# Why no new commuter rail regulations without bells at stations?



## beautifulplanet (Jan 29, 2014)

Hello everyone,

another newbie question:

As the FRA seems to implement new rules soon to allow European high speed rail sets on US tracks, wouldn't it be possible to also change the regulations that commuter rail doesn't have to sound bells anymore while at station platforms? I've noticed that several different commuter rail systems in the nation ring bells while pulling into or out of a station, while other heavy rail systems like rapid transit are not required to.

Though a lot of other countries are successful at declaring nearly the whole country a quiet zone when it comes to railroad crossings, I can at least partly understand how in the US trains may be required to sound their horn at railroad crossings. But what about those bells and whistles while at stations? In case I'm overlooking something regarding this issue, I'd be happy to learn about that as well.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 29, 2014)

Bells are useful signaling devices that aren't OMGLOUD!!!!!!

Sent from my iPhone


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 29, 2014)

Just in so many other countries, there are so many commuter rail systems that do not use these bells as useful signaling devices (I will try to research, aren't there some without bells in the US as well? What does it depend on, if bells have to be used, or not?), so I wondered, why do they have to be used in stations? In addition, my impression was that sometimes they are kind of loud (I guess they are supposed to be, in order to be a well-perceived "signal").


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 29, 2014)

The bells are used to say "hey folks, the train is moving, don't walk in front of it, or into it, or under or whatever." I can't imagine anyone getting upset about the use of bells entering or leaving a station.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 29, 2014)

That's a sweet image. Thank you, that is cute, the train saying "hey folks". Also not for people to walk under it.  I really wonder though how all the train services that operate without ringing bells at stations can do so without people walking into the train. ;-)


----------



## Aaron (Jan 29, 2014)

Consider the blind as well. Might be an ADA requirement?


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 29, 2014)

@Aaron: In other countries and at other rail systems, don't they have the blind there as well? ;-)

Just found two other threads on that topic at others forums:

http://www.railforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/11/6924.html

and

http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/archive/index.php/t-120737.html

What is posted over there is:

"Its a safety rule! On my copy of G.C.O.R. Rule 5.8
5.8.1 Ringing Engine Bell
Ring the engine bell under any of the following conditions
. Before moving,except when making momentary stop and start switching mvmnts.
. As a warning signal anytime it is necessary.
. When approaching men or equipment on or near the track
. When whistle signal (7) is required(that is the long,long,short loooooong signal)
. Approaching public crossings at grade with the engine in front and sounding the
whistle is prohibited, start the signal at the crossing sign. If no sign,or if
movement begins between sign and crossing,start signal soon enough before
crossing to provide warning. Continue ringing bell until the crossing is occupied.

On the BNSF the following timetable instruction for the Chicago Subdivision of the Chicago Division applies as well (this covers the "Aurora Racetrack")

5.8.1 - The engine bell must be rung when approaching and passing through all station
platforms,pedestrian and street crossing on all tracks."


----------



## Aaron (Jan 29, 2014)

beautifulplanet said:


> @Aaron: In other countries and at other rail systems, don't they have the blind there as well? ;-)


I'm sure they have them; they just sometimes care less for them. In all seriousness, for all the bitching and expense associated with making facilities and policies compliant with the ADA, it goes a _long_ way towards improving the lives of those with disabilities of all kinds. It also seems to be responsible for much more accessible facilities and services than I've seen in many other countries. That's why the lack of bells in other countries didn't make me think that it _wasn't_ an ADA requirement. I just assumed that if it was ADA-related, it was something that less enlightened countries hadn't come around to yet.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jan 29, 2014)

beautifulplanet said:


> That's a sweet image. Thank you, that is cute, the train saying "hey folks". Also not for people to walk under it.  I really wonder though how all the train services that operate without ringing bells at stations can do so without people walking into the train. ;-)


Those place don't have as many lawyers as the United States.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 29, 2014)

Aaron said:


> beautifulplanet said:
> 
> 
> > @Aaron: In other countries and at other rail systems, don't they have the blind there as well? ;-)
> ...


Thank you for your response. I really do enjoy the interactions on this forum. Me personally, as insignificant that may be, I agree to the idea that disabled human beings should have their living situations improved as much as possible. And I also agree that in my layman's accessment of the situation it seems like the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 also was the reason for a lot of improvement, though I don't know the actual legal text and I don't know which regulations therein in detail actually maybe are not so effective in practical, every-day life, and which ones are important.

