admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jun 18, 2012 8:49:08 GMT -5
5 trains a day one way for a total of 10 trains a week day . So 10 trains x 5 days a week = 50 trains in a one week period . Now with the new weekend service adding two trains on a Saturday and two trains on a Sunday , lets do the math shall we ? 2 weekend days x 2 trains a day totalling 4 trains on the weekends . The Saturday night train heading north hits Gilford at 1:30am .
If your still with me 54 trains pass Gilford every 7 days . Each time blowing there horns 4 times , you can double that up as here in Gilford the crossings are less then 1 kilometre apart . 54 trains blowing there horns 8 times when thy pass Gilford = 282 times in a one week period .
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jun 18, 2012 10:29:51 GMT -5
Found this on the net as well..
Here’s what I find interesting , please watch the video and tell me if you hear any whistle ?
Ill say no you don’t, you hear a horn blasting . Im starting to think the word whistle that’s being used is to diminish the actual sound you hear.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Jun 18, 2012 15:52:21 GMT -5
sounds like a great idea for you, but i would think that your going knowhere with this one as they will sound and any public crossing. saftey first not last , just like perdicting the ice
enjoy your summer
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jun 18, 2012 16:17:22 GMT -5
Here’s an article in the paper I found, it does say Barrie had the horns silenced, so if Barrie can do it I would think Gilford being a bed room community should have no problem.. GILFORD — A Gilford resident who hoped GO trains could reduce their warning blasts as they pass by her house now wants an all-out ban. Jo-Ann Glover requested the whistles that sound about 10 times a day as they pass through the sparsely populated area be cut back. But now that Metrolinx has informed the town the whistles are “all or nothing”, she and her neighbours want the whistles silenced. “Myself and all the other people who were petitioning with me are still onboard,” Jo-Ann Glover said in a letter to council. “I have spoken with everyone and we are tired of the racket. Let's get the ball rolling and the whistling stopped.” The town’s development director Don Eastwood will now investigate what it will take to have the whistles stopped in Gilford only. Other municipalities, including Barrie, have banned GO train whistles at crossings. Under Metrolinx policy, the town would be liable for costs if there was an accident at a rail crossing where the town has requested whistles be banned. The town would need additional insurance coverage such as Barrie purchases, which has a $100,000 deductible. With two crossings close together — one at Gilford Road and another at Shore Acres Drive — residents get a double dose of the whistles. Five trains pass through Gilford every morning and return in the evening. GO recently announced it will also run trains on the weekend between Barrie and Toronto. In 2009, Stroud residents complained about loud GO whistles. However, council at the time decided against asking for a ban based on safety and liability.
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jun 19, 2012 14:16:05 GMT -5
Live tomorrow morning you get to hear the actual horns sounding …..live on this network .
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jun 20, 2012 8:09:33 GMT -5
Horn
whistle
You be the judge on what you think you hear..
