SO what are your opions on QUITE ZONES

[railfan619]

HI everybody I was just reading that Milwaukee just got there 1st Quiet zone so I was wondering on what are some of your opions of these quiet zones. I think that they completely suck. Because everytime a train blows their horn at a crossing it is usely saving a bunch of lives each time they blow. Now if they would instaute a quiet zone at every crossing in every state the death rate would go though the ROOF because people would not beable to tell when a train is barreling the down the tracks. And then you realise that the families of the dead would sue the Railroads and then all of the railroads would evenutaly go broke because of all. OF the lawsuits thay are trying to deal with well that is just what I think about them quiet zones now what do you all think of them [banghead][:(!]

[Anonymous]

Their very stupid. And there will be a price to pay. Once someone does get hit. They will sue the Railroad. UNLESS! The rules have changed at the time of this new no blow horn crossing ordeal. Allan.

[Anonymous]

Quiet Zones are all good and fine to those who live near crossings until someone they know gets hurt or killed. Then it will be the railroad's fault even though the citizens voted for the quiet zone in the first place! Why do you think RR's are putting camera's on their engines? This is a very touchy topic and full of BS litigation from people who can't take repsonsibility for themselves half the time. There are some legit cases where crossing protection fails and a crew fails to heed to a dispatcher message, etc; but these instances are rare. It's just UGLY and i doubt quiet zones will last. [2c]

[Wdlgln005]

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050810/NEWS01/508100433/1006/NEWS01

Salvation Army Donation Truck was hit by a 30mph train. Both men killed. Whistle blew a mile back. You have to STOP, LOOK, & Listen! Details in the link above.

I say let the whistles blow! It might get SOMRBODY's attention!
If they want "Quiet Zones", let the DOT eliminate the crossings, especially the dark ones. Require traffic to use ones with lights & gates. Build the railway like an expressway. Nobody gets on the tracks!

[Junctionfan]

Quiet zones belong on bridges not at crossings. Implementing a quite zone for crossings is an act of negligence on the municipal government's part.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Quiet zones belong on bridges not at crossings. Implementing a quite zone for crossings is an act of negligence on the municipal government's part.

Andrew -

As usual, you amaze me. Quiet zones pertain only to crossings. Putting a quiet zone on a bridge where the horn would only be blown in the event of an emergency makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps the next time someone is on a bridge I should not blow the horn and just run them over? Brilliant!

LC

[Anonymous]

When a area is decided on as a quiet zone, are they all protected crossings with a crossing arm? Surely just a crossbuck or lights wouldn't be enough?

[Junctionfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Quiet zones belong on bridges not at crossings. Implementing a quite zone for crossings is an act of negligence on the municipal government's part.

Andrew -

As usual, you amaze me. Quiet zones pertain only to crossings. Putting a quiet zone on a bridge where the horn would only be blown in the event of an emergency makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps the next time someone is on a bridge I should not blow the horn and just run them over? Brilliant!

LC

I don't think you understood what I meant by that. I meant if you want a quiet zone, get rid of the crossing (quiet zones belong on a bridge). Despite what you may think of me, I am not the blithering idiot you take me for.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Quiet zones belong on bridges not at crossings. Implementing a quite zone for crossings is an act of negligence on the municipal government's part.

Andrew -

As usual, you amaze me. Quiet zones pertain only to crossings. Putting a quiet zone on a bridge where the horn would only be blown in the event of an emergency makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps the next time someone is on a bridge I should not blow the horn and just run them over? Brilliant!

LC

I don't think you understood what I meant by that. I meant if you want a quiet zone, get rid of the crossing (quiet zones belong on a bridge). Despite what you may think of me, I am not the blithering idiot you take me for.

Junctionfan: Call me a blithering idiot if you wish, but I still don't understand your meaning?[%-)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by railfan619

HI everybody I was just reading that Milwaukee just got there 1st Quiet zone so I was wondering on what are some of your opions of these quiet zones. I think that they completely suck. Because everytime a train blows their horn at a crossing it is usely saving a bunch of lives each time they blow. [banghead][:(!]

U'mmmm,.. aren't you the same guy who posted earlier:

QUOTE: Originally posted by railfan619

I swear some stupid[soapbox][soapbox] people don't desevre to live around tracks because ever time a train blows their horn for a crossing. I am sure that people get on the phone and try to get some law passed to stop trains from blowing their horns. -<snip>- same thing when they try to beat a train to the crossing they should be. SHOT in the HEAD [:D][:D][:D]

So, if you are more than willing to shoot in the head anyone trying to beat a train at a crossing, why should you care if they get hit by a silent train? Seems like you have a dual standard going on.

