Train Horns.

[Anonymous]

To be honest I already know that this subject has been brought up before but,But now that the FRA & NTSB has already extended until next year on the topic about the noise on Train Horns or what is known as the QUIET ZONES yet to come very soon! It won't happen every where even though I have "never" heard no complains about the Train Horns anyway.I already know what I feel about the Horns in the first place in which I am not saying at this time.
But before this new law does take affect what do you think?
Do you think this Horn ban soon to come is a good thing or not?
Changes are a coming they just won't be major..........Yet!

[Anonymous]

As long as these quiet zones have the necessary protection in regards to the public crossings at grade, then I see no reason for the trains to be blowing their horns.

If someone is going to be driving around flashing gates and bells, I can't see why a horn would stop them.

[andrewjonathon]

I agree that if a crossing has all of the proper equipment a horn is not necessary. The only concern I would have is in a situation where the gates, bells and lights malfunction. In this instance, if the train was still using the horn it might save someone from the malfunctioning equipment. Here is a radical idea, I think that speeding up trains passing through town may save lives. If people knew that a 100 car train would passby quickly instead of taking 10 minutes to clear the crossing there would be less incentive to try to out race the train. Besides even slow trains travelling at 25 mph can't stop in time if a car rushes out in front so who does the 'slow' speeds through town save? I have never out raced a train but I do know the frustration that can trigger people to do it. I catch a commuter bus from a park n ride that is just on the otherside of a BNSF line. Typically most people leave the house so that you arrive at the park n ride with just a couple of minutes to spare. Every once in awhile just as I am getting to the park n ride the rail crossings signals start flashing and a 100 car train rolls by at 15 mph. Inevitably, what seems like an hour later, the end of the train passes just in time for me to see the bus pulling out of the park n ride. It really hurts when that bus happens to be the last one of the day.

[Overmod]

andrewjonathan, don't forget that kinetic energy goes up with the square of speed.

But, weirdly enough, the idea has a certain amount of merit PROVIDED appropriate tort reform (etc.) can be put in place.

We can assume that a 100-car train coming up on a crossing at 15mph probably won't be able to stop without hitting something that is 'unexpectedly' on that crossing, or that tries to run the gates at the last moment and 'doesn't quite make it'. The amount of damage to vehicles, etc. might be very little different for a 30mph impact than for a 15mph impact, despite the far greater nominal collision energy... totaled is totaled, and somewhat more grimly, dead is probably dead. Lawyers and the public probably won't look at it that way; there already seems to be a tacit assumption that trains ought to "stop" in order to avoid hitting things or people, and they should bear some part of the responsibility... usually any percentage adding up to the lion's share of actual money damages in a lawsuit... if they do not.

It would have to be established that the higher permitted speeds weren't causing a higher risk or damage-causing potential. This would be a very hard thing to try to legislate, and an even harder thing to establish at trial.

As mentioned here before, there ought to be a quid pro quo for 'quiet zones' -- that being that any collision between a train and something else on the track receives statutory immunity from anything involving warning devices. (I presume that the locomotive bell is not covered by these noise ordinances, and will still be rung at 'quiet' crossings, providing at least some warning to pedestrians at least, if the noise of the engine, wheels, and -- in emergencies -- the sound of the air going on is not sufficient).

Perhaps a much, much better approach with the 'bus' question is to have the bus wait until a couple of minutes after all trains have cleared the crossing, and have the bus driver watch for traffic going into or out of the park 'n' ride lot...

[BaltACD]

The best way to have Quiet Zones is to eliminate road crossing.

Quiet and Safe.

Otherwise, let the carnage begin.

[Overmod]

Not to argue with the idea of full physical grade separation and crossing elimination -- where I wholeheartedly agree --

That's only the first step.

The second step is to ensure that pedestrians, trespassers, commuters-in-a-hurry, would-be suicides, etc. get no access to the physical ROW. And if they do, they're promptly taken in hand and escorted away before a train gets there...

THEN we have a reasonable means of arresting the carnage...

[Anonymous]

My question is:
How many years have trains been sounding there horns?

My second question is:
How many years have "quiet zones" been around?

You don't want the noise, move away from the tracks, build quiet-needing places such as hospitals away from the tracks, etc. The bottom line is, noise or no noise, stupid people are always going to try beat the train. To me, keep the system in place thats been there for many years. If that sounding horn saves one persons life, than its worth 10 seconds of "noise interference" to the "quiet zone.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BaltACD

The best way to have Quiet Zones is to eliminate road crossing.

Quiet and Safe.

Otherwise, let the carnage begin.

I agree.

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jamison1

My question is:
How many years have trains been sounding there horns?

My second question is:
How many years have "quiet zones" been around?

You don't want the noise, move away from the tracks, build quiet-needing places such as hospitals away from the tracks, etc. The bottom line is, noise or no noise, stupid people are always going to try beat the train. To me, keep the system in place thats been there for many years. If that sounding horn saves one persons life, than its worth 10 seconds of "noise interference" to the "quiet zone.

That's a good point that always comes up, I'm sure in near 100% of the cases the Railway was there before the people that are now complaining.

I know I would probably have a tough time living by the railway tracks, so I would make a point of not living by them.