My impression is that also countries that don't have the exact legal text of the ADA as law of the land, and maybe have other, similar rules in place instead, and that also that don't have bells on commuter trains when in the station, do maybe care about the blind or disabled just as much. 

Still, even inside of the USA, it doesn't seem to make so much sense to me, since there is heavy rail like the New York Subway or BART that does not have bells as far as I know, and I think there is light rail that does not have bells. How can they be without, and commuter rail cannot be? I don't know for sure how it is with Amtrak trains on the NEC, but at least from the last time I was there I don't remember any bells. Thinking into the future, the situation with both commuter rail and high-speed rail in California would seem odd to me. When high-speed rail (pretty surely without bells, right? ;-) ) leaves the platform, and maybe just a little later a Metrolink or ACE train would leave the same platform, but with bells. Not trying to be annoying. ;-) Just wondering: where is the logic in this?


----------



## AlanB (Jan 29, 2014)

beautifulplanet said:


> Still, even inside of the USA, it doesn't seem to make so much sense to me, since there is heavy rail like the New York Subway or BART that does not have bells as far as I know, and I think there is light rail that does not have bells. How can they be without, and commuter rail cannot be? I don't know for sure how it is with Amtrak trains on the NEC, but at least from the last time I was there I don't remember any bells. Thinking into the future, the situation with both commuter rail and high-speed rail in California would seem odd to me. When high-speed rail (pretty surely without bells, right? ;-) ) leaves the platform, and maybe just a little later a Metrolink or ACE train would leave the same platform, but with bells. Not trying to be annoying. ;-) Just wondering: where is the logic in this?


Things like the NYC subway and BART fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) which doesn't place heavy regulations on them. Commuter rail falls under the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) which places many more regulations on both freight and passenger service that uses freight tracks or in cases where the passenger company owns the tracks but freight still runs on the tracks.

So because of that, the NYC Subway trains don't even have bells installed; much less a rule requiring them to ring a bell.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 29, 2014)

AlanB said:


> Things like the NYC subway and BART fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) which doesn't place heavy regulations on them. Commuter rail falls under the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) which places many more regulations on both freight and passenger service that uses freight tracks or in cases where the passenger company owns the tracks but freight still runs on the tracks.
> So because of that, the NYC Subway trains don't even have bells installed; much less a rule requiring them to ring a bell.


Thank you for this explanation. Now I still wonder what is going on with the Amtrak NEC trains, or with high-speed rail which also would be FRA but which I think would not have bells...

BTW: love the "Take care and take trains!" signature.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 29, 2014)

Amtrak NEC trains have and use bells.

I'm not sure why you think that high-speed rail won't have them either.

Here's a regional train arriving and departing BWI with the bell on:


----------



## tp49 (Jan 29, 2014)

Interestingly enough the Long Island Rail Road's EMU's don't use nor have bells. Can't say for sure on the diesels since I didn't deal with them much as I lived in electric territory.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 30, 2014)

RyanS said:


> Amtrak NEC trains have and use bells.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think that high-speed rail won't have them either.
> 
> ...


Thank you for posting that. That's why did not write earlier that I know there are no Bells on the NEC, but I wrote I did not remember any. Meanwhile I even saw videos with the Acela and its bells.

The reason that I assume that f.e. California High-Speed Rail won't necessarily have bells is because there was talk about changing U.S. FRA regulations, so that off-the-shelf European or Asian equipment can be used. And again, I'm not 100% sure about Asia, but just as far as I remember they don't use bells there (I might be wrong, just as I was with the NEC), still with European high-speed rail trainsets I am pretty sure that I don't know any European high-speed train that has bells (and I have seen a lot in person, no matter if in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, Germany, United Kingdom etc., or also on web videos I saw that with high-speed rail in Spain and Italy there were no bells).

So either it's off-the-shelf trainsets in California and no bells, or once again it won't be off-the-shelf but instead customized like the Acela already was, and having bells. But I assumed since it was supposed to be the first, that there won't be any. I guess it's also still a decade into the future, so it will be quite some time 'til then.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 30, 2014)

tp49 said:


> Interestingly enough the Long Island Rail Road's EMU's don't use nor have bells. Can't say for sure on the diesels since I didn't deal with them much as I lived in electric territory.


Thank you, for pointing out LIRR. At least I've already seen that being put into the category of commuter rail service as well. What would be the reason for the inconstistency? Why wouldn't LIRR need any bells, but the other train services do?


