Dinah won't U blow yur horn

[BLOND37]

What's the rule about the driver blowing the horn? Obviously if there's something on the track. But other than that is he free to do so whenever it tickles his fancy?

 

[Shanghai]

I think the engineer must blow the whistle at grade crossings and as they enter a station.

 

[jphjaxfl]

The rail lines have signs that indicate when the Engineer is suppose to use the horn. Some cities have banned train horns during certain hours and some possibly altogether which makes no sense since train horns have been a safety feature for years. I have lived close to rail lines at times and train horns have never been a problem, in fact they are great to hear. I can hear the distinct Amtrak horns as the Silvers and Auto Train travel on the rail line that follows US 17 in Jacksonville even though I live across the St. John's River from NAS JAX where they pass. At night I can also hear the FEC horns on their freights which run on their line about 2 miles from my house. I think the sound of a train horn is terrific.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Train_whistle

It's not complete or entirely accurate-- but its a fair summation of the majority of horn blast patterns you will hear.

And yes they can do it at times, certain times, when it tickles their fancy-- as it were 'fancy'... railfans and children can always get a special present if they wave.

 

[jackal]

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Train_whistle
It's not complete or entirely accurate-- but its a fair summation of the majority of horn blast patterns you will hear.

And yes they can do it at times, certain times, when it tickles their fancy-- as it were 'fancy'... railfans and children can always get a special present if they wave.

Straight from the horse's mouth: here is GCOR, the railroad operating manual used by most railroads west of the Mississippi, including the UP and BNSF.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/trainmedia/rulebooks/arr/gcor5.pdf

And here is the text of rule 5.8.2, Sounding Whistle:

5.8.2 Sounding WhistleThe whistle may be used at anytime as a warning regardless of any whistle prohibitions.

When other employees are working in the immediate area, sound the required whistle signal

before moving.

Other forms of communications may be used in place of whistle signals, except signals (1), (7),

and (8). See following chart.

The required whistle signals are illustrated by “o” for short sounds and “—” for longer sounds:

Sound Indication

(1) Succession Use when persons or livestock are on the track at other than road crossings at grade.

of short sounds In addition, use to warn railroad employees when an emergency exists, such as a

derailment. When crews on other trains hear this signal, they must stop until it is safe

to proceed.

(2) — When stopped: air brakes are applied, pressure equalized.

(3) — — Release brakes. Proceed.

(4) o o Acknowledgment of any signal not otherwise provided for.

(5) o o o When stopped: back up. Acknowledgment of hand signal to back up.

(6) o o o o Request for signal to be given or repeated if not understood.

(7) — — o — Approaching public crossings at grade with the engine in front, start signal at least 15

seconds but not more than 20 seconds before the crossing. If movement exceeds 59

MPH, start signal at the crossing sign or not more than 1/4 mile before the crossing if

no sign. Prolong or repeat signal until engine occupies the crossing.

(8) — o Approaching men or equipment on or near the track, regardless of any whistle

prohibitions.

After this initial warning, sound whistle signal (4) intermittently until the head end of train

has passed the men or equipment.

 

[OlympianHiawatha]

Having always lived near the tracks (Chicago and Northwestern Northwestern line growing up in Chicago and currently the BNSF Red Rock line) train horns have always been a part of daily routine, and when they are gone, such as from a line closure, it does not take long to notice. And yes, my ears always perk up at the disticnt cry of the K5LA when the Heartland Flyer passes. And when on board, nothing is more relaxing than when a good engineer has locked into a perfect rythm of sounding "long-long-short-long" for the crossings.

 

[Bierboy]

I lived in Galesburg off an on through the 70s and if there ever was a train town, it was (and, to some extent, still is) it. Many a whistle/horn is heard day and night in GBB, and I, for one, always enjoyed it. That's one thing (about the ONLY thing) I miss now by living in the Quad Cities. Although there is a strong push for an E-W Amtrak route here now...

 

[DET63]

People move into or build houses near railroad crossings then complain about all the noise trains make. Duh! "Quiet zones" may be presented as a panacea (or at least a big improvement), but doesn't the rumble of the engines and the cars also create a lot of noise? If there is a crossing and it has a bell or similar audible signal (which may even have to be enhanced to permit a "quiet zone" to exist), won't it also be very noisy?

If you don't like the sound of trains, don't live near a railroad track.

