What are the rules for blowing train horns

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone. I got me a question when i was leaving for work this morning a Union Pac train was going though West Allis which only a mile or so from my house. and they got 6 or 7 crossings in a row and he went though at about 4:25 4:30 this morning just laying on his horn. and I mean it was a loud too. You could hear it from up two 2 or 3 miles away it was that loud. So now my question to you guys is what is the law about blowing ahorn that early in the morning and can the local cops stop the train and give the crew a ticket for distubing the peace that early in the morning.

IT IS SAPOSSED TO BE TWO LONGS,ONE SHORT,AND ONE LONG. BUT NO MATTER THE CASE. NO RAILROAD FOLLOWS THE RULES. I HAVE SEE BOTH UP AND BNSF BREAK ALL THE RULES.

[tree68]

NORAC Eighth Edition (2003):  (GCOR will be similar)

19. Engine Whistle or Horn Signals

The following are engine whistle or horn signals. The signals are illustrated by "o" for short sounds and "—" for long sounds. The sound of the whistle or horn should be distinct, with intensity and duration proportionate to the distance the signal is to be conveyed. The unnecessary use of the engine whistle or horn is prohibited.

Engine whistle or horn signal must be sounded as follows:

SOUND INDICATION

(a) — Crew members apply brakes.

(b)— — o — 1. Approaching public crossing at grade and at a whistle post indicating "W" or "W/MX." This signal is to be prolonged or repeated until engine or train is on the crossing, or, where multiple crossings are involved, until the last crossing is occupied. The whistle or horn must not be sounded at a whistle post indicating "W/R," except in case of emergency.

2. Approaching locations where Roadway Workers may be at work on tracks, bridges and other points.

3. Approaching and passing standing trains.

(c) Succession of Alarm for person or animal on or about the track.

short sounds

(d) — o When running against the current of traffic:

1. Approaching stations, curves, or other points where view may be obscured.

2. Approaching passenger or freight trains; when passing freight trains.

3. Preceding 19(b), (1) and (2).

(e) o o o 1. When standing: warning or acknowledgment that the train is to back up.

2. When running: acknowledgement that the train is to stop at next passenger station.

(f) o o 1. Acknowledgment of a Stop Signal other than a fixed signal.

2. Acknowledgment of any other signal not otherwise provided for.

(g) o o o o Call for signals.

(h) — — — — Member of crew providing protection may return.

If all engine whistles or horns fail en route, the Engineer must take the following actions:

1. 1. Notify the Dispatcher as soon as practical.

2. 2. Ring the bell continuously, if equipped.

3. 3. Approach all public crossings at grade prepared to stop.

4. 4. Reduce speed to not exceeding 30 MPH while approaching locations where employees are known to be working.

5. 5. Reduce speed at other locations where warranted by the prevailing conditions.

I believe the time before the crossing is supposed to be 15 to 20 seconds, regardless of speed.  The above is a cut and paste - sorry for any format errors.

[CShaveRR]

The loudness of the horn is something that usually cannot be controlled.  It's there.

Having said that, does West Allis have a ban on whistling?  I don't remember one, but a lot has changed since I was through there.  Even if it does, there's  the possibility that a second train was in the area--that is one time a crossing signal can be sounded regardless of a whistle ban.  Also, is there a chance that this was a warning for track crews at the wreck site?  That is also allowed, even in whistle-ban sites.

The rules give the engineer an "out"--if he perceives any risk to safety, he can sound his horn.  The cops shouldn't say anything about it.

[railfan619]

Ok i understand that stuff but all of these crossings have lights and gates to them. And I understand there might have been something on the tracks that the engineer saw but he just kept at it and like. I said before there are like 6 or 7 crossings all in a row along this strech of track.

[CShaveRR]

The presence of lights and gates does not suggest or imply a whistle ban.  As I said, if there were people in the area, or if another train could impair any driver's vision of his train (or, if on-track equipment has kept the signals activated), an engineer will sound his horn.

[railfan619]

Well as far as. I know there is no whistle ban in West allis but this set of tracks is all long residental there some buildings but it is mostly houses and I'm not too sure that the people were to happy about hearing that horn at 4:30 this morning but then again it would have bothered to much but anywho. Maybe it could have been a warning to any track crew around the wreck site but from the pictures. I saw it looked like it was pretty much cleaned up yesterday. But there were some crews working on the tracks today. So I really don't know oh well but thanks for answering my questions.

[traisessive1]

I'll add some Canadian perspective here.

In Canada ... it is the same 2 longs, a short and a long from the whistle post. It is supposed to be prolonged or repeated with intensity until the crossing is occupied. There is nothing in the CROR rule book about time from the post to the crossing.

So if there are 7 crossings in  one mile say ... you get 28 blows of the horn in that mile ... 7x4=28.

Although crews dont always do that, that is what is supposed to happen.

It doesn't matter if the crossings are protected by a concrete wall .. unless there is a whistle ban ... they must blow.

AND ... in the CROR there isnt anything about two trains going through a banned area and not sounding the horn. I havn't read anything in our divisional data either.

[David_Telesha]

Larry has it right, but I'll reiterate.

b)— — o — 1. Approaching public crossing at grade and at a whistle post indicating "W" or "W/MX." This signal is to be prolonged or repeated until engine or train is on the crossing, or, where multiple crossings are involved, until the last crossing is occupied.

Its not just railroad rule, its Federal Law...unless there is a quiet zone. Crossing = train required to blow horn. Don't like it? Move away from the tracks, and don't buy there in the first place.

So in other words, the engineer did nothing wrong, or out of the ordinary, considering there are that many crossings in a row...

[Anonymous]

but he just kept at it and like.

The standard explanation I usually hear when this happens is  that "some idiot in a car has driven around the crossing gates, trying to beat the train.

And although it doesn't do a darn bit of good, I guess it makes some engineers happy if they "retaliate" by trying to make the perpetrator (as well  as any nearby residents) deaf as payback.

[David_Telesha]

Hi everyone. I got me a question when i was leaving for work this morning a Union Pac train was going though West Allis which only a mile or so from my house. and they got 6 or 7 crossings in a row and he went though at about 4:25 4:30 this morning just laying on his horn. and I mean it was a loud too. You could hear it from up two 2 or 3 miles away it was that loud. So now my question to you guys is what is the law about blowing ahorn that early in the morning and can the local cops stop the train and give the crew a ticket for distubing the peace that early in the morning.

IT IS SAPOSSED TO BE TWO LONGS,ONE SHORT,AND ONE LONG. BUT NO MATTER THE CASE. NO RAILROAD FOLLOWS THE RULES. I HAVE SEE BOTH UP AND BNSF BREAK ALL THE RULES.

You're a railfan... You don't work for the railroad... You can't even spell supposed... And we're supposed to take your word for that? Okay, yeah.

[One Track Mind]

For what it's worth, I noticed that on uprr.com there is a new Union Pacific company policy on the correct way to blow the horns, took effect in April if I remember correctly. Don't remember exactly where I saw it within the site, but it was there about a month ago. I'm sure it was under the general public banner. Seemed like a good common sense policy to me. But then I've never been a train engineer and had a car pull out right in front of me.

[coborn35]

Jeez you should hear me when im running the WC 7528 in run 8 just howling through town. My hand hardly leaves the horn lever. Louder the Better. Who cares if it disturbs the residents? Once people stop running through the crossings, ill stop blowing the horn so loud.

 

(note* The WC 7528 is the WC's locomotive simulator, full sized, same as running a real locomotive. Trust me, ive broken trains in half when i was just learning....not too fun)

[RudyRockvilleMD]

The Federal Railroad Administration has preempted local grade crossing horn blowing bans by requiring communities with horn blowing bans to install crossing gates across both sides of the road, a barrier well back from the grade crossing to prevent cars from going around the gates, or a long crossing gate that reaches across both sides of the road. However, some communities with horn blowing bans at grade crossings may be exempt from the Federal Railroad Administration's preemption because the ban was in place before the Federal Railroad Administration preempted the control of horn blowing at grade crossings, further, engineers may sound the horn if they see a safety hazard such as somebody walking along the tracks or a car going around a crossing gate at a grade crossing.

 

[youngengineer]

If you dont like how much I blow the horn, move, If you think I blow the horn to much, come take a ride with me in the cab. I never as a railfan worried much about how much a horn was blown. I always felt that the railroad was there first. Now I am the one in the cab, and honestly I can say the new FRA rule is stupid at best. The rule should have stayed the same, Start at the whistle board and continue through the crossing. If one buys a house next to the track, sorry but you could have looked out the back window and seen the tracks. Whistle bans, effictive till someone gets killed, but I believe this was discussed before.

 

And by the way I am responsible for sticking to the FRA guide lines and subject to a $27,000.00 fine if I do not blow the crossing at all. I can also be held civillaly responsible for a grade crossing accident if I do not use the proper horn rules. For me I wish to blow to much than to kill someone because its 4 am.

[Anonymous]

Hi everyone. I got me a question when i was leaving for work this morning a Union Pac train was going though West Allis which only a mile or so from my house. and they got 6 or 7 crossings in a row and he went though at about 4:25 4:30 this morning just laying on his horn. and I mean it was a loud too. You could hear it from up two 2 or 3 miles away it was that loud. So now my question to you guys is what is the law about blowing ahorn that early in the morning and can the local cops stop the train and give the crew a ticket for distubing the peace that early in the morning.

IT IS SAPOSSED TO BE TWO LONGS,ONE SHORT,AND ONE LONG. BUT NO MATTER THE CASE. NO RAILROAD FOLLOWS THE RULES. I HAVE SEE BOTH UP AND BNSF BREAK ALL THE RULES.

You're a railfan... You don't work for the railroad... You can't even spell supposed... And we're supposed to take your word for that? Okay, yeah.

Im not trying to pick a fight. But for your info. Yes. There are still alot of engineers who do not use the proper sounding of the horn. You cannot tell me that engineers who do not violate the federal law. I am not dumb. I hear them every day. But am I complaining? no.

[Anonymous]

If you dont like how much I blow the horn, move, If you think I blow the horn to much, come take a ride with me in the cab. I never as a railfan worried much about how much a horn was blown. I always felt that the railroad was there first. Now I am the one in the cab, and honestly I can say the new FRA rule is stupid at best. The rule should have stayed the same, Start at the whistle board and continue through the crossing. If one buys a house next to the track, sorry but you could have looked out the back window and seen the tracks. Whistle bans, effictive till someone gets killed, but I believe this was discussed before.

 

And by the way I am responsible for sticking to the FRA guide lines and subject to a $27,000.00 fine if I do not blow the crossing at all. I can also be held civillaly responsible for a grade crossing accident if I do not use the proper horn rules. For me I wish to blow to much than to kill someone because its 4 am.

You may think that the FRA rules are stupid if you go and kill someone while on the job.

[railfan619]

OK now I'm sure that i went and opened a can of worms on this but. Also I would not care about trains blowing their horns at 4:30 in the morning in fact I would love it cause then. I wouldn't need an alarm clock. But on the other hand people that work 2nd shift that are tryin to sleep might get a little ticked. But If i had any chance to go ride in a cab of an engine just to get an enginers presctive (spelling might be off on that word). But any who and all of you are right. Blowing a train horn at every grade crossing is a safety thing cause you really never know when someone will happily decide to go around gates that are down and get mauled by a train that's movin at 40 MPH or faster. And of course once someone does get killed at a grade crossing then the family of the victim sues the railroad for not blowing enough times to warn the traffic that the train was coming at full speed down the tracks. So like I said If I did open a can of worms on this subject I really did not mean to. And you are right If someone is standing on or near the tracks at anytime and a train is coming down the tracks the engineer would and should have any and every right to blow the horn as many times he wants to until that person moves. off of the tracks. And you guys are right the louder the better so it makes that person blankty blank themsleves cause the train kept blowin his horn as he came up to the crossing and beyond cause there is another crossing 50 from the first one then that's what he'll do. So that's all for now so that's it I'll be talkin to you all later.

[dldance]

I am a volunteer at the Golden Spike NHS.  Much of the track at the site cannot be seen from the engine house - but there are duties that must be done to get ready for the engines to return to the engine house.  We have to follow all the FRA whistle rules as well.  Just from hearing the whistle signals, I know where each locomotive is and what it is doing -- even though I cannot see them.  That communication helps keep operations fluid and safe.

dd

[railfan619]

One more quick question how would I go about getting a ride in a locomotive if at all but I think. It might not really be allowed for safety reasons but if it could happen. I would like to ride on a line like the one though West Allis with lots of crossings. So I can hear everything and see everything the engineer sees and hears which. For me it would be avery cool once in a life time experince.