[Murphy Siding]

TheAntiGates: You're pretty observant, in a devilish sort of way![}:)][^][:)]

[TH&B]

I say ban harn blowing and everyone who gets hit by a train the railroad can sue their family for damage. So make sure you're fellow family members don't get hit by a train or you will pay, look out for each other. The reverse of how it realy is.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

TheAntiGates: You're pretty observant, in a devilish sort of way![}:)][^][:)]

Must be that '4th star wisdom' setting in? [8D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

Quiet zones belong on bridges not at crossings. Implementing a quite zone for crossings is an act of negligence on the municipal government's part.

Andrew -

As usual, you amaze me. Quiet zones pertain only to crossings. Putting a quiet zone on a bridge where the horn would only be blown in the event of an emergency makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps the next time someone is on a bridge I should not blow the horn and just run them over? Brilliant!

LC

I don't think you understood what I meant by that. I meant if you want a quiet zone, get rid of the crossing (quiet zones belong on a bridge). Despite what you may think of me, I am not the blithering idiot you take me for.

Whatever you say Andrew. Have another Guinness...

Brilliant!

LC

[Junctionfan]

Speaking of not understanding, what is up with that last statement "Perhaps the next time someone is on a bridge I should not blow the horn and just run them over?"

You know what I believe, I believe you chose not to figure out what I was attempting to say, look for something that could be used in an arguement and went from there. I know you are a lawyer but give it a rest once in a while.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dthurman

When a area is decided on as a quiet zone, are they all protected crossings with a crossing arm? Surely just a crossbuck or lights wouldn't be enough?

IIRC, quiet zone crossings must have physical protection that prevents a vehicle from crossing the tracks when the warning is activated (unless they really, really want to cross the tracks anyhow). That might include four quadrant gates or regular gates and some form of barrier in the middle of the road approaching the tracks to prevent a motorist from driving around the gates. There was just a picture or two of such a barrier in another thread...

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

I say ban harn blowing and everyone who gets hit by a train the railroad can sue their family for damage. So make sure you're fellow family members don't get hit by a train or you will pay, look out for each other. The reverse of how it realy is.

I agree with you there. I think that the Railroad should sue the Drivers. Payback can be a pure B*tch! Allan.

[AntonioFP45]

I have ZERO sympathy for people that choose to live near rail lines.

Funny, this wasn't an issue years back. Many lower income people years back literally lived within yards of rail lines. It's likely that if they complained, they would have been ignored. Hmmmmm. They managed to survive. Many rural and country residents also lived near rail lines and welcomed the sound of a locomotive's whistle or horn. It symbolized "America at work".

But many of today's gimme-gimme, self centered, spoiled generation feel that they're entitled to peace and quiet if they buy property within 3 blocks of a rail line. They turn to city or country leaders and whine about those "bad train engineers" that blow the horn too long.

I would say to many of these wackos----Stop being so ignorant and Move!

[DrummingTrainfan]

Maybe the citizens around the tracks should have their property taxes raised to pay for underpasses so their won't be any crossings. Lets see how quickly they accept train horns.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DrummingTrainfan

Maybe the citizens around the tracks should have their property taxes raised to pay for underpasses so their won't be any crossings. Lets see how quickly they accept train horns.

Taxing the poor? that would never fly, the bleeding hearts would be coming out of the woodwork

[AntonioFP45]

DrummingTrainFan,

Good idea! Of course, when these residents find out it's usually close or above the million dollar mark by the time studies and the government safety bueracrats are finished, they drop that idea quickly. Plus, we have to remember that a bridge is an additional maintenance headache for a railroad. But then again, it's cheaper than paying out lawsuit or "out of court" settlement claims against violaters that abuse the system.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

A lot depends on how well the railroad and governments involved work together in establishing the quiet zone. The CSX main through Chicago's south side has a quiet zone roughly between 87th and 119th Streets and everybody worked together to come up with a set-up that just might work. I'm willing to give this quiet zone some time to establish a record of some sort before passing judgment on it.

On the other hand, quiet zones that are established strictly by local statute with little to no railroad input are an accident that's waiting to happen. Usually, there is no attempt to provide alternate safety devices and procedures, just stop blowing horns.

[CShaveRR]

Having stipulated that nothing beats a grade separation for both quietness and safety, I'll submit that quite zones can work quiet well (sorry--couldn't resist, in light of the title).

Both major railroads west of Chicago go through the western suburbs without sounding their horns for grade crossings under normal circumstances. These crossings are protected by standard gates and flashing lights (so-called four-way gates are rare). Considering the number of crossings, and the number of trains here, the accident rate is pretty low. People are used to the trains. They would get used to horns, probably, but why?

Keep in mind that I am a railroad operating employee. We do have rules that permit sounding of the horns in an emergency situation, when people are on or near the track, and when another train is occupying, or just clearing, the crossing.

