# Dinah won't U blow yur horn



## BLOND37 (Jul 30, 2009)

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 (Jul 30, 2009)

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


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jul 30, 2009)

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 (Jul 30, 2009)

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 (Jul 30, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> 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
> 
> ...


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Jul 30, 2009)

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 (Jul 30, 2009)

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 (Jul 30, 2009)

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 (Jul 30, 2009)

jphjaxfl said:


> 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 (Jul 31, 2009)

gregoryla said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Jul 31, 2009)

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 (Jul 31, 2009)

DET63 said:


> 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 (Jul 31, 2009)

volkris said:


> 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 (Jul 31, 2009)

volkris said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > 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 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 (Jul 31, 2009)

volkris said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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 (Jul 31, 2009)

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 (Aug 1, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Aug 1, 2009)

volkris said:


> 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.





DET63 said:


> 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 (Aug 1, 2009)

jackal said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Aug 1, 2009)

DET63 said:


> "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 (Aug 1, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> 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 (Aug 1, 2009)

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 (Aug 2, 2009)

volkris said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Aug 3, 2009)

AlanB said:


> 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 (Aug 3, 2009)

volkris said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


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


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 3, 2009)

volkris said:


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


Why should the railroad pay for the community's decision to build next to it? I can understand noise barriers around Interstates, because the communities that demand the barriers were there before the Interstate was carved through their neighborhoods. Even noise restrictions on airports might be defensible, since the amount of air travel and the loudness of airlines has changed enormously since World War II, though in general I see little merit to such cases, and I live with in a few miles of MSP. After all, it was no secret where the airport was when I bought our house, so I can't really complain when the 747 to Amsterdam rattles my windows every afternoon.

This is rarely the case with railroads. They are just as loud now as they ever were, and I would be surprised if the requirements for signaling at grade crossings has changed significantly over the decades.


----------



## AlanB (Aug 3, 2009)

volkris said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


Because the community is crossing private property. Consider the following:

You own a large farm next to a small, but growing town. The town comes to you and says, we need to build another road to get to/from downtown and we'd like to build that road through part of your farm bisecting your fields in half. Ten years later that road is so busy that you can no longer drive from one section of your farm to the other, since you can't get across the road.

So you go to the town and say "please put up a traffic light, so that I can cross the road." The town now looks at you and says "we'll be happy to do that if you pay for it." Unless you were totally desperate, you would not pay for that light. You would expect the town to pay for it, especially since you were already nice enough to allow them an easement on your private land in the first place.

Yet, that is exactly what you are asking the RR's to do. You want a private company to pay for warning devices so that people can have the privilege of crossing the RR's private property without getting killed because they refuse to obey the laws of this country. Laws by the way that aren't new, they've been around for well over 100 years now.



volkris said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


If the noise creator was there first, then YES, it is a bizarre notion. If the houses were there first, then NO.

Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer with my original statement. I should have said "build" instead of "move".

Or in other words, when people build houses at the end of the runway at O'Hare airport expecting that it won't be noisy, then yes, they should suffer the consequences. Instead each day pilots perform a series of tight turns, throttle backs at a time when they're trying to get the plane in the air, and potentially endanger hundreds of people’s lives, all because some developer saw cheap real estate and people were dumb enough to buy those houses expecting quiet.

In a large city when an Interstate comes through, I have no problem with using general wide spread tax payer monies to build sound walls. But when the highway was already there for 10 years and again someone comes along and puts up a house next to the noisy highway and then complains, I have no sympathy. If they want at a sound barrier, then they and their immediate neighbors can pay for it. But I don't want to see my tax monies being used there.

I've watched for over 30 years this phenomenon in the State of New Jersey. There are about 4 highways in northern NJ that I can name where the houses where there before the highway and I agreed with those walls going up. But for miles and miles of I-80, I-78, and I-287, the highways came first and were originally built without sound walls. At least until stupid people built houses next to those highways for the ease of a commute to NYC and then suddenly realized that "hey, highways are noisy." And now millions of tax dollars have been wasted building sound walls for those people who couldn't figure out ahead of time that living next to a highway might be noisy.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 3, 2009)

AlanB said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Yes Alan!Here in Austin they are building condos next to the tracks, there are 2 new ones right beside the

station and already people are complaining wanting the tracks moved!(itll only cost billions! :lol: )Of course

Austin is also the place they built an Interstate with railroad tracks crossing it(its still there today on the

lower level!!) and people complain about waiting for trains!I noticed in Chicago they are building condos/

converting old buildings all over by the yards, how long till these dumbos want the yards moved out

of "their" neighborhood?


----------



## volkris (Aug 3, 2009)

Who got there first doesn't really matter. The meaningful point is that the railroads are causing a disturbance that significantly impacts other people who are just trying to live peacefully in their own property.

The fact that the people showed up after a railroad was operating actually means the railroad was able to interfere with others' properties for a long time for free. That represents a gift to the railroads; once others start enforcing their property rights it represents an end to a free ride, not some new charge.

If I buy an unoccupied plot of land to build a house and find that there has been a weekly party on the plot for years, it's within my rights to kick those kids out and start construction, right? That they were able to take advantage of someone else's property for years doesn't mean that their use of the land somehow takes precedence over the rights of the owner.

And yet that's what's being said here: the rights of homeowners to not be bothered by other peoples' activities outside their houses is somehow revoked just because those people have been making the bothersome noise for a while? Come on.

In case after case we demand that people and organizations take whatever steps they can to minimize things like noise and pollution, generally at their expense and with the understanding that if they can't refrain from blanketing the surrounding area with the nuisance, then they can't do what they propose. Why should we be giving railroads a pass?


----------



## volkris (Aug 3, 2009)

To put it another way, if you want the freedom to affect a ten square mile area with something--be it noise, pollution, radioactive waste, whatever--then buy the land and have at it.

Oh? Buying that much land is expensive? Well yeah: it's scarce and they're not making any more of it. That's why they're building condos next to the tracks in the first place. In the end, though, that only emphasizes the value of the property that is being interfered with and the need for the disturbance to be minimized.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 3, 2009)

volkris said:


> 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?


The difference is that you don't see me whining about having to pay for those things, because I understand that part of taking part in society is paying taxes that go towards things that I don't support and may never use!


volkris said:


> Who got there first doesn't really matter.


This is by far the dumbest thing that I've read today. Of course it matters who was there first! If you buy a house next to the railroad tracks, what do you expect to hear? Expecting the environment to change to suit your desires is the height of arrogance and lunacy.



> If I buy an unoccupied plot of land to build a house and find that there has been a weekly party on the plot for years, it's within my rights to kick those kids out and start construction, right? That they were able to take advantage of someone else's property for years doesn't mean that their use of the land somehow takes precedence over the rights of the owner.


Your analogy is flawed. The railroads aren't having parties on your property, they're having them on their property. If you purchase land adjacent to that property, then you get everything that you deserve.
I'll bet that you're one of those people that want to stop the jet noise at Oceania too, aren't you?


----------



## AlanB (Aug 3, 2009)

volkris said:


> The meaningful point is that the railroads are causing a disturbance that significantly impacts other people who are just trying to live peacefully in their own property.


No, the meaningul point seems to be that you want to penalize private industry for doing something that they are required to do, just to avoid paying more taxes.

Here's the real meaningful point. If the RR showed up in your town and had a party on the tracks, and by that I mean they parked an engine next to your house and invited anyone and everyone up into the engine to blow the horn, you might have half a leg to stand on.

The RR's aren't doing that. They are doing something that they are required to do by law, that's a key point here, they aren't doing this by choice. They are required to blow that horn at the crossing by law! They are required to do that because people can't exercise common sense and reason.

And now you want to penalize them for doing something that they have no choice about.

If you don't want the taxpayers footing the bill for a problem that they caused, then you need to get the law changed that says that the RR's don't have to blow a horn and that same law should indemnify the RR's from all harm caused at a crossing.


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 3, 2009)

I'm baffled. Trains don't blow their whistles randomly. I'd imagine that the vast majority of uses are at grade crossings. So it seems the height of impudence to put in grade crossings over a railroad, demand that the railroad use whistles signals at those grade crossings, then demand that the railroad pay for upgrades to the crossings because you don't like the whistles. That would be like moving next to a farm and then demanding that the farmer get out of the egg business when you're woken early by the farmer's roosters.

I'm also confused by your claim, "Oh? Buying that much land is expensive? Well yeah: it's scarce and they're not making any more of it. That's why they're building condos next to the tracks in the first place. In the end, though, that only emphasizes the value of the property that is being interfered with and the need for the disturbance to be minimized."

No, they're building next to the tracks because that land is cheap, and the reason it's cheap is that it's a noisy neighborhood. It's not because there is any shortage of land in Texas, which is generally regarded as quite a large place.

(Off topic) HokieNav, I'd like to say you can't be serious about complaints about noise from Oceana Naval Air Station, but I should know better. I remember once staying in Virginia Beach and having what seemed like a whole carrier Air Wing come from the sea over the hotel to land at Oceana. F-14s, F-18s, S-3s, about the whole shebang. Quite something, and the highlight of the trip for me.


----------



## volkris (Aug 3, 2009)

No, the railroads don't have to blow their horns by law... they have to blow their horns _if they want to operate_ by law. Point is, the laws are there because it's been determined that the trains can't operate safely without warning signals. They're not in place to force the trains to make noise, they're there to set the standards needed for safe operation.

These laws are actually consistent with the notion that the train should not interfere with others' property rights by blanketing the community with noise. The operation of the train, like the operation of nuclear power plants or chemical plants, expose people and property nearby to risk. The various safety-related laws are in place to minimize the risk posed to others, just as I contend the railroads should work to minimize the amounts of noise that they subject others to.

You talk as if violating peoples' rights in one way somehow permits the violation in another. I guess it's similar to your previous contention that it's ok to violate peoples' rights so long as the violating act has been going on for a while.