[ChuckCobleigh]

Everything you want to know about the Federal Train Horn rules:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/1318

[dldance]

One more quick question how would I go about getting a ride in a locomotive if at all but I think. It might not really be allowed for safety reasons but if it could happen. I would like to ride on a line like the one though West Allis with lots of crossings. So I can hear everything and see everything the engineer sees and hears which. For me it would be avery cool once in a life time experince.

the quickest ways are the "engineer for a day" or locomotive rental programs at some of the tourist RRs.  These not only get you into the cab safely, but some training and experience working with some real nice people.

dd

[Anonymous]

Regarding a segment or section of rail leading into a rail yard (I'm thinking specifically of a place like Vernon, CA in the LA area for UP or the BNSF equivalent), aren't any potential "whistle-free" designations null and void?  I read an LA Times story once where Vernon was just about the only place in the Southland not enjoying the real-estate boom the other localities did, primarily (the writer suggested) b/c the residents were subjected to multiple horn-blowings, with large instances of "shave and a haircut, two bits" (don't ask me how this is possible on a modern horn!)  Do localities always have the final word on whether the horns get blown or not, or does RR yard safety trump local homeowners' wishes?  Also, even where there are whistle-free zones, isn't the standard rule there that the engineer can blow the horn, say, after the first in a successive line of crossings w/in the zone, and then not again?

Riprap

[fuzzybroken]

I've lived most of my life near railroad tracks, including a couple years in the very neighborhood being discussed.  I always recognized the sounds of the railroad when I was awake, and slept right through them when I was asleep!  I suspect that many of the people in that neighborhood do the same...

[Train Guy 3]

Can someone explain to me why there are even such a things as "quiet zones". To me they just don't sound safe even if the crossing is equiped with quad-gates or long gates. I can't see why a counity would want a band on horns... seems like too much of a safety hazzard.

[tree68]

The odds of a legal cab ride on a Class 1 are probably pretty slim, although they do happen.  You're better off with a local shortline, or perhaps a tourist line (I paid for my first cab ride via a donation to my local PBS station).  Become friends with local railroaders.

As a volunteer on a tourist line, I can now catch a cab ride about any time I want one (if I'm not working on the train itself).

It can be an enlighting experience.  Even the thought that the deer on the tracks ahead may not move in time makes your heart rate rise.  Much moreso if it's a car in a crossing.  I was lucky enough not to be in the cab the day a pickup pulled out in front of us.  He moved in time, but by then we were already in emergency...

[fuzzybroken]

Can someone explain to me why there are even such a things as "quiet zones". To me they just don't sound safe even if the crossing is equiped with quad-gates or long gates. I can't see why a counity would want a band on horns... seems like too much of a safety hazzard.

Safety?  Nobody cares about safety!  Those people don't want their sleep (or whatever) interrupted by those big bad loud trains whose only possible purpose in life is to disturb them.  Especially since they only started running trains and blowing the horns AFTER they moved in!  Those horrible railroads...  (Tongue in cheek, and slightly beyond reality -- on second thought, maybe not! -- but you get the point...)

"counity"?  You get that keyboard from "Misery"???

[Anonymous]

I can't see why a counity would want a band on horns... .

Personally, I think that the idea of rolling carillons was a good idea, but there are others here who scoffed when I suggested it.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

A properly protected quiet zone, especially one designed with the co-operation of the railroad and the municipality, can be safe.  The best-known quiet zone in the Chicago area is on the CSX Blue Island sub between 123rd Street and 95th Street.  Grade crossings are protected by quad gates and road dividers, with signs indicating "No Train Horn" under the standard circular sign for grade crossings.  Engineers are to sound the bell at each crossing and are allowed to sound the horn in an emergency.

[Anonymous]

Who actually picks the tone and decible level of the horns used?  The Gov't? the RR"s themselves?, The Manufacturers?

Back in the stone age, the whistle of a steam engine had an almost enchanting affect.

The first generation diesels (F-7's etc) with their "buzzer" sounding horns were not overbearing, either.

Even the second generation diesels, with their 'muted trombone' sound was not as piercing as todays modern horns.

Seems as though a lot of effort has gone into finding an intonation that is as irritating as possible, probably to make them more noticeable, but  by same token more contemptible.

Just curious if the Gov't specifies that rigidly, or if the various RR's have their own standards.

One of the locals here on the NS has a unit with not all of it's chimes working, the shrill, highpitched end is missing.

And while it is slightly off key as a result, it actually is a more pleasant horn to have around,  sounds almost like when those old blues trumpeters would hold a bowl over their horns for that hollow sound. Easy on the ears.

I laugh to myself everytime I hear them go by.

[traisessive1]

I love the horns on CN's locomotives they are so nice. I heard an sd40-2W coming yesterday as we were waiting in the hole and it was way out of tune ... it sounded like a dying elephant.

[SFbrkmn]

Five seconds for each long, three on each short. The horn is to be sounded for atleast 15 seconds when approaching a crossing. This is another segment of field testing being done by company officers. Crews have been told that violation of this rule will result in a level S probation for the engr and other crew members if they are in the cab at the time.

[tree68]

Who actually picks the tone and decible level of the horns used?  The Gov't? the RR"s themselves?, The Manufacturers?

Back in the stone age, the whistle of a steam engine had an almost enchanting affect.

The first generation diesels (F-7's etc) with their "buzzer" sounding horns were not overbearing, either.

Even the second generation diesels, with their 'muted trombone' sound was not as piercing as todays modern horns.

Seems as though a lot of effort has gone into finding an intonation that is as irritating as possible, probably to make them more noticeable, but  by same token more contemptible.

Just curious if the Gov't specifies that rigidly, or if the various RR's have their own standards.

One of the locals here on the NS has a unit with not all of it's chimes working, the shrill, highpitched end is missing.

And while it is slightly off key as a result, it actually is a more pleasant horn to have around,  sounds almost like when those old blues trumpeters would hold a bowl over their horns for that hollow sound. Easy on the ears.

I laugh to myself everytime I hear them go by.

What I've derived from the train horn sites I've visited, railroads sort of fall into two groups - those who care what their horn sounds like, and those who don't (and therefore buy "off-the-shelf").

The Canadians tend to the melodious.  I can usually pick out a CN engine from the horn.

There are a couple down sides to the older single note horns, IMHO.  One, they don't penetrate today's cars as well, and second, people now expect to hear a five chime, and may well ignore anything else.

[Anonymous]

Thanks, so then is it accurate to assume that there is no rigidly enforced government spec?

At least not to the extent that the RR's have all exceeded the minimum spec to the point where compliance is not a worry?

[mudchicken]

49CFR229.129        96db (+/- 4dba )@ 100 Ft. measured per ANSI  S1.4-1971 Type 2 , A-weighted for slow response....

In the interim while we check for compliance and wade thru the alphabet soup, we will place a lifesize decal of AntiGates' real mug on each end of every locomotive in the country, thus ensuring that nobody will get within 10 miles of a moving train or engine facility.

[tree68]

MC's cite made me wonder if there was a maximum volume.  There is!

Sec. 229.129  Audible warning device.

    (a) Each lead locomotive shall be provided with an audible warning
device that produces a minimum sound level of 96dB(A) and a maximum
sound level of 110 dB(A) at 100 feet forward of the locomotive in its
direction of travel. The device shall be arranged so that it can be
conveniently operated from the engineer's usual position during
operation of the locomotive.

[Anonymous]

49CFR229.129        96db (+/- 4dba )@ 100 Ft. measured per ANSI  S1.4-1971 Type 2 , A-weighted for slow response....

In the interim while we check for compliance and wade thru the alphabet soup, we will place a lifesize decal of AntiGates' real mug on each end of every locomotive in the country, thus ensuring that nobody will get within 10 miles of a moving train or engine facility.

nhya ah aha! So then there is a good chance that this local with the pleasant horn is in violation?

I'm surprised some meddling "goody good" hasn't reported them to the authorities.

[tatans]

The very best, longest and loudest train horn is in Sylvan Lake, Alberta, Canada, every afternoon a drag east hauling oil or some petroleum product roars through Sylvan lake, he starts his horn way outside town and continually blows it all the way in town and all the way out, my friend phoned me one day and he had to quit talking while this guy played with the horn, I would think this horn must be setting some kind of record. Actually it really is kind of neat.

[Anonymous]

Since we're in the deregulation era and all that jazz, is there/would there be anything preventing me from getting my Humvee 8x16 equipped with a full-throttle CN special?  Also, to those who can "pick out" the CN horn, are there any others you can identify?  I can usually identify an ex-SP, UP, BN (pre-SF), and Amtrak horn (yes, I know I have too much time on my hands)...

Riprap

[tree68]

Since we're in the deregulation era and all that jazz, is there/would there be anything preventing me from getting my Humvee 8x16 equipped with a full-throttle CN special?  Also, to those who can "pick out" the CN horn, are there any others you can identify?  I can usually identify an ex-SP, UP, BN (pre-SF), and Amtrak horn (yes, I know I have too much time on my hands)...

Riprap

Well, it's not like you'd be the first.  Check these out.

And these.  I've seen this truck.

You might run afoul of the law if the horn is too loud.  Seems like I've heard of places that have outlawed train horns on highway vehicles....

[zardoz]

Railfan619,

The new locomotives have a bush-button for the horn--no ability to adjust the amount of air going to the horn.  The older (SD40-2, etc) locos had an actual lever (or a cord on the even older units such as E8's & GP&'s) that permitted the engineer to regulate the amount of air that went to the horn. The term sometimes used when refering to this is "feathering".

In West Allis, the crossings are so close together that it is difficult to do the long-long-short-long in between each crossing. Perhaps the horn is one of the 'slow-to-stop' types. Or perhaps the engineer has had too many close-calls on those crosings (I know I had many). Or maybe he was just a jerk.

[Dutchrailnut]

Even new locomotives with the electric horn button have a high/low function,

 The horn has two magnet valves and push button has two positions.

Just like horn valve you got to learn to pay with it.

[railfan619]

WOW. This is one of those fourm questions I had wished on for a long time but anywho now I now know alot more from reading all of these but anywho. I really really like to hear train horns cause that tells me that the railroads are still running across this great country.

[da Milwaukee beerNut]

I can't see why a counity would want a band on horns... .

Personally, I think that the idea of rolling carillons was a good idea, but there are others here who scoffed when I suggested it.

Carillons? - that rings a bell!

[Anonymous]

On this general subject, does anyone out there know the names of the RR horn-making companies and which RR company buys from each of them?!

[wabash1]

deer that dont move get hit it dont even get a reaction from me. and as far as a car or truck goes i wont put my train in emergency til i have hit them 9 times out of 10 they play chicken with you so i get another notch if we hit they lose. why should i waste time latching back up my train after someone being stupid and having the conductor walk it.  if i went into emergency everytime someone tried beating me or playing chicken with me at crossings i never make it to destination. i be relieved 30 miles into my run. as far as whistle blowing goes, if im mad at 3am everyone is awake if things are going ok ill get thru town with little disturbance. its my choice on how long and how often i blow the horn.

[zardoz]

I always thought a very loud PA system should be standard on each locomotive.  That way when I see someone on the tracks I could shout at them "HEY YOU STUPID $%&#@! GET OFF THE TRACKS !!!!  This, in addition to the horn, might be rather effective; and if it wasn't, at least it would sure be lots of fun!

[tree68]

The PA angle reminds me of a guy who used to be a guest from time to time on a morning radio show in Detroit.

He did railroad sound effects.  With his mouth.  And he was very good at it.  You had to hear him do "walking between two passenger cars through the vestibule" to really appreciate it.

He also did "outside sounds" of the railroads.

He had a PA in his car.

He was working a late shift for a while somewhere and passed through a little town every worknight about 2 AM.  The town had no railroad.

Never mind that detail.  For some period of time, every time he went through that town at 2 AM, he did a great imitation of a train rolling through. 

The way he told it, the townfolk were down on their hands and knees looking for the tracks...

[JSGreen]

WOW. This is one of those fourm questions I had wished on for a long time but anywho now I now know alot more from reading all of these but anywho. I really really like to hear train horns cause that tells me that the railroads are still running across this great country.

I just noticed a related advertisment in the October issue of Trains, page 76, lower right.  the Ad is from Horns, INC, the subject is a video/DVD about the collecting hobby.  web page is

www.dieselairhorns.com

[cr6479]

This how is should going through 6-7 crossing in a row 2 long one short hold on to the last long through the last crossing. They might also be going by the rule 135.

