What are the rules for blowing train horns

[wanswheel]

Letters in the newspapers, especially in the East, where the open-window season seems at last to have arrived, call attention just now to noise nuisances of various kinds; and the locomotive whistle, and the troubles which it causes, are once again brought to mind. As some of your correspondents have observed, the slovenly whistler seems to be always with us. He seems to make the blasts of the whistle wholly according to his individual taste, or (more frequently) in a way to show that he has no taste at all. Taste or no taste, the standard signal for road crossings, as prescribed by the American Railway Association, is constantly modified everywhere.

Why not look a bit into what might be called the psychology of the question? In general, the modifications made by these free-minded runners tend towards two long, a short and one long blast, the last one sustained at will.

The very fact that the modified form of signal tends toward a prolonged last blast, indicates some generally operating reason; and, hence, that possibly an authorized modification of the standard crossing signal in this direction might produce better compliance with the rule than an attempt by discipline to drive the enginemen away from a procedure that apparently is based on some ground more potent than the book of rules.

Perhaps, because the signal is a warning, there arises a desire to emphasize the warning by prolonging the signal, and, carelessly, the last blast is prolonged rather than all, proportionately. This, in turn, suggests the thought that if the signal were reversed so that it would be two short followed by two long blasts, officers in charge of discipline would find it easier to get compliance with the regulations.

It is very easy for railroad managers to decide that certain things are only matters of discipline, and that, therefore, a bulletin or other disciplinary measure may be called upon to produce results; but if the regulation is not directed along common sense lines, the effect is doubly bad, because not only does the regulation break down but also the discipline following it is merely arbitrary and therefore irritating and ineffective.

[junior yardmaster]

I lived in Vincennes IN back in the '60s; my apartment was within a half block of the main line of the B & O, and my house literally shook when freights went by.  After living there 2 weeks, neither my wife or I EVER heard the trains blowing for crossings. It's something that you get used to and don't think about.  Junior yardmaster

[jeffhergert]

 

Reading the Canadian rules, https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tco167-163.htm the only place I see where it says the whistle isn't required to be sounded at a crossing with automatic warning devices is when equipment, other than a snow plow, is being shoved (car or cars ahead of the engine) over the crossing.  That a Canadian railroader said there is really no point to whistling at a crossing with warning devices seems to me to be more of an opinion, rather than saying why it isn't done anymore.  

(Canadians also have "Quiet Zones" where the engine whistle may not be required.  You can look around on the /Transport Canada website where it has the process to put in a "Quiet Zone."  Note, I just used Quiet Zone as that is what we call them here.  They may be called something different in Canada.)  

That the rule was changed once certainly proves it isn't "carved in stone."  Just because no one outside of North America doesn't use it doesn't mean we are wrong to use it.  Nor does it mean we are better than anyone else for using it.  Besides, they really didn't come up with a completely new signal in the 1920s.  They just modified the last sound of the original signal.

Jeff

 

[zugmann]

schlimm

Are our professionals saying Canadian drivers are smarter and more conscientious than American drivers? Where is the evidence?

Number of lawyers?

[schlimm]

jeffhergert

 

 

schlimm

 

jeffhergert

I think that the posted story involving the CB&Q (aka the Q) and the change to a whistle signal that resembles the International Morse Q is a coincidence.  It wasn't only the Burlington who changed from the old to the new.  Most of the railroads changed in that 1920s time frame.  I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices.  The consensus was to make the change and the various railroads did as they saw fit.

Jeff

 

 

 

 

The committee decision followed the CB&Q.  It seems unlikely to be a mere coincidence, as the CB&Q could have chosen many other 4-blast combinations.  They chose long long short long (Int. Morse for Q).  The Railroad Morse for Q is the opposite: short short long short.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but just because in the story linked the original writer, a CB&Q employee, makes it sound like they originated the idea doesn't make it so.  Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.  One item that appeared in Trains or Classic Trains some years back said engineers had started on their own to hold the last whistle blast until they reached the crossing.  It said that this practice led to the change.   

