charlie hebdoIt 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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
charlie hebdoWith 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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
(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.)
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.
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...
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.
mudchicken TransportCanada enforced or local rule?
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 ...
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)
charlie hebdo I think a similar case could be made for the rails, to more adequately secure their non-constant hazard while at the same time allowing for proper access.
While this may be possible for a grade separated line, it would be nearly impossible to achieve with the bulk of the lines today.
Even wildlife groups would speak up - a 6 foot chain link fence along a right of way with no breaks to allow wildlife to pass would certainly irk them, and humans would make use of such breaks anyhow.
Like drawbridges, there is the question of who gets the primary access at road (and other) crossings - do the gates close across the tracks and open to let trains through (and block road access), or vice versa?
I've noted before that during my working days I drove across a specific crossing twice a day (and sometimes more) and rarely, if ever, saw anything on the tracks. I know better, but to a casual observer, that might indicate that the tracks are very rarely used, so being on them shouldn't be a problem. Yet the speed limit on the line is 40 MPH.
In most locales, if a homeowner has a backyard pool, it is his obligation to have it fenced in sufficiently to prevent intruders from easily entering it, trespassing or not. No property insurance carrier will offer him liability insurance without such precautions from this hazard. I think a similar case could be made for the rails, to more adequately secure their non-constant hazard while at the same time allowing for proper access.
BaltACD charlie hebdo BaltACD ... the question is who get saddled with the liability issues. You seem to assume the rails have no liability. On what basis? You aren't reading the statement correctly!
charlie hebdo BaltACD ... the question is who get saddled with the liability issues. You seem to assume the rails have no liability. On what basis?
BaltACD ... the question is who get saddled with the liability issues.
... the question is who get saddled with the liability issues.
You seem to assume the rails have no liability. On what basis?
charlie hebdo BaltACD charlie hebdo mudchicken Zugs & JeffH: Part of my misgivings about QZ's is the formulae used to establish the things set up by FRA under some incredibly stupid political pressure with some really dumb threshold levels controlled and manipulated by a committee skewed by non-railroad interests (the railroaders are there, but out-voted by local highway input)... Given that the protection is for highway vehicles from being struck by trains, it seems entirely appropriate that the primary voice should be from the impacted party. I live near the UP-West ROW, one of the busiest freight lines in the US, plus a heavy Metra schedule. It is a quiet zone, fortunately, though horns can be blown rarely for miscellaneous purposes. There are no incidents. And the town was here before the railroad, to rebut that silly contention in advance. If the highway interests want to assume all liability for incidents - they are more than welcome to make the rules; HOWEVER, that is not the case the highway interests want the railroads to assume all liability. It makes no difference who was there first - the question is who get saddled with the liability issues. You seem to assume the rails have no liability. On what basis?
BaltACD charlie hebdo mudchicken Zugs & JeffH: Part of my misgivings about QZ's is the formulae used to establish the things set up by FRA under some incredibly stupid political pressure with some really dumb threshold levels controlled and manipulated by a committee skewed by non-railroad interests (the railroaders are there, but out-voted by local highway input)... Given that the protection is for highway vehicles from being struck by trains, it seems entirely appropriate that the primary voice should be from the impacted party. I live near the UP-West ROW, one of the busiest freight lines in the US, plus a heavy Metra schedule. It is a quiet zone, fortunately, though horns can be blown rarely for miscellaneous purposes. There are no incidents. And the town was here before the railroad, to rebut that silly contention in advance. If the highway interests want to assume all liability for incidents - they are more than welcome to make the rules; HOWEVER, that is not the case the highway interests want the railroads to assume all liability. It makes no difference who was there first - the question is who get saddled with the liability issues.
charlie hebdo mudchicken Zugs & JeffH: Part of my misgivings about QZ's is the formulae used to establish the things set up by FRA under some incredibly stupid political pressure with some really dumb threshold levels controlled and manipulated by a committee skewed by non-railroad interests (the railroaders are there, but out-voted by local highway input)... Given that the protection is for highway vehicles from being struck by trains, it seems entirely appropriate that the primary voice should be from the impacted party. I live near the UP-West ROW, one of the busiest freight lines in the US, plus a heavy Metra schedule. It is a quiet zone, fortunately, though horns can be blown rarely for miscellaneous purposes. There are no incidents. And the town was here before the railroad, to rebut that silly contention in advance.
mudchicken Zugs & JeffH: Part of my misgivings about QZ's is the formulae used to establish the things set up by FRA under some incredibly stupid political pressure with some really dumb threshold levels controlled and manipulated by a committee skewed by non-railroad interests (the railroaders are there, but out-voted by local highway input)...
Given that the protection is for highway vehicles from being struck by trains, it seems entirely appropriate that the primary voice should be from the impacted party.
