Not sure if I like this new warning system with the train horn perm at the RR crossing, it makes a lot more noise than if the engineer just blew the horn on approach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg0LprKh_ic
What the heck? Whaaattt? As Gump says " stupid is as stupid does"
I agree Chuck, way too funny. Welcome to La-La Land.
Bob
Video is from 2011 - I presume no changes have been made in the ensuing 7 years?
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CMStPnPNot sure if I like this new warning system with the train horn perm at the RR crossing, it makes a lot more noise than if the engineer just blew the horn on approach.
More directed noise, I guess.
If you're going to go through all the trouble to install those, just do what it takes to make it a quiet zone, IMO.
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
BaltACD Video is from 2011 - I presume no changes have been made in the ensuing 7 years?
I do take issue with the "two shorts" when the train leaves the station. In my experience (onother roads), they have been shorts, blown before any movement.
Johnny
More common than you would think and Zugster is correct on the directed noise issue. Regardless, the morons still ignore the warnings.
I really have little sympathy regarding the noise complaints. The people whining ought to pay for the QZ, especially the inevitable accident costs in the stupid zone.
DeggestyI do take issue with the "two shorts" when the train leaves the station. In my experience (onother roads), they have been shorts, blown before any movement.
A friend says the first thing that should move is the bell. In my experience, the two shorts usually do come just before the train moves (as called for in the rules), but I've got no real quibble with them occuring just as the train starts to move.
If that horn is timed to the crossings, than that's how it is. However, it appears that it is located at the crossing by the station, not by the other crossings.
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...
mudchickenI really have little sympathy regarding the noise complaints. The people whining ought to pay for the QZ, especially the inevitable accident costs in the stupid zone.
In all seriousness, if a crossing has quad gates or the median barriers, do train horns really matter? If someone is wanting to run a crossing with all that stuff in place, I doubt a few honks will do crap. I sometimes wonder if all the blowing we do causes the horns to become simple background noise anymore.
Disclaimer: Follow all rules and regulations pertaining to proper horn blowing.
tree68A friend says the first thing that should move is the bell.
If my E-bell moves, something is wrong. But yeah, unless doing switching with momentary starts and stops, you ring the bell. Also a bone of contention with me and newer EMDs* that have the bell switch up high. The nice thing with it being down low (where it should be!) is that it's next to the indep. handle. Easy to ring it as your hand moves to release that handle.
*-headlight swithces, too. I swear whomever at EMD/Progress/Cat/whoever this week designed their latest control stand never ran an engine, and never asked anyone that did/does.
zugmannDisclaimer: Follow all rules and regulations pertaining to proper horn blowing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Hornblower
RDCs live!
I didn't see the horns until about 4:17 of the 5:19 video - on a mast above the signal bungalow to the right of the photo, with pretty small 'bells'.
RDC horn sounds better anyway.
- PDN.
zardozThank you, Horatio.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your rulebooks.
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.
10000 feet and no dynamics? Today is going to be a good day ...
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.
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.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
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.
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.
Jeff
Paul_D_North_JrRDCs 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.
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!
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.
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)...
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.
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)...
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.
My point is you don't need any type of horn.
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?
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?
You aren't reading the statement correctly!
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.
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.