And like others have said, the Morse that most railroad employees of that era would be familiar with wasn't the International Code.  

Jeff

 

I sorry if I was not clear enough.

1. I know it was adopted by a committee and is an operational rule (not a law).

2. The article which was written by the Q VP makes it clear the decision was to have more than one blast and to hold the last one until the crossing.

3. I know railroad telegraphers used railroad Morse, obviously.

4. The selection of the inverse of short short long short was made probably because of its meaning in Int. Morse as an insiders' joke. Otherwise, they could have selected long short short long or short short short long or anything else with the last note held.

5. My original point is simply that here is no empirical evidence that LLsL is better than any other sequence ending with a held note.  Our practice is shared only by our neighbors.  No one else uses it.  Why not?  Probably because there is nothing special about our system, even though some here seem to think it is carved in stone and could never be changed.  Our Canadian friends no longer blow horns at protected crossings (unless occupied) because it contrbutes nothing to safety.  Are our professionals saying Canadian drivers are smarter and more conscientious than American drivers?  Where is the evidence?

[jeffhergert]

schlimm

 

jeffhergert

I think that the posted story involving the CB&Q (aka the Q) and the change to a whistle signal that resembles the International Morse Q is a coincidence.  It wasn't only the Burlington who changed from the old to the new.  Most of the railroads changed in that 1920s time frame.  I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices.  The consensus was to make the change and the various railroads did as they saw fit.

Jeff

 

 

 

 

The committee decision followed the CB&Q.  It seems unlikely to be a mere coincidence, as the CB&Q could have chosen many other 4-blast combinations.  They chose long long short long (Int. Morse for Q).  The Railroad Morse for Q is the opposite: short short long short.

 

I'm sorry, but just because in the story linked the original writer, a CB&Q employee, makes it sound like they originated the idea doesn't make it so.  Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.  One item that appeared in Trains or Classic Trains some years back said engineers had started on their own to hold the last whistle blast until they reached the crossing.  It said that this practice led to the change.   

And like others have said, the Morse that most railroad employees of that era would be familiar with wasn't the International Code.  

Jeff

[tree68]

Semper Vaporo

Don't forget "danger" (multiple short blasts).

Yep - Unfortunately I've had to use that a few times...

[BaltACD]

traisessive1

It is pointless to blow the horn at a crossing protected by lights and gates. It truly is. There really is no circumstance where a horn would prevent an accident at such crossing.

Hundreds, if not thousands of incidents, disagree.

[traisessive1]

Dutchrailnut

Even new locomotives with the electric horn button have a high/low function,

 The horn has two magnet valves and push button has two positions.

Just like horn valve you got to learn to pay with it.

 

And what railroad has these units? CN certainly doesn't.

[traisessive1]

traisessive1

I'll add some Canadian perspective here.

In Canada ... it is the same 2 longs, a short and a long from the whistle post. It is supposed to be prolonged or repeated with intensity until the crossing is occupied. There is nothing in the CROR rule book about time from the post to the crossing.

So if there are 7 crossings in  one mile say ... you get 28 blows of the horn in that mile ... 7x4=28.

Although crews dont always do that, that is what is supposed to happen.

It doesn't matter if the crossings are protected by a concrete wall .. unless there is a whistle ban ... they must blow.

AND ... in the CROR there isnt anything about two trains going through a banned area and not sounding the horn. I havn't read anything in our divisional data either.

 

 

To edit my own comment from years ago. Canadian rules now have a speed and time stipulation. They added it in 2008.

 

Canadian Rail Operating Rule 14 L

 

(i) (#)At public crossings at grade: Trains exceeding 44 MPH must sound whistle signal 1/4 mile before the crossing, to be prolonged or repeated, until the crossing is fully occupied. Note: A whistle post will be located 1/4 mile before each public crossing where required. Movements operating at 44 MPH or less must sound whistle signal to provide 20 seconds warning before entering the crossing and continuing to sound whistle signal until crossing is fully occupied. EXCEPTION: Engine whistle signal is not required when manual protection is provided, or shoving equipment other than a snow plow over a crossing protected by automatic warning devices. 

