HomeMy WebLinkAboutEGD-001-12 Clariiwn 'REPORT
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE
Date: January 09, 2012 Resolution#: By-law#:
Report#: EGD-001-12 File#:
Subject: TRAIN WHISTLE CESSATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report EGD-001-12 be received;
2. THAT in the interest of public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not
proceed with an anti-whistling by-law as a means of reducing "nuisance noise";
4. THAT all interested parties listed in Report EGD-001-12 be given a copy of this
report.
Submitted b y:
Reviewed by:
A.S. Cannella, C.E.T. Franklin Wu,
Director of Engineering Chief Administrative Officer
Services
ASC/U B/j b/jo
II
CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
40 TEMPERANCE STREET, BOWMANVILLE, ONTARIO L1C 3A6 T 905-623-3379
I
REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 2
1. INTRODUCTION
The Municipality of Clarington receives requests (approximately one official
request every two years) from residents asking that the municipality approach the
Canadian National Railway or the Canadian Pacific Railway to request train
whistle cessation at public crossings because of the impact this practice has on
the quality of life for those living in close proximity to a rail line.
In Canada trains are required under the Railway Safety Act of 1988 to whistle at all
level (grade) public crossings and difficulties arise from the fact that "most rail
yards and many railway lines were built many years ago in undeveloped areas, far
from homes and businesses. As towns and cities grew, many new
neighbourhoods were built near pre-existing rail operations". The interesting
paradox arises from the fact that as the number of residents increases in the area
the discomfort and quality of life issues caused by train whistles grows at precisely
the same time as the rising risk caused by increasing traffic volumes on roadways
adjacent to the rail lines.
2. BACKGROUND
In 2001, Council considered a request for whistle cessation in the vicinity of
residential areas (Attachment #1). Council concluded "THAT in the interest of
public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not proceed with an anti-
whistling by-law as a means of reducing `nuisance noise'." Since the issue of anti-
whistling has not been considered by Council since that time, staff participated in
an updated research study of the matter to provide Council with an update on the
status of the muncipality's anti-whistling policy as it pertains to the elimination of
train whistling when approaching level grade crossings.
The municipality is serviced with two main railway lines. The Canadian Pacific
Railway (CP) provides two (2) railway subdivision lines, the Belleville Subdivision
Line running along the lakeshore and the Havelock Subdivision Line running along
the northern extreme running through Burketon. The Canadian National Railway
REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 3
(CN) has the Kingston Subdivision Line running along the lakeshore. The different
types of road/railway crossing for each railway are identified on attachment#2.
3. TRAIN WHISTLING PROTOCOL
Train whistling protocols are strictly regulated and enforced by Transport Canada.
The Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) state that the train whistles will be
sounded (long-long-short-long). Train whistles are safety devices that alert
motorists and pedestrians to the presence of an approaching train. They also warn
trespassers away from the rails right-of-way. Locomotive engineers follow a
detailed set of instructions in the Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR) that
outline when a whistle must be sounded and the whistling sequence to be used.
The CROR were developed jointly by the railways and their unions, and approved
by Transport Canada.
Every at grade crossing is protected by a warning system consisting of either
flashing lights and bells or flashing lights, bells and gates. The CROR specifies
that all trains must sound their whistle at least 400 metres before all public level
crossings for trains exceeding 70 kilometres per hour or at least 20 seconds in
advance of the crossing for trains travelling under 70 kilometres per hour until the
train has occupied the crossing. The whistle must be sounded while approaching
the crossing and until the train has fully occupied the crossing. Train operators can
sound the whistle any time that visibility is impaired (eg. weather, curvature) or in
the event of a safety issue where sounding the train whistle is appropriate.
Locomotive whistles are manufactured to meet sound level and tone requirements
recommended by Transport Canada. The whistles on all locomotives
manufactured since 1982 are push button controlled to provide a consistent sound
level. However, local weather conditions and wind direction can affect the noise a
whistle makes.
REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 4
4. WHISTLE CESSATION
In order for whistle cessation to be considered, the municipality must follow the
requirements outlined in the Transport Canada — Procedure & Conditions for
Eliminating Whistling at Public Crossings — Guideline No. 1 (Attachment #3). In
short:
• The municipality must contact the pertinent railway company to discuss the
matter.
• The municipality must notify the general public and all relevant organizations of
its intent to forbid whistling in the municipality.
• A detailed safety assessment of each crossing at the crossing and recommend
upgrades which would meet the requirements of Schedule `A' of the above
referenced Guidelines.
• A Public Information Centre is recommended.
• The municipality must pass a resolution of its intent to pass a by-law forbidding
the use of whistles at certain crossings.
• The municipality must implement the upgrades where required to meet the
Guidelines.
• The municipality must enter into an agreement with each railway with respect to
the roles and responsibilities under Section 11 of the Railway Safety Act.
• The railway will then enter into a liability agreement with the municipality and
will obtain additional liability insurance with a recognized commercial insurer to
protect the Municipality and the railway against third party claims for bodily
injury and property damage arising out of or resulting from or connected with
the issuance of an order to stop whistling at this crossing. It must be
understood that the municipality becomes liable for collisions on the tracks if the
automatic gate system fails. This has been a deciding factor against
implementing the ban for many municipalities.
REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 5
The process to eliminate train whistles can take three to four years to complete,
depending on the number of crossings and the required upgrades to those
crossings.
5. STAFF REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Staff does not recommend the implementation of anti-whistling primarily due to
---reasons that are-related to safety.---Every year some-350��____-rebut - -
50 fatalities take place at railway crossings in Canada. Removing whistling at a
safety device cannot be taken lightly as public safety is deemed to be paramount
and so we consider the following:
• The high speed of most trains through Clarington, particularly on the CN line.
• A motorist is 40 times more likely to die in a crash involving a train than in a
collision involving another motor vehicle.
• Risk to the community if there is a collision with cars containing hazardous
materials.
• Proximity to Highway 401 in the event of an accident.
• A typical locomotive with 100 cars attached can weigh approximately 6,000 tons.
The weight ratio of an automobile to a train is compared to a pop can and an
automobile.
• Trains require one mile to stop and modern trains are much quieter than their
predecessors, in fact approaching trains will always be closer and moving faster
than people think.
• Approximately 50% of vehicle/train collisions occur at crossings with active
warning devices (gates, lights, bells).
• Motorists and pedestrians are distracted by different technological devices (cell
phones, blackberries, (pods, MP3 players, etc.) and are not always paying
attention to their surroundings, we can understand how important train whistles,
which can be heard over iPods and MP3 players, really are.
• The risk of cars weaving through the barricades when they occasionally get stuck
in the "down" position.
• Lack of upgrades that effectively protect pedestrians and cyclists.
REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 6
In 1999 the City of Brockville implemented whistle cessation in its municipality. In
2005, a tragic accident involving two young pedestrians resulted in the death of one
youngster and serious injury to the other. The teens noted the gates, bells and
flashing lights at the railway crossing and understood that this meant a train was
coming. What they could not and tragically did not understand was that while a first
train had passed in one direction they were proceeding directly into the oncoming
direction. The railway immediately restored whistling at this crossing.
6. RISK MANAGEMENT AND LIABILITY
As mentioned earlier, if a whistle cessation by-law is put in place the railway must
enter into a liability agreement with the municipality and obtain additional liability
insurance with a recognized commercial insurer to protect the municipality and the
railway against third party claims for bodily injury and property damage arising out of
or resulting from or connected with the issuance of an order to stop whistling at this
crossing. The cost of this additional liability coverage will be passed along to the
municipality along with the cost of upgrades (such as fencing), continual monitoring,
inspection, repairs maintenance and more.
The Director of Risk Management Services at Frank Cowan Company had this to
say about the possibility of passing whistle cessation by-laws in Clarington:
"From a risk management perspective, we do not recommend the cessation of
rail whistles at rail crossings. According to the Railway Association of Canada,
train whistles are vital safety features that protect motorists and pedestrians from
collisions at public road and pedestrian rail crossings. We believe as does the
association, that train whistles save lives".
We must also consider the importance of a uniform train whistle protocol across
Clarington. Imagine if whistle cessation by-laws were passed for select locations,
but not all, the risk that might arise if a youngster from one area were visiting a friend
in another and relying upon the fact that everywhere else across Clarington one
REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12 PAGE 7
could count upon the sound of a whistle to act as the final alert that an oncoming
train is approaching. Any loss of life is irreplaceable.
Railways are unlikely to consider whistle cessation at individual crossings and CN
has advised that they would not likely support the inconsistent application of whistle
cessation as it can be confusing to the train crews. As well, whistling at one
- -crossing can lead to a false sense of security at the oss-i_pg_Mth no whistle
7. CONCURRENCE — Nancy Taylor, Director of Finance.
8. CONCLUSION
A current study of whistle cessation has led staff to recommend that the municipality
not pursue anti-whistling on either the CN or CP rail lines due to significant concerns
for public safety (particularly in the presence of reported pedestrian trespass) and for
increased liability exposure.
CONFORMITY WITH STRATEGIC PLAN — Not Applicable
Staff Contact: Leslie J. Benson, P.Eng., Manager, Transportation and Design
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Report WD-33-01, Train Whistling and Flat Spots
Attachment 2 — Canadian Railway Network Key Map
Attachment 3 — Procedure & Conditions for Eliminating Whistling at Public Crossings
(Transport Canada)
i
i
I
_ I
ATTACHMENT NO.:1
REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12
THE I
i
CORPORATION*OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON
PORT
Meeting: GENERAL PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE File#
Date: JUNE 18,2001 Res.#
oo.— --3-01 OurFiIeNo.: _ BY-Law
Subject: TRAIN VMISTL,ING AND FIAT SPOTS
Recommendations:
It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee
recommend to Council the following:
1. THAT Report WD-33-01 be received;
2. THAT in the interest of public safety, and liability concerns, the Municipality not proceed
with an anti-whistling by-law as a means of reducing"nuisance noise";
3. THAT staff not proceed with a formal request and pay subsequent inspection costs of
approximately $400.00 to the rail authority to consider an anti-whistling policy at the
Scugog Street,Bowmanville crossing;
4. THAT staff not proceed with a formal request(s) and pay subsequent inspection costs of
approximately $400.00 per crossing to the rail authority(s) to consider an anti-whistling
policy at the following.locations which already have the minimum protection of railway
gates or where gates are approved for 2001:
® Port Darlington Road,Bowmanville, C.N.R.
