zugmann Bucyrus: The FRA wants medians in to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train in exchange for eliminating the horn blowing. Yet horn blowing does nothing to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train. So what is the point of requiring medians in exchange for no horn blowing? What horn blowing does is wake up drivers who are sleeping, impaired, or distracted, and who are about to drive through the lowered gate and past the flashing lights because they are not aware of them. Yet adding medians does nothing to help with this problem. Again - source, or is this just your opinion?
Bucyrus: The FRA wants medians in to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train in exchange for eliminating the horn blowing. Yet horn blowing does nothing to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train. So what is the point of requiring medians in exchange for no horn blowing? What horn blowing does is wake up drivers who are sleeping, impaired, or distracted, and who are about to drive through the lowered gate and past the flashing lights because they are not aware of them. Yet adding medians does nothing to help with this problem.
What horn blowing does is wake up drivers who are sleeping, impaired, or distracted, and who are about to drive through the lowered gate and past the flashing lights because they are not aware of them. Yet adding medians does nothing to help with this problem.
Again - source, or is this just your opinion?
The first sentence about trading horn blowing for medians or similar means to prevent running around the gate is in the link posted above by Greyhounds. It is the basic rationale for quiet zones, and detailed in many references to them.
The source for the rest is just common sense. What can the horn do to save somebody who wants to run around the gate? What can medians do to prevent people from falling asleep, passing out, or not paying attention?
RudyRockvilleMD That's ok if you don't open the windows.
That's ok if you don't open the windows.
Speak for youself and not for others!
Sleeping with the windows open is one of the Great Pleasures of life. And life is to be enjoyed, not endured.
There is joy in waking up to a gentle warm breeze blowing through your bedroom. People (and remember this is all about people) should not be denied that joy due to an obsolete Federal regulation that trains blow horns approaching grade crossing protected with lights and gates. That is, if that regulation produces no tangible benefit. Does it?
There is one very interesting and essential thing that the train horn does for which there is no substitute. It is a backup warning in case of signal failure-to-activate. I notice that one requirement for a quiet zone is the installation of power-out indicators for approaching trains, but this cannot possibly be a guaranteed prevention of failure-to-activate. Railroad authorities such as FRA, state DOTs, and OL will tell you that a failure-to-activate is impossible, which of course is not true.
I suppose the power-out indicator would tell an engineer of an approaching train to blow the horn since the horn is authorized for emergencies, but still, there must be some margin of error in that manual response, and vehicle traffic pouring over a crossing that has failed to activate with an approaching train creates a very high probability of a collision because drivers let their guard down at signalized crossings. They rely on the signals to protect them.
It is possible for signals to fail to activate even though they have “fail-safe” circuitry. Is it not possible for signals to fail to activate while the power-out indicator shows clear? If it is, then the quiet zones pose a risk that does not exist with a horn zone. If that is the case, I wonder why the FRA does not see it as a safety impediment to prevent quiet zones. Maybe it is because they don’t want to advertise that signals can fail to activate.
I, too, would opine that there are drivers who equate the train horn and the flashing lights/gates to the amber in a stoplight - hurry up or you'll have to stop (and wait for an interminable amount of time, or so it seems). To them the only firm indication that they must stop is a train occupying the crossing.
Median barriers are only going to prevent people who are already next to them from running the crossing. Combined with four-quadrant gates, you have a barrier that, while not impermiable, will at least stop most folks from running the crossing.
You can't do much about the medical or mechanical problems (why do cars always seem to stall on the crossing?).
The only true solution without closing crossings is grade separation, as we've discussed here ad nauseum. Unfortunately in many urban settings that option is very nearly impossible to accomplish.
I don't have to worry about train horns wafting in through my open windows. I would like my neighbor to put mufflers on those mini-doxies, though.
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...
Bucyrus There is one very interesting and essential thing that the train horn does for which there is no substitute. It is a backup warning in case of signal failure-to-activate. I notice that one requirement for a quiet zone is the installation of power-out indicators for approaching trains, but this cannot possibly be a guaranteed prevention of failure-to-activate. Railroad authorities such as FRA, state DOTs, and OL will tell you that a failure-to-activate is impossible, which of course is not true. I suppose the power-out indicator would tell an engineer of an approaching train to blow the horn since the horn is authorized for emergencies, but still, there must be some margin of error in that manual response, and vehicle traffic pouring over a crossing that has failed to activate with an approaching train creates a very high probability of a collision because drivers let their guard down at signalized crossings. They rely on the signals to protect them. It is possible for signals to fail to activate even though they have “fail-safe” circuitry. Is it not possible for signals to fail to activate while the power-out indicator shows clear? If it is, then the quiet zones pose a risk that does not exist with a horn zone. If that is the case, I wonder why the FRA does not see it as a safety impediment to prevent quiet zones. Maybe it is because they don’t want to advertise that signals can fail to activate.
What if,
What if.
You can play that game all day. Nothing is foolproof. But I've seen more than one car that was about to blast past activated warning signals stop because my hogger laid on the horn nice and heavy. So yeah, it does help at times.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Bucyrus schlimm: 4. No-horn gated crossings where the crossing is protected from cars running around through a median. This solves the problem. No horn noise. No crashes. It's easy.
schlimm: 4. No-horn gated crossings where the crossing is protected from cars running around through a median.
4. No-horn gated crossings where the crossing is protected from cars running around through a median.
This solves the problem. No horn noise. No crashes. It's easy.
Except when someone drives down the wrong lane to get around the median. I've seen it done. It may not happen as much as drivers going around lowered gates alone, but it can be (and has been) done.
Jeff
The horn signal is especially useful at an unsignalled grade crossing - i.e., one with just the standard passive X-shaped 'crossbucks' - and especially on lightly or moderately used rail lines. For an approaching motorist, the horn is the only advance warning that a train is actually approaching - in other words, that the situation is different from the more normal condition of no train.
This is even more important where the motorist's visibility of the rail line approaching the crossing is limited - or perhaps practically nonexistent, resulting from vegetation, embankments, trackside buildings and industrial facilities, in built-up or urban areas, etc. - until the vehicle is at the crossing. In those circumstances the driver might not be able to see the train (and likely can't at night), nor the very focused and directional (along the track) headlight and ditch lights until he/ she is close to or on the crossing - and by then it may be too late.
- Paul North.
zugmannBut I've seen more than one car that was about to blast past activated warning signals stop because my hogger laid on the horn nice and heavy. So yeah, it does help at times.
How do you know he was about to pass active warning signals? And if he was, how do you know it was the horn, as opposed to the signal, that made him stop?
I contend that sounding the horn has no effect on drivers who want to beat the train, but it does prevent crashes by waking up drivers who have fallen asleep, or are otherwise distracted. In the incident you cite, perhaps the driver was distracted and the horn got his attention. Why are you assuming instead that the driver intended to run the signal, but the horn changed his mind?
Bucyrus zugmann: But I've seen more than one car that was about to blast past activated warning signals stop because my hogger laid on the horn nice and heavy. So yeah, it does help at times. How do you know he was about to pass active warning signals? And if he was, how do you know it was the horn, as opposed to the signal, that made him stop? I contend that sounding the horn has no effect on drivers who want to beat the train, but it does prevent crashes by waking up drivers who have fallen asleep, or are otherwise distracted. In the incident you cite, perhaps the driver was distracted and the horn got his attention. Why are you assuming instead that the driver intended to run the signal, but the horn changed his mind?
zugmann: But I've seen more than one car that was about to blast past activated warning signals stop because my hogger laid on the horn nice and heavy. So yeah, it does help at times.
Because I have the same awesome mind-reading powers that you pretend to have! If you contend that the horn has no effect, than I can contend that it does!!
Prove me wrong.
What if, What if, What if, What if.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
zugmannBecause I have the same awesome mind-reading powers that you pretend to have! If you contend that the horn has no effect, than I can contend that it does!! Prove me wron
I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the lack of horns in quiet zones results in more crashes than would be the case if horns were sounded? Please clarify.
I know a Few people on here will not like my answer but in the OTR industry we just use plain old Dynamat to kill noise comng from the outside and to insulate our Cabs and Sleepers. Be amazed how well that stuff does work. When it can stop the sound of a guy with 6 inch straight pipes running his truck at night less than 3 feet from your head and on the other side is a guy hauling Ice Cream in 120 Degree heat it does work pretty dang well.
Considering that you are in a metal Box with the Sound deadeding property of a Tank Car being hit with a sledgehammer and your trying to get your sleep in the sucker.
Bucyrus zugmann: Because I have the same awesome mind-reading powers that you pretend to have! If you contend that the horn has no effect, than I can contend that it does!! Prove me wron I am not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the lack of horns in quiet zones results in more crashes than would be the case if horns were sounded? Please clarify.
zugmann: Because I have the same awesome mind-reading powers that you pretend to have! If you contend that the horn has no effect, than I can contend that it does!! Prove me wron
My point is that I don't know what is going through drivers' minds, and you do not either, sir.
I do not know if lack of horns cause more crashes, or if they cause less, or if they make a cow play chess when the farmer is in the can.
zugmannMy point is that I don't know what is going through drivers' minds, and you do not either, sir. I do not know if lack of horns cause more crashes, or if they cause less, or if they make a cow play chess when the farmer is in the can.
Well if you take the position that nothing can be known because nothing is certain, I don’t see how you can do anything. All traffic control devices make assumptions based on how they will be interpreted by drivers, or what is in the mind of the driver. DOT is adding yield signs to crossbucks because they have found that, in the minds of many drivers, the meaning of the crossbuck is not understood to be yield as the rules say it is. The DOT doesn’t worry about cows playing chess.
Bucyrus zugmann: Bucyrus: The FRA wants medians in to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train in exchange for eliminating the horn blowing. Yet horn blowing does nothing to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train. So what is the point of requiring medians in exchange for no horn blowing? What horn blowing does is wake up drivers who are sleeping, impaired, or distracted, and who are about to drive through the lowered gate and past the flashing lights because they are not aware of them. Yet adding medians does nothing to help with this problem. Again - source, or is this just your opinion? The first sentence about trading horn blowing for medians or similar means to prevent running around the gate is in the link posted above by Greyhounds. It is the basic rationale for quiet zones, and detailed in many references to them. The source for the rest is just common sense. What can the horn do to save somebody who wants to run around the gate? What can medians do to prevent people from falling asleep, passing out, or not paying attention?
zugmann: Bucyrus: The FRA wants medians in to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train in exchange for eliminating the horn blowing. Yet horn blowing does nothing to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train. So what is the point of requiring medians in exchange for no horn blowing? What horn blowing does is wake up drivers who are sleeping, impaired, or distracted, and who are about to drive through the lowered gate and past the flashing lights because they are not aware of them. Yet adding medians does nothing to help with this problem. Again - source, or is this just your opinion?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding Bucyrus: zugmann: Bucyrus: The FRA wants medians in to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train in exchange for eliminating the horn blowing. Yet horn blowing does nothing to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train. So what is the point of requiring medians in exchange for no horn blowing? What horn blowing does is wake up drivers who are sleeping, impaired, or distracted, and who are about to drive through the lowered gate and past the flashing lights because they are not aware of them. Yet adding medians does nothing to help with this problem. Again - source, or is this just your opinion? The first sentence about trading horn blowing for medians or similar means to prevent running around the gate is in the link posted above by Greyhounds. It is the basic rationale for quiet zones, and detailed in many references to them. The source for the rest is just common sense. What can the horn do to save somebody who wants to run around the gate? What can medians do to prevent people from falling asleep, passing out, or not paying attention? I don't know if you're being fair with your arguments. When promoting your thoughts, it's called common sense. Yet when someone else calls their thoughts common sense, you seem to suggest that they need to provide you with 100% peer reviewed, irrefutable, scientific data, complete with footnotes, and mathmatical backup carried out to the 4th digit. .......Of course, this is just my opinion and common sense.
Bucyrus: zugmann: Bucyrus: The FRA wants medians in to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train in exchange for eliminating the horn blowing. Yet horn blowing does nothing to prevent drivers from trying to beat the train. So what is the point of requiring medians in exchange for no horn blowing? What horn blowing does is wake up drivers who are sleeping, impaired, or distracted, and who are about to drive through the lowered gate and past the flashing lights because they are not aware of them. Yet adding medians does nothing to help with this problem. Again - source, or is this just your opinion? The first sentence about trading horn blowing for medians or similar means to prevent running around the gate is in the link posted above by Greyhounds. It is the basic rationale for quiet zones, and detailed in many references to them. The source for the rest is just common sense. What can the horn do to save somebody who wants to run around the gate? What can medians do to prevent people from falling asleep, passing out, or not paying attention?
I don’t get your comment. How am I being unfair with my arguments? I am the one citing common sense as a source. I am certainly not calling for peer reviewed, irrefutable, scientific data complete with footnotes, and mathematical backup carried to the 4th digit, as you say. If I seem to be suggesting that, I don’t know what you are reading. Where have I suggested that? If anything, it is zugmann who is suggesting that. He is the one who wants source citations.
Please clarify how I am being unfair with my arguments, as you say.
The power indicators on the instrument cases reveal if commercial power is getting to the case. There are still batteries to provide backup if the power goes out. If the light on the case is flashing, it needs to get called in, so the maintainer can take a look at things. Pretty much all crossing with lights and anything fancier have power indicators, quiet zone or not.
A failure to activate is usually due to a fault in the wiring somewhere. It could be from a vehicle striking the instrument case after getting hit by a train... Maintainer opened the case after that and most of the parts came falling out...
If there is a failure to activate, the trains are notified, and need to stop and flag the crossing.
Often the failure is false activation, the lights and bells go off, and no train is nearby. System detects a fault, and gets things going. Some of these are caused by broken rails. Trains are notified of this as well.
Part of the quiet zone process is assumption of some liability by the municipality that requested the quiet zone in the first place.
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Thanks for that explanation Mike. You mention that when a crossing is changed from a horn signal crossing to a quiet crossing, the municipality must assume part of the liability as part of the deal. I would also conclude that the overall amount of liability increases due to the added danger because of a fundamental assumption that eliminating horn blowing increases the danger. I wonder if that point is officially confirmed by the FRA. Do they state that a quiet zone crossing is more dangerous than a horn signal crossing?
The reasons why I would assume that the quiet zone crossing is more dangerous are these:
1) The horn signal is a backup to the automatic warning system in case it fails to activate.
2) The horn signal is a backup to the automatic warning system in case a driver is asleep, impaired, or visually distracted.
I refer folks back to the original points made by greyhounds and expanded on by myself. We don't really know how effective train horns are, particularly in built-up urban and suburban areas. There are options besides using horns or whistles simply because they were chosen for use in the days of open carriages (horse or motor powered). Several are clearly more effective than horns, but expensive or inconvenient. Others are being used, but more empirical evidence for their efficacy is needed.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
edbenton I know a Few people on here will not like my answer but in the OTR industry we just use plain old Dynamat to kill noise comng from the outside and to insulate our Cabs and Sleepers. Be amazed how well that stuff does work. When it can stop the sound of a guy with 6 inch straight pipes running his truck at night less than 3 feet from your head and on the other side is a guy hauling Ice Cream in 120 Degree heat it does work pretty dang well. Considering that you are in a metal Box with the Sound deadeding property of a Tank Car being hit with a sledgehammer and your trying to get your sleep in the sucker.
For "Home Acoustic Solutions" and "architectural applications", see: http://www.dynamat.com/products_architectural_introduction.html That might be a practical way for our train-horn-noise-plagued visitor in Ohio [EDIT] - "Christie in Rootstown" - to go !
daveklepper The technology exists to provide quiet interiors in houses adjacent to active diesel reailroad tracks. Much of this technology was defeloped with government support to insure quiet in homes near active runways of airports, particularly with the introduction of the then noisier jet airplanes. Anyone wanting specific construction details can contact me at daveklepper@yahoo.com
Anyone wanting specific construction details can contact me at daveklepper@yahoo.com
I would advise our friend in Ohio to find others who feel the same way and take the issue to the city council. There is tremendous citizen empowerment in fighting train noise because loud noise is considered to be a public health issue. It is an environmental problem called noise pollution. So an irate citizen that can’t sleep at night has a very powerful ally. That is why the FRA is dancing on the head of a pin with quiet zones, trying keeping us safe from trains while not damaging our health from excess noise.
mudchicken Erect large orange diamond "stupid zone"signs within 500 feet of every at-grade crossing, show blanket stupid zone easements on all land transactions and plats. The same goes for flood zones, fire prone areas, airport runway landing approaches and so on....Stupid people gotta live somewhere, but the railroads and the other taxpayers should not have to pay for getting knucklheads out of dutch. Inhabitants of the stupid zones can pay for the signs too! http://www.upstateforever.org/progSCdocs/AllAboutStupidZones.pdf ps - It's not noise, it's local "ambiance"
http://www.upstateforever.org/progSCdocs/AllAboutStupidZones.pdf
ps - It's not noise, it's local "ambiance"
Around here in Pennsylvania some of them are called "Second Class Townships" (there's well over 2,000 of them statewide !). The one just to the north of me is typical - no police force other than occasional Penna. State Police patrols, minimal municipal services - snow plowing mostly, no building or property maintenance codes until a statewide code was enacted and forced upon them about 10 years ago ("Sure, a tarpaper shack is fine for a home !"), almost no property taxes, etc. I call it the "Wild West" theory and practice of local government - your neighbor can do almost anything with his property, but there's not much of a remedy available to you. What it does provide, though, is a meaningful choice - it shares the same school district, so the kids can go to an excellent school, and folks can choose how they want to live - "You pays yer money, and takes yer choice". So that's not just a 'rant' by a newspaper editorial columnist.
The expense of sound proofing homes within 1/2 mile of a crossing is probably pretty expensive. That cost should be compared with the various proposals. Obviously, if greyhounds' conjecture turns out to be correct, that alternative would be the cheapest!
schlimm The expense of sound proofing homes within 1/2 mile of a crossing is probably pretty expensive. That cost should be compared with the various proposals. Obviously, if greyhounds' conjecture turns out to be correct, that alternative would be the cheapest!
If train noise is truly bothersome to one person, it will be bothersome to many others in that same vicinity. So just get together and push for a quiet zone. You are in the driver’s seat. As long as the FRA is granting quiet zones, you might as well take one. Everyone’s taxes are going up anyways. Might as well get something for the money.
There is no way that the little guy could prevail against the FRA to compromise their safety institution if it were not for the power of a public health issue represented by train horns. Go get your quiet zone. Here in Wayzata, MN, the residents asked for one and got it. And they only have three crossings and I suppose maybe eight trains per day at the most.
Here is a detailed discussion of a quiet zone installation and its effects:
http://www.montclairnjusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1587:montclairs-quiet-zone-answers-to-frequently-asked-questions&catid=201:newsarticles&Itemid=777
It poses and answers every question I can think of except the one I am seeking the answer to. That is the question of whether or not a quiet zone crossing is more dangerous than a horn crossing, all other things being equal. They almost address that question, but they go off the rails about midway through it. They ask this:
“Won’t having a quiet zone make it more dangerous for people who walk on the tracks?”
That question almost sounds like they are trying to deflect my question before it gets asked. There is nothing in this piece that indicates an increase in danger from converting to the quiet zone. It is presented as the perfect solution with no downside whatsoever.
http://www.thekansan.com/opinions/x541349178/LETTER-Writer-Train-quiet-zones-can-be-more-dangerous-and-costly
QUOTED FROM LINK: Two FRA studies of crossing incidents in horn-ban areas in 1995 and 2000 concluded “... an average of 62 percent more collisions occurred at whistle-ban crossings equipped with gates and lights than at similar crossings in the U.S. without such bans.”
Bucyrus http://www.thekansan.com/opinions/x541349178/LETTER-Writer-Train-quiet-zones-can-be-more-dangerous-and-costly QUOTED FROM LINK: Two FRA studies of crossing incidents in horn-ban areas in 1995 and 2000 concluded “... an average of 62 percent more collisions occurred at whistle-ban crossings equipped with gates and lights than at similar crossings in the U.S. without such bans.”
I am not sure what you are questioning. You have a bunch of crossings with lights and gates that are all similar. Some of them have horn bans and some don’t. There are 62% more crashes at the ones where horns are not sounded compared to the ones where horns are sounded. The way I interpret that is banning the horns results in more crashes. How do you interpret it?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.