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jun 28, 2012 2:07:48 GMT -5
In response to your email which was received by our Customer Service department, I am providing a copy of Council Resolution CR-014-03.12 from January 18, 2012, and subsequent Council Resolution CR-111-08.12 from June 6, 2012, which indicates Council’s direction to staff. A staff report regarding progress on the matter is anticipated at a future date. Should you wish to have Council receive and consider your information, we require your contact particulars (name, etc.) and permission to include same on the Council Information list. Please contact me should you wish to have your information included in the published Council Information list at an upcoming meeting. (January 18, 2012) CR-014-03.12 Resolution Moved By: Councillor L. Dollin Seconded By: Councillor B. Loughead That Staff Report DSR-020-12, be received; and That Council not pursue a prohibition of train whistling within the Town of Innisfil at this time, and the Director of Development continue to engage Metrolinks and Transport Canada to find a solution to Gilford’s site specific issue. --Carried-- (June 6, 2012) CR-111-08.12 Resolution Moved by: Councillor L. Dollin Seconded by: Councillor M. Baier That the correspondence from Jo-Ann Glover, dated April 26, 2012, re: Gilford GO Train Horn, be received and referred to the Director of Development for the purpose of considering this correspondence in relation to CR.14.03-12. --Carried-- Karen Fraser Deputy Clerk (705) 436-3740 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting FREE (705) 436-3740 end_of_the_skype_highlighting x 2402 1-888-436-3710 (Toll Free) (705) 436-7120 (705) 436-7120 (Fax) Town of Innisfil 2101 Innisfil Beach Road Innisfil ON L9S 1A1 www.innisfil.ca
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jun 29, 2012 15:19:19 GMT -5
From a local paper
Let the whistle blow for safety to sow GILFORD — I have followed the story with respect to Jo-Ann Glover and associates petitioning to stop/silence the Go train whistle at two crossings in Gilford. I have lived within clear earshot of the train whistles since 1965. Not only can we hear the whistle at the two crossings in Gilford but the 2nd line crossing is loud and clear as well. The absolute last thing that should happen is to silence the warning system put in place to save lives and avert tragedy. The second last thing that should happen is for the Town of Innisfil to in anyway become liable or expend any further resources to satisfy a few. The thought of Innisfil having to increase its insurance or enter into an agreement where by the town would have a $100,000 deductible to cover this is repugnant. I have two recommendations for those petitioning to have the train whistle silenced: 1) Move Or 2) You become liable for the silencing of the whistle not just financially but morally should, heaven forbid, an accident happen. Let the whistle blow for seeds of safety they sow.
Ken Simpson Gilford
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jul 4, 2012 4:48:20 GMT -5
Weekend trains make GO whistles worse
After reading Ken Simpson’s letter to the editor I feel this man has not got his facts straight. He says he has been following our quest about the Go train noise in this town. If he was following it he would know that when they first started they were trying to have the horn-blowing cut back; not silenced. I mean where does he get this from? Their latest quest was to have it silenced because they were told it was an all or nothing situtation. Does he really follow it or is he making his own assumptions. As a Gilford resident myself, we can hear the train starting in about Lefroy (not just the 2nd line) and hear it to the Bradford Green Houses. The train does make quite the ruckus going through town. I would like to join in this petition along with the other residents especially now that the trains are running on the weekends. This morning (July 3) the first trains went blowing through town at 2 a.m., followed by the 5:40 a.m. train. You get awful tired of waking up so early in the morning. I know some people will argue safety, but the crossings are very well protected and if someone does have an accident they are not paying attention to the road. The bells go, the arms come down and the lights flash. I mean really, what more do you need?
Karen MacNeil Gilford
|
|
|
Post by lovesomepickerel on Jul 4, 2012 22:18:46 GMT -5
As a Gilford resident who lives very close to the tracks...I know what the blasting of the horns sound like at 5:40 am!!!! Through the week there are 5 daily southbound trains and 5 nightly northbound trains but since the weekend trains started we now get blasted 7 days/week and if that isn't bad enough we get it at about 1:35 am on weekends!
It is not a pleasant sound and some of the conductors blast more than the 4 allowed by-law....I have counted up to 12 blasts between the two crossings.
This has become more than just a noise nuisance...it is now affecting our health. My sleep patterns are thrown right off....as for the people who say we should never mind and just let it go....I think not .... and don't tell us to move....we have every right to be here too! I'm all for the safety...which is already at the crossings....people are not going to stop because the train is blowing the whistle....they will stop when they see the flashing lights, the arms coming down and the bells dinging.
