Couple who live near railway are upset by noisy Class 37's.

[Bletchleyite]

I think that's one of the stupidest comments on here. You obviously don't put much value on your health.

Is it? Plenty of people do risky stuff because they enjoy it despite it having no practical benefit. Wingsuit flyers, for example, put themselves at far more risk than people who for whatever reason like to hang around large exhaust-belching railway locomotives. And smokers, for that matter.

 

[vicbury]

Lots of comments here saying how the complainants don't have a point as they moved into a house by a live railway and can't expect the traffic to not change.

How would everyone who lives next to a public highway feel if a haulier designed to park refrigerated lorries (with diesel generators running) outside their homes each night?

I take it the reaction would be tough, it's a public highway and the haulier can park if they want?

 

[furnessvale]

Lots of comments here saying how the complainants don't have a point as they moved into a house by a live railway and can't expect the traffic to not change.

How would everyone who lives next to a public highway feel if a haulier designed to park refrigerated lorries (with diesel generators running) outside their homes each night?

I take it the reaction would be tough, it's a public highway and the haulier can park if they want?

No one has a God given right to park on the highway.

But in this case the haulier has a haulage yard at the back of these houses. He has been there for years and has recently brought some different lorries into the yard.

 

[DarloRich]

These threads always bring out the usual comments detached from reality. While many of the super spotters here might cream themselves at the prospect of living next to a 37 firing up at 4am, those of us with jobs, families and mortgages to pay might be slightly less happy!

In any event it is clear all the people are asking for is some mitigation from the noise and fumes. Surely some acoustic fencing could be erected to reduce the impact of the noise? Surely some different operating principles could be introduced to mitigate the impact of the fumes?

As for the usual comments about moving near to a railway line: They are complaining about the change of train type not trains generally! They might have visited the house at different times of the day and night and noted the units chugging up and down. Not being spotters they perhaps didn't factor in the sudden arrival of a 50 year old, naval gun boat engine powered monster arriving. I mean which reasonable person, in the real world, would?

As for the "they had a choice to move there" sillyness. Many people don't have that choice. They can live where they can afford. Many here seem to miss that point.....

 

[Bromley boy]

As for the "they had a choice to move there" sillyness. Many people don't have that choice. They can live where they can afford. Many here seem to miss that point.....

I agree with your comment generally, given the specific facts of this case where the use of the bit of railway in question has changed significantly.

However re. your point above, we should remember that "negative externalities" are reflected in house prices. If I buy a property next to a motorway I am choosing to buy a large property next to a motorway rather than a smaller property without the motorway, for the same budget.

If a motorway is constructed after the house is bought/local road suddenly becomes far busier that's more analogous to the current situation.

 

[najaB]

However re. your point above, we should remember that "negative externalities" are reflected in house prices. If I buy a property next to a motorway I am choosing to buy a large property next to a motorway rather than a smaller property without the motorway, for the same budget.

Or, possibly, a small property next to the motorway rather than no property at all.

 

[Bromley boy]

Or, possibly, a small property next to the motorway rather than no property at all.

Possibly.

However in that case it would be a bit rich to buy the propery, benefiting from the low price, and then complain about the very thing that made it affordable in the first place!

 

[R4_GRN]

I have, until now, not been too sympathetic however just watched a video of one of these being started up.
It is unbelievably noisy, smoke is unacceptable why are the company not being taken to task over the pollution? Surely an engineer and fitter can tune the engine to reduce the exhaust gas, if I drove a car which polluted the air to this extent the boys in blue would be feeling my collar, quite rightly.

Can someone with experience of maintaining these engines explain why they are so bad? Is it down to old age and wear and tear?

 

[fredk]

I have, until now, not been too sympathetic however just watched a video of one of these being started up.
It is unbelievably noisy, smoke is unacceptable why are the company not being taken to task over the pollution? Surely an engineer and fitter can tune the engine to reduce the exhaust gas, if I drove a car which polluted the air to this extent the boys in blue would be feeling my collar, quite rightly.

Can someone with experience of maintaining these engines explain why they are so bad? Is it down to old age and wear and tear?

