Sounding the horn for crossings?

[Aviator88]

Yes, you can often err on the safe side and go beyond what the rules require.

Interesting, thanks!

I didn't know that - what do they look like; is it just W2?

It's two whistle boards, one on top of the other - https://www.railsigns.uk/sect15page1.html

Fig 15.11

 

[Jobi-wan]

The thing that gets me is this "low tone only" thing they do these days. It's completely wrong, because it makes it not sound like a train. The two-tone train hooter is a highly distinctive sound, but it needs both the tones to be so. With only one tone it sounds more like a road vehicle somewhere out of sight. And it's neither less loud nor of significantly less duration than hooting both tones, so the excuse about not disturbing people doesn't wash.

In any case, if they really did care about not disturbing people they would get rid of those appalling shrieking sirens they install at the level crossing itself. They are loud even from within the train, they are much worse from outside, and they go on and on making that terrible noise for a very long time. And there is invariably at least one house right next to the crossing, inhabited by gibbering wrecks who have been driven insane by the racket until they ended up shoving knitting needles into their ears as the only way to get a bit of relief. It always amazes me that they keep on working, and people haven't squirted builders' expanding polyurethane foam into the things to shut them up.

I always do both tones, regardless of what the rulebook says. It also says the driver may use the horn when they deem necessary. I'd deem it necessary to use high/low at whistle boards!

 

[driverd]

I always do both tones, regardless of what the rulebook says. It also says the driver may use the horn when they deem necessary. I'd deem it necessary to use high/low at whistle boards!

It's an interesting debate - I personally sit in the one tone camp and as per the rule book. I can appreciate the reasons for using two tones, however.

I suppose the important question is really one of statistics - has there been any uptick in crossing related incidents since the rule change in 2007? I would expect not as the RAIB/ORR/RSSB are usually pretty hot on this sort of thing, and being mildly irritating to neighbours wouldn't usually be a reason to deter safety if there's good reason for it (which leads me to the assumption that one tone, does not infact, make any significant difference to the probability of being hit by a train).

Does anyone have any statistics or evidence to back up either way?

 

[Deepgreen]

It's an interesting debate - I personally sit in the one tone camp and as per the rule book. I can appreciate the reasons for using two tones, however.

I suppose the important question is really one of statistics - has there been any uptick in crossing related incidents since the rule change in 2007? I would expect not as the RAIB/ORR/RSSB are usually pretty hot on this sort of thing, and being mildly irritating to neighbours wouldn't usually be a reason to deter safety if there's good reason for it (which leads me to the assumption that one tone, does not infact, make any significant difference to the probability of being hit by a train).

Does anyone have any statistics or evidence to back up either way?

By "uptick" do you mean increase? I imagine it is virtually impossible to prove the effectiveness of horn warnings because the outcome of investigated incidents is usually a fatality, or the horn use was irrelevant. I imagine there are no hard facts either way, but the theory is that two tones are better, as mentioned, because they at least differentiate between road and rail. If it is concluded that the public at crossings don't know the difference then perhaps all two tones will go (saving the cost of half a horn assembly), because rail (track) workers will be more alert anyway.

Who knows? I, though, certainly don't find two tones any more disturbing than a single tone, and I really doubt that anyone truly does - in fact, subconsciously I bet people associate two tones with a necessary and normal part of rail operation, whereas a single tone could be a road vehicle in a perilous situation or being driven anti-socially - either of which is more sub-consciously concerning (and therefore disturbing) than something run-of-the-mill.

 

[Annetts key]

From my point of view, it very much depends on where you are. If the crossing is a non-vehicle type or an occupation/accommodation crossing (private for access to land) in the middle of the countryside far away from any road where a (road) lorry or truck is likely to be, a single tone from a train is enough.

However, in urban areas or near main roads, a train sounding a two tone horn is extremely useful, as it removes all doubt that it’s a train. Otherwise, you are thinking, was that a (road) lorry or truck (which I can ignore) or is it actually a train?