[Anonymous]

The Iowa Northern trains in the area always follow the proper long-long-short-long for grade crossings. Even on a gravel road that sees maybe 1 car an hour.

[Mookie]

Some thoughts from the peanut gallery: 

The engineers/railroads get all the blame for the noise.  What about the city?  Who put in all those noisy grade crossings?  The railroads certainly don't need them to run their trains!

If someone gets hit by a train, who do they sue?  Certainly not the neighbors that are irritated! 

Trucks, for example, are required to have a back-up bell.  When you have that much tonage going down the tracks, why would you settle for silence? 

Thoughts anyone?

Mookie

[fuzzybroken]

Well-said Mookie!

[Anonymous]

I recently relocated to a new state and purchased a home that was apparently right next to a railroad crossing. Due to moving from one state to another it wasn't entirely clear that the crossing was there, but regardless I accept blame for that. Anyway, I've been here for a few months now and I still haven't gotten used to the whistles. But based on what I'm reading I guess the guys running the trains by my house aren't entirely following code.

First off the trains typically run between 12am and and 4am (so they're not "Dead tracks" as our realtor indicated). When the trains approach, I haven't noticed any pattern such as short, short long. Some tap the horn once or twice but most just tend to lay on the horn from the whistle post all the way over the crossing, and subsequently our property. It's kind of like someone blowing an air horn in our bedroom for 20-30 seconds at a time. It's actually loud enough that you'd have to yell in order to talk over it.

This goes on for about 3-4 hours every night and although we're slowly getting used to not sleeping, it's not pleasant. Any advice for trying to make sure they actually abide by the whistle code? We contacted the city but they said if we complain, they'll just blow the whistles even more on purpose.

[Mookie]

Just an observer here, but I watch trains during daylight hours.  They do whistle what seems to be a long time and we suspend all conversations during that time.  The rules have changed so they must whistle well before the xing, and hold it at least halfway through.  They should be following the 2 longs, 1 short, 1 long, and most will.  Some will try to be a little quieter, but they are actually breaking the rules.  Also keep in mind - you have, if not complete darkness, at least fairly dark at your crossing. Put yourself in the engineer's place - you don't want any surprises - especially in the dark! 

And people will be people.  There is good and bad in all occupations, railroads not excluded.  So there will be the engineer that figures he is up, everyone should be up. 

But the really best solution would be to call your realtor in the dead of the nite and play a recording of the loud whistles - for telling you it is a dead crossing!  You will feel much better about all the noise!

Mook

[zardoz]

Mookie, et. al.

Most of the new locomotives have a button to push for the horn.  The engineer only has control over the duration of the noise, not the volume. 

In the "good-old-days", the whistle was a pressure-activated valve: the harder you pulled the lever (or cord) the louder the whistle.  Some horns would play the different "chimes" depending on the amount of air sent to the horn.  Thus, a creative (or bored) engineer could not only vary the volume and the duration, (s)he could sometimes control the tones.

[Mookie]

Big Z - since they want to become more popular with the citizenry, maybe they should go back to the old whistles.  They sounded better and I miss them!  And they were definitely attention-getters, in a nice way!

Mook

[Flint Hills Tex]

I used to live just a block away from the UP main through San Antonio, TX. I never counted, but I know that at least one train ran every hour, and during the night, they ran trains as fast as the line could take them. Unfortunately, because the right of way was an old one, there were grade crossings about every 2 blocks (I'm really in favor of RR rights of way with as few grade level crossings as possible--better for trains and better for motorists). Despite flashing lights, bells and crossing gates, there were people running through each of the crossings, trying to beat the train. Other than run at low speed, I don't know what else the engineer COULD do than blow the air horn. And since the crossings were all so close to one another, the honking was more of a constant sound than an intermittant one.

Now, I love trains as much as any of you, but when I first moved into my appartment on Fulton Ave., I was repeatedly wakened by the sound of the air horns. Some of them were in very poor repair, and the sound of them reminded me of a dying goose. But after a few weeks, I got so used to the sound that it didn't bother me at all. In fact, when I spent the night elsewhere, I had trouble sleeping, because something was missing. I presume that those who just can't tolerate the honking would soon sell and move away, while the rest of us just get so used to it, that we can't live without it! I really miss that sound, as trains hardly use their air horns over here in Germany, and the only ones that even come close to an American diesel's horn are the old East German diesels. But, alas, they have become few and far between! So, count yourselves lucky if you live close enough to a railroad to hear the sonorous, forlorn sound of the air horns.

[Anonymous]

On this general subject, does anyone out there know the names of the RR horn-making companies and which RR company buys from each of them?!

The two major horn manufactuers are Nathan Airchime and Leslie. I don't know if Leslie is still making horns, but Nathan Airchime is. Railroads typically buy from both. But for example, CSX is nearly all Nathan K5LAR24 horns, while CN has Nathan P3s. Both companies make serveral different types of horns.

[jeffhergert]

If you dont like how much I blow the horn, move, If you think I blow the horn to much, come take a ride with me in the cab. I never as a railfan worried much about how much a horn was blown. I always felt that the railroad was there first. Now I am the one in the cab, and honestly I can say the new FRA rule is stupid at best. The rule should have stayed the same, Start at the whistle board and continue through the crossing. If one buys a house next to the track, sorry but you could have looked out the back window and seen the tracks. Whistle bans, effictive till someone gets killed, but I believe this was discussed before.

 

And by the way I am responsible for sticking to the FRA guide lines and subject to a $27,000.00 fine if I do not blow the crossing at all. I can also be held civillaly responsible for a grade crossing accident if I do not use the proper horn rules. For me I wish to blow to much than to kill someone because its 4 am.

You may think that the FRA rules are stupid if you go and kill someone while on the job.

  What he is saying is the CHANGE in the FRA rule is stupid.  I agree somewhat with him. 

  It didn't happen to me, but another engr just before the change happened, had a company officer talk to him because he didn't start whistling at sign post.  They were going slow at the time. What I understand is the officer didn't take exception to this lapse because there was sufficient warning to the crossing.  The engr then asked if the new rule was in effect, if he would've been OK. The officer said, no since under the new rules, he would've been sounding the whistle too long and could be written up for excessive whistling.

  Regarding the proper whistling sequence.  There are about 4 different horn buttons in use.  A couple of them if your not applying pressure just right, the horn stops sounding.  I've had that happen a few times wrecking the sequence. 

  If you use the automatic horn on engines equipped, it cycles thru the two long, one short, one long quite a bit faster then the engineer would do manually.  I rarely use the feature, but the last time I did I think it cycled thru 3 or 4 times.  It wouldn't sound like the usual 2-l-l, but is still in compliance because the signal is allowed to be repeated until the crossing is occupied.

Jeff  

    

[Anonymous]

And people will be people.  There is good and bad in all occupations, railroads not excluded.  So there will be the engineer that figures he is up, everyone should be up. 

Mook

I think you hit on a valid point here. There could always be a mischievious, or even malevolent motive driving the engineer's tooting,  giving rise to the cities with the most vocal objections.

One other thought that occurs to me...with the rapid push for new hires by the railroads these last several years, there are going to be a lot of n00bs in the engineer's seat, to whom the novelty might not yet have worn off.  Just like big kids playing choo choo.

Hey, if a guy has worked 12/8 around the clock for weeks on end, it might be about the only fun he gets.

[Anonymous]

OK now I'm sure that i went and opened a can of worms on this but. Also I would not care about trains blowing their horns at 4:30 in the morning in fact I would love it cause then. I wouldn't need an alarm clock. But on the other hand people that work 2nd shift that are tryin to sleep might get a little ticked. But If i had any chance to go ride in a cab of an engine just to get an enginers presctive (spelling might be off on that word). But any who and all of you are right. Blowing a train horn at every grade crossing is a safety thing cause you really never know when someone will happily decide to go around gates that are down and get mauled by a train that's movin at 40 MPH or faster. And of course once someone does get killed at a grade crossing then the family of the victim sues the railroad for not blowing enough times to warn the traffic that the train was coming at full speed down the tracks. So like I said If I did open a can of worms on this subject I really did not mean to. And you are right If someone is standing on or near the tracks at anytime and a train is coming down the tracks the engineer would and should have any and every right to blow the horn as many times he wants to until that person moves. off of the tracks. And you guys are right the louder the better so it makes that person blankty blank themsleves cause the train kept blowin his horn as he came up to the crossing and beyond cause there is another crossing 50 from the first one then that's what he'll do. So that's all for now so that's it I'll be talkin to you all later.

 

Holy Foamer, Railfan!  All I can say is WOW! (anachronym for weely odd words) (and sentence structure-anachronym not implied)

But I love your passion and you did get your point across. Does railfan619 have a legitimate point here that it is under the engineers discretion to use the horn as needed? Even in a restricted area? Are there grey areas as suggested like people track-side that may or may not pose a safety hazard in a no-blow-zone?

Another question-  what about vehicles with Nathan or other air horns mounted in their vehicles- I've heard of this, is it legal? What are the ramifications of having something like that in your vehicle and using it?

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's illegal to have a train horn on your vehicle, it's just illegal to use it.

[jodyandcobeeoverhere]

Is there some sound bite or? to help comprehend this description...? coming from a person who knows nothing about trains. I am intrigued by all the passings, screeching, tooting,and sorts of cars that pass by out side my window all day long.

[wjstix]

I remember when the SOO took over the MN&S in the early 1980'2 - the railroad line that ran in front of my house. The change from Hancock air whistles with their steam whistle sound to the single chime BLAT airhorns on the GP's was quite a contrast.

The railroads put the horns they want on their engines, but most likely for safety / insurance reasons would err on the side of being too loud rather than too soft.

The federal government doesn't regulate horn volume, blowing differently at night during the day, etc. I forget where I came across it, but there was I think an FRA ruling saying communities could set up 'quiet zones' if they wanted...basically, the gov't went out of their way to make the point that they didn't control it, so the cities didn't need their permission to do it.

One thing I've learned working for the government is, a lot of people think there has to be a law to let you do something; more often, you can do something because there's no law or regulation saying you CAN'T do it.

[tree68]

wjstix

The federal government doesn't regulate horn volume, blowing differently at night during the day, etc.

Actually, the FRA does regulate horn volume:  "The maximum volume level for the train horn is 110 decibels which is a new requirement. The minimum sound level remains 96 decibels."  If there's an incident where the sounding of the horn is at question, you can bet that level will be checked.

While the FRA doesn't regulate exactly how the horn will be sounded, it must be sounded within established parameters, most specifically that it must begin 15-20 seconds before arriving at the crossing, in the prescribed manner (_ _ . _).  About the only latitude an engineer has is how long each blast is.

Also from the FRA website: 

"Under the Train Horn Rule  (49 CFR Part 222), locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns at least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade crossings.

 If a train is traveling faster than 60 mph, engineers will not sound the horn until it is within ¼ mile of the crossing, even if the advance warning is less than 15 seconds.

There is a "good faith" exception for locations where engineers can’t precisely estimate their arrival at a crossing and begin to sound the horn no more than 25 seconds before arriving at the crossing.

Train horns must be sounded in a standardized pattern of 2 long, 1 short and 1 long blast. The pattern must be repeated or prolonged until the lead locomotive or lead cab car occupies the grade crossing. The rule does not stipulate the durations of long and short blasts."

As previously discussed, some engineers show a bit of "tact" under certain circumstances, others not so much.  Both options can be easily defended...

[mudchicken]

West Allis had two pre-rule no-horn quiet zones on UP. That being said, it would appears that West Allis' finer citizenry ought to be held accountable for their actions that forced the proper reaction by the locomotive engineer. There are several QZ's up for removal because of the failure of the locals to keep up their part of the bargain. (pleading budget woes don't cut it)

As for the local gendarmes, their police authority ends at the R/W line most of the time. (our friend the federal pre-emption again, for very good reason.)

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

jodyandcobeeoverhere

Is there some sound bite or? to help comprehend this description...? coming from a person who knows nothing about trains. I am intrigued by all the passings, screeching, tooting,and sorts of cars that pass by out side my window all day long.

First: 

Next - check out these links (or Google "train+horn+sounds" or similar):

http://www.dieselairhorns.com/sounds.html 

http://trainweb.org/mdamtrak199/trainsounds.html 

http://www.soundsnap.com/tags/train_horn 

https://www.hornblasters.com/audio (not endorsed . . . )

- Paul North. 

 

 

 

[schlimm]

Why (other than tradition) must a crossing horn signal be (__ __ - __)?  It is not universal.