----------



## Aaron (Jan 30, 2014)

beautifulplanet said:


> So either it's off-the-shelf trainsets in California and no bells, or once again it won't be off-the-shelf but instead customized like the Acela already was, and having bells. But I assumed since it was supposed to be the first, that there won't be any. I guess it's also still a decade into the future, so it will be quite some time 'til then.


Off the shelf in this context doesn't mean no bells. It means taking an existing proven design and making relatively minor modifications to it for Amtrak's needs, rather than having an almost completely new design like the Acela. Even if "off the shelf" meant literally picking up a train set off of a European shelf and sticking it on a freighter bound for California, I'm sure California could find someplace to bolt a bell on to if the law required.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 30, 2014)

Aaron said:


> Off the shelf in this context doesn't mean no bells. It means taking an existing proven design and making relatively minor modifications to it for Amtrak's needs, rather than having an almost completely new design like the Acela. Even if "off the shelf" meant literally picking up a train set off of a European shelf and sticking it on a freighter bound for California, I'm sure California could find someplace to bolt a bell on to if the law required.


Thank you for that response.

Of course that is a valid argument, that rules are rules, and then the train set will indeed be modified to fit the rules.

Then again, there was talk that the FRA rules were going to be changed, to allow Asian or European high speed train sets to operate in the US. So possibly one of the proposed changes could have been to do away with the bells as well.

Of course it seems to be known to a lot of people that the high-speed train sets won't actually be shipped to the US from Europe or Asia, but they will be built in the States because of "Buy America" rules. Still, even if they will be built in the US, by Siemens in Sacramento or a new plant of Bombardier or whomever, then it was my understanding it was supposed to be the international design, that unlike the Acela won't be changed in major ways.

And I know maybe it's not meant that literally, but it seems unlikely to me that a manufacturer will bolt bells onto an existing high-speed train set design. Those bodies are usually made from aluminum, and optimized in the wind channel for the best possible drag coefficient. As weird as it may seem to add bells to a Bombardier Zefiro, Alstom AGV or Siemens Velaro, maybe they actually will. 

Just still don't get it: Why is not it necessary for LIRR pulling into Penn Station to ring bells, but at the same station for Amtrak it is, while then again, for the New York City Subway over at another platform in the same station it is not? Aside from FTA and FRA, my question is towards the logic, why? I just even read on Wikipedia that LIRR and Amtrak and NJT share tracks 13 to 16 at Penn Station, I don't know if that is accurate. Then it would appear even more weird, for example in case the a safety argument is supposed to be used as a justification, why would there be a higher likeliness for people to walk into or in front of or under an Amtrak train, then right at the same platform, to walk into a LIRR train? Please have understanding in case it is repetitive, the reason is, it just appears as so puzzling to me.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 30, 2014)

beautifulplanet said:


> Thank you for that response.
> 
> Of course that is a valid argument, that rules are rules, and then the train set will indeed be modified to fit the rules.
> 
> Then again, there was talk that the FRA rules were going to be changed, to allow Asian or European high speed train sets to operate in the US. So possibly one of the proposed changes could have been to do away with the bells as well.


The bell is of such minimal importance, it's akin to discussing if the proposed changes will impact what color the final design is painted.



> And I know maybe it's not meant that literally, but it seems unlikely to me that a manufacturer will bolt bells onto an existing high-speed train set design. Those bodies are usually made from aluminum, and optimized in the wind channel for the best possible drag coefficient. As weird as it may seem to add bells to a Bombardier Zefiro, Alstom AGV or Siemens Velaro, maybe they actually will.


It's not meant literally, it would most likely not even be a "real" bell, but an electronic one - just a speaker that makes a bell sound when required.



> Just still don't get it: Why is not it necessary for LIRR pulling into Penn Station to ring bells, but at the same station for Amtrak it is, while then again, for the New York City Subway over at another platform in the same station it is not? Aside from FTA and FRA, my question is towards the logic, why? I just even read on Wikipedia that LIRR and Amtrak and NJT share tracks 13 to 16 at Penn Station, I don't know if that is accurate. Then it would appear even more weird, for example in case the a safety argument is supposed to be used as a justification, why would there be a higher likeliness for people to walk into or in front of or under an Amtrak train, then right at the same platform, to walk into a LIRR train? Please have understanding in case it is repetitive, the reason is, it just appears as so puzzling to me.


For the same reason that some states require annual vehicle inspections and others don't, or that the statewide maximum speed limit is higher in some states (85 in parts of Texas) than in others (60 in Hawaii). Different organizations have different thoughts on the matter.

