Knowing those rural crossings on the Strasburg, you could probably just put on longer gate arms to cover both lanes, but also remember the railroad doesn't get to determine the crossing protection hardware - that's the state DOT. If you remember classic operating practices, the "Carpenters" crossing was always where the whistle was blown for the echo, in actuality it was a very bad visibility situation before the gates were put in and was a good place to just...stop.

Around here, the Amish train their horses not to shy in some rather unbelievable situations for the road buggies. But the farm horses and mules pulling field equipment are a different matter entirely. I think that may have a lot to do with trying to do the right thing here for your neighbors, even if it hangs you on the legal hooks no matter what you do. Strasburg is a rather unique situation. And, most of their public crossings (and possibly all) have gates already.

We've looked at quiet zone applications in a number of locations and even as 'consulting engineers', the ones we've looked at appeared (at least to us) to be so hazardous without a whistle warning that we didn't even want the job to convert them to quiet zone. Every crossing is different, and so is the traffic, intersection, and neighborhood situation around them. Boston has a ton of grandfathered quiet zones out on MBTA without quad gates and they've been that way for years; but the locals KNOW that the trains are quick and the gates mean business and they just don't mess with it. Put the same hardware and setup in another situation and you'd have a fatality. If you remember, some of the most catastrophic grade crossing collisions have happened in quiet zones (Midland, TX) despite the process.

If you remember the history, the new quiet zone rule abolished previous grandfathered quiet zones, and that was contested in federal court and the railroads lost. So there are some older crossings out there like MBTA in quiet zones without any special quad gates or lanes or much of anything. That doesn't apply to new applications. The biggest thing is funding... the addition of a quiet zone crossing protection is basically on the back of the municipality - not the railroad, and not the state DOT, and Sec. 130 doesn't cover it unless it's already a quiet zone to begin with. It can get amazingly expensive. Flagstaff, AZ worked for years on their two downtown crossings (ATSF/BNSF) and it was a long, protracted process and had multiple redesigns. Pedestrians were more of a problem than the vehicles there and still are. Google "Flagstaff quiet zone" and you'll see the evolution of a five-year project from 2005-2010.

Did anyone bother to read the article?

They aren't looking to make quiet zones or to never blow for crossings.

All they want to do is not blow only when a horse and buggy are at the crossing. Strasburg is arguing that blowing the whistle while horses are near the track could lead to more danger of the horses get spooked.

They just want to make a rule saying something like, "Bells and whistles are to be sounded at all crossings, EXCEPT when a horse and buggy are near the crossing. If a horse and buggy are near the crossing, the whistle and bell may be sounded at the engineer's discretion."

According to the article, many of the crews already do this. What Strasburg wants is permission from the FRA to change the rule so they won't get reported to the FRA when people watch YouTube videos (yes, people do that).

And the FRA, PaDOT, whoever, will ask the question, "Who bears the liability when the out-of-state tourist approaching the crossing from the other direction gets hit because he didn't hear the train? We need all this other stuff to protect them from their own stupidity."

St Louis area has plenty of "no horn" zones that are protected by normal crossing gates.
I would take no exception with Strasburg's request as long as the crossing is protected.

.

As others have suggested... this is not your typical NIMY we don't like noise...

As someone who has worked with horses, pulling railroad cars, I can say with some authority that horses can get scared, and when scared, will run... A medium draft horse is a 2,000 lb animal... who can do damage...

Not using horns when near horses, or curtailing use if you note that the horse is nervous (they "dance" when nervous, which is obvious... also as a member of your community the crew likely know if a farm team is skiddish) is good safe practice. Safer than sounding a horn...

The FRA has rules... and their rules require their inspectors to enforce their rules... an exemption is a way of changing the rules to adjust to local conditions...

Randy

Not to mention the fact that SRR runs around 15-20 mph tops; the vegetation is kept clear around the crossings so engine crew and horse-drawn vehicle can see each other, and most if not all crossings are gated.

This isn't the NEC, gang.

Please read the article that's referenced in one of the posts. According to the article, Strasburg will be requesting a "waiver" of the FRA horn/whistle rule (49 CFR Part 222) as it applies to this crossing. A "waiver" makes the underlying rule inapplicable, as long as the conditions of the waiver are met. If FRA grants the waiver, there would be no requirement to meet normal "quiet zone" standards.

With respect to one of the other posts mentioning municipal ordinances prohibiting whistling, local laws like this are preempted by the FRA horn/whistle rule.

All of the Strasburg public crossings along the normally operated track are gated. The only public crossing which is not gated is that crossing of the main highway at the west end of the yard, which is used for switching moves only and would automatically be flagged anyway. There are 3 or 4 private farm crossings where farmers can move their equipment from one side of the tracks to the other during normal farming operations. The intent of the waiver appears to relieve the train crew of the responsibility of sounding whistle and bell at all of these crossings, but allow them to use "common sense" as to when or when not to sound whistle and bell for the protection of train, animals and humans.

It is a sad commentary on our world, when a special waiver is required simply to use "common sense".

There are apparently a number of misinformed individuals when it comes to who certifies engineers / conductors and who is liable for their actions. That aside, rather than arguing about it. All the answers are in the CFR.

As far as addressing the immediate issue at hand (not spooking the horses,) if the railroad is actually that concerned, the following is copied directly from the latest edition of the 49CFR.

§222.33 Can locomotive horns be silenced at an individual public highway-rail grade crossing which is not within a quiet zone?

(a) A railroad operating over an individual public highway-rail crossing may, at its discretion, cease the sounding of the locomotive horn if the locomotive speed is 15 miles per hour or less and train crew members, or appropriately equipped flaggers, as defined in 49 CFR 234.5, flag the crossing to provide warning of approaching trains to motorists.

"Today, the engineer is licensed by the Federal government"

No. 49CFR Part 240 dictates the requirements for licensing, but the licenses are issued by the individual railroad.

I got to experience the reasons for all this last evening. I was running 475 back from Leaman Place with the train at Carpenter's Crossing. The geography makes this a very blind crossing for traffic coming from the north. The crossing is gated and the gates were down. I was busy wailing away on 475's N&W hooter as we crossed the road. On the north side was an Amish gent in his buggy. He was a distance back from the crossing, so I did not see him until I crossed the road. Even at the distance he was back from the crossing, he had all he could handle to keep his animal from bolting.

I felt bad about it, but I didn't see him until I was in the middle of the road. I could only imagine what would have happened had he been less experienced with the animal, and closer to the gates. This is a problem.

The FRA was here the other day. I assume they were looking into the exemption.