 

[gregoryla]

The rail lines have signs that indicate when the Engineer is suppose to use the horn. Some cities have banned train horns during certain hours and some possibly altogether which makes no sense since train horns have been a safety feature for years. I have lived close to rail lines at times and train horns have never been a problem, in fact they are great to hear. I can hear the distinct Amtrak horns as the Silvers and Auto Train travel on the rail line that follows US 17 in Jacksonville even though I live across the St. John's River from NAS JAX where they pass. At night I can also hear the FEC horns on their freights which run on their line about 2 miles from my house. I think the sound of a train horn is terrific.

I believe (but not certain) that while some cities have tried to ban train horns, the Federal Railroad Administration has sued and won in court on the basis of federal preemption -- that is, that the federal rules and regulations for operating trains override any state or local laws on the subject.

 

[MikefromCrete]

The rail lines have signs that indicate when the Engineer is suppose to use the horn. Some cities have banned train horns during certain hours and some possibly altogether which makes no sense since train horns have been a safety feature for years. I have lived close to rail lines at times and train horns have never been a problem, in fact they are great to hear. I can hear the distinct Amtrak horns as the Silvers and Auto Train travel on the rail line that follows US 17 in Jacksonville even though I live across the St. John's River from NAS JAX where they pass. At night I can also hear the FEC horns on their freights which run on their line about 2 miles from my house. I think the sound of a train horn is terrific.

I believe (but not certain) that while some cities have tried to ban train horns, the Federal Railroad Administration has sued and won in court on the basis of federal preemption -- that is, that the federal rules and regulations for operating trains override any state or local laws on the subject.

There are a whole set of rules for communities that want to establish "quiet zones" (I.e. no horns at crossings). The requirements include four quadrant gates, or obstacles on the road that would prevent cars from running around the gates. Some places have "horns" attached to the gates, so there's warning, but quieter than locomotive horns. Seems a lot of trouble, but there are apparently people who don't notice the railroad tracks when they buy houses. :lol:

 

[Squeakz2001]

I LOVE livng near the tracks. Every single house I have had has been near tracks, so I fall asleep to the sound of the whistle. Our town does have a few silent zones, where there are 4 or 5 obstacles blocking off the tracks (which also effectively blocks that entire road and you have to take another route to find your destination). I agree, if people don't like the sound of the horn, dont live near the tracks.

 

[volkris]

People move into or build houses near railroad crossings then complain about all the noise trains make. Duh! "Quiet zones" may be presented as a panacea (or at least a big improvement), but doesn't the rumble of the engines and the cars also create a lot of noise? If there is a crossing and it has a bell or similar audible signal (which may even have to be enhanced to permit a "quiet zone" to exist), won't it also be very noisy?
If you don't like the sound of trains, don't live near a railroad track.

The sound of whistles are, obviously, much different from the sound of a rumbling engine and cars, and the two sounds carry in very different ways.

The warnings at crossings tend to be confined to the area around the crossing--that is, the area that needs the warning. The train that starts blowing a quarter mile away is often alerting a whole lot of people who have no need to be warned at all.

It's easy to say that if someone doesn't like the sound of a train he shouldn't live near tracks, but in reality the trains' whistles are designed to carry long distances, so "near the tracks" could end up covering the majority of a moderately sized city.

In the end it's a waste and bothersome to have trains blow their horns unnecessarily, and when warnings can be installed in intersections themselves, approach warnings become unnecessary. While you and I may like hearing the sound of a train blasting its horn in the middle of the night, plenty of other people don't. We should respect their opinions and err on the side of not intruding into their environment, especially for the sake of our enjoyment of the horn.

 

[Ispolkom]

In the end it's a waste and bothersome to have trains blow their horns unnecessarily, and when warnings can be installed in intersections themselves, approach warnings become unnecessary. While you and I may like hearing the sound of a train blasting its horn in the middle of the night, plenty of other people don't. We should respect their opinions and err on the side of not intruding into their environment, especially for the sake of our enjoyment of the horn.

I'd agree, as long as it's the anti-train-horn people who pay for the required upgraded grade crossings at an average of $180k per crossing, not me (either through increased taxes or increased cost of shipping goods).

 

[haolerider]

People move into or build houses near railroad crossings then complain about all the noise trains make. Duh! "Quiet zones" may be presented as a panacea (or at least a big improvement), but doesn't the rumble of the engines and the cars also create a lot of noise? If there is a crossing and it has a bell or similar audible signal (which may even have to be enhanced to permit a "quiet zone" to exist), won't it also be very noisy?
If you don't like the sound of trains, don't live near a railroad track.

