Am informed that a certain southern California town recently had a demonstration of a new track crossing horn, patented by Railroad Controls Limited (RCL). RR cognoscente such as you all will recognize the same old story, to wit: town residents, who bought (and/or built) near the tracks that have been there forever, now getting an ear to their complaints.
Nonetheless, said town is responding, at $100K per crossing if approved. It is said that locomotive horns must be 96-110 db. RCL has equipment, already installed in Pomona CA and Riverside CA, which sounds at 92 db, but directionally localized to within a few hundred feet of the crossing. It was noted that one block away the db level dropped to 78 db.
I have not read it all yet, but apparently the purpose of wayside horns is to reduce the audible impact of locomotive horns on the community. The therory is that locomotive horns begin sounding 1/4 mile away, so they impact a much larger overall zone than a horn right at the crossing.
So wayside horns are an alternative to quiet zones.
Thanks for the clarification, Bucyrus. And just what is so problematic about the stationary horn? After all, the purpose of a warning horn is to warn bystanders and vehicles at a grade crossing. Why would that be less effective than an engineer blowing the horn 1/4 mile or more away?
Quiet Zones: 1. There are many metro areas where the increase in traffic and the use of horns is dramatic. 2. So what if the rails were there first? If a safe crossing can be developed, why not have the railroad be a “good neighbor?” Most communities have noise ordinances. Economic development certainly is as much a priority as continuing to allow train drivers blowing horns at three a.m.