From my point of view it sounds like a bunch of rubbish, a feeble attempt to argue away a very real issue that might interfere with how you'd like the world to work. Yes, asking trains to minimize both risk and disturbance to communities they pass through would pose them a hassle, but in the end, it's not that unreasonable a request.


----------



## RTOlson (Aug 3, 2009)

Perhaps the easiest way for the railroad companies to eliminate the use of horns in a community is to remove the grade crossings over their private property. No grade crossings-no horn!

The biggest downside is that you're cutting off access to certain parts of town, unless a city is willing to build other crossings that don't interact with the tracks.

The primary thing is that the cities have to ask railroads for permission to cross the private property of the tracks creating the grade crossing. Surely if the city has to ask for permission for their roads to cross the private property, they would also be responsible for what happens off the tracks?


----------



## volkris (Aug 3, 2009)

I should probably repeat here that I personally don't have a problem with the horns. I actually like them as they zoom past, as many others on this board do... well, except when I'm trying to talk on the phone and the horn drowns out the conversation from a quarter mile away.

My concern is that quite a lot of people don't like the horns, and I find it hard to accept that people should be driven out of their own homes, off their property, and kept out of living in entire areas of town because of what someone else is doing on his property, be that a garage band that won't shut up or a rail road who hasn't minimized his acoustic impact on the community.

We require the railroads to operate safely, but that doesn't mean we can not and should not ask them to minimize their acoustic impact at the same time. I don't think I'm off base thinking that it's wrong to blare horns into other peoples' houses when you don't have to.


----------



## Ispolkom (Aug 3, 2009)

volkris said:


> No, the railroads don't have to blow their horns by law... they have to blow their horns _if they want to operate_ by law. Point is, the laws are there because it's been determined that the trains can't operate safely without warning signals. They're not in place to force the trains to make noise, they're there to set the standards needed for safe operation.
> These laws are actually consistent with the notion that the train should not interfere with others' property rights by blanketing the community with noise. The operation of the train, like the operation of nuclear power plants or chemical plants, expose people and property nearby to risk. The various safety-related laws are in place to minimize the risk posed to others, just as I contend the railroads should work to minimize the amounts of noise that they subject others to.
> 
> You talk as if violating peoples' rights in one way somehow permits the violation in another. I guess it's similar to your previous contention that it's ok to violate peoples' rights so long as the violating act has been going on for a while.
> ...


You really ought to stay away from arguments from analogy. They are inherently weak. I'd also avoid terms like "rubbish" and "feeble." If you have any argument, please present it. Personal attacks are not appropriate for this forum.

A steel plant, a power plant, and automobile plant all pollute regardless of whether people are there or not. These are externalities that it's reasonable to regulate.

Trains only blow their whistles where people are. No people, no noise. Why should the railroad pay for infrastructure improvements that benefit those people whose arrival caused the problem to begin with?

Here's another side of the issue. Install quad gates and whatever other improvements to a grade crossing you want, if I were running the railroad, I'd still want my engineer blowing that whistle. There was a sad case in Minnesota where five teenagers died at a grade crossing with a malfunctioning gate, and ended up BNSF paying $5-6 million. Wouldn't any reasonable railroad want to continue with any possible warning lest they be cited for contributory negligence?

Lastly what "right" are you describing? The right to move near a railroad, and then complain about noise? I'm not surprised that people do that, but it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not suggesting that people should be driven from their own houses, off their property, and kept out of living in entire areas of town. Instead, I'm taking the radical position that they shouldn't expect the world to revolve around them.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I find the local train horns an annoyance, just as I dislike the airplanes taking off overhead (and I see we'll get more of them when a runway shuts down later this month), and the idiot down the block with his loud motorcycle. But that's what you get, living in a city.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 3, 2009)

AlanB said:


> The RR's aren't doing that. They are doing something that they are required to do by law, that's a key point here, they aren't doing this by choice. They are required to blow that horn at the crossing by law! They are required to do that because people can't exercise common sense and reason.
> And now you want to penalize them for doing something that they have no choice about.
> 
> If you don't want the taxpayers footing the bill for a problem that they caused, then you need to get the law changed that says that the RR's don't have to blow a horn and that same law should indemnify the RR's from all harm caused at a crossing.


Alan, I agree with you particularly about the indemity issue. Normally too I would raise the argument that local governments have no reason to even attempt to regulate something governed by the federal government and one could even argue that the "quiet zone" regulations re train horns are unconstitutional under both the supremacy and commerce clauses. However, it appears that the federal government wrote a regulation giving control to the local governments to set "quiet zones." I quote in pertinent part from the DOT press release (emphasis is mine).



> Under the rule, local governments will have the opportunity to establish quiet zones in certain areas where there is a *low risk of collision*, *or to make specific upgrades meant to lessen the risk where the hazards are greater.* The upgrade options include the installation of crossing gates that block both lanes of traffic in both directions or some type of approved median divider to prevent drivers from crossing lanes to go around a lowered gate, the temporary closure of a crossing, or a one-way street with gates and lights. The rule also allows use of an automated horn system to be installed at the crossing as a substitute for the train horn.
> �Our challenge has been to ensure the highest level of public safety possible, while recognizing communities� legitimate interest in seeking relief from unwanted noise,� Administrator Rutter said.
> 
> For communities with whistle bans, the rule outlines specific steps local jurisdictions can take to maintain those restrictions, provided they notify FRA of their plan to create a �pre-rule quiet zone� and take the steps required to qualify them as such.
> ...


DOT attempted to please all concerned here with the regulations. Leaving the establishment up to the quiet zones up to the municipality. However, the cost to the municipality is to make the required upgrades to the warning systems. I tend to feel that if local residents don't want to deal with the noise then they should be the ones required to pay for the purchaseand installation of improved warning devices to achieve that.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 3, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > These laws are actually consistent with the notion that the train should not interfere with others' property rights by blanketing the community with noise. The operation of the train, like the operation of nuclear power plants or chemical plants, expose people and property nearby to risk. The various safety-related laws are in place to minimize the risk posed to others, just as I contend the railroads should work to minimize the amounts of noise that they subject others to.
> ...


I tend to agree that the analogies are very weak. Operation of nuclear power or chemical plants and their effects are not comparable to that of the operation of a railroad. Comparing railroad operations to that of an airport though would seem reasonable to me at least as it pertains to nuisance. I can see both sides of this argument. It's an argument where both sides are actually right strange as that sounds.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 4, 2009)

AlanB said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


All the government would have to do is use eminent domain to take that property while paying the owner "just compensation." No need for an easement there especially not for a public road.

The municipality could build bridges or otherwise eliminate the offending grade crossings (possible use of stimulus dollars). Alan, I'm sure you remember the LIRR's grade crossing elimination program on the Main Line west of Mineola (Herricks Road comes to mind readily). Though this was done more to decrease the risk of idiots going around the gates then for noise abatement.

I also again, do not think the railroads should be forced to pay for the crossing upgrades. As I've explained above, the FRA is allowing localities to enact "quiet zones" so long as the locality is willing to pay for the necessary upgrades to the existing grade crossings. As it stands now the law requires the locality to pay not the railroad.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> 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.


Well this strikes a chord with me

As a high school band director at the same school for close to 30 years, I'm always amazed at people who buy a house next to the football field and are dumbfounded that they must endure band practice during the summer and fall. How can people this ignorant get that far in life ?

It's great when they call the police after complaining to me with no result. When the police show up they usually ask me how many kids in the band this year and if we need to get the meter out..............the neighbor can't understand that we have been through this for years and have done the testing and kept records for sound at the edge of the field near the houses and know the law pretty well.

Usually at that point I turn the band's direction so that it plays TOWARDS the house and explain via the meter that we are within legal limits. ( and we don't practice half as many hours as we used to )

I just can't believe my common sense is THAT uncommon. Too many idiots in the world today.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> No, the railroads don't have to blow their horns by law... they have to blow their horns _if they want to operate_ by law. Point is, the laws are there because it's been determined that the trains can't operate safely without warning signals. They're not in place to force the trains to make noise, they're there to set the standards needed for safe operation.


Actually, they blow their horns because so many people do not STOP LOOK LISTEN.

They are not there for safe operation. They can operate fine. It's defensive move because of careless and stupid people.

How you come up with railroads can't operate safetly without warning signals is beyond me. Go railfanning in the wilderness THEM come tell me how warning signals helped them operate in a safe manner The only thing the Railroad needs is block protection and lights.

The warning signals are because of ignorant people either walking or driving.


----------



## volkris (Aug 4, 2009)

the Other Mike said:


> Actually, they blow their horns because so many people do not STOP LOOK LISTEN.
> They are not there for safe operation. They can operate fine. It's defensive move because of careless and stupid people.


No, you have it right: because people do not stop, look, and listen and/or are careless, stupid, or whatever, the whistles are needed to warn that a train is coming through.

Honestly, if you believe that the whistles are unnecessary for safe operation then let's get that requirement fixed ASAP. Problem solved.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> the Other Mike said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, they blow their horns because so many people do not STOP LOOK LISTEN.
> ...


Necessary for the cars much more than the train.

Watch safety videos much ?


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

Hey wait, I could be wrong. I've never seen warning signals for a train to stop because of cars crossing the tracks but if you have, please provise the link and I'll admit that I was wrong.

( I wonder how much freight would get moved with trains stopping for traffic )

By the way, I live 2 blocks from the CNIC and the KCS mains as they merge to come into Mays Yard in a surburb of New Orleans. I can usually tell certain engineers from others. The outbound stack that leaves about 12:15-1:00 am lightly "taps" the horn. That guy has never had a major accident at a crossing, however, the guy that usually has the inbound KCS at about 3 am has had several and he lays on the horn for the 12 or so crossings in a mile and a half ( of which, several have no lights or gates.

Of course the inbound seems to usually be louder because it's rounding the curve south of the airport and heading to a major intersection at Williams Blvd ( known well for the train that hit the idiot driving the gas truck who drove infront of train. Can't remember if the crew and or driver died but I think 7 people in the bar on the inbound side of the intersection were all roasted to death)

Little Farms crossing only got gates a few years back. A slow outbound train was clearning the crossing as an inbound came through at about 60 and nailed the teenager who decided since the train was past he could go even though the lights were still on.