 

 

It is pointless to blow the horn at a crossing protected by lights and gates. It truly is. There really is no circumstance where a horn would prevent an accident at such crossing. 

[Semper Vaporo]

tree68

 

jeffhergert

I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices. 

 

 

That would probably be true for all of the usual whistle signals.  There used to be quite a few - including calling in flagmen from different directions, not to mention those used when pushers and helpers came into play.

Nowadays, I only worry about four - grade crossing, stop (one blast), go ahead (two), and back up (three). 

Don't forget "danger" (multiple short blasts).

[schlimm]

jeffhergert

I think that the posted story involving the CB&Q (aka the Q) and the change to a whistle signal that resembles the International Morse Q is a coincidence.  It wasn't only the Burlington who changed from the old to the new.  Most of the railroads changed in that 1920s time frame.  I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices.  The consensus was to make the change and the various railroads did as they saw fit.

Jeff

 

The committee decision followed the CB&Q.  It seems unlikely to be a mere coincidence, as the CB&Q could have chosen many other 4-blast combinations.  They chose long long short long (Int. Morse for Q).  The Railroad Morse for Q is the opposite: short short long short.

[tree68]

jeffhergert

I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices. 

That would probably be true for all of the usual whistle signals.  There used to be quite a few - including calling in flagmen from different directions, not to mention those used when pushers and helpers came into play.

Nowadays, I only worry about four - grade crossing, stop (one blast), go ahead (two), and back up (three).

[jeffhergert]

I think that the posted story involving the CB&Q (aka the Q) and the change to a whistle signal that resembles the International Morse Q is a coincidence.  It wasn't only the Burlington who changed from the old to the new.  Most of the railroads changed in that 1920s time frame.  I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices.  The consensus was to make the change and the various railroads did as they saw fit.

Jeff

 

[schlimm]

   True, in railroad morse, it would be .._.  though telegraphers would have been aware of both in the 1920s.

[Deggesty]

Quoting Schlimm: "Basing present practice on those of 86 years ago when very few crossings had gates (in some towns, manned).  Brilliant!  In other countries, a horn is blown only at ungated crossings, and then often just one application.   As I recall, in Morse, long long short long is the letter Q.  No coincidence since the Burlington was often called Q." Even with gates present, people still act in irrational manner.

As to "Q", remember that the code for "Q" in Morse used in railroad practice is not dash dash dot dash.

[schlimm]

wanswheel

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's Magazine, Volume 86 (1929)

The Whistle and the Highway Crossing

By J.A. Carney, Department of Safety, Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R.R. Co., Chicago

(A talk given before the National Safety Congress, New York City)

In the horse and buggy days, the whistling sign for road crossings was located from 990 to 1,320 feet from the highway grade crossing and the whistle signal was two long and two short blasts sounded near the whistle sign. The movement of the vehicle was seldom over eight miles an hour and usually much less. The vehicle was usually open and the whistle could easily be heard. The temperament of the horse was in many cases a factor in preventing a crossing accident.

With the introduction of the automobile, the speed of the vehicle approaching the grade crossing was increased to twenty-five miles or more per hour. The vehicle was closed and the whistle could not be heard easily. The result was that when the whistle sounded, the engine was nine hundred or more feet from the crossing and the automobile approximately six hundred feet away. The automobile driver did not hear the whistle for the crossing.

To overcome this condition, we tried sounding the standard crossing signal a second time. This made extra work for the engineer, annoyed the passengers and the first sounding signal was superfluous.

lt, however, seemed to solve the problem by keeping the whistle blowing until the crossing was reached. With these facts before us, we decided to adopt the highway crossing signal of two long, one short and one long blast of the engine whistle, holding the last blast of the whistle up to the crossing. The following bulletin was issued:

“Enginemen and Trainmen. Effective 12:01 p.m., Saturday, August 7, 1926, joint bulletin dated December 1, 1925, joint important bulletin issued during October, 1925, and Special Time Table Instructions with reference to the sounding of highway crossing whistle signal 14-L, are cancelled.