For something like the NY or Washington subways that run with very frequent headways, a train arriving or departing happens every couple of minutes (or seconds on some busy lines). Train movements in other places are far less frequent, bringing the thought that more warning is required.


----------



## leemell (Jan 30, 2014)

Metrolink in LA has bells on it diesels and I believe that the Surfliner does too.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 30, 2014)

RyanS said:


> For the same reason that some states require annual vehicle inspections and others don't, or that the statewide maximum speed limit is higher in some states (85 in parts of Texas) than in others (60 in Hawaii). Different organizations have different thoughts on the matter.
> 
> For something like the NY or Washington subways that run with very frequent headways, a train arriving or departing happens every couple of minutes (or seconds on some busy lines). Train movements in other places are far less frequent, bringing the thought that more warning is required.



That was great. It puzzled me as I did not get the logic behind it, now I see: There is no logic behind it, it is just the way it is. That makes sense, different organizations have different thoughts on the matter.

Probably it really also has something to do with the warning culture, or the legal system, as MikefromCrete indicated with his "Those place don't have as many lawyers as the United States" statement. In few other countries I know the window blind cord has a warning tag, or the hair dryer says "Do not throw into water". So it makes sense the commuter train is supposed to provide a "warning" as well, otherwise possibly lawyers would come and people who walk into a train would win a court trial against the rail company. And about Mike's statement, other places probably have lawyers, too, but the difference is the judge would say "You walk to a rail station, you gotta expect trains to move, if you walk into one, it's not the rail companies fault" - case closed. So apart from a different culture, I guess it's either the judicial system that's different, or the legal texts, or both.

OT: That was a good comparison (albeit a automobile one ;-) ) with the vehicle inspections. And now I'm a little more scared in traffic: I always thought every decent state would at least have biannual inspections. I mean, why wouldn't one have them, or why would one allow irresponsible people driving a clunker where the brakes stop working to not only endanger themselves but also everyone else? I read up on it, and in opposition to most other countries, in the US there is a debate about whether checking if cars are safe for the road is actually worth it and does have any effect or not. Thank you. Once again I learned something.

Back to trains: how to make transit and rail seem more attractive and thus more successful, that was the reason for my questions. I have the impression, that while the bells might provide a certain charme, rail systems could be more attractive if they did not have them. Not only would rail probably be a better neighbor towards the people who live, work or play around the stations, but Amtrak and/or the commuter rail systems also would not seem so much like a relic of the past. My theory is that rail service might be frequented by passengers more often, when the trainsets seem modern, beautiful, very convenient and inviting. To some, the bells might create the impression of a museum train. (Here are the automobile comparisons again  - just like electric cars can do without that loud "wroom-wroom".) Now that I realize, the warning sound might always be necessary at least for some rail systems, it sounds like a cool idea with that speaker just emitting the bell sound. Maybe the FRA might be ok with creating the bell sound to be a little bit more spacey. And that way, more modern. ;-)

PS: RyanS, love your profile pic!


----------



## leemell (Jan 30, 2014)

Only 17 states of 51 require auto safety inspections, we seem to do just fine without them. In contrast to your statement that "while the bells might provide a certain charme [sic], rail systems could be more attractive if they did not have them." I believe that rail systems would be less attractive without the bells. Ii certainly sets this mode of transportation apart from all the others. It is distinctive. We do not want trains to be mistaken for airlines.


----------



## MattW (Jan 30, 2014)

I doubt people complain too much about the bells. The few who do would probably complain about everything else anyways. As an industry-outsider, I can't see why we should work to eliminate the train bell.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 30, 2014)

leemell said:


> Only 17 states of 51 require auto safety inspections,


Um, when did we add a new State? :unsure: Last I knew the flag still had 50 stars on it.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 30, 2014)

I assume he's counting DC, which does require an annual inspection.

Sent from my iPhone


----------



## cirdan (Jan 31, 2014)

AlanB said:


> beautifulplanet said:
> 
> 
> > Still, even inside of the USA, it doesn't seem to make so much sense to me, since there is heavy rail like the New York Subway or BART that does not have bells as far as I know, and I think there is light rail that does not have bells. How can they be without, and commuter rail cannot be? I don't know for sure how it is with Amtrak trains on the NEC, but at least from the last time I was there I don't remember any bells. Thinking into the future, the situation with both commuter rail and high-speed rail in California would seem odd to me. When high-speed rail (pretty surely without bells, right? ;-) ) leaves the platform, and maybe just a little later a Metrolink or ACE train would leave the same platform, but with bells. Not trying to be annoying. ;-) Just wondering: where is the logic in this?