[jeffhergert]

schlimm

Why (other than tradition) must a crossing horn signal be (__ __ - __)?  It is not universal.

 

Because the rule book says it will be so.  The sequence changed from two longs and two shorts to the present two longs, one short and then one longer sound held until the crossing is completely occupied around the 1920s.  No reason it couldn't be changed again, but also no reason it needs to be changed.

Railroad managers and FRA inspectors do enforce the proper soundings of the horn at crossings.

Jeff

[schlimm]

I realize it is a rule.  But why that sequence, why was it changed?  Is there any empirical study to support that particular sequence?

[CMStPnP]

mudchicken

West Allis had two pre-rule no-horn quiet zones on UP. That being said, it would appears that West Allis' finer citizenry ought to be held accountable for their actions that forced the proper reaction by the locomotive engineer. There are several QZ's up for removal because of the failure of the locals to keep up their part of the bargain. (pleading budget woes don't cut it)

As for the local gendarmes, their police authority ends at the R/W line most of the time. (our friend the federal pre-emption again, for very good reason.)

Sounds like West Allis.   I would again repeat what others have said the only time I have seen this behavior by Locomotive Engineers in Wisconsin is imminent impact with a person illegally on the right of way or with folks going around the down railroad gates.

Hate to get gruesome but there have been a lot of suicides in SE Wisconsin by folks  deliberately walking in front of trains or standing in front of trains at wierd hours of the morning and night..........and I would not doubt if this was someone again on the right of way.................it is around the Holidays which is prime season for suicide attempts.

[wanswheel]

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's Magazine, Volume 86 (1929)

The Whistle and the Highway Crossing

By J.A. Carney, Department of Safety, Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R.R. Co., Chicago

(A talk given before the National Safety Congress, New York City)

In the horse and buggy days, the whistling sign for road crossings was located from 990 to 1,320 feet from the highway grade crossing and the whistle signal was two long and two short blasts sounded near the whistle sign. The movement of the vehicle was seldom over eight miles an hour and usually much less. The vehicle was usually open and the whistle could easily be heard. The temperament of the horse was in many cases a factor in preventing a crossing accident.

With the introduction of the automobile, the speed of the vehicle approaching the grade crossing was increased to twenty-five miles or more per hour. The vehicle was closed and the whistle could not be heard easily. The result was that when the whistle sounded, the engine was nine hundred or more feet from the crossing and the automobile approximately six hundred feet away. The automobile driver did not hear the whistle for the crossing.

To overcome this condition, we tried sounding the standard crossing signal a second time. This made extra work for the engineer, annoyed the passengers and the first sounding signal was superfluous.

lt, however, seemed to solve the problem by keeping the whistle blowing until the crossing was reached. With these facts before us, we decided to adopt the highway crossing signal of two long, one short and one long blast of the engine whistle, holding the last blast of the whistle up to the crossing. The following bulletin was issued:

“Enginemen and Trainmen. Effective 12:01 p.m., Saturday, August 7, 1926, joint bulletin dated December 1, 1925, joint important bulletin issued during October, 1925, and Special Time Table Instructions with reference to the sounding of highway crossing whistle signal 14-L, are cancelled.

“Rule 14-L and D-14-L are modified as follows:

"Two long, one short and one long.

"Approaching public crossing at grade. The last blast of whistle to continue until engine reaches highway crossing.  

“Enginemen will give consideration to speed train is moving in gauging the distance from the crossing that whistle signal 14-L or D-14-L, will be started.

“The warning signal approaching public crossing at grade is for the protection of pedestrians, drivers, and occupants of vehicles. Their safety and safe operation of trains depends on the vigilance and judgment of enginemen in approaching the crossing and sounding the whistle signal as provided by rule."

This bulletin was issued by the general managers and approved by the operating vice president.

We are fully convinced that this system of whistling is good. We have had favorable comment from automobile drivers and have personally observed cars that made short stops at grade crossings. We have had a few cases of automobiles struck at the grade crossing while the last blast of the whistle was in progress. We sound the whistle in accord with the rule but we cannot guarantee that the people who ought to heed it even hear it. One great menace is the driver who runs into the side of trains. This constitutes from 25 to 45 per cent of our crossing accidents. Taking this fact into consideration and the cases where the whistle would be useless — a back-up switch movement for instance — we are satisfied that two long, one short and one long blast of the whistle, the last blast continued up to the crossing, is making a reduction in the number of crossing accidents where the locomotive hits the automobile.

It is our practice to make checks at grade crossings to know that the crossing whistle rule is being lived up to.

We know that some automobile drivers are thoughtless and unobservant and often fail to note that they are approaching a railroad crossing.

To such drivers, the whistle continued to the crossing, should prove a life-saving influence. The sound of the whistle should awaken them to the danger confronting them.

Some railroads continue two long and two short blasts of the whistle, but specify in their rules that the sound of the whistle must be continued until the crossing is reached, the engineer to use his judgment as to when the crossing whistle shall commence.

An analysis of highway grade crossing accidents as published by the Interstate Commerce Commission shows that the Burlington Railroad in its efforts to reduce grade crossing accidents is well toward the head of the list of the larger railroads.

We believe our rule for whistling for railroad-highway grade crossings to be a good one, but whatever system of whistling may be adopted by any railroad, the real protection to the public is to keep the whistle blowing until the engine is on the crossing.

[Deggesty]

Thank you, Mike, for that explanation of why the last blast is to be extended until the crossing is reached. I had felt that it is far better, for the safety of the public, to hold the last blast.

I wonder what empirical experiment could have been conducted to show whether it is better to hold the last blast or to not hold it.

I have mentioned this before, in a least one post on another thread of my experience in blowing a horn when traveling at 90 mph--when going through some towns in north Mississippi, I had to make the last blast for one crossing to be the first blast for the next crossing--and the engineer did not correct me.

[tree68]

Deggesty

...I had to make the last blast for one crossing to be the first blast for the next crossing--and the engineer did not correct me.

I've seen a lot of spots like that around the country.  Usually the whistle posts are marked "W MX" for such locales.

[schlimm]

wanswheel

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen's Magazine, Volume 86 (1929)

The Whistle and the Highway Crossing

By J.A. Carney, Department of Safety, Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R.R. Co., Chicago

(A talk given before the National Safety Congress, New York City)

In the horse and buggy days, the whistling sign for road crossings was located from 990 to 1,320 feet from the highway grade crossing and the whistle signal was two long and two short blasts sounded near the whistle sign. The movement of the vehicle was seldom over eight miles an hour and usually much less. The vehicle was usually open and the whistle could easily be heard. The temperament of the horse was in many cases a factor in preventing a crossing accident.

With the introduction of the automobile, the speed of the vehicle approaching the grade crossing was increased to twenty-five miles or more per hour. The vehicle was closed and the whistle could not be heard easily. The result was that when the whistle sounded, the engine was nine hundred or more feet from the crossing and the automobile approximately six hundred feet away. The automobile driver did not hear the whistle for the crossing.

To overcome this condition, we tried sounding the standard crossing signal a second time. This made extra work for the engineer, annoyed the passengers and the first sounding signal was superfluous.

lt, however, seemed to solve the problem by keeping the whistle blowing until the crossing was reached. With these facts before us, we decided to adopt the highway crossing signal of two long, one short and one long blast of the engine whistle, holding the last blast of the whistle up to the crossing. The following bulletin was issued:

“Enginemen and Trainmen. Effective 12:01 p.m., Saturday, August 7, 1926, joint bulletin dated December 1, 1925, joint important bulletin issued during October, 1925, and Special Time Table Instructions with reference to the sounding of highway crossing whistle signal 14-L, are cancelled.

“Rule 14-L and D-14-L are modified as follows:

"Two long, one short and one long.

"Approaching public crossing at grade. The last blast of whistle to continue until engine reaches highway crossing.  

“Enginemen will give consideration to speed train is moving in gauging the distance from the crossing that whistle signal 14-L or D-14-L, will be started.

“The warning signal approaching public crossing at grade is for the protection of pedestrians, drivers, and occupants of vehicles. Their safety and safe operation of trains depends on the vigilance and judgment of enginemen in approaching the crossing and sounding the whistle signal as provided by rule."

This bulletin was issued by the general managers and approved by the operating vice president.

We are fully convinced that this system of whistling is good. We have had favorable comment from automobile drivers and have personally observed cars that made short stops at grade crossings. We have had a few cases of automobiles struck at the grade crossing while the last blast of the whistle was in progress. We sound the whistle in accord with the rule but we cannot guarantee that the people who ought to heed it even hear it. One great menace is the driver who runs into the side of trains. This constitutes from 25 to 45 per cent of our crossing accidents. Taking this fact into consideration and the cases where the whistle would be useless — a back-up switch movement for instance — we are satisfied that two long, one short and one long blast of the whistle, the last blast continued up to the crossing, is making a reduction in the number of crossing accidents where the locomotive hits the automobile.

It is our practice to make checks at grade crossings to know that the crossing whistle rule is being lived up to.

We know that some automobile drivers are thoughtless and unobservant and often fail to note that they are approaching a railroad crossing.

To such drivers, the whistle continued to the crossing, should prove a life-saving influence. The sound of the whistle should awaken them to the danger confronting them.

Some railroads continue two long and two short blasts of the whistle, but specify in their rules that the sound of the whistle must be continued until the crossing is reached, the engineer to use his judgment as to when the crossing whistle shall commence.

An analysis of highway grade crossing accidents as published by the Interstate Commerce Commission shows that the Burlington Railroad in its efforts to reduce grade crossing accidents is well toward the head of the list of the larger railroads.

We believe our rule for whistling for railroad-highway grade crossings to be a good one, but whatever system of whistling may be adopted by any railroad, the real protection to the public is to keep the whistle blowing until the engine is on the crossing.

 

Basing present practice on those of 86 years ago when very few crossings had gates (in some towns, manned).  Brilliant!  In other countries, a horn is blown only at ungated crossings, and then often just one application.   As I recall, in Morse, long long short long is the letter Q.  No coincidence since the Burlington was often called Q.

[Deggesty]

Quoting Schlimm: "Basing present practice on those of 86 years ago when very few crossings had gates (in some towns, manned).  Brilliant!  In other countries, a horn is blown only at ungated crossings, and then often just one application.   As I recall, in Morse, long long short long is the letter Q.  No coincidence since the Burlington was often called Q." Even with gates present, people still act in irrational manner.

As to "Q", remember that the code for "Q" in Morse used in railroad practice is not dash dash dot dash.

[schlimm]

   True, in railroad morse, it would be .._.  though telegraphers would have been aware of both in the 1920s.

[jeffhergert]

I think that the posted story involving the CB&Q (aka the Q) and the change to a whistle signal that resembles the International Morse Q is a coincidence.  It wasn't only the Burlington who changed from the old to the new.  Most of the railroads changed in that 1920s time frame.  I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices.  The consensus was to make the change and the various railroads did as they saw fit.

Jeff

 

[tree68]

jeffhergert

I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices. 

That would probably be true for all of the usual whistle signals.  There used to be quite a few - including calling in flagmen from different directions, not to mention those used when pushers and helpers came into play.

Nowadays, I only worry about four - grade crossing, stop (one blast), go ahead (two), and back up (three).

[schlimm]

jeffhergert

I think that the posted story involving the CB&Q (aka the Q) and the change to a whistle signal that resembles the International Morse Q is a coincidence.  It wasn't only the Burlington who changed from the old to the new.  Most of the railroads changed in that 1920s time frame.  I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices.  The consensus was to make the change and the various railroads did as they saw fit.

Jeff

 

The committee decision followed the CB&Q.  It seems unlikely to be a mere coincidence, as the CB&Q could have chosen many other 4-blast combinations.  They chose long long short long (Int. Morse for Q).  The Railroad Morse for Q is the opposite: short short long short.

[Semper Vaporo]

tree68

 

jeffhergert

I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices. 

 

 

That would probably be true for all of the usual whistle signals.  There used to be quite a few - including calling in flagmen from different directions, not to mention those used when pushers and helpers came into play.

Nowadays, I only worry about four - grade crossing, stop (one blast), go ahead (two), and back up (three). 

Don't forget "danger" (multiple short blasts).

[traisessive1]

traisessive1

I'll add some Canadian perspective here.

In Canada ... it is the same 2 longs, a short and a long from the whistle post. It is supposed to be prolonged or repeated with intensity until the crossing is occupied. There is nothing in the CROR rule book about time from the post to the crossing.

So if there are 7 crossings in  one mile say ... you get 28 blows of the horn in that mile ... 7x4=28.

Although crews dont always do that, that is what is supposed to happen.

