Eastern Railroad Discussion > House bill would silence train horns in suburbs during

I hope those of you that are against this bill will write to your representative.

Galen
K4CnO


====================================

House bill would silence train horns in suburbs during off-peak hours

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 4116, a bill that would
prohibit trains from sounding horns at crossings during non-rush-hour periods.

The legislation would amend a section of U.S. Code Title 49 to prohibit the
U.S. Department of Transportation from requiring trains to sound horns in
suburban areas during non-peak traffic hours. Locomotive engineers could
decide when it's necessary to sound horns during non-peak hours.

"It is understandable for a train horn to sound during busy rush-hour
periods, but it makes no sense to wake up an entire neighborhood late at
night when no road traffic or pedestrians are present and when the
crossing's gates are activated," said McCarthy in a prepared statement.

H.R. 4116 has been referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.

"Locomotive engineers could decide when it's necessary to sound horns during non-peak hours."

Depending on how its worded, I could support it. Giving a crew flexibility would be good, but making the rules more onerous and complex would not. Just as long as the crew has the ability to blow anytime they believe it prudent, regardless of the time of day or night.

I can't help but wonder why those people that are complaining about train horns are living next to or near to railroads. That's like living close to an airport and complainig about jet noise!

That bill sound reasonable enough. What's the downside, if any?

One downside would be a terrific increase in crossing accidents. After studies done on FEC, FRA found crossing incidents increased dramatically when the trains did not blow their horns. That's what gave rise to the whole issue recently of setting rules for quiet zones, e.g., quad gates, etc.

Don't buy a house near a crossing if you don't want to hear train horns day and night.

I see several downfalls…

One: Complacency of the general populous. As long as train horns are being blown day and night, folks know that trains do indeed travel the tracks through towns and cities. This has been a major complaint I have had about the “quiet zones”. No horns sound and people get surprised when they see a train go by.

Two: Liability. This would open the door to who becomes liable if a train hits someone or something during these “off peak” hours and a horn wasn’t blown. It also opens the door for people to complain if they keep hearing trains blow their horns during "off peak" hours after the law passes.

Three: the current quiet zone legislation should cover any of these issues. Creating blanket legislation without correcting grade crossing and bridge issues will become unsafe.

Four: the definition of “off peak”. Some places stay busy 24-7. Will some areas see different standards than others? Will a big city “off peak” be one time and out in the country be something different? Also, what may be “off peak” for vehicle traffic could be “on peak” for foot traffic. Charlottesville, VA is a great example of this.

Galen
K4CnO

> Locomotive engineers could decide when it's necessary to sound horns during
> non-peak hours.

If they're smart, they'll decided they always need to sound them to keep the shysters away.

tkxet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can't help but wonder why those people that are
> complaining about train horns are living next to
> or near to railroads. That's like living close to
> an airport and complainig about jet noise!


That is so 1950... I think I would have missed the 50's too.
Incidently I recieved a notice on my door in Yardley, PA near Trenton, NJ stating I should cast my vote to silence the horns in my neighborhood - I would rather vote to keep them - THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS I MOVED NEXT TO THE RAILROAD!

On the other hand - I don't necessary see the benefit to blowing the horn non-stop between 11 PM and 5 AM if other methods were instituted. One method talked about often is to have the horn at the crossing rather than mobile a 1/4 mile away. Makes sense to me.

I know of one particular area where horn blowing was not required (bell only) since day 1 that was later changed to whistle required by CSX. Between two RR crossings were two large elderly housing facilites and a city fire department headquarters. If you could see the people in that area trying to shield their ears you wouldn't think horn blowing was so romantic. Ride the headend some time and see how pedestrians react to those trumpets. Watch a track gang cover their ears and flip you the bird in response to the horn being sounded. And I felt bad for those old folks having to listen to blaring horns at 3am with little or no traffic and those firemen trying to catch a few winks while in their bunkroom.

The simple fact is there is an unlimited supply of idiots out there that will never believe a train is coming despite gates, flashers, lights, bells, whistles, sirens or whatever. One met his maker a few towns over yesterday morning in broad daylight trying to outsmart quadrant gates. It was a waste of a perfectly good pickup truck. All he succeded in doing was to send 7 passengers to the hospital, and traumatize the engineer.

You have touched on the argument I have had concerning railroads all along… with some rare exceptions, railroads occupied property through many localities long before the housing boom next to the tracks began. In your case of nursing homes next to the tracks… sounds like to me someone made a poor business decision in building next to the tracks. The risks of living and working next to the railroad tracks should be just as clear to anyone as if they were living and working next to an airport, highway, landfill, quarry, power plant, etc. There are certain expectations to be had by living near such entities, and railroads are no exception. If someone buys a house next to the tracks and doesn't expect to hear horns and bells and other noises… then thy need to get their head examined.