I know there's very little sympathy for people out there that move beside a landfill, then complain about the smell, why should people living near railway tracks be any different?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

Anyone who believes that railways should have carte blanche to do whatever they want in regards to noise in a built-up area, or that residents have carte blanche to demand perfect silence, is living in the wrong country. Or, they should tear up the Constitution and write a new one for a totalitarian state. The law recognizes that reasonable people often have conflicting goals, and attempts to adjudicate them. Politics is the method for writing the laws. Politics is where people go when conflicting goals cannot be reconciled by ordinary means; that is, there isn't an obvious winning solution for all parties in the situation at hand. Office politics, which I know a lot about, is the everyday method used to reconcile different departments with different goals. It's no fun, it's not satisfying, and until we're all assimilated into the Borg, it's utterly inevitable.

Grade crossing noise is a conflict between the property rights of two parties that can't be resolved by telling one side to shut up. Coming into this issue as a blind partisan of railroads will be unproductive and foolish; it will convince no one on the opposite side of our righteousness, but it will demonstrate to them the need to match our blind partisanship, and of the general untrustworthiness of the railroad. As long as we are spouting rhetoric about the stupid or greedy or selfish public, we're enriching all the lawyers, politicians, flacks, and media companies that feed off conflict. And we're polarizing positions and doing real harm to railroads, too.

What do you propose should be done to resolve these quiet zone problems?

[BaltACD]

For my two cents it boils down to prior rights. ie. who was there first.

In the vast majority of the cases, the roads that cross the railroad were built and developed after the existance of the railroad. In those situations it behooves the 'late comer' to develop the protection at his expense.

In the situations where the railroads sought and received authority to cross existing roadways, it then behooves the railroads to develop protection at their own expense.

Simplistic...yes. Does it put most of the expense in the 'public sector' ....yes. However, who derives the bulk of the benefits....the 'public sector' in the quiet and safety for their constituants. Of course the 'public sector' being what it is...wants something for nothing...they want the railroads to pay for the improvements that benefit the 'public sector' not the railroads.

[peterjenkinson1956]

when i travelled on amtrack i could not believe the number of times the engineer blew the horn as he went thru town in the middle of the night...here in queensland australia the drivers give a short toot on the horn and 99% of the crossings have no protection...could it be that the american system protects the fools who do not look or are so dumb that they race the train or do they penalise the hardworking drivers of the trains and the railroads whe are just doing their jobs.....i suggest less horn blowing and more brains

[Anonymous]

QUOTE:
i suggest less horn blowing and more brains

The world would be a lot better if more people would reason and use common sense.

But if that was the case, we wouldn't have the TV show "COPS" -- and that would just be wrong.

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by peterjenkinson1956

when i travelled on amtrack i could not believe the number of times the engineer blew the horn as he went thru town in the middle of the night...here in queensland australia the drivers give a short toot on the horn and 99% of the crossings have no protection...could it be that the american system protects the fools who do not look or are so dumb that they race the train or do they penalise the hardworking drivers of the trains and the railroads whe are just doing their jobs.....i suggest less horn blowing and more brains

Whistle Posts are place 1000 feet or more prior to crossings.

The rules state the Whistle (Horn) signal for road crossings is 2 longs, 1 short , 1 long with the last long to be prolonged until reaching the crossing. Whistle blowing is to begin at the Whistle Post.

The rules climate existant in the US today would get an engineer at least a verbal repremand would the local tranmaster or road foreman observe a failure. Brains and full compliance with the rules are sometimes in total conflict.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by peterjenkinson1956

could it be that the american system protects the fools who do not look or are so dumb that they race the train...
...more brains

There lies the rub. It's always the other guy's fault. Darned train jumped out and hit me unawares. One would be tempted to assume that a driver would know that if the lights are flashing and the gates are down that there's a train coming. Bear in mind that the same person likely would not even consider going through a red light, even if a clear view in both directions indicated there was no traffic.

[peterjenkinson1956]

in reply to my earlier note there was a train driver who lived just south of sydney who got into trouble for blowing the horn in the american style...he got spoken to for excessive noise........peter

[Anonymous]

It's a common rules violation.

Technically though, as stated, you are supposed to do the l-l-s-l starting at the whistle post and stopping your last long when the crossing is occupied.

You are supposed to repeat if you finished before the crossing is occupied.

I don't know how many times I've hear three short toots, then another toot as the train gets to the crossing.

The hogger may be giving the neighbourhood a break, but he's technically in violation of the rules.

[AntonioFP45]

Some of you probably heard about this issue in the Brandon, Florida area where a new sub-division was built within yards of a CSX main line. The residents have been complaining and demanded that the county do something about "those horrid trains" blowing their horns. One "poor ***" complained that tending his flower garden was no longer an enjoyable activity. Funny part is that the main line was there.......since the early 1900s!

I have no sympathy for people that move next to a mainline and then demand that the railroad that was there when the land was a swamp make safety compromising changes. Be gone, bleeding heart!

I have absolutely

[DaveBr]

Is there a differance in the train horn and the horn of a diesel truck,or a fire truck? I believe the sound of the train comes with the USA.Maybe thats why they invented Ear Plugs.All a person has to do is put them in their ears.There are so many other sounds today,but the sound of a train and the horn sounds the best.Maybe they could make it like the small telephone where the Engineer could change the sound once in a while,
I don't think the people would move if they heard the sound of a bird etc... Davebr