It is not due to wear and tear, but starting cold. They were designed to only be switched off for maintenance and just be left ticking over when not in use. They don't use much diesel while idling and diesel was very cheap back then.

When they start up they burn fuel to warm up because there is no electric heating system to get the temperature required for starting.

 

[najaB]

I have, until now, not been too sympathetic however just watched a video of one of these being started up.

Here's an example if anyone hasn't seen and heard it before:
[youtube]_HSErx4Tmg8[/youtube]

 

[R4_GRN]

It is not due to wear and tear, but starting cold. They were designed to only be switched off for maintenance and just be left ticking over when not in use. They don't use much diesel while idling and diesel was very cheap back then.

When they start up they burn fuel to warm up because there is no electric heating system to get the temperature required for starting.

So now fuel is more expensive a system could be designed to solve the problem? I am sure an engineer could design this problem out. Burning fuel just to keep the engine warm is a gross waste of fuel, how long between stops and starts before it is uneconomic and antisocial to keep them running?

 

[najaB]

So now fuel is more expensive a system could be designed to solve the problem? I am sure an engineer could design this problem out.

The cost of developing and implementing such a system on such a small fleet (30-ish?) would likely be more expensive than the diesel they will burn in their remaining service life.

 

[fredk]

So now fuel is more expensive a system could be designed to solve the problem? I am sure an engineer could design this problem out. Burning fuel just to keep the engine warm is a gross waste of fuel, how long between stops and starts before it is uneconomic and antisocial to keep them running?

Starting and shutting down causes more wear and uses far more fuel compared to leaving the engine idling.

 

[R4_GRN]

Ah, thanks for the explanation, makes sense now, but changed my mind about residents who move to the area and are now complaining, they do have a reason to complain.

Maybe the life of these engines is due to expire and they will soon be scrapped which would solve the problem

 

[furnessvale]

Ah, thanks for the explanation, makes sense now, but changed my mind about residents who move to the area and are now complaining, they do have a reason to complain.

Maybe the life of these engines is due to expire and they will soon be scrapped which would solve the problem

How true, but what heresy you commit to print in this forum!

 

[43021HST]

I remember seeing this post first in the excellent Facebook group 'angry people in local papers'. Talk about parochial nonsense

My Grandmother is exactly like this, any slight change or temporary disruption to her middle class domestic bliss, she moans like anything. I imagine these two to be exactly the same, I wish my life was this easy to only worry about noisy trains.

 

[bb21]

Frankly I have every sympathy with couple, if they bought it when the was worked by DMU, only to find now that some dirty noisy 1960's relic that should have been long since scrapped has now has taken over the service.

Along with the poor reliability and expense as discussed elsewhere the whole thing is utterly ridiculous, and should now be a top priority with Northern regarding replacement when additional stock becomes available rather than waiting to 2019.

15.00!

Who won the sweep stake?

Seriously though I can have some sympathy for the complainant. As someone mentioned upthread, it is a reasonable expectation that rolling stock replacement moves upwards and onwards, not backwards. Suddenly having engines starting up in the small hours and idling for a few hours every day is unpleasant, and probably not very foreseeable when they first bought the house.

In answer to Paul's question above, they should probably sue their solicitor for incompetence.

 

[R4_GRN]

How true, but what heresy you commit to print in this forum!

Oops! I did not mean they should be scrapped I meant withdrawn from regular use. They would be acceptable on a heritage line, I doubt if locals to a heritage line would complain, having said that if they are so difficult to start why would a heritage line maintain them in running condition? From more knowledgable posters It sounds like the wear and tear of cold starts would soon make the engine unusable

 

[fowler9]

Oops! I did not mean they should be scrapped I meant withdrawn from regular use. They would be acceptable on a heritage line, I doubt if locals to a heritage line would complain, having said that if they are so difficult to start why would a heritage line maintain them in running condition? From more knowledgable posters It sounds like the wear and tear of cold starts would soon make the engine unusable

Compared to most steam locos a 37 is easy to start. I think they will have a good few years left in them on railtours and Heritage railways.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

A private company would quietly have a third party buy the property - fraction of the cost of a new train / loco!