It doesn't matter if the crossings are protected by a concrete wall .. unless there is a whistle ban ... they must blow.

AND ... in the CROR there isnt anything about two trains going through a banned area and not sounding the horn. I havn't read anything in our divisional data either.

 

 

To edit my own comment from years ago. Canadian rules now have a speed and time stipulation. They added it in 2008.

 

Canadian Rail Operating Rule 14 L

 

(i) (#)At public crossings at grade: Trains exceeding 44 MPH must sound whistle signal 1/4 mile before the crossing, to be prolonged or repeated, until the crossing is fully occupied. Note: A whistle post will be located 1/4 mile before each public crossing where required. Movements operating at 44 MPH or less must sound whistle signal to provide 20 seconds warning before entering the crossing and continuing to sound whistle signal until crossing is fully occupied. EXCEPTION: Engine whistle signal is not required when manual protection is provided, or shoving equipment other than a snow plow over a crossing protected by automatic warning devices. 

 

 

It is pointless to blow the horn at a crossing protected by lights and gates. It truly is. There really is no circumstance where a horn would prevent an accident at such crossing. 

[traisessive1]

Dutchrailnut

Even new locomotives with the electric horn button have a high/low function,

 The horn has two magnet valves and push button has two positions.

Just like horn valve you got to learn to pay with it.

 

And what railroad has these units? CN certainly doesn't.

[BaltACD]

traisessive1

It is pointless to blow the horn at a crossing protected by lights and gates. It truly is. There really is no circumstance where a horn would prevent an accident at such crossing.

Hundreds, if not thousands of incidents, disagree.

[tree68]

Semper Vaporo

Don't forget "danger" (multiple short blasts).

Yep - Unfortunately I've had to use that a few times...

[jeffhergert]

schlimm

 

jeffhergert

I think that the posted story involving the CB&Q (aka the Q) and the change to a whistle signal that resembles the International Morse Q is a coincidence.  It wasn't only the Burlington who changed from the old to the new.  Most of the railroads changed in that 1920s time frame.  I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices.  The consensus was to make the change and the various railroads did as they saw fit.

Jeff

 

 

 

 

The committee decision followed the CB&Q.  It seems unlikely to be a mere coincidence, as the CB&Q could have chosen many other 4-blast combinations.  They chose long long short long (Int. Morse for Q).  The Railroad Morse for Q is the opposite: short short long short.

 

I'm sorry, but just because in the story linked the original writer, a CB&Q employee, makes it sound like they originated the idea doesn't make it so.  Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.  One item that appeared in Trains or Classic Trains some years back said engineers had started on their own to hold the last whistle blast until they reached the crossing.  It said that this practice led to the change.   

And like others have said, the Morse that most railroad employees of that era would be familiar with wasn't the International Code.  

Jeff

[schlimm]

jeffhergert

 

 

schlimm

 

jeffhergert

I think that the posted story involving the CB&Q (aka the Q) and the change to a whistle signal that resembles the International Morse Q is a coincidence.  It wasn't only the Burlington who changed from the old to the new.  Most of the railroads changed in that 1920s time frame.  I would guess that then, as now, there were industry committees that recommended basic practices.  The consensus was to make the change and the various railroads did as they saw fit.

Jeff

 

 

 

 

The committee decision followed the CB&Q.  It seems unlikely to be a mere coincidence, as the CB&Q could have chosen many other 4-blast combinations.  They chose long long short long (Int. Morse for Q).  The Railroad Morse for Q is the opposite: short short long short.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but just because in the story linked the original writer, a CB&Q employee, makes it sound like they originated the idea doesn't make it so.  Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.  One item that appeared in Trains or Classic Trains some years back said engineers had started on their own to hold the last whistle blast until they reached the crossing.  It said that this practice led to the change.   

And like others have said, the Morse that most railroad employees of that era would be familiar with wasn't the International Code.  

Jeff

 

I sorry if I was not clear enough.

1. I know it was adopted by a committee and is an operational rule (not a law).

2. The article which was written by the Q VP makes it clear the decision was to have more than one blast and to hold the last one until the crossing.

3. I know railroad telegraphers used railroad Morse, obviously.

4. The selection of the inverse of short short long short was made probably because of its meaning in Int. Morse as an insiders' joke. Otherwise, they could have selected long short short long or short short short long or anything else with the last note held.

5. My original point is simply that here is no empirical evidence that LLsL is better than any other sequence ending with a held note.  Our practice is shared only by our neighbors.  No one else uses it.  Why not?  Probably because there is nothing special about our system, even though some here seem to think it is carved in stone and could never be changed.  Our Canadian friends no longer blow horns at protected crossings (unless occupied) because it contrbutes nothing to safety.  Are our professionals saying Canadian drivers are smarter and more conscientious than American drivers?  Where is the evidence?

[zugmann]

schlimm

Are our professionals saying Canadian drivers are smarter and more conscientious than American drivers? Where is the evidence?

Number of lawyers?

[jeffhergert]

 

Reading the Canadian rules, https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tco167-163.htm the only place I see where it says the whistle isn't required to be sounded at a crossing with automatic warning devices is when equipment, other than a snow plow, is being shoved (car or cars ahead of the engine) over the crossing.  That a Canadian railroader said there is really no point to whistling at a crossing with warning devices seems to me to be more of an opinion, rather than saying why it isn't done anymore.  

(Canadians also have "Quiet Zones" where the engine whistle may not be required.  You can look around on the /Transport Canada website where it has the process to put in a "Quiet Zone."  Note, I just used Quiet Zone as that is what we call them here.  They may be called something different in Canada.)  

That the rule was changed once certainly proves it isn't "carved in stone."  Just because no one outside of North America doesn't use it doesn't mean we are wrong to use it.  Nor does it mean we are better than anyone else for using it.  Besides, they really didn't come up with a completely new signal in the 1920s.  They just modified the last sound of the original signal.

Jeff

 

[junior yardmaster]

I lived in Vincennes IN back in the '60s; my apartment was within a half block of the main line of the B & O, and my house literally shook when freights went by.  After living there 2 weeks, neither my wife or I EVER heard the trains blowing for crossings. It's something that you get used to and don't think about.  Junior yardmaster

[wanswheel]

Letters in the newspapers, especially in the East, where the open-window season seems at last to have arrived, call attention just now to noise nuisances of various kinds; and the locomotive whistle, and the troubles which it causes, are once again brought to mind. As some of your correspondents have observed, the slovenly whistler seems to be always with us. He seems to make the blasts of the whistle wholly according to his individual taste, or (more frequently) in a way to show that he has no taste at all. Taste or no taste, the standard signal for road crossings, as prescribed by the American Railway Association, is constantly modified everywhere.

Why not look a bit into what might be called the psychology of the question? In general, the modifications made by these free-minded runners tend towards two long, a short and one long blast, the last one sustained at will.

The very fact that the modified form of signal tends toward a prolonged last blast, indicates some generally operating reason; and, hence, that possibly an authorized modification of the standard crossing signal in this direction might produce better compliance with the rule than an attempt by discipline to drive the enginemen away from a procedure that apparently is based on some ground more potent than the book of rules.

Perhaps, because the signal is a warning, there arises a desire to emphasize the warning by prolonging the signal, and, carelessly, the last blast is prolonged rather than all, proportionately. This, in turn, suggests the thought that if the signal were reversed so that it would be two short followed by two long blasts, officers in charge of discipline would find it easier to get compliance with the regulations.

It is very easy for railroad managers to decide that certain things are only matters of discipline, and that, therefore, a bulletin or other disciplinary measure may be called upon to produce results; but if the regulation is not directed along common sense lines, the effect is doubly bad, because not only does the regulation break down but also the discipline following it is merely arbitrary and therefore irritating and ineffective.

[Semper Vaporo]

The writer of that letter obviously does not understand that the length of the last blast is determined by the speed of the train and how far the engine is from the crossing the blast is to be a warningwhen the sequence is started... To get a human to be as precise as to start the warning sequence at EXACTLY the correct location to produce the 4 blast sequence of the precise lengths so as to produce the last blast of the precise same length is nigh onto impossible.. Experience will help in this regard but a slight variation in speed will change the point at which to start the sequence to produce the same last blast timing and that will require an awful lot of experience, and all that experience will require the Engineer to "practice" the timing which is exactly what the Engineer is acquiring whilst causing the complaints!.

Besides, uniformity produces in humans a tendency to no longer heed any warning... This is why sirens are designed to "wail" and "warble" at random, and why flashing warning lights on emergency vehicles are randomized to attract attention to the condition it is warning about.

 

[tree68]

What's interesting about the letter (and its writer) is the apparent assumption that the engineer is blowing the horn/whistle for his own amusement, and not as a warning.

This mindset still exists, as evidenced by a fellow who recently complained about the siren at the local volunteer fire department - insisting that blowing said siren only served to massage the egos of the firefighters....

[wanswheel]

Your correspondent who writes from California (Allen H. Babcock, July 20, page 96) about psychology and other things, proposes to change the whistle signal for highway crossings so as to have a long blast come last; this to accommodate the rule to the idiosyncrasies of careless enginemen. Believing it to be out of the question to reform the men, he would reform the rule. Is this the best way out of the difficulty? Look for a moment at past experience.

For half a century, more or less, the crossing signal consisted of only one blast; and everybody was happy. Is there any need for having this signal different from the signal signifying the approach to a station? If the way to improve our whistling is to make it easier for the engineman to adjust his mind to what is demanded, a change from four blasts to one blast would be a very simple way to go about it. I am informed that one prominent eastern road has—at least on some divisions—discontinued the use of the station-approach whistle-signal. Discontinuing it everywhere might not be an unprofitable experiment. The argument for moderation and common sense in whistling has been before the railroad world for years and yet does not make much progress; perhaps the easiest way to make such arguing effective would be to change it into a proposal to modify the whistling in this way—urge its abolition! Where crossings have an attendant the use of the crossing whistle, in numerous instances, has been discontinued at such crossings with satisfactory results.

It must be remembered that however simple or natural may be the requirement of the rule there will still be the necessity for strict discipline. The hardest characters to deal with are not the men who blow a long blast because they believe it to be more suitable than that prescribed, but, rather, those whose mental operations are so unsystematic that they take no thought at all except just enough to keep clear of censure. On the Boston & Albany, where the single “long” blast was in use at crossings for many years—and long after it was abandoned on most roads—the superintendents had to call enginemen to account frequently for annoying the residents along the line. The best of the runners complied with their instructions by reducing the single blast habitually to about one second. The writer has noticed recently the whistle of a factory, which had been complained of as an illegal nuisance, because of its excessive noisiness. The court handed out a few sentences of common sense and that whistle now sounds regularly in only one second—and it seems to be satisfactorily effective.

One of the most pervasive facts to be remembered by American railroad men is the persistent conservatism of the American Railway Association, the code of which prescribes the “two long, two short” signal. Assuming that the signal ought to be changed, the committee of that association would probably demand that the proposition be supported by a good body of experience in favor of changing. Another fact is that many men in that association, as well as many other railroad officers, all over the country, are Morse telegraphers; and every one familiar with the Morse alphabet will agree that the present crossing signal, which means “7,” is preferable to the reverse arrangement of the sounds which, from long experience, they have come to consider an unpleasant sound. The psychic theorizers will tell you that there is a pleasing rhythm in - - . . (“7”) that is lacking in the opposite arrangement . . - - (“ut”).  On one Eastern road, formerly, the crossing signal was one short, one long (letter a) and every telegrapher who ever heard it will say that it was a disagreeable sound.

 I am not saying that telegraphers ought to rule our whistling or even that it is necessary, absolutely, that whistle signals should be pleasing to anybody; but it is only fair to take into account, in trying to adjust the code to the idiosyncrasies of the enginemen, that the rest of us have ears which ought to be considered. Mr. Babcock calls for discipline “along common sense lines,” fearing unfavorable results from “arbitrary” discipline; but one of the most refreshing manifestations of common sense in whistling is that which is exemplified by the runner who constantly strives to please the public—a thing which all railroad men are urged to do at the present time. The engineman who is thus striving cannot do better than to cut short his whistling. In studying how to shorten he will not fail to see other avenues of improvement.