To me, it's simple. Stupid people are the CAUSE, not the railroads. The railroads have been here a LONG time before the traffic.

Because Hickory was at the throat of Mays yard, people always complained about being stuck. It took years but the overpass was built at taxpayers expense.

As of the past 10 years or so, the interchange line from NS & CSX through old Metairie to Mays Yard is a quiet Zone. They no longer blow for the 3 ( ? ) crossing in the "well to do area" that VOTED for it. Killed business at a bar on Metaire Road that was right up against the tracks that used to give free shots when the horn blew.

If people don't want the horns, vote , but don't get mad if someone runs the gates ( or walks ) and gets killed from stupidity. The horns blow for the safety of the people, not the railroad.


----------



## DET63 (Aug 4, 2009)

jackal said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


I doubt that the sound of a train horn is all that intrusive once you're more than a few blocks away from the railroad tracks. For one thing, the horn is pointed toward the front of the engine (usually there are several horns, each at a different pitch, and one or more may be pointed toward the rear—but not the side—especially if the locomotive is sometimes operated in reverse, or "long-hood forward").

Yes, it is possible to hear a train a few miles away from the track, but it is one thing to _hear_ a train whistle, it is another to be _bothered_ by it.


----------



## OlympianHiawatha (Aug 4, 2009)

Airport noise falls in along the same line, and like with the rails, in most cases they were there before most of the residences were, and yet the people that move closest to the airport seem to want to sqwauk the loudest. Where I grew up in Chicago, not only did I have trains to listen to, but we were below one of the primary ORD approach patterns, and back in the 60s and 70s when jets sounded like jets should, had traffic passing over every 30 seconds for hours on end. And where I'm at now, Tinker AFB is just a few miles away and traffic can be frequent both day and night. I still haven't gotten used to the idea of putting CFM-56s on 135s (707s), but I guess they call that progress.

Plain and simple. Since the airports and railroads came first, they rule the roost and should be allowed to make wahtever noises they need to within reason. A little research when picking where to move should reveal if you'll have any of these as a neighbor, and if they bother you, look elsewhere to pitch tent.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Aug 4, 2009)

I live on the flight path for Naval Air Station Jacksonville. At times specially when there was more going on overseas, there would be a lot of noise from training flights and helicopters. I mentioned that I was on the flight path to one of the ranking officers at NAS JAX and he apologized. I told him not to apologize because the noise made me feel secure knowing the Navy was defending our great nation. I feel the same about train horns. The sound of a freight train horn means commerce is going on. The sound of an Amtrak horn(and I wish there were more) means that people are going places. I don't conside either noise of trains or planes annoying or poluting....they are just part of the American culture.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 4, 2009)

Ispolkom said:


> (Off topic) HokieNav, I'd like to say you can't be serious about complaints about noise from Oceana Naval Air Station, but I should know better. I remember once staying in Virginia Beach and having what seemed like a whole carrier Air Wing come from the sea over the hotel to land at Oceana. F-14s, F-18s, S-3s, about the whole shebang. Quite something, and the highlight of the trip for me.


I wish I were joking. These idiots actually sued and are profiting from the deal. From the last round of BRAC, the Navy seriously considered closing the air station and moving back to Jacksonville, which would have been massively detrimental to the seven cities economy.

http://hamptonroads.com/node/266761

I really am wildly curious to see what side of the debate that Volkris is on here - in favor of his tax money being given to people that move in next to an airport and then complain about it, or in favor of the jets being allowed to operate normally. He's really backed himself into a corner on this one.


----------



## volkris (Aug 4, 2009)

I don't find it particularly troublesome to be in the corner of protecting peoples' property rights and saying that people shouldn't be bothered when in their own homes.

The jets are a fine example: the people SHOULD be paid for the loss of value. As in the case of the trains, the significant noise from the jets interferes with the ability of the people to live peacefully in their own homes. The easements do precisely what I suggested: the noise maker purchasing the right to affect land they don't own. As for the source of the money, the US government should be paying because it's the US government's operations causing the disturbance... just as the railroads should be paying since its their operations disturbing people and property that the railroads don't own.

Now let's be clear: I'm not pushing for the rules that say trains have to sound a warning at intersections at all. If you guys want to drop that rule then fine; I can't really comment on that. However, as it stands now the Feds have asserted that the warnings are necessary for safe operation of the trains, so I'm speaking to making the warnings as targeted and unbothersome as possible. Surely that's not a disagreeable notion!

And remember, I keep using the word "minimize" intentionally. We're not talking about silent trains here, only about asking the railroads to operate in a way that minimizes their impact on the communities.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> The jets are a fine example: the people SHOULD be paid for the loss of value. As in the case of the trains, the significant noise from the jets interferes with the ability of the people to live peacefully in their own homes.


Perhaps they should have considered that when they bought the house then. I'm appalled that my tax dollars are going to support the idiocy of those people. You seem to be mighty willing to throw tax dollars at problems that *you* think should be rectified, but are quick to condemn those who think that tax dollars should be spent on items that are actually productive and worthwhile (like trains!).


----------



## volkris (Aug 4, 2009)

HokieNav said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > The jets are a fine example: the people SHOULD be paid for the loss of value. As in the case of the trains, the significant noise from the jets interferes with the ability of the people to live peacefully in their own homes.
> ...


I'm sure they did consider it when they bought the house. But that doesn't matter in the slightest. The fact remains that *these people own property that's being interfered with by people with no right to the property*. The organization operating the planes then purchased the right to affect these peoples' property from the people. That's how it's supposed to work!

What, exactly, is wrong with the notion that if you want to mess with someone else's stuff you have to acquire permission to do so? That's a pretty fundamental notion of justice in this country, arguably the foundation for the entire concept of property rights.

Should I be free to take your car because you knowingly parked it on a road where I've been stealing cars for years? Should I be able to have an annual party in your back yard just because you knew I'd been having my party there every year before you bought the house? Of course not because basic property rights aren't suspended by what was going on in the past. If you own a house or a car you have the right to secure that property against intrusion by others.

So yeah: if the AFB starts affecting peoples' properties the AFB should buy the right to do so. I don't think that is a particularly extreme position.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> HokieNav said:
> 
> 
> > volkris said:
> ...


Wrong.

These people bought property that is adjacent to previously developed private property. They accept the consequences therein.


----------



## volkris (Aug 4, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> These people bought property that is adjacent to previously developed private property. They accept the consequences therein.


Right. I get it. In your mind the concept of "this is my property, you can't use or intrude upon it without my permission" is but a general guideline and property rights have loopholes big enough to, well, drive a train through it.

Hope you keep that in mind next time someone dings up your car or decides they want to blare music outside your window at one in the morning. Hey, you bought a house within distance of other people; you accept the consequences therein!


----------



## AlanB (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> However, as it stands now the Feds have asserted that the warnings are necessary for safe operation of the trains, so I'm speaking to making the warnings as targeted and unbothersome as possible.


Therein lies the fundamental flaw in your argument. The Feds have made no such assertion. The train is perfectly safe on the tracks. If the train had left the track and was chasing some hapless driver down the street, then blowing the horn might be needed for the safe operation of the train. But the train isn't doing that. The train is perfectly safe operating on its tracks.

The horn blowing is required because drivers and pedestrians are unable to obey the laws of this land and they are operating in an unsafe way by not stopping as required by law.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> I'm sure they did consider it when they bought the house. But that doesn't matter in the slightest. The fact remains that *these people own property that's being interfered with by people with no right to the property*. The organization operating the planes then purchased the right to affect these peoples' property from the people. That's how it's supposed to work!
> What, exactly, is wrong with the notion that if you want to mess with someone else's stuff you have to acquire permission to do so? That's a pretty fundamental notion of justice in this country, arguably the foundation for the entire concept of property rights.
> 
> Should I be free to take your car because you knowingly parked it on a road where I've been stealing cars for years? Should I be able to have an annual party in your back yard just because you knew I'd been having my party there every year before you bought the house? Of course not because basic property rights aren't suspended by what was going on in the past. If you own a house or a car you have the right to secure that property against intrusion by others.
> ...


Your analogies are all flawed, still. You keep equating noise from a train with things that are illegal. Stop doing that. Also, it's a Naval Air Station, not an Air Force Base. Are you going to address the hypocrisy of advocating that we should be forced to pay taxes to compensate people for moving somewhere they find unpleasant but not that we should be forced to pay taxes for something useful, or are you going to continue to just pepper us with your false equivalencies?


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

I don't know the laws where everyone else lives but here, it's 75 Decibils ( sp ? ) at the property line. Since trains for the most part blow the horn ON their property, USUALLY facing within their property the only place to get true reading would be in curves.

However, the direction of the wind & weather does make a huge difference in how far horns carry. If we have a wind out of the East, the inbound trains sound will carry a much shorter distance and vice versa.

If it's a foggy night you don't even notice the train horns because of the tug / push / tow boats on the river ( Mississippi ).

So, with all of this taken into consideration, we should sue the weather people ?

( rimshot )

I remember on a different railgroup, being called out for supporting the sorrow for the problems engineers go through after a crossing accident and not considering the driver of the car and his family with the remark " thinning the herd". There's a reason for the big yellow RR sign and "caution". We can't enforce the use of brain power. Turn off the horns and thin the herd would be fine with me.

I just wonder how many "silence of the horns" supporters would get upset if a family member got killed at a silent crossing, or would they accept it as "silence for the neighbors" peace and quiet ?


----------



## tp49 (Aug 4, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > HokieNav said:
> ...


You're wrong.

Key in the law of nuisance is that there is an activity that substantially interferes with a person's use and enjoyment of their land. Just because someone "comes to the nuisance" doesn't mean that they as you say "accept the consequences" but it is but one factor to consider, it is not an absolute bar to a nuisance action. It can and has been successfully argued that jet noise and train horns are substantially and unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of a person's property. Had this not been the case then the FRA wouldn't have allowed for "quiet zones" and the FAA wouldn't allow for noise abatement procedures.

