The answer to Bucyrus' question about how to "compensate" for the horn in order to establish a quiet zone is provided in the FRA rule itself, which provides both the types of improvements that a public authority can choose and their predicted effectiveness rates, see 49 CFR Part 222 Appendices A-B. To my knowledge, the predicted effectiveness rates haven't been changed since the rule was adopted. In other words, they don't reflect actual experience under the rule.
The answer to the question about how to treat "pre-existing" improvements is also answered in the rule, It's a numbers exercise which I won't even attempt to summarize, see 49 CFR Part 222, Appendix A, sec B & C,, Appendix C, sec B & C.
FRA also has a "quiet zone calculator" on its website, which will make many of the calculations for a proposed quiet zone based on grade crossing inventory data and other information provided by the user.
Falcon48One thing I'm not seeing in this discussion is actual statistics on the relative safety (or lack thereof) of FRA compliant quiet zones. As has been pointed out in some of the other posts, FRA believes quiet zones that are established in compliance with its rule are as safe as non-compliant crossings where locomotives sound their horns, and has some fairly intricate statistical measures (all of which predate the rule) purporting to quantify the relative effectiveness of various substitues to horn blowing. Lots of quiet zones were established (or continued) under this rule, and they have now been in place long enough that there should be meaningful statistics as to their actual safety experience before and after the quiet zones were established. I haven't seen any analysis like this. Has anyone else?
I have not found such information yet. I did find this FRA reference that does indicate that quiet zone crossings must pose no more risk than they would if they were not quiet zones and the horn was sounded:
"The state or local government must demonstrate
through data and analysis that implementation of these measures will
effect a reduction in risk at public highway-rail grade crossings
within the quiet zone (viewing risk in the aggregate rather than on a
crossing-by-crossing basis) sufficient to fully compensate for the
absence of the warning provided by the locomotive horn.
For purposes of
this paragraph, risk will be viewed in terms of the quiet zone as a
whole, rather than at each individual grade crossing. The aggregate
reduction in predicted collision risk for the quiet zone as a whole
must be shown to compensate for the lack of a locomotive horn."
It does raise this question however:
Suppose you had a crossing that was not in a quiet zone, and yet it had full roadway gates and divided medians --AND-- the horn was routinely sounded. Now, suppose you wanted to convert that crossing to a quiet zone crossing. According to the FRA, if you remove the horn, you have to add new safety features to compensate for the increased risk due to losing the horn. What could you add to this crossing to compensate for removing the horn?
schlimm tree68We also have to watch out for the "Hawthorne Effect," wherein a study subject modifies it's behavior because it knows it's being studied. That term refers more properly to subjects changing their behavior due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because of any manipulation of independent variables in an experiment. In the case of crossing research, that wouldn't apply because the subjects wouldn't be aware of being measured and this would not be an experiment but a naturalistic correlational study.
tree68We also have to watch out for the "Hawthorne Effect," wherein a study subject modifies it's behavior because it knows it's being studied.
That term refers more properly to subjects changing their behavior due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because of any manipulation of independent variables in an experiment. In the case of crossing research, that wouldn't apply because the subjects wouldn't be aware of being measured and this would not be an experiment but a naturalistic correlational study.
True enough. My thought there is that when first established, a quiet zone is a new traffic pattern and drivers will be more likely to comply. As time goes on and they become more familiar with the whole scheme of things they may well begin to relax their vigilance and perhaps seek out ways to defeat the protections afforded.
While this wouldn't be a true example of the Hawthorne Effect, I believe there would be some similarity.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
One thing I'm not seeing in this discussion is actual statistics on the relative safety (or lack thereof) of FRA compliant quiet zones. As has been pointed out in some of the other posts, FRA believes quiet zones that are established in compliance with its rule are as safe as non-compliant crossings where locomotives sound their horns, and has some fairly intricate statistical measures (all of which predate the rule) purporting to quantify the relative effectiveness of various substitues to horn blowing. Lots of quiet zones were established (or continued) under this rule, and they have now been in place long enough that there should be meaningful statistics as to their actual safety experience before and after the quiet zones were established. I haven't seen any analysis like this. Has anyone else?