“Rule 14-L and D-14-L are modified as follows:

"Two long, one short and one long.

"Approaching public crossing at grade. The last blast of whistle to continue until engine reaches highway crossing.  

“Enginemen will give consideration to speed train is moving in gauging the distance from the crossing that whistle signal 14-L or D-14-L, will be started.

“The warning signal approaching public crossing at grade is for the protection of pedestrians, drivers, and occupants of vehicles. Their safety and safe operation of trains depends on the vigilance and judgment of enginemen in approaching the crossing and sounding the whistle signal as provided by rule."

This bulletin was issued by the general managers and approved by the operating vice president.

We are fully convinced that this system of whistling is good. We have had favorable comment from automobile drivers and have personally observed cars that made short stops at grade crossings. We have had a few cases of automobiles struck at the grade crossing while the last blast of the whistle was in progress. We sound the whistle in accord with the rule but we cannot guarantee that the people who ought to heed it even hear it. One great menace is the driver who runs into the side of trains. This constitutes from 25 to 45 per cent of our crossing accidents. Taking this fact into consideration and the cases where the whistle would be useless — a back-up switch movement for instance — we are satisfied that two long, one short and one long blast of the whistle, the last blast continued up to the crossing, is making a reduction in the number of crossing accidents where the locomotive hits the automobile.

It is our practice to make checks at grade crossings to know that the crossing whistle rule is being lived up to.

We know that some automobile drivers are thoughtless and unobservant and often fail to note that they are approaching a railroad crossing.

To such drivers, the whistle continued to the crossing, should prove a life-saving influence. The sound of the whistle should awaken them to the danger confronting them.

Some railroads continue two long and two short blasts of the whistle, but specify in their rules that the sound of the whistle must be continued until the crossing is reached, the engineer to use his judgment as to when the crossing whistle shall commence.

An analysis of highway grade crossing accidents as published by the Interstate Commerce Commission shows that the Burlington Railroad in its efforts to reduce grade crossing accidents is well toward the head of the list of the larger railroads.

We believe our rule for whistling for railroad-highway grade crossings to be a good one, but whatever system of whistling may be adopted by any railroad, the real protection to the public is to keep the whistle blowing until the engine is on the crossing.

 

Basing present practice on those of 86 years ago when very few crossings had gates (in some towns, manned).  Brilliant!  In other countries, a horn is blown only at ungated crossings, and then often just one application.   As I recall, in Morse, long long short long is the letter Q.  No coincidence since the Burlington was often called Q.

[tree68]

Deggesty

...I had to make the last blast for one crossing to be the first blast for the next crossing--and the engineer did not correct me.

I've seen a lot of spots like that around the country.  Usually the whistle posts are marked "W MX" for such locales.

[Deggesty]

Thank you, Mike, for that explanation of why the last blast is to be extended until the crossing is reached. I had felt that it is far better, for the safety of the public, to hold the last blast.

I wonder what empirical experiment could have been conducted to show whether it is better to hold the last blast or to not hold it.

I have mentioned this before, in a least one post on another thread of my experience in blowing a horn when traveling at 90 mph--when going through some towns in north Mississippi, I had to make the last blast for one crossing to be the first blast for the next crossing--and the engineer did not correct me.

[wanswheel]

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's Magazine, Volume 86 (1929)

The Whistle and the Highway Crossing

By J.A. Carney, Department of Safety, Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R.R. Co., Chicago

(A talk given before the National Safety Congress, New York City)

In the horse and buggy days, the whistling sign for road crossings was located from 990 to 1,320 feet from the highway grade crossing and the whistle signal was two long and two short blasts sounded near the whistle sign. The movement of the vehicle was seldom over eight miles an hour and usually much less. The vehicle was usually open and the whistle could easily be heard. The temperament of the horse was in many cases a factor in preventing a crossing accident.

With the introduction of the automobile, the speed of the vehicle approaching the grade crossing was increased to twenty-five miles or more per hour. The vehicle was closed and the whistle could not be heard easily. The result was that when the whistle sounded, the engine was nine hundred or more feet from the crossing and the automobile approximately six hundred feet away. The automobile driver did not hear the whistle for the crossing.