When it comes to airports in most cases when they were built it was "out in the middle of nowhere" for reasons of safety and noise. Over time though, urban growth brought inudstry and housing to the fringes of airports. What should have happened IMHO is that the localities should have made soundproofing a requirement for new construction within the "airport" area or within "x" number of feet from a rail line.

As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

tp49 said:


> As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.


Worthy !


----------



## volkris (Aug 4, 2009)

tp49 said:


> As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.


Why should a municipality have to bear the costs of an organization or individual affecting others' properties without permission? It's like suggesting that the guy outside is perfectly right to fire a gun toward peoples' homes, and the municipality should probably get to work putting up bullet proof sheeting along the fence lines.

No: train horns are specifically designed to be jarring, piercing, and loud. The railroads then project that onto other peoples' properties, in clear violation of fundamental property rights.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.
> ...


Where do you come up with these baseless analogies? Your comparisons have absolutly no relationship to each other. On one hand you talk about chemical and nuclear plants then now you bring up shooting guns. They do not relate to each other and totally destroy your argument.

Let's start here. Constitutionally the power to regulate trains and airplanes is given to the Federal government. It's the Feds who dictate the requirement that horns be sounded by trains approaching a crossing.

The Feds if they expressly grant the power to regulate trains or certain aspects of their operation to the states is allowed to do so. Under the quiet zone law the Federal government has done just that.

That said. The municipalities or state determine simple things like where a road will go and whether or not it will cross a rail line. They then build the road and are also the one who determines if the crossing needs to be "protected" (i.e. gates, bells and lights) or "unprotected." It is at these locations where a warning horn needs to be sounded. These locations are set up by the *municipality*

Second, let's talk land use now. It is the *municipality* that determines whether something can or cannot be built on land in their locality. This is done through site plan review, planning boards or commissions and how through building codes. The locality also has a great deal of say in their urban growth pattern. To put it very simply buildings cannot be built without the knowledge or consent of local government. Local government can then require soundproofing in housing built near airports or active rail lines. This is something government has control over.

Last, since outside of an emergency train horns are sounded as warnings at railroad crossings which we have already established are placed by municipalities when they build the roads. Combine this with the fact that the federal regulation allowing "quiet zones" places the burden on the local government to establish and implement them. This is why the local government should pay for the crossing improvments as they are the ones who created the problem.

Thus, I submitted a simple solution. Don't like the noise, take steps to abate it and reduce the impact on you. In the case of train horns it means eliminating grade crossings. No crossings, no horns.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.
> ...


Why not put ignorant people in prison to safeguard them from doing stupid things and we won't even need horns on cars and trucks ?

What about people who move near a large intersecton and get mad because the trucks blow their horn because the peoples kids are on the curb begging for a honk ?

I just can't understand your logic other than you're in the mood to be a PITA.

Hell, I have those days too. :lol:


----------



## amamba (Aug 4, 2009)

DET63 said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > volkris said:
> ...


I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 4, 2009)

amamba said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > jackal said:
> ...


Tough


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > DET63 said:
> ...


High Five


----------



## volkris (Aug 4, 2009)

the Other Mike said:


> I just can't understand your logic other than you're in the mood to be a PITA.Hell, I have those days too. :lol:


The logic's really simple so I can repeat it again quite easily: I believe it to be a fundamental part of property rights that others can't intrude into your property without your permission, whether it be through force or through piercing, intrusive sound. Therefore, when trains run by blowing their horns they are intruding into your property without your consent, violating your rights.

And no, just because the train has been doing it for a long time or just because the train was required to do it as part of its operation or just because your locality failed to require you to soundproof your house (frankly, ***?) doesn't give the railroad a right to intrude into your home. At the most fundamental level the train is still violating your property even in these cases.

I find it to be a moral issue as well: as much as I and others might like hearing the train, and as much as one might support rail travel, I find it morally questionable to support the operation that intrudes into others' houses without their consent. I find it selfish and against the notions of liberty that this country was founded upon.

And finally, I see it as a huge double standard... with the endless list of things people aren't allowed to do to each others' property without consent, why should we allow the trains to commit the same violation? Is it, again, just because we, individually, support rail so much that we try to justify it to ourselves? Certainly sounds like it.

But in the end it's about property rights, the right to be happy and peaceful in one's house, freely enjoying the fruit of one's labor. Above all other things, the unnecessary whistle encroaches upon that right. Many here have made it clear that they don't really value property rights, and I find that sad. Sort of surprising, too, in this great country.

Oh well.


----------



## volkris (Aug 4, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> amamba said:
> 
> 
> > I will reiterate then. I am BOTHERED by the train whistle when I am at my in-laws, who live over a mile from the tracks. It wakes me up.
> ...


Hope next time you walk out and find yourself bothered because your car has been stolen the cops respond the same way.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > amamba said:
> ...


Oh yes, because a stolen car and a train horn are the same thing.

Because one is a criminal behavior, and the other is just "annoying".


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > amamba said:
> ...



Don't move next to the thugs. I don't but yet I've had a car stolen from the modelrailroad club but I learned that back then, it was easy to steal an Olds and bought a "club" when I got the car back. Maybe Olds should have given me a new car ?

As a kid sleeping at my grandmothers house, the Westminster Chimes of her clock would wake me up every 15 minutes. I guess she should have changed her way of living for me ?

Uh huh, that makes ALOT of sense.

I'd hate to see some of the people on here face some real problems in life.

Must be a hard life to have train horns to complain about.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> I believe it to be a fundamental part of property rights that others can't intrude into your property without your permission, whether it be through force or through piercing, intrusive sound.


You can't believe what you want, but this is false. This is the root of your problem.



volkris said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > amamba said:
> ...


Again with the false equivalencies. Give it a rest already!


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > amamba said:
> ...


Huh? Are you serious? Wow...Ok, call the cops about the train whistle, and see how the cops respond. I'd love the hear about how the cops react to that. Please do it.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 4, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > zephyr17 said:
> ...


Make sure you record it for our entertainment research, too!


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> the Other Mike said:
> 
> 
> > I just can't understand your logic other than you're in the mood to be a PITA.Hell, I have those days too. :lol:
> ...


First, let's talk about the line "this great country". Native Americans might feel infringed upon as did the Irish, Chinese and Africans. This great country was built upon infringing on others rights. If you insist on feeling that railroads are infringing on others rights, will you be the first to give your property back to the Native Americans ?  Oh wait, THATS different, that hurts me !!!! :huh:

YOU, are the one with the double standard because you are blind to the facts. Your logic is not simple, it's ignorant of facts of how this country was born and how it works ( or doesn't depending on your viewpoint ). Now you want to change the way america works and yet we wonder why the rest of the world is passing us up.

Where do you think the money is to come from if you force railroads to install "stupidity" crossings ? Do you really think that cost will not be passed along to us in the bottom line price of products that are shipped by rail ? Will the railroads be able to use "slave labor" to install the idiot crossings to negate the use of horns? How much are YOU willing to pay for this "extra" ?

Do you work in Washington with the magic printing press ? 

Gee, some people are so frustrated with life that they can't sleep through train horns so we should all pay for their beauty rest ? Lets just make sure everyone either gets enough sex or suppply Ambien each night and NOT pay the hugh ammount of cost for idiot proof crossings.

If you didn't write so well I would question your age and experience in the real world so I must consider the fact that you indeed are a troll.  No problem, I like beating my head against the wall in hopes that just possibly you might see the light.

Ohh wait, do the headlights bother people also ? :lol:


----------



## jackal (Aug 4, 2009)

volkris said:


> I find it to be a moral issue as well: as much as I and others might like hearing the train, and as much as one might support rail travel, I find it morally questionable to support the operation that intrudes into others' houses *without their consent*. I find it selfish and against the notions of liberty that this country was founded upon.


(Bolding mine)

There's the weakness in your argument, though. Moving next to a railroad track or an airport gives *implied consent*.

If I move next to a quarry, I expect to hear the sounds of rocks being ground. Next to an active logging camp, I expect to hear chainsaws and cries of "Timber!" Next to a major waterway, there are foghorns. Near a port, sounds of heavy machinery. Near a school, the sounds of the marching band practicing or the Friday evening football games.

Near an airport, you'll hear air traffic. Near a railroad, you'll hear trains.

People who choose to build or buy in such an area near an *established* entity (not just a transient source like a neighborhood block party) creating noise do not have any right to complain about it.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 4, 2009)

jackal said:


> People who choose to build or buy in such an area near an *established* entity (not just a transient source like a neighborhood block party) creating noise do not have any right to complain about it.


I don't agree. They DO have the right to complain, but in doing so, exposes their ignorance of proper due diligance ( sp ? ) when buying the house.

To me it's like saying " we should outlaw guns because I shot myself in the foot" or we should ban fireworks becuse I almost blew my hand off because I'm stupid".


----------



## Trainmans daughter (Aug 4, 2009)

Perspective:

TODAY the body of a little six-year old boy was found in a canal in Idaho

TODAY a mother was charged in the death of her 10 year old disabled daughter

TODAY 6 people were killed in a Pennsylvania health club

TODAY hundreds of people heard their doctors say "You have cancer"

TODAY some people were irritated by a train whistle

Hmm. I'm just sayin'


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 5, 2009)

Trainmans daughter said:


> Perspective:
> TODAY the body of a little six-year old boy was found in a canal in Idaho
> 
> TODAY a mother was charged in the death of her 10 year old disabled daughter
> ...


Thank you


----------



## volkris (Aug 5, 2009)

I think everyone's said what they have to say.

You're either in favor of property rights, the ability of people to live peacefully in the house that they've bought through their own hard work, or you're not.

I am; plenty of you aren't, giving all manner of excuses that would be completely laughed off the table in any other context.