Experienced railway staff or experienced crossing users should already have allowed plenty of time to get clear or wait before crossing. However, what about inexperienced members of the public?

 

[Future]

If it is concluded that the public at crossings don't know the difference then perhaps all two tones will go (saving the cost of half a horn assembly), because rail (track) workers will be more alert anyway.

Who knows? I, though, certainly don't find two tones any more disturbing than a single tone, and I really doubt that anyone truly does - in fact, subconsciously I bet people associate two tones with a necessary and normal part of rail operation, whereas a single tone could be a road vehicle in a perilous situation or being driven anti-socially - either of which is more sub-consciously concerning (and therefore disturbing) than something run-of-the-mill.

Removing one of the tones would be pointless, the rulebook still specifies use of different tones for different scenarios

 

[driverd]

By "uptick" do you mean increase? I imagine it is virtually impossible to prove the effectiveness of horn warnings because the outcome of investigated incidents is usually a fatality, or the horn use was irrelevant.

Increase in incidents yes. I imagine for every crossing fatality, there must be hundreds of near misses and I would be inclined to assume the appropriate regulatory bodies must of done their homework prior to the rule book change.

I could be wrong though - that's why I thought it'd be interesting if anyone had access to or links for any research conducted into the matter.

As I say, I can see the merit in the two tone use at crossings, I appreciate the arguments both ways.

A slightly different take on single tone use - a single tone may increase awareness as the user may be unsure if it was, infact, a road or rail vehicle - thus being more diligent about their surroundings overall? Just a thought.

 

[12LDA28C]

I was on a train a few days back which passed a signal at danger at Betchworth (with permission) - no horn, despite it being at a (fully-gated) level crossing, too.

Indeed, the requirement to sound the horn when passing a signal at danger was removed some years ago although the instruction still remains on the LU. Surely not sounding the horn is less safe than sounding it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2023 ==

I suppose the important question is really one of statistics - has there been any uptick in crossing related incidents since the rule change in 2007? I would expect not as the RAIB/ORR/RSSB are usually pretty hot on this sort of thing, and being mildly irritating to neighbours wouldn't usually be a reason to deter safety if there's good reason for it (which leads me to the assumption that one tone, does not infact, make any significant difference to the probability of being hit by a train).

Does anyone have any statistics or evidence to back up either way?

Then why did ASLEF issue an instruction to drivers to keep using both tones of the horn?

 

[800301]

While the rule book says one thing, you will still find many drivers giving both tones at crossings, I’ve never heard of a manager being unhappy at this as ultimately I don’t believe you can be in the wrong for doing more than required in this situation, if you ask a child what sound a train makes, I’m sure the majority would say Low, High or High, Low or in the case of a FLIRT, strangled duck

 

[12LDA28C]

People complaining about trains sounding their horns at whistle boards... really?

 

[driverd]

Then why did ASLEF issue an instruction to drivers to keep using both tones of the horn?

That's a very good question - it's somewhat what I'm getting at here - is this just people thinking that two tones sound like a train while everyone ignores one tone, or does anyone have evidence to back up either way?

ASLEF are not the rule book or RSSB - they can't issue instructions formally or ones that carry any weight. Frankly, I always took issue with them trying to issue this as an instruction because its not the right way to do it. There are clear channels to raise safety concerns (CIRAS etc), and I strongly suspect ASLEF will have a focus group within the RSSB to highlight exactly this type of issue - and clearly ASLEF have raised their concerns at some level thus far. It's for this reason I would expect there to be some evidence to support the 2007 rule book change and it would be interesting to see it.

 

[AdamWW]

That's a very good question - it's somewhat what I'm getting at here - is this just people thinking that two tones sound like a train while everyone ignores one tone, or does anyone have evidence to back up either way?

Either way, I find it very odd the the change was made without any apparent attempt to inform level crossing users.