® Toronto Street,Newcastle, C.N.R.
Metcalf Street,Newcastle, C.N.R.
® Riley Road,Newcastle, C.N.R.
® East Townline Road,Former Clarke Township, C.N.R.
714
I
REPORT NO.: WD-33.01 PAGE 2
® Darlington Park Road, Courtice, C.N.R.
® Bennett Road,Bowmanville, C.N.R.
® Cobbledick Road,Newcastle, C.N.R
® Baseline Road(McKight Road), Courtice, C.P.R
e Trulls Road, Courtice, C.P.R.; and
5. THAT Mr.Doug Hately be provided with a copy of this report.
REPORT
1.0 ATTACHMENTS
No. 1: Correspondence dated October 1, 1999 from C.P.R.
No. 2: Correspondence dated October 5, 1999 from C.N.R.
No. 3: Correspondence received October 25, 1999 from Mr.D. Hately
No.4: Transport Canada Railway Safety Directorate Guideline No. 1, Procedure and
conditions for eliminating whistling at public crossings dated August 13, 1999
received June 2000
No. 5: Key map showing level railway crossings which have protective crossing gates or
are approved for 2001, which is a minimum requirement before anti-whistling can
be considered.
2.0 BACKGROUND
2.1 At a meeting held October 25, 1999, Couricil passed the following resolution:
"THAT Correspondence Item I-10 and Item I-11 be received for information;
and
THAT Correspondence Item I-10 and Item I-11 be referred. to the By-law
and Works Departments in order to meet with C.P.R. and C.N.R. staff in
order to mediate excessive noise from train whistling and also review the
warrants for protective crossing gates and report back to Council."
715
• i
• i
POINT NO.: ®33-01 PAGE 3
I
2.2 At a meeting held on November 8, 1999, Council passed the following resolution:
"THAT Correspondence dated October 20, .1.999 from Mr. D. Hately be
referred to the By-law and Works Departments in order to meet with C.P.R.
and C.N.R. staff in order to mediate excessive noise from train whistling and
Council,"
3<0 REVIEW AND CO NT
3.1 Protective Gates at Scugog Street,Bowmanville
Staff met with representatives of Transport Canada and C.P.R. during June of 2000 and all
Parties agreed that with existing and future traffic volumes that the addition of gates would
improve public safety. This budget item in the amount of$21,000.00 was approved in the
2001 budget.
3.2 Other At-Grade Crossing Locations Requiring Protective Gates
Transport Canada,.C.P.R. and Public Works have also identified the following locations
where upgrades to provide gates are approved in the 2001 budget:
® Trulls Road north of Baseline Road
®
Baseline Road east of McKnight Road
3.3 Flat Spots
i
Residents occasionally complain of excessive train noises, which they believe to be "flat
spots" on train wheels. -Such wheel abnormalities are the focus of rigorous inspection and
repair programs and are rare occurrences. All railway crossings are posted with a 24-hour
toll free phone number and a crossing identification number for anyone to call if they are
aware of an urgent safety problem.
t
7.1
REPORT NO.: WD-33-01 PAGE 4
I
3.4 Train Whistling Regulations
Whistling in Canada is governed by Transport Canada— Railway Operating Rules, which
state that:
"Long—long-short—long
At least one-quarter of a mile from every public crossing at grade (except
within limits as may be prescribed in special instructions),to be prolonged or
repeated according to the speed of the movement until the crossing is fully
occupied by the engine or cars.
At frequent intervals when view is restricted by weather, curvature or other
conditions."
The train engineer has the right and is obligated to sound a whistle at any time hazardous
conditions are encountered or perceived and may do so notwithstanding the existence of an
anti-whistling by-law.
The whistles on all trains manufactured since 1982 are push button controlled to provide a
consistent sound level. However, local weather conditions and wind direction can affect the
noise a whistle makes.
3.5 Anti-Whistling By-Laws
The railways and Transport Canada both recognize that precautionary whistling can be a
nuisance for occupants of dwellings close to the railway. In this regard, the parties are
prepared to work with municipal governments to establish exemptions from the whistling
rule, providing that to do so, does not compromise public safety. The Municipality must
meet Transport Canada's guidelines for eliminating whistling at a public crossing. The
guideline is neither a regulation, nor an order. Therefore, it does not have the force law.
If an accident were to occur, the Municipality who made the change would-be'under a
stricter duty of care.
717
REPORT ICI®.: WD-33-01 PAGE 5
An anti-whistling by-law establishes a methodology for removing the use of train whistles at
at7-grade crossings, provided that other safety elements including flashing lights, bells and
gates are in place. Additional safety requirements may include chainlink fencing, signing,
brushing or even consideration of a pedestrian overpass to resolve trespassing problems.
This location cannot be considered for inclusion in an anti-whistling by-law until after the
gates have been installed. After the gates are installed, this location should be reviewed for
other safety concerns before any consideration is given to an anti-whistling by-law. There is
a trespassing concern in this area where pedestrians have climbed or cut the chain link
fencing near the north end,of Waverley Road and walk along the tracks over King Street. A
fatality also occurred a number of years ago when a pedestrian was killed while trespassing
on the tracks at the Liberty Street Bridge.