I believe the irrational, undieing support for rail is the source for the intellectual dishonesty that blinds you guys to the matter... if peoples' property rights were to be enforced it would be a little harder for the rail lines to operate, so let's just give 'em a pass, hm?

And let's just look the other way as the rights of hundreds of thousands (at least) are violated in their own homes.

As long as we get our whistles, hm?


----------



## Neil_M (Aug 5, 2009)

volkris said:


> And let's just look the other way as the rights of hundreds of thousands (at least) are violated in their own homes.
> As long as we get our whistles, hm?


So if you drove your car past my house can I sue you because I hate car noise more than train noise? What is more important? My right to enjoy my property or your right to disturb the peace?

What you say is very simplistic. I live very near the flight path to and from Heathrow. Right now I can hear the planes coming in. Sometimes in the summer mornings when I have the bedroom window open and I am woken at 0500 I can have the right to moan, but when I can get to and from the airport in 25 minutes do I still have a right to moan?

I lived very near a railway line for about 5 years. Noisy? Yes. Lots of trains to London? Yes.

I think if you want perfect silence then cavevendorsforyou.com will have the perfect abode.

Till then, buy earplugs or quit moaning.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 5, 2009)

volkris said:


> You're either in favor of property rights, the ability of people to live peacefully in the house that they've bought through their own hard work, or you're not.
> I am; plenty of you aren't, giving all manner of excuses that would be completely laughed off the table in any other context.


As long as you continue to falsely equate noise with things that are actually illegal, sure. Fortunately that's rather a fringe position, so the only laughing off the table is going to come from the other direction.

You also have failed to clear up this inconsistency in your positions:



HokieNav said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > The jets are a fine example: the people SHOULD be paid for the loss of value. As in the case of the trains, the significant noise from the jets interferes with the ability of the people to live peacefully in their own homes.
> ...


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2009)

volkris said:


> I think everyone's said what they have to say.
> You're either in favor of property rights, the ability of people to live peacefully in the house that they've bought through their own hard work, or you're not.
> 
> I am; plenty of you aren't, giving all manner of excuses that would be completely laughed off the table in any other context.


I think you are presenting a false dichotomy here. In order to do that first you do take the trouble to define "property rights" more narrowly than the common usage of the term, to suit your purpose, and hence set up a strawman. People supporting the railroads are not per-se against property right. They are just stating the position from the perspective of a different property owner, i.e. the railroad and its shareholders. So it does not make you any more a believer in property rights than the next guy.

Thus I find your holier than though claims to the ultimate truth about property rights specious at best and obfuscatory at worst.


----------



## volkris (Aug 5, 2009)

I don't plan on drawing this out any longer. Like I said, I think it's been fully explored. But, since you asked a specific thing, I'll answer:



HokieNav said:


> You also have failed to clear up this inconsistency in your positions:
> 
> 
> HokieNav said:
> ...


I have cleared it up: when the US government encroaches on peoples' property it should pay the people for the right. When the railroads encroach upon peoples' property it should pay the people for that right as well. In the case of the government, the money will come from taxpayers because they fund the government. In the case of the railroads, the money will come from investors, customers, and anyone else funding the company.

It is extremely consistent and based on the, I think, easily accepted premise that if you want to interfere with someone else's property--whether you're the government or a private citizen--then you have to acquire the right to do so from the property owner, probably by paying for the right in the form of an easement.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 5, 2009)

volkris said:


> I think everyone's said what they have to say.
> You're either in favor of property rights, the ability of people to live peacefully in the house that they've bought through their own hard work, or you're not.
> 
> I am; plenty of you aren't, giving all manner of excuses that would be completely laughed off the table in any other context.
> ...


Did you beat up alot as a kid ?

To say you're either in favor of property rights or you're not goes both ways. I guess railroads property doesn't count ?

If it were in my power to do, I would close all railroad crossing within 20 miles of you and make you drive out of you way every day to make the point the hard way. See, no more horns. Are you happy now ?

Would THAT make you happy ?

I own the railroad and agree with you, crossings slow down our trade and too many people complain about horns so as of now, all crossings are closed.

How much would that impact your life ?

:lol:


----------



## Ryan (Aug 5, 2009)

volkris said:


> It is extremely consistent and based on the, I think, easily accepted premise that if you want to interfere with someone else's property--whether you're the government or a private citizen--then you have to acquire the right to do so from the property owner, probably by paying for the right in the form of an easement.


Got it. It's an easily accepted premise if you have a value system that nobody else subscribes to. Now take your ball and go home.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 5, 2009)

volkris said:


> When the railroads encroach upon peoples' property it should pay the people for that right as well. In the case of the government, the money will come from taxpayers because they fund the government. In the case of the railroads, the money will come from investors, customers, and anyone else funding the company.


Could this be one of the reasons it's called a "right of way" ? :unsure:

What about out west when the railroads built first then gave away land to build towns ?

Your heart might be in the right place in wishing this to be a perfect world, but I'm glad ( as someone who rode out Katrina ) the tracks are near my home since they act as one more levee against flooding from the lake. ( of course I live on high ground for a reason, not because it's beautiful.)

Instead of looking at the negative of horns, look at the problems that could happen if a trck stops on the tracks and a derailment happens. Think of all the people for MILES that could be eliminated because of some of the chemicals released.

I for one thank God for horns ( and drums and strings )

and on a different note: Bb


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Aug 5, 2009)

You're calling LeBlonde a "troll" ? He's been a member for months!


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 5, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> You're calling LeBlonde a "troll" ? He's been a member for months!



Was the nicest thing I could think of................. :blink:


----------



## jackal (Aug 6, 2009)

volkris said:


> I believe the irrational, undieing support for rail is the source for the intellectual dishonesty that blinds you guys to the matter... if peoples' property rights were to be enforced it would be a little harder for the rail lines to operate, so let's just give 'em a pass, hm?


Actually, long before I considered train horns, I've had an opinion on this issue as it relates to airport traffic.

When I found out that my tax dollars were being used to soundproof houses built within sight of the airport (you can literally see the runway) in the mid-80s when the airport has been around since the 1930s (and there's an aerial photo chronology displayed in the airport proving this), I was absolutely incensed.

Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport has existed as a major cargo hub (fifth busiest in the world) and passenger stopover point for aircraft en route to Asia (until recently, when the newest long-range 747 and 777 passenger aircraft made it possible to cross the Pacific without refueling) since the jetliner age began in the 1950s.

Yet some idiots built houses on a bog within sight of the airport runway (and right next to an air national guard base), and then some sue-happy people moved in a few years ago and promptly forced the rest of us to pay for their stupidity? Absolute balderdash.

And I also used the real-world examples of logging, quarrying, and all kinds of other noise-making industries that one can choose to live far from if one is bothered by the noise produced by them.

It is NOT a situation unique to rail, and my love and affection for rail has absolutely NOTHING to do with my opinions on this issue.

If you at all subscribe to the theory that people should take personal responsibility for their actions, then you HAVE to acknowledge that at least some of the fault in any matter whereby someone is subjected to noise by a pre-existing industry or installation lies with the person who CHOSE to buy or build in that area. Your view makes sense if you are stuck in a victim mentality, though.



Neil_M said:


> I think if you want perfect silence then cavevendorsforyou.com will have the perfect abode.Till then, buy earplugs or quit moaning.


I will be fair to volkris and acknowledge that he said he was not personally disturbed by railroad noise. In fact, he admitted that he actually enjoyed the sound of train whistles, and at the least didn't usually mind the rumbling of the cars down the tracks. So let's keep our arguments straight here.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 6, 2009)

jackal said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the irrational, undieing support for rail is the source for the intellectual dishonesty that blinds you guys to the matter... if peoples' property rights were to be enforced it would be a little harder for the rail lines to operate, so let's just give 'em a pass, hm?
> ...


I missed this bit on the first pass. You'd be wrong in my case too, as I'm ironically just now having this same conversation with folks on the neighborhood email list that are petitioning for a bill to have the local drag strip's hours seriously curtailed, and their noise limited (essentially forcing the track to spend lots of money to build sound walls, place noise limits on cars, or close up shop). The drag strip has been in operation since the 1950's, the houses in question were built in the late '80's / early '90's. NIMBYism in all of its forms is a cancer on this society, holding us back from getting things done. Everyone wants nice things, but nobody wants the negative effects.

Rather than pigeonhole us as rabid foamers, not wanting to listen to logic and just do anything to support our precious trains, try actually taking a look at what our arguments actually are. You do the same bloody thing in threads talking about tax funding for railroads, and it's getting tiresome.


----------



## volkris (Aug 6, 2009)

What a lot of you seem to miss in my position is the difference between NIMBYism--refusing absolutely to have something or other located nearby--and what I propose, simply asking an organization who wants to directly and actively affect others' property to get owners' permissions to do so.

Often time this is actually the OPPOSITE of what the NIMBY crowd seeks: often the NIMBYs come out to block someone's use of his own property even when it doesn't affect anyone else. These cases range from distasteful strip clubs to nuclear plants... the operator will in no way harm other property owners but the NIMBYs seek to block it anyway.

Here, on the other hand, we have an operator directly blasting noise into other peoples' houses without their consent. Most people, I believe, would find it perfectly reasonable to tell such an organization that they can't disturb other peoples' property like that without permission, especially when they haven't taken steps to minimize the scope of their disturbance.

It's all about property rights; you either believe in them or you don't. A right that can be waived based on convenience or the attitude that "well it's been violated for a long time, so let's let the violation continue!" is not a right; it's a political convenience.


----------



## MrFSS (Aug 6, 2009)

Here is an interesting newspaper article about this subject.

*Since 2006, the Federal Railroad Administration has allowed municipalities to form quiet zones so long as they meet certain criteria. *

*The zone has to be at least a half-mile long, and each crossing must have flashing lights and some kind of automatic barrier before a train horn can be silenced.*

* *



> In 1984, Florida banned the use of horns on the Florida East Coast Railroad, but federal officials noticed a major increase in train-vehicle collisions — importantly, even at gated crossings — and overruled Florida's ban nine years later.
> The following year, Congress mandated that the railroad administration require trains to blow their horns at all public highway crossings, but allow communities to establish quiet zones in some cases.
> 
> It took more than 10 years for the railroad administration to finalize the new rules. As it stands now, train engineers must blow train horns for a minimum of 15 seconds and a maximum of 20 seconds in advance of all crossings.
> ...