The sound of whistles are, obviously, much different from the sound of a rumbling engine and cars, and the two sounds carry in very different ways.

The warnings at crossings tend to be confined to the area around the crossing--that is, the area that needs the warning. The train that starts blowing a quarter mile away is often alerting a whole lot of people who have no need to be warned at all.

It's easy to say that if someone doesn't like the sound of a train he shouldn't live near tracks, but in reality the trains' whistles are designed to carry long distances, so "near the tracks" could end up covering the majority of a moderately sized city.

In the end it's a waste and bothersome to have trains blow their horns unnecessarily, and when warnings can be installed in intersections themselves, approach warnings become unnecessary. While you and I may like hearing the sound of a train blasting its horn in the middle of the night, plenty of other people don't. We should respect their opinions and err on the side of not intruding into their environment, especially for the sake of our enjoyment of the horn.

If you firmly believe it is a waste and bothersome, I would suggest you contact FRA and let them know. I am sure they will jump at the chance to change the regulations!!

 

[DET63]

People move into or build houses near railroad crossings then complain about all the noise trains make. Duh! "Quiet zones" may be presented as a panacea (or at least a big improvement), but doesn't the rumble of the engines and the cars also create a lot of noise? If there is a crossing and it has a bell or similar audible signal (which may even have to be enhanced to permit a "quiet zone" to exist), won't it also be very noisy?
If you don't like the sound of trains, don't live near a railroad track.

The sound of whistles are, obviously, much different from the sound of a rumbling engine and cars, and the two sounds carry in very different ways.

The warnings at crossings tend to be confined to the area around the crossing--that is, the area that needs the warning. The train that starts blowing a quarter mile away is often alerting a whole lot of people who have no need to be warned at all.

It's easy to say that if someone doesn't like the sound of a train he shouldn't live near tracks, but in reality the trains' whistles are designed to carry long distances, so "near the tracks" could end up covering the majority of a moderately sized city.

In the end it's a waste and bothersome to have trains blow their horns unnecessarily, and when warnings can be installed in intersections themselves, approach warnings become unnecessary. While you and I may like hearing the sound of a train blasting its horn in the middle of the night, plenty of other people don't. We should respect their opinions and err on the side of not intruding into their environment, especially for the sake of our enjoyment of the horn.

Let's take a look at a few of volkris's points:

"The sound of whistles are, obviously, much different from the sound of a rumbling engine and cars, and the two sounds carry in very different ways."

Maybe, but it's funny how some are bothered by a horn that blasts for a few seconds, but not by a rumbling sound (and associated vibration) that may last for a minute or two or more (depending on the length and speed of the train).

"The warnings at crossings tend to be confined to the area around the crossing--that is, the area that needs the warning. The train that starts blowing a quarter mile away is often alerting a whole lot of people who have no need to be warned at all."

Maybe, maybe not. A train blowing its whistle a quarter of a mile away has to do so in order to make sure it's heard in time to alert people to its presence. The engineer has no way of knowing whether a particular person needs to be warned of the train or not. Better safe than sorry.

"It's easy to say that if someone doesn't like the sound of a train he shouldn't live near tracks, but in reality the trains' whistles are designed to carry long distances, so 'near the tracks' could end up covering the majority of a moderately sized city."

That depends entirely on what is meant by a "moderately sized city." I seriously doubt that train horns are going to be intrusive more than 2 or 3 blocks from the track. Most "moderately sized cities" are far larger than that. Of course, if there are multiple railroad lines and/or crossing, then more of the "moderately sized city" will be affected by the sound of train horns.

"In the end it's a waste and bothersome to have trains blow their horns unnecessarily, and when warnings can be installed in intersections themselves, approach warnings become unnecessary."

Assuming motorists expect the warnings to sound in the intersections themselves, and don't assume that the crossing a few blocks ahead is safe for them to take at speed when they haven't yet heard a train whistle, perhaps that is so. Is that a fair assumption?

"While you and I may like hearing the sound of a train blasting its horn in the middle of the night, plenty of other people don't. We should respect their opinions and err on the side of not intruding into their environment, especially for the sake of our enjoyment of the horn."

No, we should err on the side of safety. People living near a track are arguably "intruding into" the train's "environment" as much as the trains are "intruding into their environment."

 

[amtrakwolverine]

if people didn't run crossings or play chicken with trains then they wouldn't need to blow there horn but sense theres a grade crossing accident every 90 seconds here in the US they need horns. ok so you complain that the horn is noise pollution fine. you get the horn banned then the accident rate at that crossing goes up cause no one hears the train. and yet you wonder why accidents went up at a safe crossing hmm.