One other point. Just based on general principles, I don't usually like to defend FRA. But I'm going to do so here because I'm pretty familiar with the politics of the quiet zone issue. Like it or not, FRA had to come up with a scheme for establishing new quiet zones and continuing existing ones. And they particularly had to come up with a scheme for continuing the existing quiet zones in the Chicago area. If they had not done so, Congress would have repealed the "train horn" statute (49 USC 20153). There's no question this would have happened, and it actually came pretty close to happening (remember that Dennis Hasteart was Speaker of the House at the time, and he was from a Chicago suburb on a major commuter/freight line where trains weren't routinely whistling). Had the statute been repealed, states and localities would have been free to establish quiet zones without any of the safety improvements FRA requires. And you can bet they would have done so far more aggressively than they had in the past, since FRA's activities to implement the statute had made this a high profile issue in local communities across the country.
The bottom line is that the real choice was never between requiring trains to blow horns at virtually all crossings or not. There never would have been a Federal requirement for nearly universal horn blowing - Congress would have repealed the statute if FRA had attempted to impose one. The issue is whether the current scheme is safer than the pre-rule scheme (where states and localities could impose quiet zones without safety oversight or crossing improvements). My gut reaction is that we are far better off with the FRA scheme, as imperfect as it may be, than the realistic alternatives. Sometimes, perfection is the enemy of the good.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Getting hit by a moving train that isn’t blowing its horn is far more damaging to your health than the noise from the horn.
23 17 46 11
Re- the answer to the question, “Are quiet zones less safe than regular crossings?”
It is only my opinion that the question cannot be answered. However, it is also my opinion that the FRA has what they believe is the answer. They must believe that they have the answer, and that the answer is that quiet zones are not less safe; because the rebalancing of risk to compensate the removal of the horn requires knowing that answer to the question.
However, if the FRA has what they believe is the answer that shows no loss of safety for quiet zones, I wonder why they don’t just come out and tell us.
I do find sources of information from local government jurisdictions that are in the quiet zone planning phase, and some of them clearly state that the quiet zones make the crossing safer. Although, this issue can be blurred between public safety and public health. Clearly, a big part of the reason for removing train horns is that the noise damages health. So in that sense, quiet zones are safer.
Bucyrus Re- Are quiet zone crossings less safe than regular crossings? The more I think about this, I have decided that the answer cannot be determined.
Re- Are quiet zone crossings less safe than regular crossings?
The more I think about this, I have decided that the answer cannot be determined.
BucyrusFurthermore, I don’t think the question could be answered even by empirical data from actual crossings. I can’t see how one could practically collect the data on an apples-to-apples basis. It would require a grand experiment of comparing identical crossings; one quiet and one not; with identical train traffic and road traffic. And even then, it would have to be a massive sampling to get a clean average.
Empirical research in various fields uses several methodologies besides the experiment.
zugmann BucyrusHowever, even without the current study, and setting aside the 2000 study; I assume that although the divided median and full gates must make a big difference in reducing crashes, I don’t see how they can possibly fully compensate for the removal of the horn. I come to that conclusion without any empirical statistics from studies. But you are adding a physical barrier instead of just an audible one. Most people aren't going to jump a curb or smash a gate to beat a train. But they will ignore a horn. Again, no empirical statistics, just what I've witnessed. I think in the end, we are just trying to idiot proof the crossing devices, and to that effect there is no perfect crossing. It's just a matter of how many regulations and how much money we want to throw away at the problem (for both sides - road and railroad).
BucyrusHowever, even without the current study, and setting aside the 2000 study; I assume that although the divided median and full gates must make a big difference in reducing crashes, I don’t see how they can possibly fully compensate for the removal of the horn. I come to that conclusion without any empirical statistics from studies.
But you are adding a physical barrier instead of just an audible one. Most people aren't going to jump a curb or smash a gate to beat a train. But they will ignore a horn. Again, no empirical statistics, just what I've witnessed.
I think in the end, we are just trying to idiot proof the crossing devices, and to that effect there is no perfect crossing. It's just a matter of how many regulations and how much money we want to throw away at the problem (for both sides - road and railroad).
I agree that if you prevent drivers from going around the lowered gate, they will not bust through it as an alternative. So yes, adding the features to prevent going around the gate does fully compensate for removing whatever role the horn had in preventing drivers from going around the lowered gate. In fact, it might more than compensate for removing the horn.