----------



## tp49 (Aug 6, 2009)

volkris said:


> What a lot of you seem to miss in my position is the difference between NIMBYism--refusing absolutely to have something or other located nearby--and what I propose, simply asking an organization who wants to directly and actively affect others' property to get owners' permissions to do so.
> Often time this is actually the OPPOSITE of what the NIMBY crowd seeks: often the NIMBYs come out to block someone's use of his own property even when it doesn't affect anyone else. These cases range from distasteful strip clubs to nuclear plants... the operator will in no way harm other property owners but the NIMBYs seek to block it anyway.
> 
> Here, on the other hand, we have an operator directly blasting noise into other peoples' houses without their consent. Most people, I believe, would find it perfectly reasonable to tell such an organization that they can't disturb other peoples' property like that without permission, especially when they haven't taken steps to minimize the scope of their disturbance.
> ...


Strip clubs and nuclear plants in no way harm other property owners? You're serious? One is a use which the US Supreme Court has recognized that cities can zone solely into industrial areas to expressly keep them out of neighborhoods and the other is an ultrahazardous activity.

I believe in property rights just fine and I am not a rabid foamer nor even a minor foamer. You appear to have a flawed view of property rights which a court of competent jurisdiction would not agree with you.

To require as you suggest for a railroad or other entitiy to obtain an easement from every landowner within "x" radius of a railroad crossing would run into the problem of being unconstitutional as what you are suggesting would have to be enacted by statute. Why you ask, well because any regulation requiring this would be unduly burdensome on interstate commerce. Simply put it would violate the Commerce Clause.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 6, 2009)

Is it not a convience for the land owners near the railroad to be able to cross the tracks ?

Is that not the trade off for the horns ?

I had the chance to take a cab ride on a short line about 10 years ago. From the yard to the grain elevator was about 20 miles. There were two highway crossings but there must have been 300 "driveway" crossings which had no lights gates or bells. In some places the driveways were close enough that you could not signal for each one but just layed on the horn. In the cab the sound was a PITA but it had to be done. That property was sold to the people by the railroad. Thank God the short line did it's yard work at night and just did the mainline work during the day. I think for the most part it's a decent relationship.

When I think of the news reports everytime someone gets hit by a train, the first thing they ask is " was the horn sounded?".

I just can't see any way to change the way things are done. As far as the horns ? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Is it better to have people bothered by the sound or lose a few people crossing the tracks ?

Common sense has to come into play at some point. I say thin the herd :blink:


----------



## jackal (Aug 7, 2009)

volkris said:


> What a lot of you seem to miss in my position is the difference between NIMBYism--refusing absolutely to have something or other located nearby--and what I propose, simply asking an organization who wants to directly and actively affect others' property to get owners' permissions to do so.


Since the railroad was the previous tenant of the area, does that mean that each and every time a new home is built or a new owner moves into one, the railroad officials should visit the house and ask for permission to continue doing what they have always done? So what happens when a subdivision of 500 homes is built and 499 people agree to let the railroad continue to run, but then the 500th person comes in and says, "No! I don't agree!"? Should the railroad then simply stop its operations?



volkris said:


> Here, on the other hand, we have an operator directly blasting noise into other peoples' houses *without their consent*. Most people, I believe, would find it perfectly reasonable to tell such an organization that they can't disturb other peoples' property like that without permission, especially when they haven't taken steps to minimize the scope of their disturbance.


For one, moving next to a railroad gives implied consent. Second, the railroad HAS taken steps to minimize the scope of their disturbance: they have built their lines in industrial areas, away from residences. It's not their fault developers build closer and closer to their land! They also, as has been mentioned countless times before, reserve the right to deny public access to their private property in the form of railroad crossings. Yet they realize that doing so (and forcing municipalities to build over/underpasses instead) would not be a good neighborly practice, and so they go ahead (against their preferences) and allow the public to cross their private property.

You could turn the tables around and say that people, as part of the _permission_ they secure from the railroad to disturb the _railroad's_ property in the form of public crossings, should defer to the railroad and allow them to do the business they need to do without being disturbed, which includes such safety measures as blowing the whistle at those crossings.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Aug 7, 2009)

so in your opinion the railroad some come to YOUR HOME and ask YOUR PERMISSION to blow there horn ON THERE PROPERTY cause you don't like it ?. hey i'm the president of CSX and I want to ask your permission if its alright for my engineers to blow there horns when approaching the crossing for safety reasons to warn other drivers that a train is approaching. the previous owner of the house didn't mind but i want your permission.


----------



## volkris (Aug 7, 2009)

amtrakwolverine said:


> so in your opinion the railroad some come to YOUR HOME and ask YOUR PERMISSION to blow there horn ON THERE PROPERTY cause you don't like it ?. hey i'm the president of CSX and I want to ask your permission if its alright for my engineers to blow there horns when approaching the crossing for safety reasons to warn other drivers that a train is approaching. the previous owner of the house didn't mind but i want your permission.


Oh, I completely agree: sometimes respecting other peoples' property can be damn inconvenient. But what good are rights if they're only recognized when convenient?

However, some points to repeat: if the previous owner didn't mind he would be free to give permission in a legal, permanent way through an easement, at which point there would be no property rights issue at all. Also, the railroads have options to minimize their disturbance while maintaining warnings at crossing that they're not taking.

And, of course, there's always eminent domain: if it's important enough to the community that the trains disturb people, the community always has the option of using eminent domain to force the sale of easements to allow the whistling. At the moment, though, we only have devalued property without any cost to the violators.


----------



## amamba (Aug 7, 2009)

the Other Mike said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > People who choose to build or buy in such an area near an *established* entity (not just a transient source like a neighborhood block party) creating noise do not have any right to complain about it.
> ...


 You are right, people should absolutely do due dilligence when buying a house. I live in a very urban area, and I am often awaken by people in the streets/alleys when the bars let out at 1 am. I don't complain about that, because that was to be expected when I bought a condo in the city.

But should people expect to hear a train horn when they live 1.5 to 2 miles from the tracks? Of course if you live next to the tracks, you should expect to hear it. My building actually rumbles every time the commuter rail to Boston goes through the tunnel which is about 0.2 miles from my house. I expect that, and don't complain about it, because of the proximity.

Anyway, I didn't start this argument, I am just saying that people that live quite far from the train can be bothered by it.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 7, 2009)

volkris said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > so in your opinion the railroad some come to YOUR HOME and ask YOUR PERMISSION to blow there horn ON THERE PROPERTY cause you don't like it ?. hey i'm the president of CSX and I want to ask your permission if its alright for my engineers to blow there horns when approaching the crossing for safety reasons to warn other drivers that a train is approaching. the previous owner of the house didn't mind but i want your permission.
> ...


By common law standard, if a "noise easement" was necessary that "easement" was granted long since. The railroad tracks in most cases have been there 100 years or more. Long before most of the property was developed or the current owners took possession. In the West, the original owners likely BOUGHT it from the railroad, or homesteaded there because of the very presence of the transportation opportunities afforded by the railroad. Since the previous owners did not contest the existence or noise of the railroad early in its existence, if an easement was necessary, the railroads obtained it by adverse possession, since they ran the trains for more than 10 years, 10 years usually being the term necessary for uncontested use to gain adverse possession.

They were there first. It is not a secret that railroad tracks are there, and that trains are noisy. You buy property near a railroad track, you have to expect trains to use it, and blow horns to ensure the safety of the public at crossings and adhere to Federal regulations. That needs to be part of your decision to buy.

Caveat emptor, bub. The property was not "devalued" because the conditions that would have "devalued" it existed long before the current owner purchased it, so it was built into the original value when the current owner bought it. Which was in likelihood somewhat less because the horns were blowing then, too. That owner already got or should have gotten his "horn discount" when purchasing property near a railroad track. To try to get it again is to try to get something for nothing.


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 7, 2009)

amamba said:


> the Other Mike said:
> 
> 
> > jackal said:
> ...


Yes, you should expect it hear it a couple miles away because the horn is a warning and is expected and REQUIRED to be LOUD 1/4 of a mile away to give sufficient warning. The minimum dB level is regulated by Federal law, not some foamer's whim, and train horns have ALWAYS been loud. Get your city to pony up for FRA approved quiet zone. The crossing warning devices themselves can be equipped with horns that are directed down the street they are protecting, and are do not need to be as loud because the sound is more focused. Then the trains won't blow their horns for crossings anymore. Talk to your city govenment, but expect to pay for it.

But it is nothing new and no surprise. So, yes, it is to be expected and is part of due diligence.


----------



## volkris (Aug 7, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> By common law standard


I'm from Louisiana; we laugh at your common law 

Also, I'm interested in talking about what's right, not what's legal. All too often those things diverge. We should fix the law, not use a broken law to justify a conclusion.

Well, to be more precise, I'm not really interested in talking about it more. As I said before, I'm happy to let this thread die since I think all that needs to be said has been said. If you guys want to take that as some admission of defeat it won't bother me.

I just thought I'd clarify some things for a couple of new looking people who showed up late and didn't really seem to see what my position was. Again, I'm fine with someone honestly disagreeing with my position; I'd just like to for them to actually know what they're disagreeing with.


----------



## jackal (Aug 7, 2009)

volkris said:


> Also, I'm interested in talking about what's right, not what's legal. All too often those things diverge. We should fix the law, not use a broken law to justify a conclusion.


But everyone here fails to see that anything is indeed broken.

As far as the law goes, zephyr17 outlined the legal basis against your argument (at least in 49 of the 50 states). There is no support for your claim that anything the railroad does violates anyone's [legal] property rights.