I guess it also has to do with being able to walk into the path of a train. Many older stations have pedestrian pathways that cross the rail tracks at grade, for example to reach other platforms, or to reach the other side of the tracks. Some warning is required for people who may be using or intending to use these crossings. BART and such systems don't have pedestrian crossings. They have a fully segregated ROW. In fact it is quite difficult to accidentally walk onto the track (for example because of platform heights). The whole way stations are designed makes that extremely unlikely. Maybe this permits them to dispense with bell ringing.


----------



## leemell (Jan 31, 2014)

AlanB said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > Only 17 states of 51 require auto safety inspections,
> ...


Aggggg! I should read my own posts more closely. :blink:


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 31, 2014)

cirdan said:


> I guess it also has to do with being able to walk into the path of a train. Many older stations have pedestrian pathways that cross the rail tracks at grade, for example to reach other platforms, or to reach the other side of the tracks. Some warning is required for people who may be using or intending to use these crossings. BART and such systems don't have pedestrian crossings. They have a fully segregated ROW. In fact it is quite difficult to accidentally walk onto the track (for example because of platform heights). The whole way stations are designed makes that extremely unlikely. Maybe this permits them to dispense with bell ringing.


That was a speculation I had as well: in case it actually was about safety, then it would make sense f.e. for commuter rail when the station design causes passengers to cross the tracks, especially in case crossing the tracks right around the train that they were just getting off of, or that they were just about to board.

Still the 5.8.1 Ringing Engine Bell rule that was posted earlier in this thread said "Ring the engine bell [...] Before moving". Or the 5.8.1 for the Chicago Subdivision said "Chicago Subdivision" said: "The engine bell must be rung when approaching and passing through all station platforms,pedestrian and street crossing on all tracks".

In case it was only "The engine bell must be rung when approaching and passing through pedestrian crossing on all tracks", it would appear much more logical to me. So the bell would still need to be rung only at pedestrian crossings, and so only hopefully temporarily until all the stations have underpasses or bridges, so pedestrians don't have to cross the tracks anymore. Still, ringing the bell always, before the train starts moving? That seems unnecessary to me, and not only to me, as some of the organizations making the rules seem to agree. 

For a concrete example along the lines of "BART and such systems don't have pedestrian crossings. They have a fully segregated ROW", it would appear that the video of the Northeast Regional at BWI in this thread showed, that there were no pedestrian crossings as well, they had a fully segregated ROW, still the bell apparently had to be rung there. Or Acela express pulling into or moving out of Boston South Station or NYP doesn't encounter any pedestrian crossings, still it rings a bell. So the pedestrian pathway argument, which for me indeed could be valid one, doesn't seem to fit. Still I know better now not to look for logic in this issue, as possibly it cannot be found.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 31, 2014)

There are frequently men on the ground working at Washington, NYP, Boston and other NEC stations that should be warned when a train near them is going to start moving.


----------



## jis (Jan 31, 2014)

AlanB said:


> beautifulplanet said:
> 
> 
> > Still, even inside of the USA, it doesn't seem to make so much sense to me, since there is heavy rail like the New York Subway or BART that does not have bells as far as I know, and I think there is light rail that does not have bells. How can they be without, and commuter rail cannot be? I don't know for sure how it is with Amtrak trains on the NEC, but at least from the last time I was there I don't remember any bells. Thinking into the future, the situation with both commuter rail and high-speed rail in California would seem odd to me. When high-speed rail (pretty surely without bells, right? ;-) ) leaves the platform, and maybe just a little later a Metrolink or ACE train would leave the same platform, but with bells. Not trying to be annoying. ;-) Just wondering: where is the logic in this?
> ...


As far as I can tell the only thing that FRA has to say about bells is that if the engine is equipped with one it must work. FRA does not per se appear to require the use of bell specifically for anything. I would be most obliged if someone could point me to a CFR item that says engines must have a bell.

Many states require it and GCOR requires it. NORAC requires that it be used in specific ways if the engine is equipped with it, but does not require that it be so equipped (e.g. LIRR and MNRR operate under NORAC rules more or less). Many states even specify how heavy the bell must be. This leaves me wondering if an electronic bell must have ballast added to it to meet the weight requirement in those states. 