But as I have said, there are more crash causes besides a driver going around the lowered gate. And the horn also plays a role in preventing those crash causes. And yet, there are no extra features added to a quiet zone that compensate for the removing the role of the horn in those crash causes. So there has to be a loss of safety for taking the role of the horn away from those crash causes.
HOWEVER, it may be that adding the barrier to driving around the gate adds more safety than the amount of safety that is lost due to eliminating the role of the horn in preventing those other types of crash causes.
In considering that, I guess there is no way to logically deduce an answer to the thread title question. One would have to quantify the risk and danger of all the causes as well as their frequency. One cannot just tally which risk causes have been removed or remain, because they produce differing quantities of risk and the quantities are practically undiscoverable.
Furthermore, I don’t think the question could be answered even by empirical data from actual crossings. I can’t see how one could practically collect the data on an apples-to-apples basis. It would require a grand experiment of comparing identical crossings; one quiet and one not; with identical train traffic and road traffic. And even then, it would have to be a massive sampling to get a clean average.
So, to the question: Are quiet zone crossings more dangerous than regular crossings?
I conclude that the answer is: Nobody knows.
The Union Pacific answer is: They believe quiet zone crossings are more dangerous than regular crossings.
The FRA answer is: Quiet zone crossings may be more dangerous than regular crossings.
Other than that, I find no authoritative assertion whether the two crossing types pose equal danger, or that one is more dangerous than the other.
To me, it is an obvious question to ask whether quiet zones compromise safety because the quiet zone removes the preeminent train warning safety device while implicitly at least, assuring us that it is safe to do so.
It is kind of like one of those high-tech systems that can purify sewer water for drinking.
While the authorities do not seem to provide a direct answer to the question, I find it hard to believe that they have not made that determination by some sort of magnificent mathematical/statistical model. And if they have, I don’t believe it would be possible for an independent party to confirm or refute that conclusion. But it would at least provide a fallback position in case anybody challenges them on the issue.
The following link goes to the FRA analysis of the data from the train horn ban studies we were talking about earlier. This is where the math and science comes in. I would like to see lawyers argue this in court:
Analysis of the Safety Impact of Train Horn Bans at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings: An Update Using 1997-2001 Data
ccltrains There is a way to prevent crossing accidents-separation of the rail line with a bridge or underpass. This takes many $$ and the question comes up who pays. Of course there are problems with overpasses. A few years ago there was an accident where the highway bridged the rail line in England, a country where most of the crossings are grade separated. A car pulling a cmping trailer went crazy and the trailer dropped from the overpass on to the tracks. A minute later an Intercity 125 came through and resulted in a major accident with several deaths. The answer is to have the rail line to go over the highway to prevent this type of accident, however the bridge owned by the railroad adds a significant maintance expense. Nothing is perfect!
There is a way to prevent crossing accidents-separation of the rail line with a bridge or underpass. This takes many $$ and the question comes up who pays. Of course there are problems with overpasses. A few years ago there was an accident where the highway bridged the rail line in England, a country where most of the crossings are grade separated. A car pulling a cmping trailer went crazy and the trailer dropped from the overpass on to the tracks. A minute later an Intercity 125 came through and resulted in a major accident with several deaths. The answer is to have the rail line to go over the highway to prevent this type of accident, however the bridge owned by the railroad adds a significant maintance expense. Nothing is perfect!
And are we going to bridge every industrial track that crosses an alley? Even when that industrial track may see 4 trains a month in the wee hours of the morning?
It's hard to come up with real solutions when one of the biggest variables in the equation is human behavior. People are strange. I've approached crossings where the people stop immediately when lights start flashing and gladly wait as you go by, while other times at the exact same crossing, same time of day, people don't even have the common courtesy to flip you off as they blow right through the crossing as you are laying on the horn.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Hard to add anything worthwhile this deep into the subject; I'll try.
A while back, in forum time, it was said that at 79 mph a train required to start the warning whistle-ing would only be sounding for 12 seconds, no problem. But there was an implication following that whistling was not allowed prior to the 1/4 mile initiating point. Well... "a series of short sounds" was a "warning to any one on or near the track" the rule said, with no specified distance. And, "in case of doubt the safe course must be taken." (Of course if you were sure you were being safe,could you be violating?)