As far as "what's right," well, the railroad is clearly in the right (according to everybody but you)--they've been around forever, and it's the responsibility of the individuals who move near the railroad tracks to accept the pre-existing noise. The railroad is doing no wrong. If the residents don't like it, they can follow the federally-mandated procedures to establish quiet zones (quad-gate crossings, Jersey barriers, focused horns, grade-separated crossings).

Your entire argument seems hinged on some false notion of property rights. If you'd like to clarify exactly on what REAL basis you object to trains blowing their horns to follow both federal regulations and to maximize safety, please do so.


----------



## tp49 (Aug 8, 2009)

jackal said:


> But everyone here fails to see that anything is indeed broken.
> As far as the law goes, zephyr17 outlined the legal basis against your argument (at least in 49 of the 50 states). There is no support for your claim that anything the railroad does violates anyone's [legal] property rights.


One thing I think should be mentioned is that in cases where the railroad was the original grantor of the land I would bet that they preserved some sort of protection for themselves in the deed itself either through a covenant running with the land or by easement.

I've mentioned in this thread that they have a potential action for nuisance. However, one of the factors that will be looked at is whether the interference with the use of the affected parcel including whether the plaintiff "came to" or "moved to" the nuisance.

I've also mentioned in a previous post that since the feds have established procedures for localities to enact quiet zones that could follow the procedures or in the alternative eliminate grade crossings either by bridges, tunnels or elevating the tracks.

It should too be noted that if a regulation were enacted to require a railroad to obtain easements from each property owner within a certain radius from the tracks that a court would most likely strike the regulation down as unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause as surely a regulation of that type would be unduly burdensome to interstate commerce.

The kicker was the response made to one of my posts here



volkris said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.
> ...


Then says this here...



volkris said:


> And, of course, there's always eminent domain: if it's important enough to the community that the trains disturb people, the community always has the option of using eminent domain to force the sale of easements to allow the whistling. At the moment, though, we only have devalued property without any cost to the violators.


If the government were going to use eminent domain for that purpose the government would be required to pay "just compensation" to the property owner forced to sell the easement. This would fall under the 5th Amendment's "Takings Clause." It would also certainly subject the government to years of very costly litigation which the government very well could lose. When compared with my suggestion of grade crossing elimination considering that eliminating the grade crossings would eliminate the need for use of the horn except for emergencies.

In the end this would not only be cheaper but shovel ready public works projects were receiving federal stimulus money. Net benefit if stimulus funds could be procured to pay for it the local government would not have to pay for it and some new jobs might be generated as well. Win for the residents, win for the railroad, win for the community as a whole. That's a whole lot of win.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 8, 2009)

I vote for steam whistles to replace the horns !


----------



## zephyr17 (Aug 8, 2009)

volkris said:


> zephyr17 said:
> 
> 
> > By common law standard
> ...


I call bullsh*t.

Property rights are nothing if not a legal concept. You argue on the basis of legal rights, then back off to your own little "Planet volkris" when challenged. You claim that you gain some legitimacy in your argument that Louisiana law is based on Napoleonic Code, not common law (everything defined in statute, not court precedent) is laughable. OK, show me the Louisana statute law (not common, but statute law per Napoleonic Code) that says railroads should pay current property owners for rights given up by the previous owners.

You are apparently both for the application of some "natural law" of your own devising at the same time as you argue that statute law (per Napoleonic Code, the only valid law is law that is promolgated by a legislature) is the only valid law AT THE SAME TIME.

And when cornered, you say you just want the thread to die.

Weak, man. Just weak.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 8, 2009)

zephyr17 said:


> volkris said:
> 
> 
> > zephyr17 said:
> ...


He claims Louisiana but his info on the post says Newport News. I'm IN louisiana and been here for 52 0f my 53 years. He doesn't speak like someone from Louisiana unless he's one of those who voted for Edwin Edwards. If that is the case, to him, he makes perfect sense.


----------



## the Other Mike (Aug 10, 2009)

I agree mow, remove all horns from trains.

Beef up all the auto horns


----------



## DET63 (Aug 10, 2009)

Trains do not exist, either primarily or secondarily, to entertain foamers, fans, their own crews, or the investors in the railroad companies. They exist to move passengers and freight, and are thus an important part of the nation's—indeed the world's—transportation infrastructure. The more they are able to do so safely, the better they are able to serve their customers. The comparison to a garage band practicing loudly at 2:00 is weak. The garage band is serving to entertain itself, or perhaps practicing to entertain a small group of people. It can practice at a more reasonable hour yet still fulfill its entertainment obligations, such as they may be. Therefore asking the band members to alter their practice or playing schedule puts little burden on them. Asking a railroad company to not operate its trains at night in a certain community, or to pay for enhanced crossing safety devices so that its trains don't have to sound their horns, does create a possibly considerable burden on the railroad company that must be passed on in the form of higher shipping costs, insurance rates, taxes, and/or who-know-what-else.


----------



## rodo (Aug 29, 2009)

I am wondering if you have noticed the train blowing more often. I have lived at my home for over 5 years and would hear the train maybe once or twice if that. Now I hear it over 5 times a day at early hours (4 am and midnight). What has changed?


----------



## Tom Cleveland (Sep 23, 2009)

volkris said:


> tp49 said:
> 
> 
> > As for train horn noise if there is enough of a problem with it then the municipality should undertake to solve the problem by simply bridging over, tunnelling under or otherwise eliminating grade crossings. This falls in line with what DOT and the FRA allow.
> ...


Are there rules for how loud the horns have to be? Let's see if they can safely be reduced in decibel level so that they do not disturb so many people so much. I bet that the TGV in France does not make so much noise and hence has better support among the public.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Sep 23, 2009)

Tom Cleveland said:


> Are there rules for how loud the horns have to be? Let's see if they can safely be reduced in decibel level so that they do not disturb so many people so much. I bet that the TGV in France does not make so much noise and hence has better support among the public.


There sure are rules :

CHAPTER II--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION

PART 229_RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVE SAFETY STANDARDS--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Safety Requirements

Sec. 229.129 Locomotive horn.

(a) Each lead locomotive shall be equipped with a locomotive horn

that produces a minimum sound level of 96 dB(A) and a maximum sound

level of 110 dB(A) at 100 feet forward of the locomotive in its

direction of travel. The locomotive horn shall be arranged so that it

can be conveniently operated from the engineer's usual position during

operation of the locomotive.

(b)(1) Each locomotive built on or after September 18, 2006 shall be

tested in accordance with this section to ensure that the horn installed

on such locomotive is in compliance with paragraph (a) of this section.

Locomotives built on or after September 18, 2006 may, however, be tested

in accordance with an acceptance sampling scheme such that there is a

probability of .05 or less of rejecting a lot with a proportion of

defectives equal to an AQL of 1% or less, as set forth in 7 CFR part 43.

(2) Each locomotive built before September 18, 2006 shall be tested

in accordance with this section before June 24, 2010 to ensure that the

horn installed on such locomotive is in compliance with paragraph (a) of

this section.

(3) Each remanufactured locomotive, as determined pursuant to Sec.

229.5 of this part, shall be tested in accordance with this section to

ensure that the horn installed on such locomotive is in compliance with

paragraph (a).

(4)(i) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section,

each locomotive equipped with a replacement locomotive horn shall be

tested, in accordance with paragraph © of this section, before the

next two annual tests required by Sec. 229.27 of this part are

completed.

(ii) Locomotives that have already been tested individually or

through acceptance sampling, in accordance with paragraphs (b)(1),

(b)(2), or (b)(3) of this section, shall not be required to undergo

sound level testing when equipped with a replacement locomotive horn,

provided the replacement locomotive horn is of the same model as the

locomotive horn that was replaced and the mounting location and type of

mounting are the same.

© Testing of the locomotive horn sound level shall be in

accordance with the following requirements:

(1) A properly calibrated sound level meter shall be used that, at a

minimum, complies with the requirements of International

Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Standard 61672-1 (2002-05) for a Class

2 instrument.

(2) An acoustic calibrator shall be used that, at a minimum,

complies with the requirements of IEC standard 60942 (1997-11) for a

Class 2 instrument.

(3) The manufacturer's instructions pertaining to mounting and

orienting the microphone; positioning of the observer; and periodic

factory recalibration shall be followed.

(4) A microphone windscreen shall be used and tripods or similar

microphone mountings shall be used that minimize

[[Page 441]]

interference with the sound being measured.

(5) The test site shall be free of large reflective structures, such

as barriers, hills, billboards, tractor trailers or other large

vehicles, locomotives or rail cars on adjacent tracks, bridges or

buildings, within 200 feet to the front and sides of the locomotive. The

locomotive shall be positioned on straight, level track.

(6) Measurements shall be taken only when ambient air temperature is

between 32 degrees and 104 degrees Fahrenheit inclusively; relative

humidity is between 20 percent and 95 percent inclusively; wind velocity

is not more than 12 miles per hour and there is no precipitation.

(7) With the exception of cab-mounted or low-mounted horns, the

microphone shall be located 100 feet forward of the front knuckle of the

locomotive, 15 feet above the top of the rail, at an angle no greater

than 20 degrees from the center line of the track, and oriented with

respect to the sound source according to the manufacturer's

recommendations. For cab-mounted and low-mounted horns, the microphone

shall be located 100 feet forward of the front knuckle of the

locomotive, four feet above the top of the rail, at an angle no greater

than 20 degrees from the center line of the track, and oriented with

respect to the sound source according to the manufacturer's

recommendations. The observer shall not stand between the microphone and

the horn.

(8) Background noise shall be minimal: the sound level at the test

site immediately before and after each horn sounding event shall be at

least 10 dB(A) below the level measured during the horn sounding.

(9) Measurement procedures. The sound level meter shall be set for

A-weighting with slow exponential response and shall be calibrated with

the acoustic calibrator immediately before and after compliance tests.