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jul 5, 2012 8:22:00 GMT -5
ill try to explain clearly so everyone understands and we can work to correct this . At one time the horns were a good idea , that time has come and gone because of the safety improvements , there use to be a time when not all crossings had a arm to come down and bells to sound red lights to flash and at that time the horns were there for that very reason , to worn of an oncoming train prier to its arrival . Now that all crossings on the Bradford line have arms that come down , bells to sound and lights to flash red , the horns are not unnecessary . Transport Canada requires this horn blowing , Metrolink is not to blame here as there just following the directive of Transport Canada . To have this stopped , that falls on Mr Eastwoods shoulders , his job now it go get the insurance to cover the liability . As a side note, just think of this gentleman’s popularity when he achieves our objective . Ill be the first one to congratulate him on a job well done
|
|
|
Post by Italia Man on Jul 5, 2012 20:27:19 GMT -5
Peter the horn makes for a good alarm clock,when it blows wake up and go slam some fish lol
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jul 9, 2012 15:01:13 GMT -5
SUBJECT: Train Whistling Prohibition Cross Reference CR 271-13.11 PDS -043-08 RECOMMENDATION: THAT staff report DSR 020-12 be received; and THAT Council not pursue a prohibition of train whistling within the Town of Innisfil. BACKGROUND: At their meeting of December 14, 2011, Council adopted resolution number CR 271-13 that received correspondence from Jo-Ann Glover dated October 13, 2011.11 regarding whistling by GO Trains, and directed staff to contact Metrolinx to ask them to audit the area and to advise of a method to amend the operators policy due to the close proximity of Shore Acres Drive and Gilford Road, and that staff report back to Council. At the January 4, 2012 meeting, Council considered additional correspondence from residents in the Gilford area with respect to their desire to reduce or eliminate train whistling, and referred that correspondence to staff to be considered in the report back to Council referenced in CR 271-13.11. In 2009, the previous Council considered staff report PDS-043-08 regarding GO Transit operation of bells and whistles and signalling devices at crossings. The previous Council adopted a resolution that an anti-whistling by-law within the Town of Innisfil not be approved. ANALYSIS/CONSIDERATION: Staff have contacted Metrolinx to ask them to investigate opportunities to reduce or eliminate whistling at level crossings in the Gilford area.
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jul 9, 2012 15:02:24 GMT -5
Staff Report DSR-020-12 January 18, 2012 Train Whistling Prohibition Page 2 of 3 Metrolinx has responded that they are bound by Canadian Rail Operating Rules (rule 14 (i) (ii) set out by Transport Canada which provides that approaching trains will sound their whistles at least ¼ mile from every public crossing, unless there are special instructions issued by the railway that the whistle may not be sounded at specific crossings provided certain conditions are met. The process to reduce the number of whistle blasts or to eliminate whistling entirely is the same under Transport Canada Guidelines (attached). To formally initiate the process, the municipality must contact the railway operator, in this case Metrolinx, to discuss the matter, and at the same time, notify the general public and all relevant organizations of its intention to pass a resolution forbidding the use of whistles in the area. The municipality and the railway operator shall jointly conduct a detailed safety assessment of the grade crossings, which is then reviewed by Transport Canada, CN Rail and Metrolinx. The costs of the study and the costs of any required improvements to the crossings would be borne by the municipality. Subject to the approval of the railway operator and Transport Canada, and the installation of any necessary equipment, sight line improvements, right of way clearing, pavement markings or pedestrian crossing protection, and the execution of an Agreement by the Town to assume all liability associated with the cessation of whistling, then the municipality may then give notice and adopt a resolution to prohibit whistling for the prescribed crossings. Staff notes that the City of Barrie, in June 2010, adopted a report to eliminate train whistles at three crossings in the south end of the City. The process took approximately 15 months. In researching the experience of other jurisdictions where whistling has been eliminated, staff noted that Transport Canada cites statistics showing an increasing trend toward pedestrian-rail fatalities, and thus the installation of pedestrian maze barriers at crossings where whistling is to be reduced/eliminated would likely be a requirement of Transport Canada and the railway operator. The assumption of liability by the Town for some or all of the costs associated with any incidents, injuries or fatalities which may occur as a result of the cessation of whistling is of significant concern to staff. This opens the municipality to liabilities it did not have before and will require additional insurance coverage and costs to the Town. Some of these costs and potential claims are unknown and cannot be accurately estimated at this time. While staff are very sympathetic to the impact that the noise associated with train whistles are having on residents close to crossings in the Gilford area, staff are also very concerned about the implications for public safety and the potential liability that would be assumed if Council were to resolve to eliminate or reduce whistling at designated crossings. Moreover, if future crossings are to be similarly designated in the future, a similar process would need to be followed for each crossing or group of crossings. The costs and potential liability would similarly escalate. Staff is of the opinion that Town should not pursue the adoption of a whistle cessation by-law. OPTIONS/ALTERNATIVES: Council has the option to direct staff to begin the process to enact a whistle cessation by-law and follow the steps as outlined above and as attached to this report.
