What are the rules for blowing train horns

[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.