 

[Ryan]

In the end it's a waste and bothersome to have trains blow their horns unnecessarily, and when warnings can be installed in intersections themselves, approach warnings become unnecessary. While you and I may like hearing the sound of a train blasting its horn in the middle of the night, plenty of other people don't. We should respect their opinions and err on the side of not intruding into their environment, especially for the sake of our enjoyment of the horn.

I'd agree, as long as it's the anti-train-horn people who pay for the required upgraded grade crossings at an average of $180k per crossing, not me (either through increased taxes or increased cost of shipping goods).

For someone that preaches against forcing taxpayers to pay for things, Volkris seems to be mighty ready to spend my money on upgraded grade crossings so people can get a good night's sleep.

 

[jackal]

It's easy to say that if someone doesn't like the sound of a train he shouldn't live near tracks, but in reality the trains' whistles are designed to carry long distances, so "near the tracks" could end up covering the majority of a moderately sized city.

That depends entirely on what is meant by a "moderately sized city." I seriously doubt that train horns are going to be intrusive more than 2 or 3 blocks from the track. Most "moderately sized cities" are far larger than that. Of course, if there are multiple railroad lines and/or crossing, then more of the "moderately sized city" will be affected by the sound of train horns.

Not taking sides in this debate--I just want to provide a data point. My house, as well as the house I'm currently housesitting (in a different part of town) are about 3-4 miles from the nearest tracks.

They're very faint, but I can definitely hear train horns in the quiet of the night at both places. Whenever I hear one, I'm always stunned at how well that sound carries.

 

[amamba]

It's easy to say that if someone doesn't like the sound of a train he shouldn't live near tracks, but in reality the trains' whistles are designed to carry long distances, so "near the tracks" could end up covering the majority of a moderately sized city.

That depends entirely on what is meant by a "moderately sized city." I seriously doubt that train horns are going to be intrusive more than 2 or 3 blocks from the track. Most "moderately sized cities" are far larger than that. Of course, if there are multiple railroad lines and/or crossing, then more of the "moderately sized city" will be affected by the sound of train horns.

Not taking sides in this debate--I just want to provide a data point. My house, as well as the house I'm currently housesitting (in a different part of town) are about 3-4 miles from the nearest tracks.

They're very faint, but I can definitely hear train horns in the quiet of the night at both places. Whenever I hear one, I'm always stunned at how well that sound carries.

My in-laws live 1.4 miles (just checked on google maps) from the Amtrak station in Wallingford, CT and I can definitely hear the train horns at their house. I am always surprised because they live on a very quiet little street and the horns are quite loud. They will wake me up if I am sleeping.

 

[volkris]

"The sound of whistles are, obviously, much different from the sound of a rumbling engine and cars, and the two sounds carry in very different ways."
Maybe, but it's funny how some are bothered by a horn that blasts for a few seconds, but not by a rumbling sound (and associated vibration) that may last for a minute or two or more (depending on the length and speed of the train).

By design horns are more piercing, carry farther, and are generally more significant sounds than the rumbling. If the rumbling was as noticeable as the horns, then we'd have no reason to have the horns in the first place.

A train blowing its whistle a quarter of a mile away has to do so in order to make sure it's heard in time to alert people to its presence. The engineer has no way of knowing whether a particular person needs to be warned of the train or not. Better safe than sorry.

There are two category of occasions here: routine blowing at crossings and emergency, safety-related blowing. I'm only talking about the first. OF COURSE a train should blow its horn whenever the conductor feels the need to issue warning ahead, but whenever possible, the warning should be confined only to the area needing the warning. After all, a safety at all costs policy would have the train continuously blow its horn throughout its entire route. Clearly we make exceptions when practical.

That depends entirely on what is meant by a "moderately sized city." I seriously doubt that train horns are going to be intrusive more than 2 or 3 blocks from the track. Most "moderately sized cities" are far larger than that. Of course, if there are multiple railroad lines and/or crossing, then more of the "moderately sized city" will be affected by the sound of train horns.

When I lived in Louisiana the horns could be clearly heard from my house a mile from the track. When I'm in Newport News, Virginia, I can hear the horns from all over the city. I consider Newport News/Hampton to be moderately sized.

No, we should err on the side of safety. People living near a track are arguably "intruding into" the train's "environment" as much as the trains are "intruding into their environment."

