Noise Pollution in Countryside

96smitro · Post by **96smitro** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:06 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4662954.stm

Appartantly the largest noise pollutant within the countryside is the train horn!

Questions -
Are you personally affected by such horns?
With Health and Safety paramount now at level crossings for pedestrians, is there any alternatives?

Opinions please!

JSReeves86 · Post by **JSReeves86** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:33 pm

Another example of how the media are anti anything to do with railways.
so whats next.

If horns/Whistles are too loud lets do what the public want and remove them and not give any audiable form of approach. And when the first person dies on the railways because they could not tell there was a train approaching (even if there are warning lights but lets not get into that) lets see the public complain then.

Then when the railways close down because they are to dangerous we will see everyone get into cars and then bring on enviromental people kicking up a fuss.

And another thing if you dont like railways and horns etc DONT MOVE NEXT TO A RAILWAY, In most cases the railway was there a long time before the house and in a lot of cases the house would not be there if it where not for the railway.
Sorry had to get that off my chest.
JR

arabiandisco · Post by **arabiandisco** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:56 pm

I heard some nimby whining about it on radio 5 today. Apparently the "easy solution" is to turn the volume down. Now I don't know if the current standards are over the top in terms of horn volume, but loud horns are what's required to meet safety standards as they stand.

If you live next to a railway, don't complain when some nasty company wants to run trains along it.

But, are horns really required at level crossings? I think the klaxon from the crossing itself should be sufficient aural warning - if someone's going to ignore that, then the train's horn should be used. If the line is clear and the crossing is in working order (I believe there are ways of informing the driver of this), a blast on the horn doesn't really improve safety. When approaching a platform through which the train will run non-stop, I believe the horn should be used, and similarly at tunnels where the exit cannot clearly be seen a long way up the line.

allypally · Post by **allypally** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:06 pm

Live next to the railway, and the main grumble is not the train horns, but the brakes on the freight trains when they get signal checked!

Keelar001 · Post by **Keelar001** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:07 pm

Right - I have an opinion here because (a) I drive these things for a living and (b) I was brought up in a railway proerty which stood four feet from the running rail.

Train horns have got louder; the dear HSE (or Nazi Party - I can never remember) have decreed that train horns should be audible from at least half a mile away at any given point. They have overlooked, owing to incompetence, inexperience or pure laziness (again, draw your own conclusions) that fact that modern units and locomotives now drive around lit up like Blackpool Illuminations. The thinking is much to be applauded and quite logical - louder horns mean more warning time. After all not all of us have perfect hearing, and therefore there will be fewer accidents on crossings and involving P-Way workers.

But now the problems - the horns are louder by an order of magnitude and very few modern units (not sure about locomotives) have Loud and Soft settings that can be used by the drivers. Desiros, for example, have a variable volume setting which is determined by speed. Under 15mph, the horn is soft in order to prevent hearing damage to shunters and fitters for exmaple, whilst at mainline speeds you get the lot. And if driver wince when they use the horns, you can imagine what residents think. And before anyone goes for the "if you don't like it, then move" rant - many people have lived alongside the railway and never complained, it's only when the newer stock with louder warning horns were introduced that the complaints started.

The new stock does not need louder horns; there are ways and means to make trains louder without simply using the warning horn. Removal of the side-skirts on modern units make them louder, for exmaple. Not as pretty, but it's one sacrifice that ifs worth making. I believe several companies were examining 'broadband' warning horns, which use acoustic technology to "project" the warning horn sound directly ahead of the train, rather than simply relying on pure volume.

That the louder horns are a nuisance is in no doubt, but what are the railways to do? If we use them less and there is an accident, then the driver is hung out to dry for not sounding the horn. Apparently people want all the safety possible on the railway just so long as they aren't inconvenienced by it. Common sense, either from the press, the public, the railways and those who enforce legislation is apparently dead....

I shall read thoughts on this with great interest.

JSReeves86 · Post by **JSReeves86** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:07 pm

As with tunnels im told by someone who drives freight on the mainline that there is no requirement to sound the horn for the tunnes as personel are no long allowed in whilst trains are running.
And i think the horn on crossings should remain as is more walkers that its for becasue as has been demeonstrated they will run across even if a siren is going on the crossing. And yes i do know cars ignor klacxons, lights and horns all to often.

mattvince · Post by **mattvince** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:09 pm

The new HMRI requirements for train horns are louder than the previous. However - it is a safety system, just like TPWS - and is therefore essential to the safe operation of the railway. And the further it can be heard, the earlier people on the line have of moving to a safe location.

And of course Network Rail will install Whistle Boards at almost every location possible - after all, the litigation culture today almost demands it. There are options regarding lights, barriers and the like - how many of those are obeyed? There is a sense of 'safety at any cost' with public attitudes to railways - how does this stack up with the story? Should all foot and level crossings be replaced - and should, therefore, the Local Authority pay for the replacement of the crossing?