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jul 9, 2012 15:03:39 GMT -5
Staff Report DSR-020-12 January 18, 2012 Train Whistling Prohibition Page 3 of 3 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION: There are no costs associated with the adoption of this report. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding the concerns of residents in the vicinity of rail crossings where whistle blowing is required by Transport Canada regulation, in the interests of public safety, staff does not recommend that Council adopt a whistle cessation by-law. PREPARED BY: Don Eastwood B.E.S. M.A.
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jul 9, 2012 15:24:25 GMT -5
Council has the option to direct staff to begin the process to enact a whistle cessation by-law and follow the steps as outlined above and as attached to this report. It takes 2/3 majority of counsel to start the ball rolling to eliminate the train horns for good . 3rd line , 2nd line , Shore Acers (89) and Gilford Rd is the offending area for the community and that’s what will concentrate on . I emailed Mr Eastwood asking him for the names and email of the councillors and how thy voted , when we receive this information emails will be forth coming to these individuals outlining our objective and weather there on board or not…
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jul 9, 2012 15:59:20 GMT -5
Well its to late, i got them all . Mayor Barb Baguley bbaguley@innisfil.ca Deputy Mayor Dan Davidson ddavidson@innisfil.ca Ward 1 Doug Lougheed dlougheed@innisfil.ca Ward 2 Richard Simpson rsimpson@innisfil.ca Ward 3 Ken Simpson ksimpson@innisfil.ca Ward 4 Rod Boynton rboynton@innisfil.ca Ward 5 Bill Loughead bloughead@innisfil.ca Ward 6 Maria Baier mbaier@innisfil.ca Ward 7 Lynn Dollin ldollin@innisfil.ca What ill do now is prepare a draft for you guys to read, perhaps make changes if needed and will send off copies to each councillor as well as the Mayor outlining our objective and if there on board or not . ( pun intended ) .
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jul 10, 2012 3:24:44 GMT -5
Procedure & Conditions For Eliminating Whistling At Public Crossings Background Engine whistling requirements are controlled through the Canadian Rail Operating Rules (CROR). Rule 14(L)(i) 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).
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)(i) 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).
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jul 10, 2012 3:26:04 GMT -5
Conditions The following outlines suggested conditions for crossings where relief from whistling is being sought:
Crossing warning systems should be as indicated on the attached Schedule A. 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. Rules, respecting the sounding of locomotive bells, should still apply. 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.
|
|
admin
Global Moderator
Canadian
Welcome to the Cook's Bay Fishing Board
Posts: 6,215
|
Post by admin on Jul 10, 2012 3:28:22 GMT -5
Schedule A Warning Systems Required Where Whistling Is To Be Eliminated
Maximum Train Speed at Crossing Motor Vehicle Crossings (No. of Tracks) Pedestrian/Bikeway Crossings (not adjacent to motor vehicle crossings) (No. of Tracks) 1 2 or more 1 2 or more Stop & proceed Flagging or FLB Flagging or FLB RCS (Note 2) RCS (Note 2) Up to 15 m.p.h. FLB FLB & G* Flagging, or maze barriers & guide fencing (Note 5) Flagging, or maze barriers & guide fencing (Note 5) 16 - 50 m.p.h. FLB FLB & G FLB, maze barriers & guide fencing (Note 5) FLB & G Over 50 m.p.h. FLB & G FLB & G FLB & G FLB & G
* Except in cases where there is no possibility of a second train occurrence.
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 is flashing lights and bell.
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 longer than 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.
|
|