Whether a two tone horn is necessary or not to distinguish trains from other vehicles, given that people using level crossing will have been used to two tone horns it seems rather odd not to warn people to expect something different.

I also don't understand why a low tone is supposed to be less intrusive than a two-tone horn, other perhaps than the hope that people won't realise they are hearing trains so won't complain to the railway?

I think even with just a low tone the sound of a train horn is fairly distinctive, but I'm never as sure I'm hearing a train as when I hear two tones.

 

[Deepgreen]

People complaining about trains sounding their horns at whistle boards... really?

Not only that but the railway caving in to the complaint (perhaps compelled to by ignorant courts)!

 

[zwk500]

Not only that but the railway caving in to the complaint (perhaps compelled to by ignorant courts)!

It's not just the railway. People have managed to get existing noises silenced ranging from cinemas and nightclubs to Church bells because we live in fear of the NIMBY

 

[Deepgreen]

It's not just the railway. People have managed to get existing noises silenced ranging from cinemas and nightclubs to Church bells because we live in fear of the NIMBY

To be fair I think there's a big difference between a railway safety issue and a nightclub. Many church bells these days are recordings, so they can just be turned down, I suppose!

 

[Stigy]

On the subject of using two tones; I use a single tone for whistle boards as per the rule book instruction. Really because it kind of makes sense to me. To members of the public seen on crossings, two tones are mandatory, so there’s a clear distinction between the use of one of both tones. Same as for track workers etc. the whole “one tone sounding like a road vehicle” doesn’t really wash with me, because no matter the sound, most people will hear a train horn and look up, no matter what it might be. I mean, it’s quite loud and distinctive after all.

 

[12LDA28C]

That's a very good question - it's somewhat what I'm getting at here - is this just people thinking that two tones sound like a train while everyone ignores one tone, or does anyone have evidence to back up either way?

ASLEF are not the rule book or RSSB - they can't issue instructions formally or ones that carry any weight. Frankly, I always took issue with them trying to issue this as an instruction because its not the right way to do it. There are clear channels to raise safety concerns (CIRAS etc), and I strongly suspect ASLEF will have a focus group within the RSSB to highlight exactly this type of issue - and clearly ASLEF have raised their concerns at some level thus far. It's for this reason I would expect there to be some evidence to support the 2007 rule book change and it would be interesting to see it.

Maybe ASLEF had a load of drivers get in touch with them after the Rule Book change, saying that in their opinion using the single tone is less safe? I appreciate contacting your union is not an appropriate or recognised means of raising a safety concern, but the Union clearly agreed with those concerned members, if that is what happened. I think it's more likely that the rule was changed to try and appease the growing number of residents who move near to a railway line and then complain about hearing noise from passing trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2023 ==

On the subject of using two tones; I use a single tone for whistle boards as per the rule book instruction. Really because it kind of makes sense to me. To members of the public seen on crossings, two tones are mandatory, so there’s a clear distinction between the use of one of both tones. Same as for track workers etc. the whole “one tone sounding like a road vehicle” doesn’t really wash with me, because no matter the sound, most people will hear a train horn and look up, no matter what it might be. I mean, it’s quite loud and distinctive after all.

I not sure I really understand your argument there, unless you've only been driving since after the Rule book change in which case you probably wouldn't have been aware of the previous instruction. ASLEF gave a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why they wanted their members to continue using both tones of the horn which put safety as their top priority which seems fair enough to me.

 

[Stigy]

Maybe ASLEF had a load of drivers get in touch with them after the Rule Book change, saying that in their opinion using the single tone is less safe? I appreciate contacting your union is not an appropriate or recognised means of raising a safety concern, but the Union clearly agreed with those concerned members, if that is what happened. I think it's more likely that the rule was changed to try and appease the growing number of residents who move near to a railway line and then complain about hearing noise from passing trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jun 2023 ==



I not sure I really understand your argument there, unless you've only been driving since after the Rule book change in which case you probably wouldn't have been aware of the previous instruction. ASLEF gave a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why they wanted their members to continue using both tones of the horn which put safety as their top priority which seems fair enough to me.