3.7 Insurance
I
The Municipality would be required to execute an insurance agreement with the rail
authority, .whereby the parties equally share the cost of the annual insurance premium per
crossing. Approximate annual municipal cost would range from$1,000.00 to $1,300.00 per
crossing (11 (eleven) crossings in total) with a$10,000.00 deductible. These costs are also
subject to escalation and would be in perpetuity. The premiums would be subject to
significant increase depending upon the number and extent of claims at a given crossing.
An initial inspection fee would also apply, which must be paid for solely by the
Municipality. At this point it is uncertain whether the municipal insurance pool would
require separate policies outside of the pool. It should also'be noted that the liability may
reside entirely with the Municipality if it proceeds with the no whistling policy.
3.8 Risk Management
The Railway and the Municipality are the only authorities responsible for anti-whistling;this
gives individuals who suffer damage as a result of a crossing accident the right to question
the decision to cease whistling in court. The thought of removing whistling as a safety
device cannot be taken lightly, as a collision with a freight train loaded with chemicals could
7 1G
REPORT NO.: -33-01 PAGE 6
impact the entire community. Poor sight lines at railway crossings are an area of municipal
exposure that is on the increase. Without the train whistle,proper sight lines become critical
for safety and the courts in recent case law have demonstrated no reluctance to imI)ose
liability when vision was a factor.
,4 c cc
place at railway crossings in Canada". There is a concern that removal of train whistling
may affect the current insurance pool. As well, in case law, anti-whistling by-laws place an
additional liability with respect to repair of level crossing safety equipment. The road
authority is frequently found primarily responsible for property damage claims by third
parties(i.e.vehicle damage). The same is also true for bodily injury.
3.9 Future Anti-Whistling Requests
If anti-whistling is introduced at one crossing.in Clarington, additional requests are sure t^
follow. In fact, if Staff and Council are prepared to support anti-whistling at any one urban
crossing, then a proactive approach to the other Clarington crossings should be consik-__d.
Due to the costs and increased risk of accidents if whistling is removed,such policies should
only apply in urban areas,where"nuisance whistling"affects thousands of residents.
Anti-whistling by-laws cannot be introduced at a crossing unless other safety devices
including railway gates are in place. Railway gate systems cost approximately$175,000.uO,
with Transport Canada funding 80% and the railway contributing 8%, leaving 12% for the
road authority. Neither Transport Canada nor the rail authority will contribute their share
just to introduce anti-whistling. To justify the expenditure of gates, there must be a real
safety concern such as a double track, a siding adjacent to a track, high accident exposure
factors based on automotive/train volumes and speeds,or accident history.
...... .. . . . .719. . ...
REPORT NO.: 4D-33-01 PAGE 7
3.10 Costs
The introduction of anti-whistling policies will add to municipal budgets in a number of
ways.
® Staff time, fencing inspections
® Additional insurance with costs subject to increases from liability claims
($10,000.00 deductible)
® Cost of safety protection upgrades to meet anti-whistling guidelines
® Additional annual maintenance costs for fencing and other safety devices
3.11 Other Municipalities
The City of Oshawa introduced anti-whistling at three crossings during July 2000 but still
receive complaints.because the by-law only removes the legal obligation for the train
engineer to sound the whistle. Many train engineers still sound the whistle because they feel
it is a necessary safety feature while others sound the whistle anytime they see motorists or
pedestrians near the crossing or along the tracks. The Town of Cobourg is funding a safety
review to determine what upgrades and costs would be involved to reduce whistling to
benefit tourism. The Town of Port Hope has rejected the anti-whistling requests to maintain
a higher level of safety while avoiding costly upgrades and liability concerns.
4.0 CONCLUSION
4.1 The removal of whistling as a safety device cannot be taken lightly,as the additional costs of
insurance, accident claims, annual maintenance and staff time will impact the entire
community. From a staff perspective, the removal of the whistling safety device cannot be
supported. In other areas where anti-whistling by-laws have been approved, it has been a
Council decision when the community feels the benefit of stopping"nuisance whistling" for
nearby residents outweighs the costs involved and increased risks to residents, pedestrians
and motorists.
71)
i
PORE'NO.: -33-01 PAGE $
_ I
Respectfully submitted, Reviewed by,
i
tep en A.Vokes,P. Eng., Franklin Wu,
Director of Public Works Chief Administrative Officer
RDB*SAV*ce
11/06/01
Pc: Mr. Doug Hately
3 First Street
Bowmanville, ON
L1C 2A2
711
— –• C:AN AD 8 N Paul Thurston Suite 200 Tel (4 16i 595-3032
� J RAIC i F 1 C Manager 40 Universrty Avenue
LWAY Public Affairs and Medio Relations
Toronto Ontano
a._..� M51 ITI
October 1, 1999
John Mutton
Regional Councillor
Municipality of Clarington
Regional Municipality of Durham
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville, ON, L 1 C 3A6
Dear Mr. Mutton, -
In response to your September 24'letter regarding complaints.of excessive
whistling in Bowmanville and noise from railway equipment, please refer to the
following-excerpts from Transport-Canada-approved Canadian Railway Operating
Rules:
14 (1) long- long- short - long
(ii)At least one-quarter of a mile from every public crossing at grade (except
within limits as may be prescribed in special instructions), to be prolonged or
repeated according to the speed of the movement until the crossing is fully
occupied by the engine or cars.