I live near the UP-West ROW, one of the busiest freight lines in the US, plus a heavy Metra schedule. It is a quiet zone, fortunately, though horns can be blown rarely for miscellaneous purposes. There are no incidents. And the town was here before the railroad, to rebut that silly contention in advance.
If the highway interests want to assume all liability for incidents - they are more than welcome to make the rules; HOWEVER, that is not the case the highway interests want the railroads to assume all liability. It makes no difference who was there first - the question is who get saddled with the liability issues.
You aren't reading the statement correctly!
traisessive1 I don't understand the point of silencing the actual train horn and then installing these. Just make it a quiet zone. You don't even need quad gates. We have quiet zones here in Canada where the protection does not have a gate. The track speed is 25 mph, but it's still a quiet zone.
I don't understand the point of silencing the actual train horn and then installing these.
Just make it a quiet zone. You don't even need quad gates. We have quiet zones here in Canada where the protection does not have a gate. The track speed is 25 mph, but it's still a quiet zone.
My point is you don't need any type of horn.
mudchickenZugs & JeffH: Part of my misgivings about QZ's is the formulae used to establish the things set up by FRA under some incredibly stupid political pressure with some really dumb threshold levels controlled and manipulated by a committee skewed by non-railroad interests (the railroaders are there, but out-voted by local highway input)...
CMStPnP Paul_D_North_Jr RDCs live! Trinity Railway Express has a small fleet of RDC's they keep for backup that they bought from VIA Rail Canada a long while ago (I believe they have 6 of them in total). They keep them in excellent condition and they are always freshly washed but currently only used as backups and special scenarios. In this case they lent them out to the Denton A-Train operators because not all their Stadler DMU's were delivered by the time of start-up. They also use them in the past for special event shuttles (Union Station to American Airlines Center shuttles for special events), State Fair shuttles to the remote parking lots, new rail line inspection, etc.
Paul_D_North_Jr RDCs live!
Trinity Railway Express has a small fleet of RDC's they keep for backup that they bought from VIA Rail Canada a long while ago (I believe they have 6 of them in total). They keep them in excellent condition and they are always freshly washed but currently only used as backups and special scenarios.
In this case they lent them out to the Denton A-Train operators because not all their Stadler DMU's were delivered by the time of start-up.
They also use them in the past for special event shuttles (Union Station to American Airlines Center shuttles for special events), State Fair shuttles to the remote parking lots, new rail line inspection, etc.
Zugs & JeffH: Part of my misgivings about QZ's is the formulae used to establish the things set up by FRA under some incredibly stupid political pressure with some really dumb threshold levels controlled and manipulated by a committee skewed by non-railroad interests (the railroaders are there, but out-voted by local highway input)....It would appear here, that even though this is a QZ, the crossing is bad enough to merit wayside horns instead of complete silence because the locals could not pony up the $$$$ to mitigate the crossing into total silence. That being said, if you look through the newswires here, you will see articles of local officials whining the thresholds are too restrictive (railroads the opposite) and too costly to mitigate...then the QZ's are removed after too many incidents, quad gates and all.
You operating guys don't see the kangaroo courts that pop up after crossing incidents after crossing incidents after the motorists (and especially pedestrians) find a new way to eliminate stupid from the gene pool. It gets really bad after the train pulls away after being released.
Paul_D_North_JrRDCs live!
Semper Vaporo traisessive1 I don't understand the point of silencing the actual train horn and then installing these. Just make it a quiet zone. You don't even need quad gates. We have quiet zones here in Canada where the protection does not have a gate. The track speed is 25 mph, but it's still a quiet zone. By putting the sound device at the crossing, the sound is loud AT the crossing, where it is needed, the whole time, instead of increasing in volume as the train gets closer. AND you are not disturbing people a 1/4 mile away from the crossing, trying to alert the traffic at the crossing, by a horn loud enough to be heard at the location it is needed.
By putting the sound device at the crossing, the sound is loud AT the crossing, where it is needed, the whole time, instead of increasing in volume as the train gets closer. AND you are not disturbing people a 1/4 mile away from the crossing, trying to alert the traffic at the crossing, by a horn loud enough to be heard at the location it is needed.
As Zug mentioned, the sound is also directed towards the approaching roads. This is supposed to lessen the sound for those further away from the crossing.
Ames, IA did go from the Automated Horn System to a full (un)blown Quiet Zone. In Ames, the city was responsible for maintenance of the system. If the horns didn't sound, crews would contact the dispatcher who then would contact the city. Probably incentive to go fully quiet.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
traisessive1I don't understand the point of silencing the actual train horn and then installing these. Just make it a quiet zone. You don't even need quad gates. We have quiet zones here in Canada where the protection does not have a gate. The track speed is 25 mph, but it's still a quiet zone.
Canada and the US are separted by the NTSB, FRA and their rules and recommendations.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.