To overcome this condition, we tried sounding the standard crossing signal a second time. This made extra work for the engineer, annoyed the passengers and the first sounding signal was superfluous.

lt, however, seemed to solve the problem by keeping the whistle blowing until the crossing was reached. With these facts before us, we decided to adopt the highway crossing signal of two long, one short and one long blast of the engine whistle, holding the last blast of the whistle up to the crossing. The following bulletin was issued:

“Enginemen and Trainmen. Effective 12:01 p.m., Saturday, August 7, 1926, joint bulletin dated December 1, 1925, joint important bulletin issued during October, 1925, and Special Time Table Instructions with reference to the sounding of highway crossing whistle signal 14-L, are cancelled.

“Rule 14-L and D-14-L are modified as follows:

"Two long, one short and one long.

"Approaching public crossing at grade. The last blast of whistle to continue until engine reaches highway crossing.  

“Enginemen will give consideration to speed train is moving in gauging the distance from the crossing that whistle signal 14-L or D-14-L, will be started.

“The warning signal approaching public crossing at grade is for the protection of pedestrians, drivers, and occupants of vehicles. Their safety and safe operation of trains depends on the vigilance and judgment of enginemen in approaching the crossing and sounding the whistle signal as provided by rule."

This bulletin was issued by the general managers and approved by the operating vice president.

We are fully convinced that this system of whistling is good. We have had favorable comment from automobile drivers and have personally observed cars that made short stops at grade crossings. We have had a few cases of automobiles struck at the grade crossing while the last blast of the whistle was in progress. We sound the whistle in accord with the rule but we cannot guarantee that the people who ought to heed it even hear it. One great menace is the driver who runs into the side of trains. This constitutes from 25 to 45 per cent of our crossing accidents. Taking this fact into consideration and the cases where the whistle would be useless — a back-up switch movement for instance — we are satisfied that two long, one short and one long blast of the whistle, the last blast continued up to the crossing, is making a reduction in the number of crossing accidents where the locomotive hits the automobile.

It is our practice to make checks at grade crossings to know that the crossing whistle rule is being lived up to.

We know that some automobile drivers are thoughtless and unobservant and often fail to note that they are approaching a railroad crossing.

To such drivers, the whistle continued to the crossing, should prove a life-saving influence. The sound of the whistle should awaken them to the danger confronting them.

Some railroads continue two long and two short blasts of the whistle, but specify in their rules that the sound of the whistle must be continued until the crossing is reached, the engineer to use his judgment as to when the crossing whistle shall commence.

An analysis of highway grade crossing accidents as published by the Interstate Commerce Commission shows that the Burlington Railroad in its efforts to reduce grade crossing accidents is well toward the head of the list of the larger railroads.

We believe our rule for whistling for railroad-highway grade crossings to be a good one, but whatever system of whistling may be adopted by any railroad, the real protection to the public is to keep the whistle blowing until the engine is on the crossing.

[CMStPnP]

mudchicken

West Allis had two pre-rule no-horn quiet zones on UP. That being said, it would appears that West Allis' finer citizenry ought to be held accountable for their actions that forced the proper reaction by the locomotive engineer. There are several QZ's up for removal because of the failure of the locals to keep up their part of the bargain. (pleading budget woes don't cut it)

As for the local gendarmes, their police authority ends at the R/W line most of the time. (our friend the federal pre-emption again, for very good reason.)

Sounds like West Allis.   I would again repeat what others have said the only time I have seen this behavior by Locomotive Engineers in Wisconsin is imminent impact with a person illegally on the right of way or with folks going around the down railroad gates.

Hate to get gruesome but there have been a lot of suicides in SE Wisconsin by folks  deliberately walking in front of trains or standing in front of trains at wierd hours of the morning and night..........and I would not doubt if this was someone again on the right of way.................it is around the Holidays which is prime season for suicide attempts.

[schlimm]

I realize it is a rule.  But why that sequence, why was it changed?  Is there any empirical study to support that particular sequence?