(iii)At frequent intervals when view is restricted by weather, curvature or other
conditions.
While we are required to adhere to procedures which have the weight of federal
regulations, the Canadian Pacific Railway and its eastern subsidiary, the St.
Lawrence & Hudson Railway, recognize that precautionary whistling can be a
nuisance for occupants of dwellings close to the railway. In this regard. we are
prepared to work with municipal governments wishing to establish exemptions
from the whistling rule, providing that to do so would not compromise public
safety. For further information, please contact Gerry McKechnie, Public Affairs
Officer, St.*Lawrence & Hudson Railway, 416 595-3010.
ATTACHMENT NO.: 1
v.nn�n!r ATn . 11m Z2.nt
i
i
7
In regard to reports of flat-spots on train wheels, please understand that a variety
of noises made by trains in the normal course of daily operations can sound- -
similar to those that would be produced by wheel abnormalities, Such
abnormalities are the focus of rigorous inspection and repair programs. and are in
fact rare occurrences.
However, should evidence of such a condition(or any other hated) become
a
aware Mat a toll-free telephone number is
posted at every St. Lawrence& Hudson public railway crossing. For your records,
the number is 800 716-9132. Any responsible person who may become aware of
an urgent safety problem should be encouraged to telephone that number at any
hour of the day or night.
Yours truly,
Paul Thurston
Manager, Public Affairs & Media Relations
Canadian Pacific Railway, TORONTO
cc G.D. McKechnie,
Public Affairs Officer
St. Lawrence& Hudson Railway
7 ? �
I®il I
I
COUKCI-
cj\j
If i E
October 5, 1999
Her Worship Mayor Diane Ham re
Municipality of Clarington
40 Temperance Street
Bowmanville,ON L1C 3A6
Noise from train operations-including train whistling-is a fact of life for man
Canadians who live near railway facilities. In fact, train whistling is often considered a
nuisance that"someone"should remove.
However most people don't fully understand that train whistles, together w'
protection,are a key element in ensuring with crossing
any change in their use requires careful consideration by at road/rail both the railway coons. As such,
regulator,Transport Canada. y nd its
The accompanying pamphlet explains-in clear terms-the re lato
reasons behind train whistling,who regulates train whistling,and the prroccessfor
implementing an anti-whistling bylaw should a community desire that option.
We trust that this information will prove useful to you and to those of your constituents
with questions about train whistling'-.
contacting our toll-free public enquiries Additional copies of this pamphlet are available by
available to handle yourrequest durig core busing 8hou�09' where an operator is
Thank you.
Ian Thomson
Director'-Public Affairs-
Enclosure
ATTACHMENT Nn.!-7-
COUNCIL DIRECTION
D®5
OCT 25
2 �� p
3 First Street
Bowmanville t9C2a2
October 29,1999 •�
Mayor and Council Members
Municipality of ClartIgton
40 Temperance Street
Bomanville ON L1 C 3,45
Madam Mayor and Members of Council:
Quality of life in central BOWnanville would be improved if the horn blowing for the CPR
crossing at Scugog Street Were d' ued. Cro�g gates would have to be installed.
and insurance add
The City of Oshawa has been successful in eliminates horn blowkV at a number of
lord' ns,but the proms is time consuming ar,�: �-,votves the Canadian Tit
Oss
miion,the ra"and the municipality. Peter Stevenson at the City of Oshawa
(Phone 436-5608 Ext.281)can promde details.
Will councA support a mot on to study and implement the elimination of horn blowing at the
Street crossing? ScuKjog
Sincerely
A
x,15 1 U Tlt'N .
CLERK
Doug W. Hatefy ACK. BY
905697-4275 0RMIGQfl
COPIES
I_
725 ATTACHMENT NO.: 3
i
i
TRANSPORT CANADA
RAILWAY SAFETY DIRECTORATE
GUIDELINE NO. 1
PROCEDURE AND CONDITIONS FOR ELIMINATING WHISTLING
AT PUBLIC CROSSINGS
Background
Engine whaling requirements are controlled through the Canadian Rail.
Operating Rules (CROR). Rule 14(L)(ii) requires whistling for public crossings at grade
'°except as may be prescribed in special instructions". The railway company can initiate an
exemption by issuing an instruction which eliminates the application of rule 14(L)(i)i .
Procedure
Municipalities seeking relief from whistling at public crossings must now
contact the pertinent railway company directly to discuss the matter. At the same time, the
municipality must also notify the general public and all relevant organizations of its intention
to pass a resolution forbidding the use of whistles in the area. The organizations are shown
in Schedule D. For any crossings where the road authority is not the municipality itself, then
the road authority must also be contacted. If the municipality and the railway company, and
the road authority where the road authority is not the municipality itself, are in agreement;
and the crossings meet the requirements outlined in Schedule A attached, the municipality
should pass a motion prohibiting whistling. If a dispute arises, one or the other party may
contact the pertinent regional director of the Surface Group in order to mediate (addresses
listed in Schedule C).