Any change in the before and after calibration levels shall be less than

0.5 dB. After the output from the locomotive horn system has reached a

stable level, the A-weighted equivalent sound level (slow response) for

a 10-second duration (LAeq, 10s) shall be obtained either directly using

an integrating-averaging sound level meter, or recorded once per second

and calculated indirectly. The arithmetic-average of a series of at

least six such 10-second duration readings shall be used to determine

compliance. The standard deviation of the readings shall be less than

1.5 dB.

(10) Written reports of locomotive horn testing required by this

part shall be made and shall reflect horn type; the date, place, and

manner of testing; and sound level measurements. These reports, which

shall be signed by the person who performs the test, shall be retained

by the railroad, at a location of its choice, until a subsequent

locomotive horn test is completed and shall be made available, upon

request, to FRA as provided by 49 U.S.C. 20107.

(d) This section does not apply to locomotives of rapid transit

operations which are otherwise subject to this part.

[71 FR 47666, Aug. 17, 2006]


----------



## frequentflyer (Sep 23, 2009)

I have been on some trains when the engineer did not give the two short blasts of the horn which signals the train is about to move. Is that normal now. It used to be when at the station, as a pax you could tell when the train was about to depart due to the two blasts...........


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2009)

"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."

OT, people will buy vacation homes in N. GA next to a chicken house and complain that it stinks. Well, HELLO.

Get this. We live in a county with a tree ordinance (so that doesn't solve it) and about a mile (crow time) from the tracks. My backyard neighbor's house faces in that direction and mine faces in another direction. We both sleep in bedrooms that are on the "track side of the house". Between these 2 houses and the tracks are other houses, a US highway, a shopping center (tracks run behind it) and undulating topography. We can also see Stone Mountain (a monadnock) from our area, to say, there is a huge stone that can bounce sound. As the trees have been thinned between the neighborhood and the tracks and the shopping center built, the train does sound closer. He thinks it's so loud that he says he will never buy a house that close to the tracks. I think he hears the horn louder because he has a wider expanse of house exposed to the sound waves whereas it is only the end of my house exposed. I rarely hear the horn, just a little bit of the rumbling.

One more thing, although a good neighbor, he's nerdy.

Why the difference?


----------



## frj1983 (Sep 23, 2009)

volkris said:


> DET63 said:
> 
> 
> > 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?
> ...


Strangely enough Volkris,

Engineers are not blowing their horns unnecessarily! About 4 years ago there were a spate of train/car collisions on the BNSF main line between Aurora and Chicago. A Chicago News team went for a ride with a series of engineers and what they filmed was startling. At almost every intersection cars ran around the gates as well as people on foot to get across before the train came by...with some really, really close calls.

The whole video was extremely scary to me and reinforced the need for those horns to blow. The Engineers are blowing their horns because people are ignoring the rules. At one intersection (where the most accidents happened) cameras were placed and $500 fines were levied for those who chose to ignore the rules...amazing how the accident level dropped to almost zero. People weren't worried about their lives (or the lives of those in the vehicle with them), but when their pocketbook was threatened, wow, was there compliance.

And I honestly believe that most people get used to that sound...it becomes part of the background and I can say this because for 3 years I lived right next to a busy freight line and I do mean right next to it...50 feet away!


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2009)

volkris said:


> Who got there first doesn't really matter. The meaningful point is that the railroads are causing a disturbance that significantly impacts other people who are just trying to live peacefully in their own property.
> The fact that the people showed up after a railroad was operating actually means the railroad was able to interfere with others' properties for a long time for free. That represents a gift to the railroads; once others start enforcing their property rights it represents an end to a free ride, not some new charge.
> 
> If I buy an unoccupied plot of land to build a house and find that there has been a weekly party on the plot for years, it's within my rights to kick those kids out and start construction, right? That they were able to take advantage of someone else's property for years doesn't mean that their use of the land somehow takes precedence over the rights of the owner.
> ...



Actually, your logic might be flawed. Doesn't "Adverse possession" mean that even if you're using someone else's property for free and they don't object, after awhile, they no longer have the legal recourse of objecting to your use of it?

Are you a socialist?


----------



## Guest (Sep 23, 2009)

volkris said:


> I don't find it particularly troublesome to be in the corner of protecting peoples' property rights and saying that people shouldn't be bothered when in their own homes.
> The jets are a fine example: the people SHOULD be paid for the loss of value. As in the case of the trains, the significant noise from the jets interferes with the ability of the people to live peacefully in their own homes. The easements do precisely what I suggested: the noise maker purchasing the right to affect land they don't own. As for the source of the money, the US government should be paying because it's the US government's operations causing the disturbance... just as the railroads should be paying since its their operations disturbing people and property that the railroads don't own.
> 
> Now let's be clear: I'm not pushing for the rules that say trains have to sound a warning at intersections at all. If you guys want to drop that rule then fine; I can't really comment on that. However, as it stands now the Feds have asserted that the warnings are necessary for safe operation of the trains, so I'm speaking to making the warnings as targeted and unbothersome as possible. Surely that's not a disagreeable notion!
> ...


... and exactly WHERE do you propose the nation's fighter jets should be stationed? Where should infantry units (who detonate things) be located? You can't possibly be serious in implying that 2100 people were ignorant that living near a Naval AIR station

would be noisy. I grew up a NASA kid whose MSFC test stand rattled our china frequently. Only arrogance would have me consider asking NASA to "quit it". There are some things that are greater than our individual pursuits.

I suggest that the level of quietness and control over your environment that you wish in your life is not possible outside a monastic existence in a cave.


----------



## George Harris (Sep 23, 2009)

frj1983 said:


> And I honestly believe that most people get used to that sound...it becomes part of the background and I can say this because for 3 years I lived right next to a busy freight line and I do mean right next to it...50 feet away!


Very true!

Several years ago we had some friends that lived on a small road that paralleled the Frisco main line southeast of Memphis. There were grade crossings nearby and the trains were generally 100 car freights moving 50 mph plus. We were visiting, standing in their front yard, which put us about 100 feet from the track. She was holding their 6 month old baby, who was asleep in her arms. Freight comes through, laying on the horn, with lots of other appropriate freight car noise. Conversation obviously ceases until the train passes. But, the significant point: The baby did not even twitch. Kept right on sleeping. The trains were part of her normal background noise ever since she developed functional ears before she was born.

You can get used to it. If you can't, then don't move clsoe to a railroad track.

Another point: Just because they run one or two low speed trains a day now, does not mean that will be true forever. Changes in traffic pattern may result in more trains, faster trains, longer trains, or all things on the list. Saying they can't be allowed to do this makes as much sense as them telling you that you can't furniture in your house.


----------



## volkris (Sep 23, 2009)

Huh. Well, I guess with a spate of new people being involved I might as well repeat my position, since it's been so frequently misstated.

Nowhere am I suggesting that there should not be alerts at crossings, or that the jets not fly, or anything else of the sort. Instead, I simply hold the position that those making such noise should, first, work to minimize the noise they make, and second, compensate property owners upon whom the noise is inflicted and who find their property devalued as a result of the interference.

To me, a fundamental part of property rights is being free from, well, harassment inside one's own house. Whether it's coming from a guy with a bullhorn pointed at someone's living room window, or a garage band practicing at full volume across the street, or a party going on next door while a kid's parents are away, I find it to be a violation of rights when noise well above the level of the normal rumble of civilization pierces into your home without your permission. I don't think that perspective is that unreasonable.

Train horns are designed purposefully to be piercing and annoying--that's how they work!--so they certainly qualify as an annoyance above the background level. If a train operator has to intrude on peoples' peace in order to operate and cannot sufficiently minimize the impact of their noise, then the operator should work out a deal with the owners for permission to intrude.

The most important thing is not to just ignore property rights for the convenience of the train operator. As much as we all want to see rail succeed here, if we kick property rights to the curb for this cause, we probably won't be happy with the next cause that's deemed worthwhile enough to void the rights.

Anyway, like I said before, I think I said all I have to say on this matter. The discussion was just going in circles, so I thought it time to let it die. If anyone wants to continue discussing with me, feel free to send me private messages. Otherwise, I'm probably done.


----------



## RRrich (Sep 23, 2009)

volkris said:


> I simply hold the position that those making such noise should, first, work to minimize the noise they make, and second, compensate property owners upon whom the noise is inflicted and who find their property devalued as a result of the interference.


I think this is a key point - the devaluation of the property.

About 55 years ago my parents bought a house by a RR line - they knew it was by the RR - thats why the street ended there. If the presence of the RR *devalued* the property, I am sure such devaluation, if any, was reflected in the purchase price that my folks paid.

Does the RR owe my folks anything if they blow their whistle? Nah, any such inconvenience to my folks was covered by the "reduced" price that my folks paid.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Sep 23, 2009)

frequentflyer said:


> I have been on some trains when the engineer did not give the two short blasts of the horn which signals the train is about to move. Is that normal now. It used to be when at the station, as a pax you could tell when the train was about to depart due to the two blasts...........


The Railroad rule demanding two short on horn before movement has a amendment stating except at passenger stations, for some railroads.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Sep 23, 2009)

so volkris in your mind the railroad should pay me for blowing the horn if im near the tracks cause its a inconvenience for me. well then i should sue all the cars that come down my street and all the motorcycles that come down without a muffler sense its loud and its a inconvenience cause i can't hear the TV. gee im sure it will stand up in court. yes your honer im suing the RR for blowing there horn when going past my house cause its annoying even though there is a road crossing there.


----------



## frequentflyer (Sep 28, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> frequentflyer said:
> 
> 
> > I have been on some trains when the engineer did not give the two short blasts of the horn which signals the train is about to move. Is that normal now. It used to be when at the station, as a pax you could tell when the train was about to depart due to the two blasts...........
> ...


Thanks Dutch...........So on certain railroads (BNSF?) its not required anymore...........Especially they do not do it in the NEC.


----------



## MattW (Sep 28, 2009)

Property rights...what about the railroad's right to keep people off THEIR property by any means neccessary? Why not just close all grade crossings, bridges, and underpasses to railroads never have to blow their horns. You can't even be sure at over/underpasses because someone might just be hanging off.


----------