[jeffhergert]

schlimm

Why (other than tradition) must a crossing horn signal be (__ __ - __)?  It is not universal.

 

Because the rule book says it will be so.  The sequence changed from two longs and two shorts to the present two longs, one short and then one longer sound held until the crossing is completely occupied around the 1920s.  No reason it couldn't be changed again, but also no reason it needs to be changed.

Railroad managers and FRA inspectors do enforce the proper soundings of the horn at crossings.

Jeff

[schlimm]

Why (other than tradition) must a crossing horn signal be (__ __ - __)?  It is not universal.

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

jodyandcobeeoverhere

Is there some sound bite or? to help comprehend this description...? coming from a person who knows nothing about trains. I am intrigued by all the passings, screeching, tooting,and sorts of cars that pass by out side my window all day long.

First: 

Next - check out these links (or Google "train+horn+sounds" or similar):

http://www.dieselairhorns.com/sounds.html 

http://trainweb.org/mdamtrak199/trainsounds.html 

http://www.soundsnap.com/tags/train_horn 

https://www.hornblasters.com/audio (not endorsed . . . )

- Paul North. 

 

 

 

[mudchicken]

West Allis had two pre-rule no-horn quiet zones on UP. That being said, it would appears that West Allis' finer citizenry ought to be held accountable for their actions that forced the proper reaction by the locomotive engineer. There are several QZ's up for removal because of the failure of the locals to keep up their part of the bargain. (pleading budget woes don't cut it)

As for the local gendarmes, their police authority ends at the R/W line most of the time. (our friend the federal pre-emption again, for very good reason.)

[tree68]

wjstix

The federal government doesn't regulate horn volume, blowing differently at night during the day, etc.

Actually, the FRA does regulate horn volume:  "The maximum volume level for the train horn is 110 decibels which is a new requirement. The minimum sound level remains 96 decibels."  If there's an incident where the sounding of the horn is at question, you can bet that level will be checked.

While the FRA doesn't regulate exactly how the horn will be sounded, it must be sounded within established parameters, most specifically that it must begin 15-20 seconds before arriving at the crossing, in the prescribed manner (_ _ . _).  About the only latitude an engineer has is how long each blast is.

Also from the FRA website: 

"Under the Train Horn Rule  (49 CFR Part 222), locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns at least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade crossings.

 If a train is traveling faster than 60 mph, engineers will not sound the horn until it is within ¼ mile of the crossing, even if the advance warning is less than 15 seconds.

There is a "good faith" exception for locations where engineers can’t precisely estimate their arrival at a crossing and begin to sound the horn no more than 25 seconds before arriving at the crossing.

Train horns must be sounded in a standardized pattern of 2 long, 1 short and 1 long blast. The pattern must be repeated or prolonged until the lead locomotive or lead cab car occupies the grade crossing. The rule does not stipulate the durations of long and short blasts."

As previously discussed, some engineers show a bit of "tact" under certain circumstances, others not so much.  Both options can be easily defended...

[wjstix]

I remember when the SOO took over the MN&S in the early 1980'2 - the railroad line that ran in front of my house. The change from Hancock air whistles with their steam whistle sound to the single chime BLAT airhorns on the GP's was quite a contrast.

The railroads put the horns they want on their engines, but most likely for safety / insurance reasons would err on the side of being too loud rather than too soft.

The federal government doesn't regulate horn volume, blowing differently at night during the day, etc. I forget where I came across it, but there was I think an FRA ruling saying communities could set up 'quiet zones' if they wanted...basically, the gov't went out of their way to make the point that they didn't control it, so the cities didn't need their permission to do it.

One thing I've learned working for the government is, a lot of people think there has to be a law to let you do something; more often, you can do something because there's no law or regulation saying you CAN'T do it.

[jodyandcobeeoverhere]

Is there some sound bite or? to help comprehend this description...? coming from a person who knows nothing about trains. I am intrigued by all the passings, screeching, tooting,and sorts of cars that pass by out side my window all day long.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's illegal to have a train horn on your vehicle, it's just illegal to use it.