[wanswheel]

…Every division has its enginemen who whistle incorrectly and unnecessarily, and also those who use judgment in this particular. Those who confine the use of the whistle to actual cases of need get along as well as, if not better than, the others and have no more accidents or misunderstandings than those enginemen who make a plaything of the whistle lever. I never take a trip extending over several different roads without returning more fully convinced than ever that the rule for the public crossing whistle should be changed to two long, one short and one very long gradually dying out blast, this being a signal often heard. It is so entertaining to hear an engineman string out his whistle about four times longer than necessary when one is trying to sleep. It is not that enginemen have not the proper appliances, or have not been most fully instructed; some are just bullheaded or too ignorant to appreciate the value and satisfaction of accurate whistling. Every engineman who lives near the railroad devotes much of his time while off duty to showering imprecations upon his brother engineers who deliberately indulge in such damnable practices while passing his house. This condition may be expected to continue until actual suspension is applied for this kind of carelessness, the same as is administered for other violations of rules.

[mudchicken]

tree68

What's interesting about the letter (and its writer) is the apparent assumption that the engineer is blowing the horn/whistle for his own amusement, and not as a warning.

This mindset still exists, as evidenced by a fellow who recently complained about the siren at the local volunteer fire department - insisting that blowing said siren only served to massage the egos of the firefighters....

 

When his garage catches fire, the response ought to be a pedestrian approach w/o lights and sirens. Turn the lights on after coming to a complete stop.

[traisessive1]

That's right, it is my own opinion that there is no reason to blow the horn at a crossing with protection. In Canada we are indeed still required to blow the horn unless there is an exemption on the crossing. 

If you get hit at a crossing with automatic protection, how is the train blowing the horn going to change anything? If you didn't see the flashing lights and the lowered gate you shouldn't be allowed to drive, walk, ride a bike, whatever. Chances are it was willful disobedience. If you drove onto the tracks before you could fully cross them, it's the same thing. The horn changes nothing. 

If you step out or drive out behind a train while the protection is still operating and get hit by a second train, that is again willful disobeidence and the horn changes nothing. 

If a child runs onto the tracks whilst chasing a ball or dog, will said child understand what the crossing sequence for the blowing horn means? There is a good chance that no, it won't. So, while unfortunate, the crossing sequence in a case like that still probably wouldn't change the end result. 

If you slide onto the tracks or a freak incident occurs, again, the horn wouldn't have prevented it. 

We've got a lot of stupid drivers here in Canada as well. Boy do we ever.

We are not required to blow the horn for crossings here if an employee is in position to and will flag the crossing for the approaching movement. Again, what reason is there to sound the horn if a crossing is being flagged?

With 10 years experience out there you get to know the other side of the coin, beyond what the public and the rail buffs see. 

[schlimm]

traisessive1

With 10 years experience out there you get to know the other side of the coin, beyond what the public and the rail buffs see. 

Good to see at least one trainman who sees that.

 

[tree68]

traisessive1

That's right, it is my own opinion that there is no reason to blow the horn at a crossing with protection.

Define "protection."  

Drivers have found ways to subvert virtually every type of protection that's been installed, short of full grade separation, and sometimes even that doesn't work.

Maybe you've seen the video on-line, taken by some railfans, of a car that completely ignores the operating crossing signals (there were no gates) only to be broadsided by an oncoming train.  Two perished.

In order to have a crossing declared a quiet zone, it usually has to have four quadrant gates as well as a means to prevent drivers from changing lanes.  Equipping crossings with that equipment can run into five figures - something local communities are often reluctant to spend.  And it's their responsibility to install same - not the railroad.  The railroad maintains it once it's in.  

Having crash posts rise out of the pavement has been tried.  I don't know what the end result was (besides a lot of maintenance).

This translates to the world of emergency services.  Ever notice that California emergency vehicles have a steady burning red light facing forward?  Look for in movies, etc.  That's done because a woman once sued, saying that when she glanced at an oncoming fire truck, she didn't see its red lights.  And that is actually possible, if less likely today with the plethora of lights most emergency vehicles carry.

We are expected to stop at all intersections, no matter what color the light is, and ensure that we "own" the intersection before proceeding.  Even then, there are accidents involving people who aren't paying attention.  And guess who's at fault!

Likewise, it is written into motor vehicle law in most (if not all) states that if running "emergency mode," in addition to displaying lights, our siren must be sounding.  Heaven help us if it isn't when we're involved in an accident.

These days, most corporations aren't going to do something that will potentially expose them to more liability.  

[mudchicken]

If you don't like it, go slap the local attorney/barrister/lawyer if it makes you feel better.

[Semper Vaporo]

Sounding the horn is just an additional form of warning... is not every form available worth using for saving a human life?  The horn doesn't cost all that much, compared to other possible safety/warning methods.  USE IT and maybe you will save a life.

[schlimm]

Perhaps the problem is overuse.   If a crossing is gated, preferably with four, the horn is unecessary and thus ignored.  Then it is more likely to be ignored at non-gated and unprotected crossings.  It is well known from perception studies that the unexpected is more likely to register with people.  

[Euclid]

traisessive1

That's right, it is my own opinion that there is no reason to blow the horn at a crossing with protection.

 

I can see the point that there is no reason for the horn if there is crossing protection.  There is also no reason for crossing protection, if you simply identify the existence of a crossing with a marker and a sign that includes the requirement to yield to trains. 

There is also no reason for the marker to include the sign requiring drivers to yield if you simply have a law on the books that says drivers must yield to trains.  

And there is no reason for the marker to say anything about what it is marking if the law on the books says it marks the existence of a grade crossing.    

So why not save money by getting rid of horns, bells, crossing protection, and warning signs; and just pound a red post into the ground and explain what it means in the law book?

[BaltACD]

schlimm

Perhaps the problem is overuse.   If a crossing is gated, preferably with four, the horn is unecessary and thus ignored.  Then it is more likely to be ignored at non-gated and unprotected crossings.  It is well known from perception studies that the unexpected is more likely to register with people.  

And when Joe Shyzter JD poists in court that IM Engineer when blowing the horn stop 4 feet short of the crossing thus enticing his client What A. Dufuss to conclude the it was safe for him to occupy the crossing - and wins.  In today's world - nothing registers with people except themselves.

[jeffhergert]

traisessive1

Again, what reason is there to sound the horn if a crossing is being flagged?

 

 

Reminds me of a situation over 35 years ago.  At Marengo, IA the Rock Island's siding there was bisected by a city street.  Trains going in the hole almost always had to cut the crossing when meeting a train that wasn't close.  On the siding, the gates and lights didn't activate until the leading edge was almost on the crossing.

One evening after dark, a train was putting itself back together.  The brakeman was standing in the middle of the street and was giving hand signals.  A car drove up to the crossing, stopped and just has a box car was starting onto the crossing started to slowly move over the crossing.  The brakeman yelled at the driver and threw himself on the hood of the car.

As to blowing the horn for gated crossings, I feel it draws attention to the fact that a train is approaching.  Especially if the view down the tracks at the crossing is obsecured.  Sure you can cut down all the trees and bushes, but you can't always remove buildings. 

Now, why do we need to blow the horn while a crossing is occuppied by a train on an adjacent track?  If you think the adjacent train will clear before your train occupies the crossing, I can see sounding the horn.  But if you can see that it won't be clear the horn in that scenario is almost useless as a warning.  

Jeff  

[schlimm]

Euclid

 

traisessive1

That's right, it is my own opinion that there is no reason to blow the horn at a crossing with protection.

 

 

 

I can see the point that there is no reason for the horn if there is crossing protection.  There is also no reason for crossing protection, if you simply identify the existence of a crossing with a marker and a sign that includes the requirement to yield to trains. 

There is also no reason for the marker to include the sign requiring drivers to yield if you simply have a law on the books that says drivers must yield to trains.  

And there is no reason for the marker to say anything about what it is marking if the law on the books says it marks the existence of a grade crossing.    

So why not save money by getting rid of horns, bells, crossing protection, and warning signs; and just pound a red post into the ground and explain what it means in the law book?

 

Your reductio ad absurdum argument is invalid.

[Deggesty]

IF everyone who has a license to drive remembered all the laws on the books concerning driving--and willingly obeyed said laws, it might not be necessary to have so many warnings.

Christmas morning, as I was going to church--and coming back from church, we crossed an intersection with a traffic light (normally cycling) which was flashing red in four directions. My driver commented that some of the people on the cross street did not know that such a signal is equivalent to a four-way stop, for they did not stop and wait for cross traffic to move. As it was, no one was hit while we were at the intersection.

There are laws on the books against using a cell phone for conversation or for texting while driving; there is a law that driving without being buckled in in a primary offense; there are laws against driving while under the influence of anything that impairs your driving. I could go on and on, but I do not need to.

[Euclid]

schlimm

 

Euclid

 

traisessive1

That's right, it is my own opinion that there is no reason to blow the horn at a crossing with protection.

 

 

 

I can see the point that there is no reason for the horn if there is crossing protection.  There is also no reason for crossing protection, if you simply identify the existence of a crossing with a marker and a sign that includes the requirement to yield to trains. 

There is also no reason for the marker to include the sign requiring drivers to yield if you simply have a law on the books that says drivers must yield to trains.  

And there is no reason for the marker to say anything about what it is marking if the law on the books says it marks the existence of a grade crossing.    

So why not save money by getting rid of horns, bells, crossing protection, and warning signs; and just pound a red post into the ground and explain what it means in the law book?

 

 

 

 

Your reductio ad absurdum argument is invalid.

 

I did not intend it to be a reductio ad absurdum.  But whatever you choose to call it, why do you say that it is invalid?  The poster I addressed said he saw no reason for blowing the horn at a crossing that has a protection system.  He contends that since the protection system gives all the warning necessary to inform of the risk, no additional warning in the form of a horn signal is needed. 

His point is that the warning of the horn signal is redundant.  Yet while the protection system gives the complete warning, it can still be breached by a decision of a driver to take a risk.  So while its warning is complete, it still may not be sufficient to overcome the free will of the driver. The redundancy of the horn adds to the warning of the protection system, thus making it stronger.  It helps overcome the free will of the driver to take a risk.  In that regard, you could say that the horn signal is part of the protection system.

My point was to demonstrate that redundancy was intended to have a point; and that the need for it was one of those revelations that are written in blood, so to speak.  When railroading began, the reasoning of the poster was indeed the starting point.  Grade crossings had no protection other than a sign informing a road user of the presence of a crossing.  That was the first impulse to protect people, and it was deemed good enough.  But the bloodshed and carnage proved that it was not enough, so subsequent layers of redundant warning were added in an attempt to solve the problem. 

Now 150 years later, with gates, red flashing lights, bells, horns, headlights, and ditch lights, the problem persists.  One could argue that any one of these measures could be eliminated because it is redundant.  But every one of those measures was added with the awareness that it was redundant, and the intent was to make the warning stronger.

To my original comment which call a reductio ad absurdum, my only point was that if you can justify removing one layer of warning because it is redundant, why not remove them all? 

[schlimm]

Q.E.D.

 

[schlimm]

I suggested that blowing the horn may be counter-intuitive, based on how perception and attention work.

 

[jeffhergert]

One of my pet-peeves is this.  When the news media says that a car/train collision happened at an unprotected crossing.  I don't know of any unprotected crossings that the public has access to.  Every one has at least a cross buck.  What they mean to say is the crossing didn't have a form of active protection, lights or lights and gates.

I've seen times when sounding the horn at a gated crossing has made a driver think twice about going around the gates.  You see them stop, than start moving again and then change there mind.  To be fair, I've also seen where it just makes the driver go faster when running the gates.  Maybe in a way that saves lives, too.  If some of those who ran gates were slower, they would not have made it across.

Jeff

[traisessive1]

In Canada a crossing with protection refers to a crossing with automatic protection - lights, bell and gates when so equipped. 

I would agree that all horn exempt crossings should have gates but here in Winnipeg, and I imagine elsewhere in Canada as well, we have horn exempt crossings with just the bell and lights. The ones here in Winnipeg are on 25mph track but are indeed horn exempt crossings with no gates. 

As mentioned in the comments above, if people are still going to be idiots with all the protection you can throw at a crossing, then that's a problem of the people and not of the railroad or government body.

I, as a train buff at heart, love blowing the horn but in my 10 years I have seen that it doesn't change driver or pedestrian behaviour. I see it all the time where people will run across the tracks right in front of me and then stop, turn around and give me a stern, screw you as we roll through. 

People don't care. People hate trains and train horns. The horn is nothing but a nuissance to the general public. Very few heed it as a warning. 

To further my point. 

Horn failure in Canada:

When passing over a crossing with only crossbucks you are restricted to 25mph.  

When passing over a crossing with automatic protection, track speed. 

So with those rules governing horn failure, why even blow the horn at all?

[BaltACD]

traisessive1

In Canada a crossing with protection refers to a crossing with automatic protection - lights, bell and gates when so equipped. 