The BBC News story suggests that some propose US-style horns. If it means K5LAs - bring it on!

davidaward · Post by **davidaward** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:11 pm

The horns have to be loud to maybe get into the head of your avergae person that may be crossing a line.

I thin its just plain stupid, a railway is there. There are noises associated with it. If you don't like it move. I'm sure next to the M6 motorway, any main road or under a flight path is far quieter and less disturbing

.................well the media won't do their best to condemn it anyway.

Keelar001 · Post by **Keelar001** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:15 pm

http://www.noiseabatementsociety.com/tc ... ix%203.doc

I would suggest that you all give this a look. Certainly the information on Group Standards regarding warning horn volume make interesting reading.

Any arguments suggesting that the general public are, at least in part, idiots seems a fair one - although that has worsened in the light of Litigation Culture where people are no longer seen as responsible for their own actions and there is always someone else to blame. Sadly, this is what happens when you allow solicitors to chase ambulances for a living.

Thrashin · Post by **Thrashin** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:17 pm

We can hear the train horns and we are about 10 mins walk from the station but they are far from intrusive. However, my computer is next to the window, and if it's open when the DRS trains come through you can hear the engines very clearly. This, of course, doesn't bother me in the slightest, but a lot of people wouldn't like it.

Similarly, I have seen a lot of my teachers forced to stop talking because they are being drowned out by a passing 20 or 37. (My school is feet from the line).

I live on a long road, at the bottom of which is an industrial estate. Immediately outside our door is a speed hump; when the lorries (and coaches from the company nearby) hit that, the whole house shakes. The CD rack in my room probably moves about a centimetre a week with the vibration. And if they build the proposed bridge over the estuary, we will get all southbound traffic from anywhere south of Whitehaven pounding past. I find that more annoying than the railway.

EDIT: Ooh, just found the Noise Abatement Society link.

24 hour repetitive blarring

A bit of an exaggeration?

samuelbennett · Post by **samuelbennett** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:28 pm

can i add something virgin 57/3s engine noise is lounder than horns I was at borders in watford which is a good quarter of mile away and the volume was like I was 10 feet away I pefered a Lound horn to make me turn round to see where the train is and why has no one ask the airplanes to have active sound damping far more nosie polluting than a train passing by

nwallace · Post by **nwallace** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:03 pm

Live about 20m from the line between Leuchars and Dundee, simple fact is i dont' notice train horns and trai engines anymore because im so used to them.

Same with the smell of chickens.

Its the people who moved into the village recently that have been complaining about things.

ianmacmillan · Post by **ianmacmillan** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:39 am

The simple solution is not to sound the horn when there is a clear view and nobody is about.
That is what happened in the old days.
Nowadays it's recorded on the Qtron and the driver gets into trouble.

It is realy time the public took responsabilty for their own actions.
You don't get big artics sounding the horn at a road crossing. If someone walks in front of it, it's their own fault.

Why should railways be any different?

AlistairW · Post by **AlistairW** » Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:51 am

Peter Ainsworth, MP for East Surrey, has proposed a motion in Parliament, backed by 70 MPs, which calls for train companies to install the broadband horns used in the US, at a cost of Â£700 each, or revert to the old horns.

A snip! I say introduce them instantly on every train in the UK. Its only Â£1,400 per train (both ends need doing

). Oh but that will cost money, so were going to put the ticket prices up by Â£1 each... no prizes for guessing what happens after a fare increase.

Fancy people actually looking into it to see if it causes long term hearing damage? Just another attempt to sue in my opinion. I'm sure the sound is anoying, and louder but I think its the fact that people are listening for it rather than ignoring it. After a while the human body adapts to sleep though pretty much annything, people live in the centre of manhattan, your telling me thats quieter than a train horn once in a while?

Elojikal · Post by **Elojikal** » Thu Feb 02, 2006 3:23 pm

Just because the media are anti-railway you're really no better than them taking a defensive stance against anything they write which you perceive to be negative...

The point is that the horns on new trains really are too loud. The first time I ever heard one of the new horns on a train coming through the tunnel at London Road station I jumped about six feet in the air. I have to sympathise with the people who live near the railway lines over this (whereas normally I adopt a "you chose to live there" line.) The new horns have been recorded at a decibel level of up to[/i[ 140 - twice the level of the old horns and more than the human ear can actually tolerate. They are as loud if not louder than most klaxons and sirens. Now if you imagine that air raid sirens in the second world war had to wake people up to warn them of any trouble can you imagine how much peace people living near the railway get if the trains are blasting them late at night or early in the morning?

As for the argument about them being "needed" the irony of this situation is that the new horns are so loud that protests by people who live near the railways has led to a substantial decrease in them actually being used at all which surely defeats the object of the purpose?

In a nutshell they really are too loud.