Charlottesville is another great example of this. Look at all the high end condos that have been built right up next to the tracks. Then suddenly, the quiet zone was gone and CSX and NS were blowing horns to their hearts' content. People got mad. Why? They were probably fed a line by the real-estate folks that "oh only Amtrak comes through here". Those apartment dwellers made poor decisions by not investigating their investment further. Its like living near an airport, but not having the planes fly directly overhead until suddenly… there is a routing change… and you have every flight buzzing your home.

Now I can understand if suddenly the local government builds a grade crossing in a spot that never had one before and suddenly there is now horn blowing. However, this is an issue to be taken up with the government, not the railroad. And, in this example should be looked at in special cases only. Yes there are some other exceptions... but, in most cases, the railroad was there first.

Galen
K4CnO

Diddle_E._Squat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Locomotive engineers could decide when it's
> necessary to sound horns during non-peak hours."
>
So you decide not to blow the horn and kill some idiot. Hope you can come up with a good defense at trial.

Bob

What defense is necessary other than the fact that it was a crossing with gates or flashers? I do not think anything more is necessary. You've given them adequate warning that a train is coming through the crossing in roughly so many seconds. What is the horn for? Is there an implied obligation on the part of the railroad to furnish motorists or pedestrians with some sort aural clues as to how close the train is or how fast it is coming to help them with the decision as to whether or not to break the law? I don't see why. Gates or flashers have been activated, you have ample time to clear the track if you are on it, and you have no business entering the crossing from this point on. I see no reason why anything else is necessary.

Wasn't the reason for ditch lights so that the triangular pattern can help people judge distance? Nice for crossings without active warning devices but completely unnecessary at signalled crossings!

All this aside, the presumption of the language and commentary in the initial post implies that there are gates at every crossing in every suburb. Obviously that isn't the case. Even in many larger communities, the reality is a mix of X-Buck crossings, Flasher equipped crossings, and Gated crossings. Legislation that is worded in such a broad and sweeping manner stands little chance of passage under scrutiny, but probably makes the author feel good about his/her commitment to the constituency at large. Of course, if the fed and states and munis that host active rail lines want to equip every crossing in an urban or suburban area with gates, flashers, and/or even more high tech protection systems, then I'm all for it. Of course, another possible positive outcome is that once the various gov't agencies got a good accounting of the cost that would be associated with doing the above, some smart civil servant might suggest that "If we close half of these crossings, then we can cut our project costs in half", BRILLIANT!!!

Another clueless politician with a half-crocked idea. She's never had to whip that automatic brake valve handle around or listen to the sickening thump as the front pilot makes contact ... I have ... more than once.

I'm not a huge fan of Carolyn McCarthy, but she is very much aware of the pain associated with train-related deaths. Her husband was gunned down on a Long Island RR train, which was why she entered politics.

chessie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another clueless politician with a half-crocked
> idea. She's never had to whip that automatic
> brake valve handle around or listen to the
> sickening thump as the front pilot makes contact
> ... I have ... more than once.


Horns didn't necessarily prevent anything then, did they?

I'd have a LOT more than 3 if not for the horn! But at the same time it doesn't warrant giving less warning and exposing our profession to more liability.

Politicians propose law to stop the soot, cinders and smoke from RR locomotives:

Richard Cranium, a representative of the people, has proposed a law that all locomotives be equiped with a device, not yet invented, to capture all soot, cinders and smoke from RR locomotives inside cities, towns and villages. The device would then expel the waste once the train clears the limits of the populated area. The federal gov't will provide funding to inventors to develope just such a device. The final cost is yet unknown, but all agree it's a good idea...

Hope you all get a chuckle

Galen74 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> In your case of nursing
> homes next to the tracks… sounds like to me
> someone made a poor business decision in building
> next to the tracks.
>
> Charlottesville is another great example of this.
> Look at all the high end condos that have been
> built right up next to the tracks.

Maybe not. Perhaps the land was cheap there, because it's next to the tracks. It's land that's available, and the developers figure they can try to do something about the noise.

Kennedy

Anvilhead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Horns didn't necessarily prevent anything then,
> did they?

If it wasn't such a tough thing on the crews, I say Mow 'em down. If politicos are dumb enough to stop the horns, then I say open season on motorist at the grade crossings. A few dozen deaths might club some sense into them.

But, I seriously doubt it.

Kennedy