I would agree that all horn exempt crossings should have gates but here in Winnipeg, and I imagine elsewhere in Canada as well, we have horn exempt crossings with just the bell and lights. The ones here in Winnipeg are on 25mph track but are indeed horn exempt crossings with no gates. 

As mentioned in the comments above, if people are still going to be idiots with all the protection you can throw at a crossing, then that's a problem of the people and not of the railroad or government body.

I, as a train buff at heart, love blowing the horn but in my 10 years I have seen that it doesn't change driver or pedestrian behaviour. I see it all the time where people will run across the tracks right in front of me and then stop, turn around and give me a stern, screw you as we roll through. 

People don't care. People hate trains and train horns. The horn is nothing but a nuissance to the general public. Very few heed it as a warning. 

To further my point. 

Horn failure in Canada:

When passing over a crossing with only crossbucks you are restricted to 25mph.  

When passing over a crossing with automatic protection, track speed. 

So with those rules governing horn failure, why even blow the horn at all?

Good for the land of the Ice Road Truckers.   Not permitted in the US of A.

[Euclid]

traisessive1

In Canada a crossing with protection refers to a crossing with automatic protection - lights, bell and gates when so equipped. 

As mentioned in the comments above, if people are still going to be idiots with all the protection you can throw at a crossing, then that's a problem of the people and not of the railroad or government body.

... I have seen that it doesn't change driver or pedestrian behaviour. I see it all the time where people will run across the tracks right in front of me and then stop, turn around and give me a stern, screw you as we roll through. 

People don't care. People hate trains and train horns. The horn is nothing but a nuissance to the general public. Very few heed it as a warning. 

I understand your point that the crossing signals and gates could be considered to be all the warning that is needed without blowing the horn.  One could argue that if a person gets killed while the lights and gates are active, it is their own fault and so there should be no obligation to add to the warning by blowing the horn.

But what if removing the horn from all existing signalized crossings sees an increase in death.  The highway authorities want to minimize grade crossing deaths regardless of if the fact they are the driver's fault. 

You say that the horn blowing does not reduce deaths, so it adds no safety.  If that is true, why does the Union Pacific RR say that quite zone crossings are more dangerous than non-quiet-zone crossings? 

[schlimm]

Seems to me the FRA should make an emprical study of grade crossing accident statistics in the US, Canada and several European countries.  They should also examine the utility of the current US signal of  L L s L  to determine whether it is more effective at gaining driver and pedestrian attention than some other signal.  Relying on tradition and a "study" by one railroad does not seem to be an adequate methodology.

[Euclid]

schlimm

Seems to me the FRA should make an emprical study of grade crossing accident statistics in the US, Canada and several European countries.    

Relying on tradition and a "study" by one railroad does not seem to be an adequate methodology.

What are you referring to in your second sentence above?  What tradition and what study?

[schlimm]

The tradition for whistle/horn blowing, widely adopted in the 1920s  in the pattern of L L s L.  The study was the UP one on grade crossing practices to which you referred.

[Euclid]

schlimm

The tradition for whistle/horn blowing, widely adopted in the 1920s  in the pattern of L L s L.  The study was the UP one on grade crossing practices to which you referred.

 

Okay, I thought you might be referring to the U.P. statement.  However, I don't recall a U.P. study that led to their conclusion.  Actually, when we were discussing this once before, I called U.P and asked them the basis for their statement about quite zones being more dangerous than non-quiet-zones.  They never followed through with the answer as they assured me they would.

[schlimm]

Euclid

 

 

schlimm

The tradition for whistle/horn blowing, widely adopted in the 1920s  in the pattern of L L s L.  The study was the UP one on grade crossing practices to which you referred.

 

 

 

 

Okay, I thought you might be referring to the U.P. statement.  However, I don't recall a U.P. study that led to their conclusion.  Actually, when we were discussing this once before, I called U.P and asked them the basis for their statement about quite zones being more dangerous than non-quiet-zones.  They never followed through with the answer as they assured me they would.

 

And that is why I originally put the UP "study" in quotes.  It was not a study, at least as the term is used in a research sense.

[Euclid]

Union Pacific says this:

 

“Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. While the railroad does not endorse quiet zones, it does comply with provisions outlined in the federal law."

 

I am sure that the FRA disagrees with them, but I have never seen a simple and clear statement on that topic from the FRA.  Unlike the U.P., the FRA does explain their rationale, but it is so complex and wrapped in statistical probabilities that I doubt that it could be assimilated, let alone challenged.

Therefore, it is fascinating that these two titans of authority are diametrically opposed on such an important matter of safety, and nobody can tell who is right.   

[NorthWest]

The FRA did a study on the FEC in Florida on whistle bans in the 1990s and found that they did increase accidents, particularly at night.

See www.fra.dot.gov/Elib/Document/1258 (Beware that it is a large document).

From page 37-

Proportionally, the major changes are in the category where the motorist reportedly, "drove around or thru the gate." Preordinance--there were 17 such reports (43.6 percent of the 39
accidents)--versus 96 (83.5 percent) of the post-ordinance 115
accidents.

Interesting but long reading.

[Euclid]

North West,

That is certainly strong proof that simply eliminating the horn signal from typical crossings does increase crashes despite the fact that horn signals are redundant to the flashing lights and gates. 

But, as I understand it, the study you cite is not for the so-called "quiet zones" as now offered by the FRA.  U.P. is saying that those quiet zones are more dangerous than non-quiet zones.  The FRA says that the added danger of removing the horn signal in formal quiet zones is fully offset by added provisions such as four-quadrant gates and median barriers. 

[Deggesty]

Euclid

North West,

That is certainly strong proof that simply eliminating the horn signal from typical crossings does increase crashes despite the fact that horn signals are redundant to the flashing lights and gates. 

But, as I understand it, the study you cite is not for the so-called "quiet zones" as now offered by the FRA.  U.P. is saying that those quiet zones are more dangerous than non-quiet zones.  The FRA says that the added danger of removing the horn signal in formal quiet zones is fully offset by added provisions such as four-quadrant gates and median barriers. 

 

So, we save on the power used to blow horns, and the savings that accumulate pay for the quad gates and median barriers?

[Euclid]

Deggesty

 

Euclid

North West,

That is certainly strong proof that simply eliminating the horn signal from typical crossings does increase crashes despite the fact that horn signals are redundant to the flashing lights and gates. 

But, as I understand it, the study you cite is not for the so-called "quiet zones" as now offered by the FRA.  U.P. is saying that those quiet zones are more dangerous than non-quiet zones.  The FRA says that the added danger of removing the horn signal in formal quiet zones is fully offset by added provisions such as four-quadrant gates and median barriers. 

 

 

 

 

So, we save on the power used to blow horns, and the savings that accumulate pay for the quad gates and median barriers?

 

 

well, the reason for paying for quad gates and median barriers is to appease the people living nearby who can't stand to hear the horns all the time.  I understand that making a quiet crossing does cost an awful lot of money. 

[BaltACD]

Looks like not all Canadian engineers share traisessive1's opinion on horn blowing.

[traisessive1]

What? You base this statement on a video that shows a train plowing through deep snow at a crossing. Your statement has no merit and nothing to back it up. 

 1. He's blowing the horn for a crossing - by rule.

2. He's blowing the horn frequently because of a) impaired visibility and b) doing his best to keep the horn from potentially getting plugged.

So by all means please give me any evidence that shows the engineer's personal opinions differ from my own. 

 

I think the fact that Canadian (and European) crossing rules are so much more relaxed than ones in the US is clear evidence that crossing incidents in the US are indeed a problem of the people and not those noisy trains. 

 

 

[Euclid]

traisessive1

I think the fact that Canadian (and European) crossing rules are so much more relaxed than ones in the US is clear evidence that crossing incidents in the US are indeed a problem of the people and not those noisy trains. 

How are Canadian crossing rules more relaxed?

Obviously crossing incidents in the U.S. are a problem of drivers, as you say.  You suggest that it is not so in Canada.  If Canadian crossing incidents are not a problem caused by drivers, what is it that causes your Canadian crossing incidents?

[BaltACD]

traisessive1

I think the fact that Canadian (and European) crossing rules are so much more relaxed than ones in the US is clear evidence that crossing incidents in the US are indeed a problem of the people and not those noisy trains. 

How many crossings are there in Manitoba?

[tree68]

traisessive1

I think the fact that Canadian (and European) crossing rules are so much more relaxed than ones in the US ...

I think your supposition is wrong.  

From the Canadian Rail Operating Rules (14l):

(l) ___ ___ o ___

• (i) (#) At public crossings at grade:
  A whistle post will be located 1/4 mile before each public crossing where required. Whistle signal must be sounded by movements:

  • exceeding 44 MPH, at the whistle post

  • operating at 44 MPH or less, in order to provide 20 seconds warning prior to entering the crossing.

    Whistle signal must be prolonged or repeated until the crossing is fully occupied.

    EXCEPTION: Not applicable when manual protection is to be provided or when shoving equipment other than a snow plow over a crossing protected by automatic warning devices.

• (ii) (#) At other whistle posts indicated in special instructions.

• (iii) (#) At frequent intervals when view is restricted by weather, curvature or other conditions.

• (iv) Special instructions will govern when such signal is prohibited in whole or in part.

From NORAC (10th Edition, rule 19b):

(b) Sound: ——o—

Indication: 1. When approaching a public highway-rail crossing at grade and at a whistle sign displaying “W,” “W/MX,” or other specified aspect, with the engine in front, start whistle signal at least 15 seconds but not more than 20 seconds before occupying the crossing. The signal must be prolonged or repeated until the engine occupies the crossing. For multiple crossings, the signal must be prolonged or repeated until the last crossing is occupied.

For trains and engines exceeding 60 MPH, the whistle signal must not be started more than ¼ mile in advance of the public grade crossing, even if the advance warning provided by the locomotive horn will be less than 15 seconds in duration.

When a train or engine is stopped at a location such that it will take less than 15 seconds for the movement to occupy a public grade crossing, the whistle signal may be sounded for less than 15 seconds provided: (a) The public grade crossing is equipped with automatic flashing lights and gates and the gates are fully lowered; or (b) There are no conflicting highway movements approaching the public grade crossing.

EXCEPTION: This warning must not be sounded at a whistle sign indicating “W/R” or in areas otherwise designated as Quiet Zones, except in an emergency. 2. Approaching and passing standing trains.

GCOR (7th Edition, Rule 3.8.2(7)):

(7) — — o — When approaching public crossings at grade with the engine in front, sound signal as follows:

A. At speeds in excess of 45 MPH, start signal at or about the crossing sign but not more than 1/4 mile before the crossing.

B. At speeds of 45 MPH or less, start signal at least 15 seconds, but not more than 20 seconds, before entering the crossing.

C. If no crossing sign start signal at least 15 seconds, but not more than 20 seconds before entering crossing but not more than 1/4 mile before the crossing.

D. If movement starts less than 1/4 mile from a crossing, signal may be sounded less than 15 seconds before the crossing when it is clearly seen traffic is not approaching the crossing, traffic is not stopped at the crossing or when crossing gates are fully lowered. Prolong or repeat signal until the engine completely occupies the crossing(s)

Looks to me like the Canadian rules are the same as the US rules.  Nothing "more relaxed" about them.

 

[traisessive1]

If you guys would read through the thread you would see why Canadian crossing rules are more relaxed, specifically when it comes to special circumstances. 5 and 6 I just now added. 

1. When a crossing is flagged, the horn does not need to be blown.

2. Horn failure: 25mph over unprotected crossings and track speed on crossings with automatic protection.

3. Headlight AND Ditchlgihts failure: 10mph over unprotected crossings and track speed over protected crossings.

4. We have horn exempted crossings here in Canada that do NOT have gates. Only the lights and the crossing bell. 

5. The bell does not have to be rung, at all, when the horn is sounded for a crossing.

6. Bell failure: Turn the bell on on a trailing unit and if that isn't available, oh well. 

So technically, if you have no horn, no bell and no headlights whatsoever you're still okay to do 60mph through a crossing with automatic protection. 

We are required to blow all crossings (unless exempted) and have the lights on full power, as well as the ditch lights. But when it comes to horn and headlight failure, the rules that cover that nearly make the rules that cover 'everything working' redundant.

[traisessive1]

Manitoba has a ton of crossings, the majority being unprotected. 

We've got dumb drivers here but our society isn't looking for a free payout over the smallest things. For the most part we don't chase ambulances and have lawyers on speed dial. 

Laws are different here in Canada. I'm no legal expert so I can't list specific things. I don't think crews can be fined and charged for things like they can be in the USA. 