On the UP West line, we have one grade crossing where visibility was inpaired (25th Avenue, Melrose Park). After an accident there, the trains sound their horns for that crossing. Visibility has since improved (the old National Castings plant has been demolished), and it is one of the crossings targeted for separation in the CREATE program.

[Leon Silverman]

Maybe the railroads should adopt the quiet zone policy of Cruise Ships. I was on the Celebrity Cruise Ship "Horizon" and standing in the designated "quiet zone" on the top deck of the ship. The pilot boat tooted its horn at the ship as it turned away to return to the harbor. The cruise ship replied with a blast of its' own horn, WHICH WAS DIRECTLY ABOVE WHERE I WAS STANDING. During the rest of the cruise, that area was very quiet.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Leon Silverman

Maybe the railroads should adopt the quiet zone policy of Cruise Ships. I was on the Celebrity Cruise Ship "Horizon" and standing in the designated "quiet zone" on the top deck of the ship. The pilot boat tooted its horn at the ship as it turned away to return to the harbor. The cruise ship replied with a blast of its' own horn, WHICH WAS DIRECTLY ABOVE WHERE I WAS STANDING. During the rest of the cruise, that area was very quiet.

Cool. When will we be installing the bar and swimming pool car for all the girls in bikinis...?? I don't think that will be too quiet, at least not if I'm around...lol....

LC

[ChuckCobleigh]

OK, quiet zones can be expensive to implement. Assuming no increase in the 400 or so annual deaths from grade-crossing "incidents" some of the required measures to implement a quiet zone are estimated to cost about the following:

* Four-Quadrant Gate Systems - $300,000 to $500,000
* Basic Active Warning System* - $185,000 to $400,000
* Basic Inter-Connect - $5,000 to $15,000
* Annual Maintenance - $4,000 to $10,000

*(Includes Flashing Lights and Gates, Constant Warning Time, Power Out Indicator, and Cabin)

This information is from http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/horn.shtml a page which contains some pretty good information.

Also, see the FRA release on the horn and quiet zone rule updates at http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1318.

If you can wade through all of the stuff on the FRA site, you deserve a medal. The rule release document is 77 pages of text, which is actually pretty readable for a regulatory document.

[TH&B]

All USA should be a quite zone. Contrary to popular beleife Europe has unprotected grade cossings, and they don't blow.

My home town is a quite zone, we have the odd accident. One was a lady who got stuck in traffic on the tracks, so she bolted from the SUV she was driving. One problem, she ran the wrong way and was struck and k###ed by her own vehicle.

Priceless.

I hope she didn't already have kids, or else the Darwin theory doesn't work so well.

We still have it all quite zone.

This Euro high speed train hit a tractor trailer;
http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/images/wrecks/crunch9711.jpg

Does all that horn blowing realy help?

[BigJim]

I like the quiet zones. The more the merrier! That way I don't have to listen to that blasted horn in my ear.

Her's another thing all of you should worry about, as off topic as it might be.

Creating DARK ZONES!

Now I'm not talking about RR's here. I'm talking about all of the lights that you people keep on at night. Ever see one of those shots of the USA from space. It makes me sick to think of all of the electricity that is being wasted. Most of you can't even see the Milky Way anymore.

If the USA had to go to blackout conditions in case of warfare, we wouldn't be able to get the lights turned out fast enough.

[BigJim]

QUOTE: Darwin theory doesn't work so well.

let me expound upon this statement some more. On our district, NS has installed RR Crossing signs AND get this STOP signs on the SAME post! Want to know how many people actually stop? None! They all want to play
"Beat The Train"!

Don't you idiots know what a stop sign means? Don't you know what flashing red lights mean? Don't you know what flashing red lights and a gate coming down means? You will be hard pressed to convince me that you do!

If all of that won't stop you from trying to beat the train, why should I think that a few little sound waves will stop you from doing the same?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 440cuin

All USA should be a quite zone. Contrary to popular beleife Europe has unprotected grade cossings, and they don't blow.





Does all that horn blowing realy help?

First of all why change something that has worked for many years. Those people that moved near the railroad tracks knew full well that the railroad tracks were there. So then they get annoyed by a train and call there local government, that decides that we need a quite zone. I saw a picture in an old trains magazine of a crossing that is a quite zone that doesn't have any fancy barriers just the regular arms and lights. Somebody is bound to run through there perhaps not looking at the crossing and not hear anything until it is too late. Of course this would be the drivers fault, but a horn can and does help with safety. Making the whole US a quite zone is ridiculous, there are too many unprotected rural crossings, the train’s horn is the warning in most cases.

In Europe, the place we seem to think is so great we need to imitate. A much smaller number of people drive cars. The road system isn't as good. And the trains are fewer. Less crossing and less people mean fewer accidents.
James[C):-)]