I find that to be a pretty telling comment, echoing a perspective that I fear all too many foamers and people on this board would share.

Seriously? The trains have an environment extending blocks (or miles) in either direction? It's not enough to make everyone in America to pay for these trains; we have to make them all bow down and sacrifice for the hobby in their daily lives as well?

These trains affect real people who just want to live in peace. The least the trains can do is cause minimal impact in their lives through steps like providing warning to minimal space, affecting the smallest number of people possible. That's not asking much, and it's not asking more than we'd ask of any dinky garage band playing in a house down the street.

 

[volkris]

For someone that preaches against forcing taxpayers to pay for things, Volkris seems to be mighty ready to spend my money on upgraded grade crossings so people can get a good night's sleep.

Just like I'm spending "your money" when I ask the Chinese toy manufacturers to test their products for lead before selling them in the US? Or, more fittingly, how I spend "your money" when I ask you to have a muffler on your car?

In the end this is about asking the trains to operate in a way that interferes minimally with the populations they run through, and so it's the operators' responsibility to do what needs to be done to make it happen. It would be just another cost of operations for them.

 

[GregL]

I live a couple of hundred feet from a rail line. We are okay with the whistles, very seldom wake us up, however, two years ago the railroad was working on a bridge about two miles from our house and the slack coming in and going out when the trains slowed down and sped up for the slow orders over the bridge were far worse the the whistles. They would wake us up almost every time.

When company stays at our house, in the morning they ask ''How far that train goes before it turns around and goes by our house again?'' Must not have slept very good that night.

GregL

 

[AlanB]

For someone that preaches against forcing taxpayers to pay for things, Volkris seems to be mighty ready to spend my money on upgraded grade crossings so people can get a good night's sleep.

Just like I'm spending "your money" when I ask the Chinese toy manufacturers to test their products for lead before selling them in the US? Or, more fittingly, how I spend "your money" when I ask you to have a muffler on your car?

In the end this is about asking the trains to operate in a way that interferes minimally with the populations they run through, and so it's the operators' responsibility to do what needs to be done to make it happen. It would be just another cost of operations for them.

The RR's cannot install gates or anything else on a road. Those are traffic control devices and the RR's have no authority to install them. They must have permission to install gates, flashing lights, or anything else from the DOT in charge of that road. So why should the RR's pay for something that they can't install without permission, something that is clearly the domain of the local city/state DOT departments by law, not to mention something that they have no use for? The RR's don't need gates to stop the trains from crossing the road. The road needs gates to stop the morons from crossing the Right Of Way of the RR, which by law has priority and is considered the superior vehicle.

And trust me, people will complain about anything. People move next to an Interstate Highway, and then demand noise barriers. People move next to an airport and then demand noise abatement procedures, which leave pilots doing stupid and odd movements while trying to get a plane into the air, like in Chicago. Heck, we've even got people complaining in Tukwila that the new Sound Transit Light Rail trains make a squealing noise. Granted in that case the people came first and the train second, but still, people will complain about anything.

Push the RR’s too hard and they just might demand that grade crossing be closed to solve the problem. As it is they are saddled with the costs of maintaining all that equipment, which is why most RR’s today insist on the cities/towns/states/Fed pay for the equipment upfront.

 

[volkris]

So why should the RR's pay for something that they can't install without permission, something that is clearly the domain of the local city/state DOT departments by law, not to mention something that they have no use for?

Simple: because these devices are intended to lessen the impact their operations have on the communities they run through.

Why should the community fit the bill for the railroad's decision to operate?

People move next to an Interstate Highway, and then demand noise barriers. People move next to an airport and then demand noise abatement procedures, which leave pilots doing stupid and odd movements while trying to get a plane into the air, like in Chicago.

Exactly! It's not so bizarre a notion that any creator of loud activity has a duty to minimize his impact on the surrounding community. Whether it's private citizens practicing for their soon-to-be-famous band in their garage, or cars who must install (and pay for) legally required and approved emissions management equipment, or airplanes taking less convenient routes (and thus paying that cost), it's a pretty generally accepted position that one should not force the whole community to live with unnecessary noise.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

So why should the RR's pay for something that they can't install without permission, something that is clearly the domain of the local city/state DOT departments by law, not to mention something that they have no use for?

Simple: because these devices are intended to lessen the impact their operations have on the communities they run through.

Why should the community fit the bill for the railroad's decision to operate?

Because in many cases the tracks were there first and people expanded the already existing city around the tracks--