When you compare the EXCEPTIONS and the crossing exemption requirements for Canada vs. the USA it's clear that Canada has less restrictions. There has to be a reason for that. 

Is it solely the laws?

Is it that our people aren't as greedy and looking to file a lawsuit even when they're clearly in the wrong?

Is it that our drivers and pedestrians are held to higher accountability? 

Is it more deregulation allowing the railroads more freedom?

 

[tree68]

Minutiae.  

The variables may change, but the rules are still the same.  

As for #4 - interesting, as many locomotives now automatically start the bell when the horn is blown.

And for #2 - we still haven't defined "protected."  If we use Euclids reductio ad absurdum argument, then a crossing with a small sign that says "Railroad Crossing" the crossing is protected...

 

[BaltACD]

traisessive1

Manitoba has a ton of crossings, the majority being unprotected. 

A ton is 2000 pounds or 2200 if you are a metric ton.  So Manitoba has 2200 crossings?

[Euclid]

traisessive1

That's right, it is my own opinion that there is no reason to blow the horn at a crossing with protection. In Canada we are indeed still required to blow the horn unless there is an exemption on the crossing. 

If you get hit at a crossing with automatic protection, how is the train blowing the horn going to change anything? If you didn't see the flashing lights and the lowered gate you shouldn't be allowed to drive, walk, ride a bike, whatever. Chances are it was willful disobedience. If you drove onto the tracks before you could fully cross them, it's the same thing. The horn changes nothing. 

If you step out or drive out behind a train while the protection is still operating and get hit by a second train, that is again willful disobeidence and the horn changes nothing. 

If a child runs onto the tracks whilst chasing a ball or dog, will said child understand what the crossing sequence for the blowing horn means? There is a good chance that no, it won't. So, while unfortunate, the crossing sequence in a case like that still probably wouldn't change the end result. 

If you slide onto the tracks or a freak incident occurs, again, the horn wouldn't have prevented it. 

We've got a lot of stupid drivers here in Canada as well. Boy do we ever.

 

 

I think I understand your point, but I can only guess.  The fact is that if you stop blowing the horn at signalized crossings, the crash rate goes up.  Union Pacific says that even converting a signalized crossing to a quite zone crossing causes the crash rate goes up.  So, clearly, sounding the horn saves lives.

You avoid that issue and focus only on the logic that since the signals can be seen, no further warning is necessary. 

In my opinion, the railroad industry generally has a frustrated and cynical view on preventing crossing crashes, and I think you are presenting that view.  The cynical view is understandable because the industry has been adding safety protection to crossings for over a century, and still fails to eliminate the problem. 

So they resort to the Darwin promise that the crashes have a silver lining because they eliminate the crossing violators.   Limiting or reducing the redundant protection and giving the driver only the bare minimum of warning would be one way of speeding up the Darwinian purification of the driver pool. 

[Norm48327]

Euclid

In my opinion, the railroad industry generally has a frustrated and cynical view on preventing crossing crashes, and I think you are presenting that view. The cynical view is understandable because the industry has been adding safety protection to crossings for over a century, and still fails to eliminate the problem. So they resort to the Darwin promise that the crashes have a silver lining because they eliminate the crossing violators. Limiting or reducing the redundant protection and giving the driver only the bare minimum of warning would be one way of speeding up the Darwinian purification of the driver pool.

That is a very warped opinion of how others view grade crossing crashes. Do you think train crews go out of their way to cause crashes? You voiced a similar opinion in the theread about the Metro North incident. You give no credit to the crews who would much prefer not to see these crashes happen. The problem is not the railroads but is the motorists and pedestrians who think the rules don't apply to them and people who prefer to blame the innocent for their own failings.

[schlimm]

Here is a link to some factual numbers and an analysis:

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_755.pdf

[tree68]

If there is a significant difference in how railroads view the hazards of grade crossings between the US and Canada, I would submit that it has less to do with an operational philosophy and more to do with the legal climate.  

The US view seems to be to sue, sue, sue.  Eventually, someone will pay, even if an incident was the fault of the complainant.  There just has to be something that alleviates their guilt.

It's been my impression that Canadians are more likely to accept the blame if they make a mistake - or else the legal system doesn't suffer fools as readily.  Or both.

[Falcon48]

Euclid

Union Pacific says this:

 

“Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. While the railroad does not endorse quiet zones, it does comply with provisions outlined in the federal law."

 

I am sure that the FRA disagrees with them, but I have never seen a simple and clear statement on that topic from the FRA.  Unlike the U.P., the FRA does explain their rationale, but it is so complex and wrapped in statistical probabilities that I doubt that it could be assimilated, let alone challenged.

Therefore, it is fascinating that these two titans of authority are diametrically opposed on such an important matter of safety, and nobody can tell who is right.   

 

  I addressed the supposed UP-FRA "disagreement" on the effectiveness of horn blowing roughly a year ago (it may have even been on this thread). Briefly, there is no "disagreement" between the two on horn effectiveness.  FRA and UP agree that horn blowing enhances safety  If you doubt that, run the numbers on FRA's "quiet zone calculator" for particular crossings with and without horn blowing.  Even with fancy crossing enhancements (medians, 4-quads, etc.), a crossing will always end up with better safety numbers with horn blowing than without.  Remember, this is FRA's own analysis, not UP's.

The "disagreement" between the two has to do with regulatory policy, not horn effectiveness.  FRA's view is that routine horn blowing can be eliminated if safety improvements "make up" for horn blowing at a crossing (in other words, the "post improvement" safety in a quiet zone isn't less than the pre-quiet zone safety.  They also believe horn blowing can be eliminated in area where crossing safety is already below certain national measures (the NSRT). 

As I pointed out in a prior post, "no quiet zones anywhere" was never a realistic option for FRA.  Had they attempted to mandate something like this, Congress would have quickly repealed FRA's authority to regulate this area and left it up to states and localities.  There's no question this would have happened.  I was heavily invoved in the development of FRA horn rule, and the politics at the time were crystal clear to everyone.  A repeal of FRA's authority would have been the worst possible outcome from a safety standpoint, since state and local horn bans in most states have historically been driven more by noise abatement issues than by safety.  Of course, that's the way it had been prior to the FRA rule.  But a political firestorm in response to a FRA rule mandating  "whistle everywhere" coupled with a Congressional repeal would have "galvanized" state and local interests and led to a deluge of new whistle bans.  There's an old saying that politics is the art of the possible.  That certainly was true here.   FRA's outcome was the safest outcome that was "possible". 

[Euclid]

Falcon48

 

FRA's view is that routine horn blowing can be eliminated if safety improvements "make up" for horn blowing at a crossing (in other words, the "post improvement" safety in a quiet zone isn't less than the pre-quiet zone safety.  

If (according to the FRA) the post improvement safety added to a quiet zone leaves it more safe than what it was before being converted to a quiet zone; then why does U.P. say this?

“Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. While the railroad does not endorse quiet zones, it does comply with provisions outlined in the federal law."

I cannot understand why you say that the FRA agrees with the U.P.  The words mean they disagree on this point. 

[tree68]

Euclid

I cannot understand why you say that the FRA agrees with the U.P.  The words mean they disagree on this point. 

It's called politics.  FRA is simply trying to strike a balance between what's best and what politicians and some members of the general public want.  I'm betting they're as opposed to quiet zones as UP.  But they can't say so.

As noted in Falcon's last post, even FRA computations show that a crossing is safer with horns, regardless of other improvements.

By setting up a rating system, it is apparently possible for a crossing to rated "as safe as" without the use of horns.   And that's how quiet zones get established.

As has been noted before, the only true solution is crossing elimination.  Unfortunately, in many areas, that is physically impossible, or at least economically extremely challenging.

[Euclid]

tree68

 

Euclid

I cannot understand why you say that the FRA agrees with the U.P.  The words mean they disagree on this point. 

 

 

It's called politics.  FRA is simply trying to strike a balance between what's best and what politicians and some members of the general public want.  I'm betting they're as opposed to quiet zones as UP.  But they can't say so.

As noted in Falcon's last post, even FRA computations show that a crossing is safer with horns, regardless of other improvements.

By setting up a rating system, it is apparently possible for a crossing to rated "as safe as" without the use of horns.   And that's how quiet zones get established.

As has been noted before, the only true solution is crossing elimination.  Unfortunately, in many areas, that is physically impossible, or at least economically extremely challenging.

 

No doubt politics are involved.  My only point is that the FRA and UP are NOT saying the same thing.  Yet Falcon 48 says they are.  I am at a loss to see how he can possibly come to that conclusion. 

[schlimm]

The study I posted is not easy reading.  However, it becomes clear that the total costs of a railroad crossing incident are considerable, even more so when the standard cost of life value (nearly $10 million each) is included. 

[schlimm]

Euclid

No doubt politics are involved.  My only point is that the FRA and UP are NOT saying the same thing.  Yet Falcon 48 says they are.  I am at a loss to see how he can possibly come to that conclusion.

Since Falcon 48 was involved in the FRA study, he would know far better than any of us, including you.

[Falcon48]

Euclid

 

Falcon48

 

FRA's view is that routine horn blowing can be eliminated if safety improvements "make up" for horn blowing at a crossing (in other words, the "post improvement" safety in a quiet zone isn't less than the pre-quiet zone safety.  

 

 

If (according to the FRA) the post improvement safety added to a quiet zone leaves it more safe than what it was before being converted to a quiet zone; then why does U.P. say this?

“Union Pacific believes quiet zones compromise the safety of railroad employees, customers, and the general public. While the railroad does not endorse quiet zones, it does comply with provisions outlined in the federal law."

I cannot understand why you say that the FRA agrees with the U.P.  The words mean they disagree on this point. 

 

  Reread my earlier note.  The reason UP "can" say this is because, even if the crossing improvements in a quiet zone "make up" for the blowing of a horn (or more than "make up" for it), the crossing would be "safer still" if, in addition to the improvements, trains continued to routinely sound their horns.  As i pointed out, FRA's own quiet zone calculator program shows this to be true.  So, UP's statement is true, based on FRA's own analysis.  UP and FRA do not disagree on this point.

The disagreement is in the regulatory policy that flows from this. Should FRA allow a quiet zone to be created where the improvements at least "make up" for the routine sounding of a horn.  FRA says "yes". Now, you may say "of course not, if horn blowing is safer".  But it's not that easy.  For example, is "improvements + horns" a realistic option?  How many communities would even bother to install expensive crossing improvements such as 4-quads or medians if the expenditure doesn't buy them a quiet zone.      

[Euclid]

Falcon48,

Okay, I see that point.  You convert a non-quiet crossing into a quiet zone crossing and it is as safe or safer than it was before it was converted.  But if the horn blowing was retained for the converted quiet zone crossing, it would be safer yet. 

Maybe U.P. means they would prefer four quadrant gates and dividing median just for the safety they add, and then retain the horn blowing.  Overall, that would make the crossing more safe than it was before.

However, that would not be a quiet zone.  So if that is what U.P. means, it would be incorrect for them to say that quiet zones compromise safety as they do say. 

[Falcon48]

schlimm

The study I posted is not easy reading.  However, it becomes clear that the total costs of a railroad crossing incident are considerable, even more so when the standard cost of life value (nearly $10 million each) is included. 

 

  Rather than try to fathom the study, an easier approach is to just run particular crossings in the FRA quiet zone calculator program.  First, run a crossing in its current condition.  Then, by entering changes like crossing improvements,  horn blowing vs no horn blowing, changes in traffic (rail and highway) and other variables, you can see how the risk values change. 

[Euclid]

It would be accurate for U.P. to say that eliminating the horn signal compromises safety.  But U.P. does not say that.  They say that a quiet zone compromises safety.  Clearly that is not true according to the FRA.

Maybe I will write U.P. a letter and ask them to explain with they mean.   

[schlimm]

Falcon48

Rather than try to fathom the study, an easier approach is to just run particular crossings in the FRA quiet zone calculator program. 

I googled it and got the FRA quiet zone calculator site, but one needs to apply for a password to enter and use it.

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/login.aspx

[traisessive1]

Replying to an earlier post.

I stated earlier that in Canada, a crossing with protectiong is at minumum a crossing with lights and a crossing bell. 

[Falcon48]

schlimm

 

Falcon48

Rather than try to fathom the study, an easier approach is to just run particular crossings in the FRA quiet zone calculator program. 

 

 

I googled it and got the FRA quiet zone calculator site, but one needs to apply for a password to enter and use it.

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/quiet/login.aspx

 

  It only takes a couple of minutes to register and get a password.