You're viewing a single thread.
One makes very little noise, the other makes so much noise that dogs either shit themselves or attack their neighbors.
I'm not exactly a fan of any of it, whether it be EVs or trains, but it really is a pain to try to comfort a shivering dog that's about ready to shit himself or kill the neighbor's dog when a train passes.
This sounds more like a freight train. Many modern light commuter trains are quieter than an average SUV. The rail line could also have sound barriers installed if noise is still an issue.
Guess you missed the memo, trains legally have to have super loud horns for train/road intersections.
Have you heard a train horn lately? You're probably used to it. Now imagine what a dumb (or even smart) dog thinks when hearing a train horn...
Our dog both damn near shit himself and almost attacked another dog barely am hour ago after he heard a train horn.
We don't have this in Sweden because it's not an actual necessity. It's only a thing because your infrastructure is so damn bad.
Some cities allow trains to refrain from horns within city limits and instead the barrier makes a more localized dinging. I live near a major rail interchange and they rarely every honk their horns, oftenly only using a short warning horn if needed.
When I lived rurally trains with horns were far more common. On a human note I'd rather hear a train horn occasionally than hear constant traffic noise. I get how thats harder to manage with a dog but perhaps consistent training could lessen their response to horns.
Yeah, our little adopted stray fella Brownie apparently came from out in the country somewhere away from trains.
He's generally a really good dog, almost exceptional really, all things considered. But super loud noises still make him nervous..
You say that as if it's reasonable to have level grade crossings at all to begin with.
In other words, what you're complaining about isn't a problem with trains, but rather a problem with dipshit planners trying to cheap out and failing to properly fund trains.
Of course it's reasonable to have level train crossings, in a fucking flood zone!
Act like any of us wanna fucking die in a flooded tunnel, trying to evacuate from hurricane flood waters!
Shit, there's a reason we don't have basements here.
Okay, okay, I get it: you're a special snowflake and you'll spring whatever previously unmentioned random BS on us in order to move the goalposts to pretend your position -- which to be clear, is that some fucking dog is more important than proper public transit -- is somehow anything short of ridiculous.
But sure, I'll play along in good faith: FYI, getting rid of level grade crossings does not necessarily involve tunnels; bridges are a thing too. Therefore, your argument fails.
What histrionic excuse for your train hate are you going to come up with next?
You do realize that trains have to run along almost perfectly level ground right?
You do realize that the street can be the thing that changes elevation instead, right?
Street? You're funny!
I'm talking near two of the top ten industrial facilities in the United States, where trains run parallel to a major highway, road and rail structure is designed around the major highways, major water ways, and major high rise bridges.
They're not about to rebuild all that shit, because absolutely nothing that crosses the rails is called a silly street, they're all major highways, or at minimum major roads or bridges.
I’m talking near two of the top ten industrial facilities in the United States
Sure, I already pointed out how you started out making a broad, sweeping generalization ('trains bad because noisy, in general'), then shifted the goalposts narrowing it to just train horns at level grade crossings, then just to level grade crossings in a flood zone. The fact that you continued to retreat to talking about next to a city park (in another branch of the discussion responding to somebody else), and now finally to talking about some particular singular site in your response to me, is utterly unsurprising.
Thank you for demonstrating my point about how you're arguing in bad faith.
No, trains can be good, but they shouldn't share the same rails between freights and passengers.
I can guarantee you they will not stop running freight on our rails, and I already know they're planning to share those same rails for passenger trains.
Now, how many train cars derailed over the past few years? While they wanna dual-purpose freight and passenger trains on our same worn out rails, where every couple weeks a broke down train has to literally park on the tracks, blocking all traffic?
A) time to move if climate change has fucked your weather that bad.
B) you don't have to tunnel. You can elevate the track.
C) You can't elevate train tracks, at least not by much. Trains have to run almost completely level to the ground.
Get fucking real.
Uh, what? You absolutely can run trains on elevated tracks. Japan does it all the time. So do many other cities and countries. If you want to get real fancy, mag-lev runs almost exclusively on elevated tracks. Where did you get the impression that you can't elevate train tracks?
Guess you haven't kept up with 11foot8
Of course you can elevate trains, but it requires an extremely gradual slope. Trains are meant to be almost perfectly level with the ground, so it might take a mile of tracks to raise the elevation even a foot safely.
I'm not sure what your trying to argue here. Elevate rail lines already exist. It's not something theoretical that people think can be done, it already exists. The engineering problems have been solved. Google it if you don't believe me.
It's not about the engineering problems, it's about the financial and economic problems. Trains aren't meant to change elevation quickly, meaning they'd have to rip up a couple miles of train tracks both ways and build a train rail bridge to even start to make an elevated track.
See, trains can't go up and down random hills, they require mostly level tracks. And when they elevate the tracks, they gotta design in a mile or three of gradual slope tracks to keep everything safe.
the 11 foot 8 bridge (which was recently raised to 12ft4in of clearance) was designed to car standard, not to train standard. it was also designed in the 1920s, when the standard for cars was lower. it has nothing to do with the grade trains are on.
I live next to a literal over-under bridge for freight trains where two tracks cross over eachother in order for freight yard operations to not block passenger rail.
Yes, it is totally possible to raise and lower the levels of train tracks, but it takes lots of logistics and a long path of gradual elevation change to arrange all that.
You're not really saying much by pointing out they raised 11foot8 to 12foot4, a whole whopping 8 inches. And it took them how long and how much money to do even that?
Did your dog nearly shit themselves from a city tram?
Nope, from a city park. Maybe they should move the city park away from the train tracks, or move the train tracks away from the city park.
I dunno, but it seems to me that someone in city engineering fucked up. Like who the fuck wants a dog park literally 200 feet close to train tracks?
who the fuck wants a dog park literally 200 feet close to train tracks?
Maybe people who take the train to get to the park?
I'm not sure where you're from, but our trains don't carry passengers, they carry oil, fuel, chemicals, livestock, military and spacecraft equipment.
Freight trains don't stop at city parks, and whoever designed the city to have an active freight train track so close to a city park can go to hell.
That sounds more like a pet problem or a training issue than a transportation issue though.
Have you heard a freight train horn compared to a light rail horn? They're much quieter.
As for your situation, might I suggest instead pressuring the neighbors to help you apply for a permit for a "railroad quiet zone"? In my state at least that is a thing where a neighborhood can pressure a rail company via local government to have a designated corridor like this. The corridor will have any railroad crossings updated to have a "NO HORN" indicated signage since the train will not blast its horn on approach to the intersection, similar to this picture but my state also has requirements that the intersection will have speakers playing a sound indication that a train is approaching, and the train will have its bell ringing but no loud train horn. It's much quieter than the normal setup where they must per federal law lay on that horn multiple times as they come up on an intersection.
Most passenger trains aren't the Amtrak.
Oh, thanks for the reminder then, they're about to start running Amtrak on our freight train rails.
Is Amtrak known to be louder or something?
Louder than local trams / light rail.
Ah, so the sound should blend in with the usual freight trains, yay!
One solution is an underpass for the road.
You've clearly never been under an under/overpass have you?
That's like a fucking echo chamber, like the absolute loudest place you could possibly be.
You just want to hate everything. Just don't bring your dog near train tracks then ffs.
We don't exactly have a choice yo, we gotta cross train tracks every single day, and he's with us at all times.
You wanna adopt him instead?
Check the train time table
They don't have a public time table, it's more like whenever the oil companies, the military, or NASA orders stuff. And they don't care if they just park their train right in your way sometimes.
No schedule yo, at least no public schedule. You hear the train horn, clear the tracks, that's the schedule.
