Jump to content

Talk:Train whistle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Possible merge?

[edit]

There is no reason to merge train horn with train whistle. Diesel locomotive air horns function quite differently from steam whistles, merging the articles would only add to the confusion on the part of the uninformed. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 10:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand your point, but what about the whistles on modern European trains? They are not steam whistles and serve almost exactly the same purpose as air horns. Also, although a steam whistle and a diesel air horn are indeed two very different things, don't they both perform the same function? This article has a lot of content that applies to (and directly relevant to) the horn article. Cacetudo 17:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I intended the train horn article to deal exclusively with horns as used in North America. They are a completely different breed from the 'whistles' used almost everywhere else. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 08:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the train horn and train whistle articles greatly overlap, and the separation of the two topics don't add to the clarity of the information presented, and thus the articles should be merged. There are a number of reasons for my belief:

+ The train whistle article often describes the devices as "horns"; if the difference between a "whistle" and a "horn" is so important then the terms should be more precisely used

+ If the difference between the two types of equipment is how they generate sound, then both articles should describe how their respective noise makers create sound; the train whistle article never does this.

+ Much of the information presented has nothing to do with whether a "whistle" or "horn" is used, e.g. "Noise complaints", "Doppler effect", "Whistle codes" versus "horn signals" (even the specific dot-dash patterns seem the same)

-- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air and Vacuum brakes

[edit]

Trains with air brakes can use the compressed air at 70 psi to operate the whistle.

What do trains with vacuum brakes do? Given that there are no longer steam locomotives with high pressure steam to operate the horn.

Tabletop 00:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over-US-biased Addition

[edit]

I have removed the following anonymous addition to the article. While it contains much that is quite interesting, it is very obviously written by an American! Compare 'hauntingly beautiful minor triads' with 'tiny shrieking "egg-cup"' , for example – the latter being particularly insulting to the majority of UK (English?) steam enthusiasts who would much prefer the efficient clarity of a simple steam whistle to the brash, overbearing cacophony of the steam-guzzling fog horns to be found on US locos. ( :o) )

American train whistles usually had anywhere from one to six frequencies which were sounded together. Many American railroad whistles had wonderful sounds. Famous examples would be the 6-chimes of the NYC and SP railroads, the hauntingly beautiful minor triads of the Pennsylvania and the B&O railroads, and the deep steamboat minor triads of the Union Pacific's famous Big-boy & Challenger loco's with their Hancock Inspirator 3-chime, long-bell step-tops. Nathan Company's famous long-bell 6-chime steptop whistle was the most universally copied of all American RR whistles. Many railroads cast their own copies of this chime in their own shops. Although European steam locomotives became as large and advanced as those in America, their whistles did not. With few at-grade crossings, English, German and some other European nations used tiny shrieking "egg-cup" plain whistles on their locomotives. In comparison, American steam railroads became famous for their large, musical multi-chime whistles. For passenger loco's, railroads prefered deeper-pitched whistles, usually a long-bell 6-chime steptop, or long-bell "steamboat" 3-chime. For freight, short-bell 5-chime steptops were popular. The great majority of American locomotive whistles were 6-1/2" in diameter, large and heavy, weighing up to 90lbs!!

However, the main reason for reverting was that the existing technical text was replaced by this anonymous edit.

Besides which, I'm not an expert on LNER locos, but I thought they too had 'chime' whistles...?

EdJogg 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed section

[edit]

An anonymous editor persists in modifying a section of this article.

Ignoring the poor spelling and grammar, the added text is essentially original research and is decidedly biased (ie not WP:NPOV) against what is already there. It is also impossible to verify the claims, since no new references are provided, and the existing cited reference is not directly available online.

In the folowing section, the added text is marked in red, replaced text is shown with strike-out.

Noise complaints from train whistles
It is not uncommon for the sound of a train's whistle to propagate for miles; yet operators of the vehicles still have a difficult time hearing the warning signal due to the vehicle's soundproofing and ambient noise within the cab (such as engine, road, radio, and conversation noises).
The need to blare a train's whistle excessively loud to be heard by the driver of a vehicle approaching a grade crossing has become a major disadvantage to the use of train whistles as a safety device and has caused much controversy to those living within earshot of the train's whistle. It has been documented that a train's whistle, when operating on compressed air, driving an exponential horn, has been measured at a higher decibel levels within the homes of nearby residents than within the cab of a vehicle sitting at the grade crossing.[1]
Given the tonal design of the train whistle, the sound level, how often trains pass through a given community, the number of grade crossings in proximity, and the time of day (night) of occurrence, some feel that train whistles have a serious detrimental effect on the quality of life of community residents in a given area despite the gain in safety that sounding the horn provides to motorists. However, studies have one FRA study that has very low statictical validity has shown that the frequency of grade crossing accidents increase in areas where quiet zones are in effect.[2] The study fails to account for other factors that were also introduced at the same time which may have also accounted for the reduction in accidents during the period the study measured. For instance, it was during the same period that locomotives began sporting the now cruitally important tri-lamp headlight arrangement. Additionally, the measurements were based on accidents at grade-crossings, which are very low numbers overall to begin with. A grade-crossing that had two accidents during in the compairison years, that were contrasted with only one accident during the control period would staticistically yield a high percentage-wise improvement in safety, when in reality, it was the difference in only one accident for that grade-crossing.
Conversely there are those who do not object to the train whistle, as they believe it provides an important safety feature. Some people even like the sound of the whistle, as it calls to mind a nostalgic era, as with the riverboats and their steam whistles and calliopes. However, no real studies have been performed by unbiased offical entities to measure the real effects such noise has on a community.

