Train Horns at RR Crossing

2590 views
43 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 9,154 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Monday, May 07, 2018 10:18 PM

Unless its livestock, freight railroads have no obligation to fence - long established rule in the US. Statutes do NOT apply to humans or crops - the adjoining landowner becomes responsible. (Throw in catenary or toy trains (transit) and the rule changes, usually at additional public expense.)

Humans, stupid animals that they can be, are harder to herd than cats.

(Chain link fence is largely ineffectual - you go to something far more $ub$tantial)

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Winnipeg, Mb
  • 507 posts
Posted by traisessive1 on Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:57 PM

mudchicken

TransportCanada enforced or local rule?

 

It would be TC as it's in the timetable as all crossings from mile xx to xx are exempt from rule 14L.

10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ... 

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • 1,090 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Friday, May 11, 2018 2:51 PM

In response to Overmod's note of a few days ago, the FRA horn rule (49 CFR Part 222) does not say that an engineer "has to" blow the horn any time he sees a problem at a quiet zone crossing.  It's just the opposite.  49 CFR 222.23(b) provides as follows:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this part [ed., Part 222], including provisions addresssing the establishment of a quiet zone, limits on the length of time a hoirm may be sounded, or installation of wayside horns within quiet zones, this part does not preclude the sounding of locomotive horns in emergency situations, nor does it impose a legal duty to sound the locomotive horns in such situations." (emohasis supplied)

In theory, this language plus the preemption language of FRA's governing statute (which preempts application of state imposed laws and other legal requirements on matters FRA has regulated) should be enough to prevent imposition of legal liability for an engineer's failure to sound the horn for an "emergency" in a quiet zone.  But I don't know how courts have treated it.

  • Member since
    September, 2003
  • 5,602 posts
Posted by Overmod on Friday, May 11, 2018 3:25 PM

No, I had not read this, and I am delighted that my supposition was wrong.

 

Yes, I would like to see the court history to any case where 'not sounding the horn' in a nominal quiet zone led to an actual or threatened action at law...

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • 1,090 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Friday, May 11, 2018 10:48 PM

I'm retired and out of the loop on court cases like this.  I do more productive things these days, like contemplating my navel.

Seriously, though, if I were a railroad exec and my company was held liable for not blowing the horn for an "emergency" in a quiet zone, I would immediately instruct my operating crews to begin blowing horns at all crossings in the state, quiet zones or no.  I was pretty heavily involved in the development of the FRA horn rule, and the "no duty to sound the horn" provision was designed to prevent a railroad from getting socked with greater liability in a quiet zone that it would have if it were routinely whistling.  The FRA could force me to resume the quiet zones, but I doubt that they would if the state were imposing liability for failure to sound the horn in a quiet zone.     

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 9,154 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Saturday, May 12, 2018 3:02 PM

(If the crossing is that bad and has the statistics, the option to remove the QZ is there. Local political hacks and their rubber tired bubbas suddenly get religion when they discover this truth. A couple of local political hacks tried to lobby for that option to be removed along with some of the costlier mitigation requirements, gratefully with a poorly received response by FRA and the congressional surface transportation committee.)

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 147 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, May 13, 2018 1:53 PM

With no crossing involved, but in a QZ, is it really necessary to routinely blow the horn twice to a train passing the opposite direction and then they return the signal?  It ain't 1890, they do have radios.

  • Member since
    May, 2003
  • From: US
  • 13,713 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Sunday, May 13, 2018 1:56 PM

charlie hebdo
With no crossing involved, but in a QZ, is it really necessary to routinely blow the horn twice to a train passing the opposite direction and then they return the signal?  It ain't 1890, they do have radios.

Is it necessary to bent out of joint - QZ or not?

         

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 147 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Sunday, May 13, 2018 4:54 PM

BaltACD

 

 
charlie hebdo
With no crossing involved, but in a QZ, is it really necessary to routinely blow the horn twice to a train passing the opposite direction and then they return the signal?  It ain't 1890, they do have radios.

 

Is it necessary to bent out of joint - QZ or not?

 

Is it necessary for you to make snarky posts to everything you don't like?  Or perhaps you don't really know the answer?

  • Member since
    January, 2003
  • From: Kenosha, WI
  • 5,907 posts
Posted by zardoz on Monday, May 14, 2018 1:39 PM

charlie hebdo

 

 
BaltACD

 

 
charlie hebdo
With no crossing involved, but in a QZ, is it really necessary to routinely blow the horn twice to a train passing the opposite direction and then they return the signal?  It ain't 1890, they do have radios.

 

Is it necessary to bent out of joint - QZ or not?

 

 

 

Is it necessary for you to make snarky posts to everything you don't like?  Or perhaps you don't really know the answer?

 

Actually, in an urban setting, in multiple-track territory, it is a good idea to sound an audible warning to advise tresspassers when passing the rear of another train or equipment; it's even more important when approaching a grade crossing.

  • Member since
    March, 2003
  • From: Central Iowa
  • 4,252 posts
Posted by jeffhergert on Monday, May 14, 2018 2:21 PM

zardoz

 

 
charlie hebdo

 

 
BaltACD

 

 
charlie hebdo
With no crossing involved, but in a QZ, is it really necessary to routinely blow the horn twice to a train passing the opposite direction and then they return the signal?  It ain't 1890, they do have radios.

 

Is it necessary to bent out of joint - QZ or not?

 

 

 

Is it necessary for you to make snarky posts to everything you don't like?  Or perhaps you don't really know the answer?

 

 

 

Actually, in an urban setting, in multiple-track territory, it is a good idea to sound an audible warning to advise tresspassers when passing the rear of another train or equipment; it's even more important when approaching a grade crossing.

 

It's required by rule in that situation.

Jeff

  • Member since
    September, 2017
  • 147 posts
Posted by charlie hebdo on Monday, May 14, 2018 4:20 PM

jeffhergert

 

 

Zardoz

Actually, in an urban setting, in multiple-track territory, it is a good idea to sound an audible warning to advise tresspassers when passing the rear of another train or equipment; it's even more important when approaching a grade crossing.

 

 

 

It's required by rule in that situation.

Jeff

 

Thank you for a knowledgable response.

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • 1,090 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 6:52 PM

In the Chicago area, UP rules (and CNW rules before it) require the sounding of horns when passing the rear of another train (even though routine sounding of horns at grade crossings is not required at most crossings in commuter territory).  The FRA horn rule effectively "grandfathers" no horn crossings in the Chicago area that existed before the FRA rule was adopted.  There's some logic to that since there are so many trains and so many crossings on the major rail lines in the area beyond the elevated portions in the city that there would otherwise be a nearly constant din of horn blowing that would probably not be very effective. 

  • Member since
    December, 2001
  • From: Northern New York
  • 18,195 posts
Posted by tree68 on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 7:41 PM

charlie hebdo
It ain't 1890, they do have radios.

The horns in that situation aren't for the other train, as has been noted.

And they are required by rule under NORAC as well.

LarryWhistling
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...

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy