Norm48327 Euclid Hey Bucky, Before you make a federal case of this like you have done with other things, why don't you simply read the rule? Perhaps then you will understand. edblysard The rule leaves the sounding of the horn up to “the sole discretion of the engineer”…which means if the engineer feels the crossing itself is un safe, be it because it has blind spots, is designed in a manner he feels is dangerous, or any reason he can come up with, he can blow the horn.
Euclid Hey Bucky, Before you make a federal case of this like you have done with other things, why don't you simply read the rule? Perhaps then you will understand. edblysard The rule leaves the sounding of the horn up to “the sole discretion of the engineer”…which means if the engineer feels the crossing itself is un safe, be it because it has blind spots, is designed in a manner he feels is dangerous, or any reason he can come up with, he can blow the horn.
Hey Bucky, Before you make a federal case of this like you have done with other things, why don't you simply read the rule? Perhaps then you will understand.
edblysard The rule leaves the sounding of the horn up to “the sole discretion of the engineer”…which means if the engineer feels the crossing itself is un safe, be it because it has blind spots, is designed in a manner he feels is dangerous, or any reason he can come up with, he can blow the horn.
Euclid Show me where is says that the engineer has sole discretion to blow the horn as a warning when there are no vehicle operators, pedestrians, trespassers or animals present to warn; or none of the other condtions attached to the "sole judgment" provision are present.
Show me where is says that the engineer has sole discretion to blow the horn as a warning when there are no vehicle operators, pedestrians, trespassers or animals present to warn; or none of the other condtions attached to the "sole judgment" provision are present.
The OP is not in a position to see what the Engineer sees - unless he is trespassing in the cab of the locomotive. You can look out the baywindow of your house and see nothing - but your house is not 9 feet in the air looking down the right of way. Even if you are right along the track - you may be the one that the engineer is trying to warn.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Bucky - I realize this does not square with your mantra that "the railroad is always wrong," but perhaps the engineer is basing his actions on his experience with the crossing. There may not be a drunk staggering across the crossing this time, but that doesn't mean it never happens, nor does it mean that it doesn't happen often enough to warrant the warning.
We have several trail crossings along our line, and we blow the horn for them. Vehicle access is rare (or even impossible, for several), yet there have been numerous times that hikers have popped into view as we approached. Better safe than sorry.
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...
tree68 ...but perhaps the engineer is basing his actions on his experience with the crossing. There may not be a drunk staggering across the crossing this time, but that doesn't mean it never happens, nor does it mean that it doesn't happen often enough to warrant the warning.
...but perhaps the engineer is basing his actions on his experience with the crossing. There may not be a drunk staggering across the crossing this time, but that doesn't mean it never happens, nor does it mean that it doesn't happen often enough to warrant the warning.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Euclid Read the rule itself rather than someone’s interpretation of the rule. The pertinent language is “sole judgment.” “Sole judgment” means the judgment of only the engineer. The rule says the engineer may use his judgment to decide whether to blow the horn IF certain conditions are present. If those conditions are not present, where is the authority to blow the horn in a quiet zone? Not blowing the horn in a quiet zone is the whole point. Sole judgment does not mean that the engineer is free to do anything he wants.
Sole judgment of the engineer, mean the Engineer, not Euclid.
Obviously, the engineer needs to come to a complete stop before each crossing, and study how that particular crossing and it's unique qualities at that particular time in history should be dealt with in reference to the rule book. Then, and only then, after re-reading the appropriate portion of the rule book, and consulting an attorney should the engineer proceed.No, I still don't buy it.
Euclid No, the engineer simply has to have a reason to sound the horn before applying his “sole judgment” as to whether a horn signal is called for. Without a reason first, the “sole judgment” does not come into play. It is not that complicated. I would think that anybody familiar with reading railroad rules could assimilate it.
ANd if the engineer thought he saw something and did not blow the horn someone here would be the first to accuse him of not blowing enough horn.
Argument for the sake of argument is wasted breath.
Norm
1) To warn people or vehicles observed near the track.
2) To warn people or vehicles that are not observed, but might show up.
I dunno. There must come a time when you have to trust the judgement of the engineer who was trained to safely operate the equipment in a safe manner, instead of simply refighting the battle of what the meaning of the word *is* is.
Euclid Norm, There is no argument here for the sake of argument. There is a point to this, and apparently you don’t get it. There are two reasons for sounding the horn: 1) To warn people or vehicles observed near the track. 2) To warn people or vehicles that are not observed, but might show up. In non-quite zone crossings, both of these items apply. However, people here are using the “sole judgment” language to justify item #2 in a quiet zone. That is a false assumption. It is not stated in any rule, and it also defies common sense. The whole point of the quiet zone is to eliminate item #2 at a crossing.
You are the one who doesn't "get it". When you are running the railroad you can interpret the rules. Your arguments are totally inane.
I was very heavily involved in implementation of the FRA train horn rule (49 CFR Part 222) at a major Class I railroad, and I can't believe the heat this thread is generating.
First of all, there are TWO situations addressed in the FRA rule:
(1) Horn blowing in where there is no quiet zone - The FRA rule generally requires the train horn to be blown a specified time / distance before a crossing, with some limited exceptions 49 CFR 222.21 and 222.31. The rule does not restrict other kinds of horn blowing in these areas. Railroads usually have their own rules prohibiting unnecessary horn blowing.
(2) Horn blowing in a quiet zone - Trains are prohibited from "routine sounding of the locomotive horn" at public and private crossings within a quiet zone, 49 CFR 222.45. The rule does not prohibit horn blowing within a quiet zone for other purposes (for example, where required by the Part 214 roadway worker rules or operational horn blowing provided in a railroad's operating rules).
There is a general exemption from FRA horn blowing restrictions in 49 CFR 222.23(a), which reads, in full, as follows:
"Notwithstanding any other provision in this part, a locomotive engineer may sound the locomotive horn to provide a warning to animals, vehicle operators, pedestrians, trespassers or crews on other trains in an emergency situation if, in the locomotive engineeer's sole judgment, such action is appropriprate in order to prevent imminent injury, death or property damage."
This langage (and similar language which follows in 222.23(b) clearly does not authorize an engineer to sound the horn ina quiet zone whenever he or she feels like it. It has to be tied to an "emegency situation" involving "imminent injury, death or property damage". That's not my opinion of what the rule requires - that's what it says, like it or not. Now, it may be that FRA inspectors or the railroad won't be too inclined to question the judgment of an engineer who had even a colorably plausible reason for believing that such an emergency situation existed - after all, the engineer would have only a split second to react. But it clearly doesn't permit an engineer to blow the horn within a quiet zone whenver he or she just feels like it. For example, an engineer sounding the train horn at his "sole descretion" in a quiet zone just to say "hi" to his spouse is clearly in violation of the rule.
If you don't believe me, read it for yourself:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title49-vol4/pdf/CFR-2013-title49-vol4-part222.pdf
Falcon48There is a general exemption from FRA horn blowing restrictions in 49 CFR 222.23(a), which reads, in full, as follows: "Notwithstanding any other provision in this part, a locomotive engineer may sound the locomotive horn to provide a warning to animals, vehicle operators, pedestrians, trespassers or crews on other trains in an emergency situation if, in the locomotive engineeer's sole judgment, such action is appropriprate in order to prevent imminent injury, death or property damage."
Darn squirrels.
Jeff
Falcon48,
You said this above:
"This langage (and similar language which follows in 222.23(b) clearly does not authorize an engineer to sound the horn ina quiet zone whenever he or she feels like it. It has to be tied to an "emegency situation" involving "imminent injury, death or property damage". That's not my opinion of what the rule requires - that's what it says, like it or not."
Quite Zone
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
tree68 We have several trail crossings along our line, and we blow the horn for them. Vehicle access is rare (or even impossible, for several), yet there have been numerous times that hikers have popped into view as we approached. Better safe than sorry.
Are there whistleposts ahead of the trail crossings--or do the engineers simply know where such crossings are?
Johnny
Zugman says "fed and RR rules. That's all."
I brought up the ambiguity generated by habit, influenced by weariness and by distracted physical respnses when planning a trainhandling move miles ahead.
A whistle post...obey it.
When we train new engineers to respect the quiet zones first, put sfety in another place than 1st and the safety of everybody and things (including yourself in that engine) people near who a hazmat incident might poison, incinerate or slaughter, when they respect the "quiet zone" first, this thread might whither.
No one's brought this up:
As a frmn, brkmn, condr, pilot engr or condr, riding in the cab, you see an occurence that may cause a tragedy...
You yell to the engineer, "Whistle, whistle....
In a quiet zone, the engineer's first thought is "quiet zone," not "saving lives."
You of who bought houses near tracks, and gripe about whistles, think about how we can condition, train, instruct our future engineers to ignore safety for the "quiet zone" people, and ignore, however momentarily, blowing a a warning whistle sound.
I think that the best solution would be for EUCLID to not buy a house within audible distance of the railroad tracks.
Yeah I get it, locomotive horns are annoying at 3:00 am, so are Harleys with loud pipes, idiots with ridiculous sub woofers thumping bass and countless other unlisted annoyances, all of which last for a short duration.
GET OVER IT
None of those issues are known to the state of California to cause cancer, contain LEAD, result in profuse bleeding or protruding bones.
GET OVER IT, and quit your crying and put your Big Boy pants on and act like an ADULT.
Doug
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
dakotafredNot the best example, Tree; those trail crossings are not in a quiet zone.
The intention was to show that even out in the sticks, it may be necessary to use the horn if there is a demonstrated possibility that there may be someone on the tracks. One could argue that due to the remoteness (and infrequency of use) of some of the trails, there is no reason to sound the horn for them.
As for whistle posts, we have to know where the crossings are, no matter what the type. All the whistle boards on the line were pulled several years ago.
Euclid Falcon48, You said this above: "This langage (and similar language which follows in 222.23(b) clearly does not authorize an engineer to sound the horn ina quiet zone whenever he or she feels like it. It has to be tied to an "emegency situation" involving "imminent injury, death or property damage". That's not my opinion of what the rule requires - that's what it says, like it or not." You are absolutely correct, and it agrees 100% with I have said in several posts here. Thank you for your clarity. Some here are stretching the meaning of the phrase, “sole judgment” to mean that the engineer has the unlimited authority to sound the horn any time he feels like it. Of course that is absurd. In “sole judgment,” sole means only. It means that the engineer’s judgment is all that is needed to act. He does not need to have approval from anyone else. But the engineer having sole judgment does not mean that he has unlimited authority to blow the horn. There are strings attached to the engineer’s decision to use the horn. They are that certain conditions must exist first in order to apply the sole judgment. In a quiet zone, blowing the horn simply on the basis that a crossing exists, as is done in non-quiet zone crossings, is forbidden.
For obvious reasons, FRA didn't want to prohibit emergency whistling in quiet zones. But that creates a problem. Suppose FRA simply said that emergency whistling was permitted in a quiet zone, without more. Now suppose that there was a grade crossing accident in a quiet zone where the engineer didn't whistle. A plaintiff's lawyer would almost certainly argue that the engineer violated "duty of care" by not whistling as an emergency situation unfolded, and that the engineer and the railroad were thus liable for the injuries and property damage incurred by the struck motorist. The "sole judgment" language is intended to permit the engineer to whistle in a perceived emergency situation without violating the rule, but eliminate any DUTY to do so (and therefore eliminate any liablity for a failure to whistle in a quiet zone "emergency"). It really would have been an intolerable situation if FRA had prohibited routine quiet zone whistling and let railroads and railroad engineers hang out to dry in quiet zone grade crossing collisions because they didn't whistle, and FRA was well aware of this.
challenger3980 I think that the best solution would be for EUCLID to not buy a house within audible distance of the railroad tracks. Yeah I get it, locomotive horns are annoying at 3:00 am, so are Harleys with loud pipes, idiots with ridiculous sub woofers thumping bass and countless other unlisted annoyances, all of which last for a short duration. GET OVER IT None of those issues are known to the state of California to cause cancer, contain LEAD, result in profuse bleeding or protruding bones. GET OVER IT, and quit your crying and put your Big Boy pants on and act like an ADULT.
I don't get the hostility to Euclid on this and other threads.
Here, for instance, he has made no complaint about whistles per se, let alone about a railroad he may (or may not) have chosen to live beside. He has only tried -- and done a better job than most on here -- to interpret the language of a federal rule.
I don't understand how that deserves people's hatred and contempt.
Sometimes, especially on safety issues, Euclid has been known to ride a horse to death. That hardly makes him the Lone Ranger around here.
dakotafredI don't get the hostility to Euclid on this and other threads.
I believe it stems from his abject refusal to accept facts and/or the word of people who know. There always seems to be that exception, or that once-in-a-lifetime odd factor which he cites in an attempt to prove that the facts don't apply to his argument. Hence "yes, but..."
tree68 dakotafred I don't get the hostility to Euclid on this and other threads. I believe it stems from his abject refusal to accept facts and/or the word of people who know. There always seems to be that exception, or that once-in-a-lifetime odd factor which he cites in an attempt to prove that the facts don't apply to his argument. Hence "yes, but..."
dakotafred I don't get the hostility to Euclid on this and other threads.
EuclidThe people who know?
In legal circles, they're know to be called upon for their expert opinion.
Looking over this thread, it seems that two posters with inside knowledge support the interpretation of the regulation such that engineers cannot just blow the horn at a quiet zone crossing just because they feel like it for unspecified reasons of safety. One, Falcon 48, was involved with a major railroad's implementation of the regulation. The other is a retired CNW engineer (Carl), who thought the engineer in question, who routinely blows his horn in the night at a quiet zone crossing, was likely in the wrong.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.