I have, again, removed this addition, as it does not seem to me to meet a number of WP's guidelines. Other editors' thoughts would be welcome. EdJogg (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the "persistant editor", I have been trying to recreate my original post, that has been modified over time. There is nothing original about my references, as they are simply facts of the citations. The bias is in the ommission of these insights to this report that EdJogg has referred to. Another fact is that the report in of itself is a biased report desinged to support the position that whistles save lives, while, at the same time, ignoring other reasons for its statistical conclusions. Therefore, I will continue to persist because there seems to be an agenda on both sides of this debate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.40.15.4 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. Now we have a talk page section to discuss the matter I think I shall leave it at that. Clearly we won't agree, and I have better things to do with my time...! Let me just say that I take neither side in this particular disagreement (regarding whistles and (ugh!) 'grade' crossings) as this is a purely US thing and I'm on the other side of the pond...

I am going to mark it with some kind of banner, as it still fails several of WP's principles. Other editors may agree with me when they pop by, but we'll see about that when they do.

EdJogg (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Federal Railroad Administration [Docket No. FRA 1999–6439, Notice No. 18]". Federal Railroad Administration. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 32 (help)
  2. ^ "Federal Railroad Administration [Docket No. FRA 1999–6439, Notice No. 18]". Federal Railroad Administration. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 32 (help)

Missing information?

[edit]

The article contains the following text:

John Holliday describes the history of train whistles as originating in 1832, by way of a stationmaster at the Leicester and Swannington Railway opening, that the trains should have an audible signaling device. A local musical instrument builder was commissioned to provide a steam-powered whistle, then known as a "steam trumpet".

The article also describes a train-bus collision arising from a train that used truck horns instead of the standard whistle. Although the bus driver heard the horn, he thought it was a truck rather than a train.

Who is John Holliday (the disambiguation page for this name contains nobody that seems obviously linked with this statement) and what is 'the article' being referred to in the second paragraph? If these refer to references at the bottom of the page, I think additional information should still be provided in the body to clarify who the person is, and what article is being referred to. 60.241.179.28 (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The melancholy nature of train whistles

[edit]

Based on the revert of 386129858 by Rjstott: [[1]]

I view this section to be pure OR with the exception of the book citation. It is clearly uncited, and while, I suppose, the sentiment is commonsense, it doesn't appear clear to me that the content is even encyclopedic. If Rjstott feels that the section is of value, perhaps they might be so kind as to clean it up a bit. Barring that, seems to me that it should at least be trimmed down to a verifiable and encyclopedic core. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twredfish (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just don't see why the OR tag has been added because it clearly isn't that. There may be some irrelevance but actually there is also some interest here which goes beyond the 'warning' nature of a whistle because they aren't just used for that. Same goes for maritime fog horns which are used at both melancholy and gay times. I would clean up the article if I could see anything useful to change but I can't and I think the text should stand with out the OR tag!!Rjstott (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's up with those train samples? They are completely distorted, at least on Google Chrome for Mac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.239.146.130 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Doppler effect (?)

[edit]

I am going to change the title and content of this section. Train whistles did not lead to the discovery of the Doppler effect. Doppler's discovery was based on the frequency changes observed in the light from stars. The example of a train whistle is commonly used in classrooms to explain the phenomena. Any objections out there from anyone? --Remotelysensed (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read Über das farbige Licht der Doppelsterne und einiger anderer Gestirne des Himmels in detail. However AIUI, Doppler's work was based on a recognised and understood effect in wave mechanics at the time, and Doppler's innovation was to apply it (in a presciently relativistic way) to light. He did, AIUI, apply what he knew of a mechanical wave effect that others had described and understood and he applied it to light to make a novel prediction regarding star colour and eventually spectral lines. This is an even more remarkable achievement and Doppler deserves to have his name applied to the effect, and also to be better known for this optical work. However I don't see this as evidence that he was the first to recognise the effect, or that he recognised it first in astronomy. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Train whistle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Train whistle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Train whistle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Train_whistle&oldid=1205744726"