The 1/4 mile specified to start the whistling, the requirement that crossing warning devices be timed to started 20 seconds ahead of crossing occupancy, posed no conflict in the Western Pacific's rule; it said to start the warning 20 seconds before reaching the crossing. Does anybody feel better about riding the CZ when it was the California Zephyr?.....
Many ways to submit a person's travel to grisley slaughter, reffering to the 9 symptoms of suicidal tendencies, might include a more universal deafness defintion than cell phones, texting, earbuds to playlists: a person senior to most may have a diminished ability where noise is signficant.
Bucyrus I am only asking whether quiet zone crossings are less safe than regular crossings.
I am only asking whether quiet zone crossings are less safe than regular crossings.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
There is no doubt in my mind that a current study of would show less difference in safety between quiet zones and the non-quiet zones than the 2000 study showed between the whistled crossings with lights and gates and the non-whistled version of those types of crossings.
So, yes, a current study would tell us something that the 2000 study does not tell us, and we don’t have a current study.
However, even without the current study, and setting aside the 2000 study; I assume that although the divided median and full gates must make a big difference in reducing crashes, I don’t see how they can possibly fully compensate for the removal of the horn. I come to that conclusion without any empirical statistics from studies.
I come to that conclusion because it seems to me that the horn mitigates more crash causes than just those caused by driving around the gate. I do not believe that my items #2-9 above can be dismissed as not being affected by the horn. They won’t be affected in every occurrence, but they will be affected in some occurrences. The total effect of all of them may be small relative to the effect of driving around the gate. But if there is any effect at all from them, then it must follow that the quiet zone crossings are more dangerous than the non-quiet zone crossings.
Bucyrus Then the only question remaining is to quantify the amount of safety that is added to the crossing by adding full gates or divider medians.
Then the only question remaining is to quantify the amount of safety that is added to the crossing by adding full gates or divider medians.
And I would maintain that those are huge factors. Too large to ignore. In fact, I would opine that even the 2000 report is hopelessly out of date.
What we need is a comparison of driver behavior and accidents pre-quiet zone and today. This may not be available on a nationwide basis, but may well be available on a crossing-by-crossing basis.
There's another problem with all these studies - it is making all humans equal and doesn't account for individual behaviors. A statistical must, I guess, but not very real life-like. For example:
Driver A goes around gates in a quiet zone.
Driver B stops at the gates when a train is blowing its horn.
We can conclude that the horn makes the crossing safer.
--HOWEVER--
Driver B would have stopped at the gates at the quiet zone.
Driver A would have went around the gates even when the train is blowing its horn.
The only way to minimize this would be to have a very large sample size, but most of these studies really don't.
Yes, I would love to see such a study too. And you are right that the 2000 report does not offer that insight. But I do find the 2000 report useful in quantifying the added danger from not blowing the horn. That is all I was asking of the 1995 report, but while it found an increase in danger from withholding the horn from a variety of crossings, it did not clarify and difference in effect from one crossing type to another. And as you and zugmann pointed out earlier, if their discovery of added danger from not blowing the horn had all been related only to passive crossings, then the result would have no meaning for the question I was asking.
But now, with their clarification that a lack of horn increased the collisions at gated crossings with flashing lights, we have a base line to say how much safety is removed from such a crossing when the horn is removed for the creation of a quiet zone. Then they only question remaining is to quantify the amount of safety that is added to the crossing by adding full gates or divider medians.
I am sure that the the full gates or divided medians reduce collisions, but I do not believe that they reduce collsions enough to balance the increase of collsions that results from removing the horn. I base that belief on common sense and logic.
A major lack of clarity in the 2000 report is the term "with gates."
From what I see int he report, the study only addressed three types of warning systems:
Passive
Lights only
With gates (which can probably be assumed to include lights)
Missing are:
Four Quadrant Gates
Median Dividers
And maybe some techniques that slip my mind right now.
I went looking for some information on the "APF," or Accident Prediction Formula.
It's a complicated beast. More than I want to wrap my mind around. The following site has the formulae:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com_roaduser/07010/sec03.htm It dates to 2007.
In the 1995 study, Group D had the highest increase, while the higher risk groups (E-J) actually showed a downward trend, with a couple of the groups showing decreases.
I'd love to see a current study on the relative safety of whistle ban crossings.