As I said, the current rulebook instruction makes sense to me, which is why I adhere to it. I believe I started driving just after the change to the rulebook. If I deem there a need to use both tones based on experience at certain crossings etc, naturally I’ll use both tones.

TOCs/FOCs have the ability to make rules more restrictive as they see fit etc too, which my TOC hasn’t.

 

[Deepgreen]

On the subject of using two tones; I use a single tone for whistle boards as per the rule book instruction. Really because it kind of makes sense to me. To members of the public seen on crossings, two tones are mandatory, so there’s a clear distinction between the use of one of both tones. Same as for track workers etc. the whole “one tone sounding like a road vehicle” doesn’t really wash with me, because no matter the sound, most people will hear a train horn and look up, no matter what it might be. I mean, it’s quite loud and distinctive after all.

I think it partly depends on local conditions - if there's a road nearby, how shielded the crossing may be by buildings, etc. Also there are people wearing headphones who may hear a muted single tone and assume it's a lorry horn, but if they heard twin tones would immediately think of a train. It's interesting to consider the use of twin tones in excess of the rule book requirements but in accordance with union instructions, because I think it was a legal challenge that brought about the instruction to use a single tone - presumably those who use twin tones (rightly, in my opinion) might be vulnerable to legal challenges, or their TOC or union might be.

 

[12LDA28C]

As I said, the current rulebook instruction makes sense to me, which is why I adhere to it. I believe I started driving just after the change to the rulebook. If I deem there a need to use both tones based on experience at certain crossings etc, naturally I’ll use both tones.

TOCs/FOCs have the ability to make rules more restrictive as they see fit etc too, which my TOC hasn’t.

Indeed, which is probably why those like yourself who started driving after the Rule Book change use just the single tone and those who were driving when the instruction changed considered it less safe and still sound both tones. Neither approach is 'wrong' but one could certainly be argued to sound less like a train than the other, hence the ASLEF instruction issued shortly after the rule change.

 

[Annetts key]

the whole “one tone sounding like a road vehicle” doesn’t really wash with me, because no matter the sound, most people will hear a train horn and look up, no matter what it might be. I mean, it’s quite loud and distinctive after all.

You may think that, I disagree. There are numerous types of rolling stock, and not all have horns that sound the same.
Similarly, there are numerous types of road vehicles, and again, a lot of them sound different.

So if you are not near the source of the horn sound, it is not always clear if the sound of the horn you hear is that of a train or a road vehicle. Or indeed, something else (such as a boat or a ship).

Structures like cuttings, embankments, large buildings, etc. can all make it harder to distinguish where and what has just sounded a horn.

Whereas, when a train sounds a two tone horn, because that type of sound is unusual for any other type of horn equipped source, people easily associate the sound with that of a train.

It's interesting to consider the use of twin tones in excess of the rule book requirements but in accordance with union instructions, because I think it was a legal challenge that brought about the instruction to use a single tone - presumably those who use twin tones (rightly, in my opinion) might be vulnerable to legal challenges, or their TOC or union might be.

As the two tone horn is permitted for other uses, I don’t think it’s likely that there would be any legal case that would be viable. That does not mean that the railway did change the rules to try to minimise the impact of noise on it’s neighbours.

Network Rail makes it very clear in its own internal documents that both employees and others working on the railway should be considerate with regards to noise levels.

There are many areas of the rule book that I take issue with. The old BR rule book was not that good. But since the RSSB took control, it’s most definitely got worse. Ever expanding, getting more complex, but good practice and any helpful parts getting removed. Hence, some now consider it more useful as a paperweight.