So it looks like the FRA cannot possibly make any changes in regulation regarding bells without stepping on way too many sensitive toes. Therefore I suspect FRA will probably do nothing about it. And even if it did, there would be GCOR rules that would still hold, since FRA actively disallowing the use of bells would be almost unthinkable IMHO.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 31, 2014)

leemell said:


> [...] your statement that "[...] a certain charme [sic], [...]"


Thank you for reminding me that charm doesn't have an "e" at the end.

Off topic:



leemell said:


> Only 17 states of 51 require auto safety inspections, we seem to do just fine without them.


It's kind of a little funny, I was gonna write "Albania seems to do just fine without them as well", still researching it now I found out that the country introduced vehicle inspections in the meantime since the last time I looked it up.

Sometimes I wonder if using the same logic, one could also do just fine without elevator inspections (the Ayn Rand Institute seems to think so), amusement park ride inspections, other inspections in transportation in sectors like freight, air and rail, or without food inspections.  This is still new to me, that there might be a public debate about inspections in the first place, it seems like there is no such debate in most countries.

Back on topic: 



leemell said:


> In contrast to your statement that "while the bells might provide a certain charme [sic], rail systems could be more attractive if they did not have them." I believe that rail systems would be less attractive without the bells. Ii certainly sets this mode of transportation apart from all the others. It is distinctive. We do not want trains to be mistaken for airlines.


To me, that seems to be a very legit objection to the idea of having trains that don't ring bells. Some people like the bells. And they might be sad to see them go. I have understanding for that.

At the same time, there are probably different reasons to be interested in this particular form of transportation that is rail. In order to try to outline a few different groups, and individual person might also be part of more than one:

1) There might be rail fans, who just like everything rail, who maybe also like steam trains.

2) There might be people who like the charm (without an "e"  ) of old style train travel, how they still have good memories of it from the past and they like how it's still more relaxed in an otherwise hectic, hustle and bustle world.

3) There might be people looking for transportation between point A and point B, as quickly and convenient as possible.

4) There might be people who would like to increase the acceptance of rail as a form of transportation.

For group 1, I can see how they like bells. For group 2, I can see how they would like them or at least not mind them.

Group 2 maybe also seem to be the passengers of long-distance Amtrak trains. In case it is long-distance travel, Group 3 might fly. Still for group 3, we would like them to use commuter rail (or high speed rail), which is something different than the Grand Canyon Railway.

In order to get more of the large group 3 for example to use commuter rail, it might be beneficial if it was as modern and convenient as possible. Those bells don't seem very modern.

There might also be people in group 1 or 2, who like the "clickety-clack" sound while riding, because it has a certain charm, or is distinctive for rail travel - would that be a good reason against upgrading to continuously welded rail?

For group 4), thinking of efficient transit, and facing more and more transit-oriented development around stations, why would it make sense for the residences or businesses or other people right around stations to be bothered with bell ringing for substantial parts of the day, if completely avoidable? At the same time, along with other improvements, that create a more modern and inviting impression, doing away with the bells might attract more people to use rail instead of having them think they are about to board something towards the direction of a museum train with the comfort and speed of the past.

Then there's still the difference of Amtrak, especially long-distance, and commuter service. While of course long-distance service like f.e. the Southwest Chief or the California Zephyr could still maintain its bells so that people on vacation in a sleeper from Chicago to Los Angeles still will have the holiday of their lives thanks to the complete traditional rail experience, the thread's topic mentioned commuter rail (though I guess it could apply to high-speed rail as well).

Commuters won't mistake rail for an airplane anyway because there won't be any plane that could bring them from Providence to Boston, or from Tracy to San Diego, or from Fontana to LAUS.

The next step then could be to either get as many grade separations as possible, or also change the rules or create way more quiet zones, in order for trains to not have to honk the horn so often anymore. In a lot of other countries, when there are gates at level crossings, then trains don't have to use their horns. To reduce the noise might be worth it to increase the general acceptance of rail transportation.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Jan 31, 2014)

RyanS said:


> There are frequently men on the ground working at Washington, NYP, Boston and other NEC stations that should be warned when a train near them is going to start moving.


Of course, it case there's track work, then warnings are in effect - that's the way it probably is in many parts of the world, though probably not always it will be a bell giving out that warning, because most trains won't be equipped with bells.

PS: Cool, it now says below my profile pic, that I'm not a newbie anymore, but "training". Sounds much better.


----------