Interestingly, my objection to lack of clarity of the 1995 report conclusion has been addressed in the 2000 report. This is called Updated Analysis of Train Whistle Bans January 2000, and it breaks down the difference made by the train horn for each type of crossing. So after throwing out the 1995 report, I'll take this 2000 report.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L02686
Quote from the report:
“The analysis showed that an average of 62 percent more collisions occurred at whistle ban crossings equipped with gates than at similar crossings across the nation without bans. FRA will use this value as the increased risk associated with whistle bans instead of the 84 percent cited in the Nationwide Study of Train Whistle Bans released in April 1995.”
No, I am not trying to engineer the perfect crossing. And I am not saying that crossings should be made to prevent all the things I listed. I only listed those items to ask how the horn might affect them. It is obvious that the horn could affect all of them.
I am only asking whether quiet zone crossings are less safe than regular crossings. The Union Pacific believes they are. The FRA admits that they may be.
You are dismissing the effect of the train horn on drivers because the drivers have failed to discharge their responsibility. Well sure, but that is beside the point. The larger point is to prevent the collision, rather than just preventing the railroad from being responsible for it. The railroad, by default, is not responsible because the train has the right of way. If that were all that mattered, you would not need anything at a crossing besides a sign that told the driver it was there.
Bucyrus 1) Driver driving around lowered gate. Already discussed - this is a risky behavior and in some cases a thrill for the driver in question. The fact that they are maneuvering around a lowered gate means they are fully aware of the presence of a train approaching the crossing. 2) Driver driving straight and trying to beat the lowering gate. Already discussed - this is a risky behavior and in some cases a thrill for the driver in question. The fact that they are speeding up in order to beat the gate means they are fully aware of the presence of a train approaching the crossing. 3) Driver asleep. Maybe - but the numbers of sleeping drivers is miniscule, compared to... 4) Driver impaired. Fatigued drivers, as well as those impaired by drugs or alcohol. This is a systemic problem, not an engineering problem. Blowing the horn on the locomotive does not make up for a failure in driver responsibility. And it's quite likely the driver won't react appropriately anyhow. In fact, this is the driver who will drive into the side of the train, vs being hit by it. 5) Driver distracted by a medical condition. If they aren't going to see the flashing lights and hear the ringing crossing bell, the locomotive horn isn't going to make a difference. In fact, in most of the incidents I've been to involving a medical problem, the fact that the driver was unconscious was a key factor in the collision. 6) Driver distracted by a device. A problem at stop signs, too. Again, a failure on the part of the driver. The same goes for reading an old-fashioned map. Been out on those, too. 7) Driver distracted by inattention. Ditto. 8) Suicide by train. Why even put this one in? If the person is determined enough to kill themselves, they will find a way. Blowing the horn on the locomotive is simply a message to them that they may be successful. 9) Vehicle stalled on tracks. The warning provided by the horn (15-20 seconds) is the same as that provided by the crossing protection. Maybe even less, especially at a high speed crossing, where the crossing protection is set to begin at a minimum of 20 seconds before the train arrives at the crossing, but the engineer is limited to blowing the horn not more than 1/4 mile from the crossing under normal circumstances (about 12 seconds at 79 MPH). With a quiet zone, the horn signal is removed, and to compensate for the resulting loss of safety, new safety features must be added that address item #1 above. There is no requirement to add new features that address items #2-9.
1) Driver driving around lowered gate. Already discussed - this is a risky behavior and in some cases a thrill for the driver in question. The fact that they are maneuvering around a lowered gate means they are fully aware of the presence of a train approaching the crossing.
2) Driver driving straight and trying to beat the lowering gate. Already discussed - this is a risky behavior and in some cases a thrill for the driver in question. The fact that they are speeding up in order to beat the gate means they are fully aware of the presence of a train approaching the crossing.
3) Driver asleep. Maybe - but the numbers of sleeping drivers is miniscule, compared to...
4) Driver impaired. Fatigued drivers, as well as those impaired by drugs or alcohol. This is a systemic problem, not an engineering problem. Blowing the horn on the locomotive does not make up for a failure in driver responsibility. And it's quite likely the driver won't react appropriately anyhow. In fact, this is the driver who will drive into the side of the train, vs being hit by it.
