Why no new commuter rail regulations without bells at stations?

[cirdan]

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

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

 

[leemell]

Only 17 states of 51 require auto safety inspections,

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

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

 

[beautifulplanet]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

 

[jis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[beautifulplanet]

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

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

Off topic:

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

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

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

Back on topic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[beautifulplanet]

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

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

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