 

[najaB]

A private company would quietly have a third party buy the property - fraction of the cost of a new train / loco!

Northern is a private company...

 

[DarloRich]

A private company would quietly have a third party buy the property - fraction of the cost of a new train / loco!

no they wouldn't! Why would they?:roll:

I have, until now, not been too sympathetic however just watched a video of one of these being started up.
It is unbelievably noisy, smoke is unacceptable why are the company not being taken to task over the pollution? Surely an engineer and fitter can tune the engine to reduce the exhaust gas, if I drove a car which polluted the air to this extent the boys in blue would be feeling my collar, quite rightly.

Can someone with experience of maintaining these engines explain why they are so bad? Is it down to old age and wear and tear?

These monsters have been around since the 1960's. Surely this cant be new to you? Where have you been? The engine is basically a submarine/gun boat engine from the second world war. It isnt a modern unit!

They will be in decent mechanical nick they are just old and not complaint with modern regulations

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Here's an example if anyone hasn't seen and heard it before:
[youtube]_HSErx4Tmg8[/youtube]

Good lord, what a monster! Is that one particularly knackered or would they all be so loud?

 

[R4_GRN]

Surely this cant be new to you? Where have you been?

We are not all experts in railway matters, just interested in railways in general. No I have never heard or seen one of these being started, despite being around when they were new!

 

[DarloRich]

Surely this cant be new to you? Where have you been?

We are not all experts in railway matters, just interested in railways in general. No I have never heard or seen one of these being started, despite being around when they were new!

Wowsers - they do make a bit of smoke and noise but it usually clears after 2 or 3 hours In fairness it wouldn't be allowed with a new engine.

(PS they aren't even the worst ones!)

 

[miami]

Don't trains have to meet MOTs and continuously tightening emission standards? Just because something was around in the 1960s doesn't mean it should be around now, and aside from a few nerds I suspect members of the public have no idea that trains that old are sitting belching poisonous fumes into the atmosphere. Certainly the fact there are still trains from 1980 caused a fair few reports in the press, so clearly something unusual (don't let them know about the isle of wight!)

I assume there are modern diesel trains that don't cause as much pollution per tonne-mile. Why aren't they in place? Because it's cheaper to run the 60 year old trains as long as possible. How is that fixed? By changing the financial incentives. We do (did) it with cars, we did it with leaded petrol.

 

[najaB]

Don't trains have to meet MOTs and continuously tightening emission standards?

Nope.

I assume there are modern diesel trains that don't cause as much pollution per tonne-mile. Why aren't they in place? Because it's cheaper to run the 60 year old trains as long as possible. How is that fixed? By changing the financial incentives. We do (did) it with cars, we did it with leaded petrol.

The comparison to leaded petrol is specious since there was a demonstrable, long-lasting risk to health of any amount of lead being put into the environment. Other than people in the immediate vicinity, clag has little to no effect. That's not to say that it's ideal to be using these locos, but it isn't in the same class of hazard as leaded petrol was.

I assure you, Northern wouldn't be using them if there was a viable alternative available, but there's a general shortage of DMUs. New stock is already on order but it takes time to hit the rails. In the meantime there are passengers who need trains and Class 37 haulage is what Northern managed to make happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nope.

And in any case, cars don't either. They have to meet the emission standards (and other standards) of when they were built.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume there are modern diesel trains that don't cause as much pollution per tonne-mile. Why aren't they in place? Because it's cheaper to run the 60 year old trains as long as possible.

It's not cheaper to run 60 year old LHCS than modern DMUs, there's just a shortage of modern DMUs.

 

[scott118]

Not rail related, however another case of, 'mad' neighbours...

http://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/new_judgement_could_force_mildenhall_stadium_to_close_1_4165627

In 2006 Katherine Lawrence and Raymond Shields moved to a house just 560 metres away from the stadium. Two years later legal proceedings over noise nuisance started, and in 2009 the case reached the High Court

The couple, who have not lived at the house since it burnt down in 2010, were awarded £20,000 in compensation for the noise nuisance.