�T
r ..n . ..
August 13,1999
ATTACHMENT NO.: 4
i
2
Where an agreement has been reached between the railway and the municipality
(and the road authority, in the above-mentioned case) that whistling may be discontinued,
the railway should arrange to have the crossings inspected by a Transport Canada railway
—1.4th"irmei is of the opinion that the crossings meet the conditions contained
in Schedule "A"of this guideline, Transport Canada's Director General Railway Safety will
confirm this opinion by letter {sample letter attached as Schedule "B") to the railway
involved, following which, the railway may issue special instructions eliminating the
application of CROR Rule 14(L)(ii)at the crossings.
If the crossing meets the conditions contained in Schedule "A" of the
guideline but the officer has some safety concerns, the correction of which is a
straightforward matter (for example: brush clearing, signal circuit shortening), they will be
identified in the letter. They should be addressed prior to the elimination of whistling at the
crossing.
If the crossing does not meet the general conditions set out in S chedule 'Wor
if there is a serious safety concern, the parties will be advised by letter that the whistling
should be retained. Once the corrective measures have been carried out, the officer may
be invited to reinspect the locations. Examples of such problems are trespassing, the
absence of necessary automatic waming devices, and so forth.
Ordinarily, the officer will visit the site after the railway's request: however, he
or she may become involved sooner.
August 13,1999
® 717
i
i
In the case where the railway does not agree to a prohibition of whistling, it
should inform the municipality of its reasons and also advise Transport Canada..
Conditions
The following outlines suggested conditions for crossings where relief from whistling is
being sought:
1. Crossing warning systems should be as indicated on the attached Schedule A.
2. Generally, whistling restrictions should be on a 24 hour basis. Under exceptional
circumstances, and following consultation with Transport Canada, relief froth
whistling may be permitted between the hours of 2200 and 0700, local time.
However the protection requirements should be the same as those required for a 24
hourwhistling relief.
3. Rules, respecting the sounding of locomotive bells, should still apply.
4. Where a crossing has experienced two or more accidents in fie past five years,
even if the requirements laid out in Schedule A are met, the railway should refer the
matter to the appropriate regional director of the Surface Group for a thorough safety
review before whistling is discontinued.
August 13,1999
�`) Q
i
I
' I
SCHEDULE A
GUIDELINE NO. 1
TRANSPORT CA DA
RAILWAY SAFETY DIRECTORATE
WARNING SYSTEMS REQUIRED WHERE WHISTLING IS TO BE ELIMINATED
Motor Vehicle Crossings Pedestrian/Bikewav Crossings
(rat adjacent to motor vehicle
Maximum Train crossings)
Seed at Crossing No of Tracks No of Tracks
1 2 or more 1 2 or more
Stop&proceed Flagging Flagging RCS RCS
or FLB I. or FLB (lsbta 2) 2)
Up to 15 m.p.h. FLB- FLB& G° Flagging, or Flagging,� 9,or
maze barriers maze barriers
>ide &gdde
fencing fencing
(Nola 5) (Mote 5)
16-65 m.p.h. FLB FLB& G FLB,maze FLB&'G
barriers&
guide lancing
(Note 5)
Over 65 m.p.h. FLB& G .FLB & G FLB&G FLB& G
Except in rases where there is no possibility of a second train occurrence.
Notes:
Railway advance warning signs 9 (Type VVC-4, 4L or 4R) should be installed on all
vehicular approaches as per clause A.3.71 of the manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices for Canada.
...2
o
August 13,1999
�I
it
2
2. RCS is pictogram type reflectorized crossing sign. `these are mandatory at all
public crossings.
3. FL® is flashing lights and bell.
4. FL6&G is flashing lights, bell and gates.
5. Guide fencing is for the purse of preventing detours around'the maze
barriers. The design should be site specific.
6. Additional signs, signals, or a combination thereof maybe required if specif ic
safety problems exist at a particular crossing or if requirements, as outlined in
the grade crossing regulations, exist for a higher form of protection.
7. Normal railway operations shall not result in approach warning times of an
automatic warning system of more than 13 seconds longer than the"Approach
Waming Time".
B. Traffic signals within 30m of a crossing with automatic warning systems shall be
interconnected. Traffic signals over 30m from a crossing with automatic
waming systems shall be interconnected if queued traffic reaches the crossing.
9. Notwithstanding the above, there may be other safety factors such as a high
level of trespassing,and frequently poor environmental conditions, including fog
or blowing snow,which may require a higher level of crossing protection or else
the retention of whistling.
i
I
i
. ......
...... ............
....... ...................... ..................
August 13,19%
SCHEDULES
DRAFT
The items in brackets(.....J should be used only if necessary.
Place de Ville,Tower r
10'' Floor
330, Sparks Street
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A ON5
7 September 1990
Dear Mr.
As requested in your letter of............ ...... a railway safety officer on .. (date)has
inspected the crossing[s]at m ileage[s] of your subdivision.
At the time of his inspection the railway safety officer was of the view that the
crossings]met the'conditions contained in Transport Canada Railway Safety
Directorate Guideline No. 1.
