Bell overkill...

[SirKrunch]

Interesting question. For years upon years, in pictures I see from other states, seems like most crossings always had a bell on each approach signal. It's not really something I'm used to seeing, or at least, not up until UP bought up the CNW lines around here and started installing new gated signals at a lot of crossings. Back in the day, about any crossing you went to around here only had one bell, if it even had one at all. Only in the last 10 years or so have crossings been popping up with bells on each signal. But is it really necessary to have all that uh... "Pinging"? I say that because all the multi bell crossings only have e-bells really. It's not like you really hear that "beep beep beep" in the car anyway. Especially at highway speeds in the countryside. And it's not like you see a lot of ped traffic out there in the "Boondocks" either.
Long live the pinnacle. How about a little less noise pollution?

[Smjh1979]

Weird. I normally think the more bells, the better. In case any go dead, there will be more to warn other people.

What do you think should be the limit for bells at one crossing. I say my limit is 4 mechanicals, and electronic bells.

Don't go to San Diego, CA then... One crossing down there has 8 bells total.

[illinoistrains]

Eight bells is WAY to much for any crossing! most should only have one. Two depending on the
amount it is used.

[SirKrunch]

Not sure really. Look through Indiana and Ohio on Street view... you find a lot of crossings with no bells. In rural situations, I honestly don't know why a bell is really needed in the first place. Again, that whole mantra about these days, cars are made to be pretty soundproof...and it's not like there's a lot of bike or ped traffic to worry about either. Not to mention with the (as Elton so perfectly put it) "Big Ole Choo-Choo" laying on the horn running a bell seems a waste of power. Now, in a city sense with the horn bans anymore, I think you still have to have a bell or some sort of audible warning for the visually impared. But not to the extent of needing 4, 6, 8 etc... Last I checked, nobody has come up with "stealth" technology for a train... so it's not like you can't hear it occupying the crossing or approaching anyway. But to be safe, I guess 2 may be needed...but only in the sense of overprotection for the idiots out there who don't pay attention and then sue for their own stupidity/lackadaisicallity. To me, overall the bell is really just a warning well outdated for any kind of protection at the majority of level crossings. Kind of like a wigwag... or in the days when railroads had lots of bell-warning crossings.

EDIT:
Let me add to this too. Check out a lot of the pictures dealing with the "Monon" line in Indiana. A lot of their crossings only had one signal for the crossing. Even in a couple places where another railroad is operating remaining parts of the line today, there is still only one single mast signal to protect both directions. If they did put something to mark the crossing for the opposite approach it was just a crossbuck. What if it had never become standard practice to put a set of alternating lights at BOTH approach sides?

OK, promise I'm done editing this post now.

[Smjh1979]

I guess it just depends on who likes noise, and who doesn't.

I like noise at the crossings. The bells is one thing that got me to liking signals in the first place.

[Smjh1979]

EDIT:
Let me add to this too. Check out a lot of the pictures dealing with the "Monon" line in Indiana. A lot of their crossings only had one signal for the crossing. Even in a couple places where another railroad is operating remaining parts of the line today, there is still only one single mast signal to protect both directions. If they did put something to mark the crossing for the opposite approach it was just a crossbuck. What if it had never become standard practice to put a set of alternating lights at BOTH approach sides?

Just wait until the next update. You'll see a crossing just like that in Texas.

[cabman701]

To me... it's nothing more than stupidity of the drivers and people that are sue happy.

How about traffic lights? Back in the "old" days, it used to be one traffic signal hung over the middle of the intersection with one set of lights facing each direction. Now, there are a few intersections where I have seen 6 or more signals for one direction.

It's a matter of the railroads or the states having to protect themselves from someone's stupidity because they were too busy talking on their cell phone, eating, shaving or whatever to pay attention to the road. Of course, they get into an accident... and what's the 1st thing they do???

[SirKrunch]

To me... it's nothing more than stupidity of the drivers and people that are sue happy.

How about traffic lights? Back in the "old" days, it used to be one traffic signal hung over the middle of the intersection with one set of lights facing each direction. Now, there are a few intersections where I have seen 6 or more signals for one direction.

It's a matter of the railroads or the states having to protect themselves from someone's stupidity because they were too busy talking on their cell phone, eating, shaving or whatever to pay attention to the road. Of course, they get into an accident... and what's the 1st thing they do???

Ya know, I think Nevada is one of the few towns around here that still has a setup in that spirit. Really old 8" lights, the only traffic signal controlled intersection in the town.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source= ... 0000000006

[cabman701]

Close... I remember a few of those back when I was growing up. But I was thinking more like this:

[cabman701]

By the way... on that 1st picture above (the black & white one)... are those crossing lights attached to the same pole as the search lights?