My town of Eugene Oregon is on a UP main line and an Amtrak Coast Starlight route. We have about 5 grade crossings in the urban and partly residential areas of town and there is considerable displeasure with the high volume horn blowing at each crossing. All trains seem to move at no more than 25 MPH. The city is working on finding funding, some $1 million a grade crossing, to create a quiet zone in which horn blowing is not done because double crossing gates are installed at a price of about $1 million each. My question why is it necessary to have such excessively loud horns when these trains are moving quite slowly and there are existing single gates and bells and flashing red lights as warnings. Has the FRA ever considered having a different horn volume for slow moving trains which would save considerable taxpayer funding. Rural areas with 50-60+ MPH trains would be a different situation. After all not every big rig driving down a city street on a green light blows its air horn as a warning.
Itâs loud to wake up drivers that have their heads shoved up where the sun doesnât shine.
The FRA put a great deal of work into determining the basis for safe âquiet zoneâ crossings, and that is where the âsealed corridorâ requirements (quad gates, medians, etc.) come from. Note that Florida established their own horn-ban rules and accidents there were proven to increase:
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/1327/nw_update.pdf
So do not look for waivers beyond the grandfathering of pre-existing agreements.
By law, the quietest a horn can be blown at a crossing is 96dB, although I have seen references to 92. The P42 passenger locomotives (first built in 1992, before the FRA horn rules were changed) had a âlowâ horn setting (reached by depressing the horn button to a detented âhalfwayâ position) but the horn sequencer did not have that option.
Some areas in Canada (for example some services of AMT in Montreal) feature a quiet option. They implemented this in a curious way on some cab cars: there are TWO complete five-chime horns, one for standard blow, and one for quiet, so there can be no âaccidentalâ blowing the wrong one.
There has also been considerable research into âwaysideâ horns, which are built and positioned to be loud only in the direction from which obvious traffic would be stopped or approaching. I have not read anything claiming that wayside horns alone can replace sealed-crossing barriers, or that they would be much if any less annoying when they blow at 2am. The locomotive engineer still retains the authority to blow (at full 116dB) any time there is a perceived âsafetyâ issue developing.
If and/or when you get a Quiet Zone established - look for the body count to go up.
If people donât hear horns during their daily routines they feature the railroad no longer exists and those red flashing lights and gate are for someone else, not them.
Our townâs four crossings in the quiet zone make it impossible to drive around the gates. There are high medians and curbs blocking any path around.
If the gates mean nothing to them, do you really think they give a damn about the horn?
Doesnât deter them from breaking the gates or finding themselves âstuckâ inside them. There was some discussion years ago about the need for âactiveâ crossing barriers â the sort of thing that was quietly implemented so many places in Washington after 2001. About a 10â stretch of pavement is put on a counterbalanced hinge so that a sort of ha-ha wall rises up into traffic in a second or so. Or hydraulic bollards rise up out of concealed silos. You can imagine the fun when these deploy under standing traffic, or jam open without warning⌠or have to be maintained in flooding conditions or with dirt and gravel getting in the works.
I do not understand why people want to âbeat the trainâ at a crossing?
Even at Corrour (Scotland) common sense says âLook Both Waysâ when crossing the tracks.
David
David, the older I get I find there are a lot things people do that defy understanding. 
Medians donât stop those bent on beating the train. Iâve seen drivers go in the wrong lanes to get past the gates on the normal lanes.
We have one crossing that was allowed to be part of the quiet zone without having medians or 4 quadrant gates installed. Itâs also the main street through town on the north end of the business district. It hasnât been a problem area for those trying to beat a train.
Jeff
Thanks. Good background information but does not open the possibility of a safe but less expensive solution to high decibel horn blowing in urban/residential areas.
There is no âsafe but less expensiveâ solution that will not be exploited by plaintiffâs bar.
There is a reason automatic train control implementation was deprecated in 1928, in favor of grade-crossing improvements â many of which involved the only workable solution, strict grade separation with no way for road vehicles to fall on or reach the loading-gage clearance. That was the era into which Holley Rudd introduced the iconic
The corollary for pedestrian âtrespassersâ is the English model: strict fencing and very effective and quick enforcement with the necessary âteethâ. Legislation to outlaw headphones or earbuds while trespassing will get you about as far as trying to outlaw them while driving.
Cost of a four-gate sealed-corridor crossing, and perhaps maintenance, will likely be less. And make no mistake: itâs almost always the job of the community to pony up for the âimprovementsâ where the railroad, be it ever so deep-pocketed, was there first. And the job of the community to police its members not to trespass or cross improperly or unsafely.
Asking railfans here isnât going to get you anywhere.
I suggest starting with your local elected representatives, since it will require changes in current federal regulations.
Local elected representatives wonât do much. Your Federal representatives are the ones to contact (or better, to build a relationship with and then contact). You will get nowhere trying to contact congressmen in the appropriate committees if you are not registered to vote in their districts, so you have to get it handled âinternallyâ.
The only thing local and state agencies can do is build to CFR 49 requirements, or apply for a waiver â and the policy on waivers is very strictly defined.
Thatâs why I said âstartingâ. If nothing else, the people that work for them can point you in the right directions.
I donât think thereâs going to be any real change in legislation, either, but if he wants to try?
Yeah, the situation as he described it seemed to be that the locals were on board with the idea of quiet, but not with the $1M a pop or equivalent to make if Federally safety-compliant. I doubt any further working with locals will get anything new accomplished.
There have been several eras where locals tried various kinds of âsafetyâ regulation or revenue extraction on railroads connected to the general system of transportation, and quite a bit of current CFR 49 has been concerned with developing and maintaining Federal practice that eliminates expedient local or State legislation or requirement. Most little towns would just love to ban whistling at night, but would not love when people are hurt or die as a result.
Letâs be real - they probably still would be for banning whistling at night.
By making everything the engineerâs fault. Be prepared to have them demand your driverâs license! 
Best I can do is my Sheetz card.
Local city official salivate at another expensive project to build and manage if they can find the taxpayer funding in some way.
As to contacting federal officials, believe me I have, over a year ago. Something to this effect. But no response, maybe because Iâm of the opposite partyâŚ
Dear Senator Merkley,
Eugene is about to launch into creating a quiet zone in its downtown area by installing railroad grade crossing double gates that will allow trains to pass without sounding their extremely loud horns. Each grade crossing of the five contemplated, will cost $1 million with ongoing maintenance costs. While there is a quality-of-life advantage in eliminating these bothersome horns I feel that what should really happen is the Federal Railway Administration should relook at the need to sound such high-volume horns in areas urban areas where the trains are proceeding at only about 20-25 MPH. There needs to be a second standard of horn use for such locations. We already have flashing lights and bells at all grade crossings in town. My investigation has also determined that it is possible to fit on grade directional horns that are far lower in volume and less disturbing and far less costly, but still comply with current FRA regulations but for some reason this has been dismissed by Eugene planners.
*Because this a likely a concern for communities all across the nation I would urge you to prevail in a regulation change that reduces the volume of horn sounding in areas with much slower moving trains than are required for high speed out of town rural areas. We should be able to find a way to save $5 million locally if such a rule change could be implemented. *
Please advise with your response.