[However the officer noted the following deficiencies which should be corrected
regardless of any plans to cease whistling at the crossings:
Under the circumstances there would appear to be no reason why(railway
company)may not issue a special instruction which would prohibit the application of
CROR rule 14(1)(ii)at the above crossings] [once the above-noted deficiencies
have been rectified]. At the same time I would ask you to bring the provisions of
CROR rule 14(f)to the attention of train crews operating in this area.
Yours sincerely,
Director General
Railway Safety
'^'^T^c[•'T T c
c c..�..a:.c•coac.vm,•
August 13,1999
-7 -9 4
i
i
SCHEDULE C
REGIONAL OFFICES
TY
Regional Director Regional'Director
Atlantic Region Quebec Region
Transport Canada Transport Canada
Heritage Court, Suite 418 Suite 638
95 Foundry Street Suite
Rene Levesque Blvd. West
Moncton, N.B.
E1 C 5H7 Montreal, Quebec
H38 1X9
Tel. 506-851-2298 Tel. 514-283-5722
Fax.506-851-7042 Fax. 514283-8234
Regional Director Regional Director
Ontario Region PrairLe and Northern Region
Transport Canada Transport Canada
.20 Toronto Street, Suite 600 344 Edmonton Street, Room 402
Toronto, Ontario Winnipeg, Manitoba
M5C 2B8 R38 21-4
Tel. 416-973-9820 Tel. 204-983-5969
Fax. 416-973-9907 Fax. 204-983-8992
Regional Director
Pacific Region
Transport Canada
#225 -625 Agnes Street
New Westminster, B.C.
V3M 5Y4
Tel. 604-666-2955
Fax. 604-666-7747
August 13,1999
i
2
i
SCHEDULED
I
RELEVANT ORGANIZATIONS
Mr.Tim Secord Mr. George Hucker
Canadian Legislative Director Vice PMiet-and-National-Legislative
nits ransPortation _Union Representative
1595 Telesat Court Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers
GLOUCESTER, Ontario 150 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1401
K1 B 5R3 OTTAWA, Ontario
K2P 1 P 1
Tel. (613)747-7979
Tel. (613)235-1828
Mr.Gary Housch
Vice President
Brotherhood of Maintenance of vty
Employees
2775 Lancaster Road#1
OTTAWA, Ontario
K1 B 4V8
Tel. (613)731-7356
Y..................
August 13,19N
733
L
i
Cdr ., _•�®
•
C4 na iin 3acifid kal Iwa —
Z.n 7Rid
existing gates
proposed gates in 2001
'Note Gates are a minimum requirement to introduce anti-whistling by-laws.
.... .... ... .. ...... .. .... . ... ..... ... ............ ...... ................ ..... . ......... .............. .........................................................
KEY MA��
D' 2001
REPORT NA.
6
eii,6,6 0
77
�n
BU ETO
lNi4M'IL-LEN
YD
01
srr
I EN,
W
1�
:N4 INEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CLARINGTON RAILWAY NETWORK
Legend
C.P.Belleville Subdivision Railway Line
C.N.Kingston Subdivision Railway Line
• I**C.P.Havelock Subdivision Railway Line
Regional Roads
Provincial Highways
REPORT No.EGD-001-12
ATTACHMENT No.2
REVISED:January 3,2012
85x11-d
® +• ATTACHMENT NO.:3
REPORT NO.: EGD-001-12
I
i
i
e e M, ® ►
i
qW
r
Procedure ii
Eliminating i li
At Public Crossings
Guideline
II
i
Background
Engine whistling requirements are controlled through the Canadian Rail Operating Rules
(CROR). Rule 14(L)(ii) requires whistling for public crossings at grade "except as may be
prescribed in special instructions". The railway company can initiate an exemption by issuing
an instruction, which eliminates the application of rule 14(L)(ii).
Procedure
Municipalities seeking relief from whistling at public crossings must now contact the
pertinent railway company directly to discuss the matter. At the same time,the municipality
must also notify the general public and all relevant organizations of its intention to pass a
resolution forbidding the use of whistles in the area. The organizations are shown in
Schedule C. For any crossings where the road authority is not the municipality itself, then the
road authority must also be contacted. The responsible authorities, which are the municipality
and the railway company, and the road authority where the road authority is not the
municipality, shall jointly conduct a detailed safety assessment of the grade crossings. If the
responsible authorities are in agreement, and the crossings meet the requirements of this
Guideline,the municipality should pass a motion prohibiting whistling.
Where an agreement has been reached between the railway and the municipality (and the
road authority, in the above-mentioned case) that whistling may be discontinued,the railway
can arrange to have the whistling discontinued. The parties may request a Transport Canada
railway safety inspector to inspect the crossing to confirm their assessment that the crossing
meets the requirements of the guideline. If the inspector is of the opinion that the crossings
meet the conditions contained in Schedule "A" of this guideline, Transport Canada's Director
General Railway Safety will confirm this opinion by letter to the railway involved, following
which,the railway may issue special instructions eliminating the application of CROR Rule
14(L)(ii) at the crossings.
If the crossing meets the conditions contained in Schedule "A" of this guideline but the
inspector has some safety concerns, the correction of which is a straightforward matter(for
example: brush clearing, simple signal circuit shortening),they will be identified in the letter.
