crossings, unless the horn is to be sounded.  Between Lombard and Chicago there are two crossings that require horn use.  One of those is eventually (not holding my breath) to be eliminated by a CREATE-funded grade separation.

 

 The 6 county Chicago Region (Cook, DuPage, Lake, Kane, McHenry and Will Counties) is a special case under the FRA train horn rule.  The entire rule (49 CFR Part 222) is inapplicable to grade crossings in this region where two conditions are met:  (i) the Illinois Commerce Commission excused a railroads from sounding horns at the crossing under state law, and (ii) the railroad actually did not sound the horn at the crossing as of December 18, 200 (49 CFR 222.3(c)).    The effect (and intent) of this exclusion was to "grandfather" a large number of "no-horn" crossings that had long been in place on a number of major rail lines in the region (chiefly commuter lines), which ILCC had excused from state whistling requirements.  The ILCC had two main criteria for doing this (gated crossing + favorable accident history).

This created an anamoly (spell czech?) in the region.  Quiet zones in the region created under the FRA rule have the signage required by the rule, while "excused" crossings generally don't.  For example, if you are driving south on Villa Avenue in Villa Park (a western suburb), you will cross two "qiet" crossing just a couple of blocks apart.  The first is a single track CN(IC) line, an FRA approved quiet zone which has which has the quiet zone signage.  The second is the UP Geneva Sub (ex CNW), a triple track line with over 100 trains a day.  Since this is one of the excluded crossings, it does not have the quiet zone signage.

Now, I imagine, someone will ask "why"? There were essentially two reasons:

First, the Chicago area had a really bad taste of unlimited horn blowing in 1988, when the state legislature passed a law which inadvertently voided the ILCC rules which had excused railroads from whistling at many crossings in the region.  The law was quickly amended, but not before all of the railroads in the Chicago area started whistling at all of their crossings.  The result , particularly on heavily used lines in the suburbs with a lot of crossings, was almost constant whistling - very much like a standing train with it's horn stuck "on" for hours on end. There were serious questions (inside and outside the industry) as to whether this amount of routine whistling was really effective, particularly since it seemed to make it more likely that any emergency whistling would lost in the din. In other words, it could be too much of a good thing.  FRA statistics also seemed to bear out the notion that routine whistling in the Chicago Region was not as effective as it was in other areas of the country (possibly due to this consideration).  

Second, the 1988 experience had created a firestorm in the Chicago area and made the area very sensitive to a repeat performance.  Given the Congressional makeup at the time, it was very likely (more like a near certainty) that an attempt by FRA to impose the rule in the Chicago Region in all of its glory would have resulted in a repeal of FRA's authority to adopt the rule.  Since FRA's rulemaking activity had already sensitized state and local jurisdictions across the country to the quiet zone issue, the result of a repeal would likely have been a barrage of new state and local mandated quiet zones nationwide, without any of the additional safety measures FRA was proposing to mandate. That would have been REALLY bad for the railroads (not to mention the public, although they probably didn't know it).  Dealing with the Chicago problem avoided it.  As the old saying goes, politics is the art of the possible.      

By the way, the FRA criteria for exclusion in the Chicago region created another anamoly (spell czech again).  Prior to the adoption of the FRA rule, ILCC had required whistling at several crossings in the region on otherwise "quiet" lines because of unfavorable accident experience.  As a result, these crossings did not meet the criteria for exclusion from the FRA rule when it became effective, and could only be made "quiet" by complying with the rule.  In some cases, railroads are still whistling for these crossings.  For example, if you ride the UP West Line (Geneval Sub), you may notice that trains routinely whistle for 25th Avenue in Maywood and Kilbourn Avenue in Chicago.  This is the reason they do.

Probably much more than anyone wanted to know.