 

[Undaunted]

RAIB's report into the fatal accident at Mexico FPC (near Penzance) on 3 October 2011 - RAIB report 10/2012 - considers the possible effect of single-tone horn use at crossings as a possible cause of the accident and includes some information on how RSSB worked with the railway industry to make the change, starting in 2006 and leading to the rule change on low-tone only at whistle boards in April 2007 (paragraphs 84 - 96 in RAIB's report). The volume of train horns on new rolling stock at that time appears to have been a factor that triggered the work - and there were lots of new trains at that time. The effect of the increased volume on people living close to whistle boards on the approach to crossings was a factor in RSSB's work. RAIB's Recommendation 2 was for RSSB to do more work to evaluate the impact of the change made in April 2007.

 

[mr_moo]

It's two whistle boards, one on top of the other - https://www.railsigns.uk/sect15page1.html

Fig 15.11

@Railsigns - I note you don't have a picture on your site. Feel free to use this. It comes from AIVR, so don't credit me. It's on the Down line North of Kemble - SWM1 96m 28ch.

 

[Alarmkid23]

a flirt horn (low tone is loud enough so at one particular crossing (Tunsted Footpath crossing in Norfolk, Near Wroxham, You can hear the train sound a tone or both for a crossing 4 miles away on the OTHER side of the town (bears grove Bridleway). (A Incredibly Unlikely Scenario is written out next but still is technically possible based on wind direction etc.) a Completely unfamiliar crossing user might stop and wait and think, a train is imminent after hearing the horn 4 miles down the track! so they will wait and wait and wait and cross after several minutes after hearing the horn to think that was not the train Imminently arriving. and starts to cross only to find out a few seconds after crossing that the train finally arrives at around 75MPH! (bit hypothetical scenario but it still theoretically can happen. As we were standing at the Tunstead Foot crossing trainspotting having heard a Low FLIRT tone in the distance we had thought the train is coming now, only to check RTT and found out it was arriving in Hoveton and Wroxham station and the horn was for passing Bears Grove).

 

[TreacleMiller]

a flirt horn (low tone is loud enough so at one particular crossing (Tunsted Footpath crossing in Norfolk, Near Wroxham, You can hear the train sound a tone or both for a crossing 4 miles away on the OTHER side of the town (bears grove Bridleway). (A Incredibly Unlikely Scenario is written out next but still is technically possible based on wind direction etc.) a Completely unfamiliar crossing user might stop and wait and think, a train is imminent after hearing the horn 4 miles down the track! so they will wait and wait and wait and cross after several minutes after hearing the horn to think that was not the train Imminently arriving. and starts to cross only to find out a few seconds after crossing that the train finally arrives at around 75MPH! (bit hypothetical scenario but it still theoretically can happen. As we were standing at the Tunstead Foot crossing trainspotting having heard a Low FLIRT tone in the distance we had thought the train is coming now, only to check RTT and found out it was arriving in Hoveton and Wroxham station and the horn was for passing Bears Grove).

I think you're getting a bit carried away here.

 

[dk1]

a flirt horn (low tone is loud enough so at one particular crossing (Tunsted Footpath crossing in Norfolk, Near Wroxham, You can hear the train sound a tone or both for a crossing 4 miles away on the OTHER side of the town (bears grove Bridleway). (A Incredibly Unlikely Scenario is written out next but still is technically possible based on wind direction etc.) a Completely unfamiliar crossing user might stop and wait and think, a train is imminent after hearing the horn 4 miles down the track! so they will wait and wait and wait and cross after several minutes after hearing the horn to think that was not the train Imminently arriving. and starts to cross only to find out a few seconds after crossing that the train finally arrives at around 75MPH! (bit hypothetical scenario but it still theoretically can happen. As we were standing at the Tunstead Foot crossing trainspotting having heard a Low FLIRT tone in the distance we had thought the train is coming now, only to check RTT and found out it was arriving in Hoveton and Wroxham station and the horn was for passing Bears Grove).

I think you’re becoming a tad obsessed. Why does it matter?

 

[43066]

Yes, a lot of overthinking seems to be going on!