They should be addressed prior to the elimination of whistling at the crossing.
If the crossing does not meet the general conditions set out in Schedule "A" or if there is a
serious safety concern, the parties will be advised by letter of the safety concerns and that the
whistling should be retained. Once the corrective measures have been carried out,the
inspector may again be invited to re-inspect the locations. Examples of such problems are
trespassing, queuing,the.absence of necessary automatic warning devices, and so forth.
Ordinarily,the inspector will visit the site after the railway request; however,he or she may
become involved sooner.
In the case where the railway does not agree to a prohibition of whistling, it should inform
the municipality of its reasons and also advise Transport Canada.
All parties involved in this whistling elimination process must remain aware of their roles
and responsibilities under Section 11 of the Railway Safety Act(RSA). Further information
on these roles and responsibilities can be found in section 1.3 of the Guideline - Engineering
Work Related to Railway Works (Section 11 -Railway Safety Act).
Conditions
The following outlines suggested conditions for crossings where relief from whistling is
being sought:
1. Crossing warning systems should be as indicated on the attached Schedule A.
2. Generally, whistling restrictions should be on a 24 hour basis. Under exceptional
circumstances, and following consultation with Transport Canada,relief from
whistling may be permitted between the hours of 2200 and 0700, local time.
However the protection requirements should be the same as those required for a
24 hour whistling relief.
3. Rules, respecting the sounding of locomotive bells, should still apply.
4. Where a crossing has experienced two or more accidents in the past five years,
even if the requirements laid out in Schedule A are met, the responsible
authorities should undertake a thorough safety review.
Schedule A
Warning Systems Required Where Whistling Is To Be Eliminated
Maximum Train Motor Vehicle Pedestrian/Bikeway Crossings (not
Speed at Crossings (No. of adjacent to motor vehicle crossings) (No. of
Crossing Tracks)Tracks)
F1 2 or more I 1 2 or more
Stop &proceed 013 gging or Flagging or [RCS (Note 2) RCS (Note 2)
F
Flagging, or maze Flagging, or maze
Up to 15 m.p.h. FLB FLB &G* barriers &guide barriers & guide
fencing (Note 5) fencing(Note 5)
rFLB, maze barriers &
16 - 50 m.p.h. FLB FLB &G de fencing (Note 5);FLB &G
l
Over 50 m.p.h. JFLB & G FLB &G JFL13 &G IFLB & G
* Except in cases where there is no possibility of a second train occurrence.
p
Notes:
1. Railway advance warning signs (Type WA-18, 18L, 18R, 19R,20R) should be
installed on all vehicular approaches as per clause A.3.4.2 of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices for Canada.
2. RCS is pictogram type reflectorized crossing sign. These are mandatory at all public
crossings.
3. FLB i hts-and-brAI.
4. FLB & G is flashing lights,bell and gates.
5. Guide fencing is for the purpose of preventing detours around the maze barriers. The
design should be site specific.
6. Additional signs, signals, or a combination thereof may be required if specific safety
problems exist at a particular crossing or if requirements, as outlined in the grade
crossing regulations, exist for a higher form of protection.
7. Normal railway operations shall not result in approach warning times of an automatic
warning system of more than 13 seconds longerthan the "Approach Warning Time".
8. Traffic signals within 30m of a crossing with automatic warning systems shall be
interconnected. Traffic signals over 30m from a crossing with automatic warning
systems shall be interconnected if queued traffic reaches the crossing.
9. Notwithstanding the above,there may be other safety factors such as a high level of
trespassing, queuing, and frequently poor environmental conditions, including fog or
blowing snow, which may require a higher level of crossing protection or else the
retention of whistling.
Schedule B - National headquarters and Regional offices
Transport Canada-Rail Safety
Rail Safety Branch
427 Laurier Street West,
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A ONS
Telephone: 613-998-2985
TTY: 1-888-675-6863
Email: rail safetygtc.gc.ca
Website: http://www.te. cg ca/eng/railsafety/iuenu.htm
1,1
0
Regional offices
The following regional sites provide information on services and activities as well as local
contacts.
• Atlantic Region-http://www.te.go.ca/eng/atlantic/menu.htm
• Ontario Region -http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/ontario/rail-menu-1360.htm
® �-aoiiRgisn ��-tr )7)v ca/�n - .htn
• Prairie &Northern Region-http://www.tc.ge.ca/eng/Trairieandnortherli/inenu.htm
® Quebec Region -http://www.te.gc.ca/eng/Auebee/rail-menu-1453.htm
Schedule C - Relevant Organizations
Mr. B, McDonagh Mr. Rob Smith
National Representative National Legislative Director
CAW Teamsters Rail Conference Canada
326-12th Street, 12th Floor 130 Albert Street, Suite 1710
New Westminster, B.C. Ottawa, Ontario
V3M 4H6 K1P 5G4
Mr. Brehl Mr. K. Depuck
President National Advisor
Teamsters Rail Conference Canada(MWED) Teamsters Rail Conference Canada(MWED)
2775 Lancaster Road, Suite 1 2775 Lancaster Road, Suite 1
Ottawa, Ontario Ottawa, Ontario
K1B 4V8 K1B 4V8
ZEN
I
l'
I
I