5) Driver distracted by a medical condition. If they aren't going to see the flashing lights and hear the ringing crossing bell, the locomotive horn isn't going to make a difference. In fact, in most of the incidents I've been to involving a medical problem, the fact that the driver was unconscious was a key factor in the collision.
6) Driver distracted by a device. A problem at stop signs, too. Again, a failure on the part of the driver. The same goes for reading an old-fashioned map. Been out on those, too.
7) Driver distracted by inattention. Ditto.
8) Suicide by train. Why even put this one in? If the person is determined enough to kill themselves, they will find a way. Blowing the horn on the locomotive is simply a message to them that they may be successful.
9) Vehicle stalled on tracks. The warning provided by the horn (15-20 seconds) is the same as that provided by the crossing protection. Maybe even less, especially at a high speed crossing, where the crossing protection is set to begin at a minimum of 20 seconds before the train arrives at the crossing, but the engineer is limited to blowing the horn not more than 1/4 mile from the crossing under normal circumstances (about 12 seconds at 79 MPH).
With a quiet zone, the horn signal is removed, and to compensate for the resulting loss of safety, new safety features must be added that address item #1 above. There is no requirement to add new features that address items #2-9.
As I have previously explained, I have thrown out the 1995 study. However, it is not needed for the point I am making.
One way to answer the question of this thread title would be with the use of empirical evidence. I do not find any reference to such evidence. Another way to answer the question is with logical deduction. For that method, we need to know the answer to this question:
What does horn blowing accomplish at crossings that have red flashing lights and gates that only block the lane, and no road center barrier? We know that the horn signal contributes safety at this type of crossing because the quiet zone authority tells us that it is true.
Therefore, to answer the question of what the horn blowing accomplishes at the crossing type described above, a determination must be made as to whether the train horn could prevent a collision or injury resulting from the following types of driver behavior:
1) Driver driving around lowered gate.
2) Driver driving straight and trying to beat the lowering gate.
3) Driver asleep.
4) Driver impaired.
5) Driver distracted by a medical condition.
6) Driver distracted by a device.
7) Driver distracted by inattention.
8) Suicide by train.
9) Vehicle stalled on tracks.
While I will agree that a quiet zone removes a major safety device (the locomotive's horn), a municipality has to jump through a lot of hoops to get one established now. A well-engineered quiet zone can still be reasonably safe. The quiet zone on the CSX Blue Island Sub is well-engineered and it's almost impossible to enter the crossing once the signals have activated. The City of Elmhurst has established a quiet zone on the IC Iowa line, which cuts through residential areas. The crossings are well-protected (no four-quadrant gates but pavement dividers for at least 100 feet on either side of the crossing) and crossing gates have been installed where the Prairie Path crosses the line. It also helps that the line has light traffic. On the other hand, there is no quiet zone on the UP West Line through Elmhurst and extra crossing protection has been installed, especially at the Metra station.
blownout cylinder There is/was(?) one CP line going through Woodstock ON that has on one crossing a small hill that impedes visibility. It just so happened that one night, of course, fog enshrouded, a train was making its way along said ROW and got into a collision with a car that was speeding through the crossing. The crossing, at that time, and still, is one with just crossbucks and flashing lights....I suppose it could be called a passive quiet zone..this particular incident happened way back in the 1970's...no accident happened there since..
There is/was(?) one CP line going through Woodstock ON that has on one crossing a small hill that impedes visibility. It just so happened that one night, of course, fog enshrouded, a train was making its way along said ROW and got into a collision with a car that was speeding through the crossing. The crossing, at that time, and still, is one with just crossbucks and flashing lights....I suppose it could be called a passive quiet zone..this particular incident happened way back in the 1970's...no accident happened there since..
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Yes, now that I look at it closer, that 1995 report may be bogus and pushing an agenda. I would have to print it out and carefully assimilate it to have any idea of what it is saying in the big picture. In trying to assimilate it, I get the feeling that it is blowing an incredible amount of smoke intended to prevent its assimilation. I just cannot weed through page after page of conditions and stipulations piled up one atop the other. Every sentence takes off and goes in about eight different directions. What it needs is to show the accident reduction for each crossing type. Maybe that is in there somewhere, but I don’t find it. I would throw it out.
So it leaves the question of the effect of the horn unanswered at least for now.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.