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

[route:oxford]

Not much call for AC in Barrow in Furness.
Or anywhere else in England.

It's essential in the south!

Around 2/3rds of the homes in my street have some form of air conditining equipment installed. It's great. Mine keeps the place comfortable in summer and is an efficient source of heating in the winter through heat-pump technology.

 

[bradford758]

A couple in my village live next to a pub that's been there for 450 years. You can guess the rest.

And er people who buy houses near football grounds and complain about noise and light pollution.

Sent from my 4009X using Tapatalk

 

[J-2739]

I'd like a house like that...

Seriously though, they really made a bad option for themselves by doing this. It's kinda hard to have sympathy for them in this situation.

It's easy to belittle someone else's problem when you don't have to deal with it. But as it's not in your back yard, you don't care. (in fact, I would almost say, Small-minded, cretinous NIMBYism )

That is in no way NIMBYism.

A real NIMBY is someone who gets a piece of infrastructure built near them while living in their property. Meanwhile, this couple made the decision to move into a house with a rail line next door, and are making a big noise out of it, which is rather pathetic if you ask me.

 

[pdeaves]

what house doesn't have AC nowadays?

I have AC... electricity!

 

[AlterEgo]

It's essential in the south!

Around 2/3rds of the homes in my street have some form of air conditining equipment installed. It's great. Mine keeps the place comfortable in summer and is an efficient source of heating in the winter through heat-pump technology.

You must live in a particularly affluent street and be very friendly with your neighbours.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Small-minded, cretinous NIMBYism of the highest order on show here. Only in the UK would this happen.

http://www.spiegel.de/international...on-protests-increase-in-germany-a-925806.html

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/europe/german-quiet-track-strategy-to-reduce-rail-noise.html

http://www.internoise2016.org/satellites-in-berlin/european-noise-policy/

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...city-subway-trains-noise-pollution-jet-engine

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/12/nyregion/after-complaints-lirr-studies-whistles.html

http://nypost.com/2014/01/19/noise-tops-new-yorkers-quality-of-life-complaints/

 

[Domh245]

I'd like a house like that...

Seriously though, they really made a bad option for themselves by doing this. It's kinda hard to have sympathy for them in this situation.

Except that they bought the house when there weren't 37s trying to smoke them out of the house:

"We live next to the railway line, but we lived in Ulverston in Lund Terrace next to the rail embankment and there were steam and diesel trains going up and down and we never heard them or had a problem."

"There are no problems with the Sprinter trains, but these things just roar. When they start them up sometimes it's like an Apache uprising and there is a plume of black smoke."

To go with the "they knew that there was a railway there when they bought the house" approach isn't particularly fair.

 

[najaB]

To go with the "they knew that there was a railway there when they bought the house" approach isn't particularly fair.

I agree. I have some sympathy for them, they made an assumption that the nature of the railway would remain the same which turned out to be incorrect.

Northern should seek to remedy the situation if possible (and practical).

 

[fowler9]

Except that they bought the house when there weren't 37s trying to smoke them out of the house:



To go with the "they knew that there was a railway there when they bought the house" approach isn't particularly fair.

Why isn't it fair? They should have done their research. It isn't like they bought a house by a field that suddenly became an opencast mine or a fracking site. If they don't like it maybe it will encourage them to vote for a government that will invest in the railways and provide them with the latest state of the art technology instead of using 60 year old locos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree. I have some sympathy for them, they made an assumption that the nature of the railway would remain the same which turned out to be incorrect.

Northern should seek to remedy the situation if possible (and practical).

I don't get it, the house buyer made an assumption so Northern should try and sort it out?

 

[J-2739]

Except that they bought the house when there weren't 37s trying to smoke them out of the house:



To go with the "they knew that there was a railway there when they bought the house" approach isn't particularly fair.

I agree. I have some sympathy for them, they made an assumption that the nature of the railway would remain the same which turned out to be incorrect.

Northern should seek to remedy the situation if possible (and practical).

Really though? It's the railways for crying out loud! Why should TOCs (and FOCs) be expected to compromise, just because a couple is throwing a hissy fit over use of the 37s on that route? Do you expect them to just change what locos they're using to please a small minority in a short space of time? I know they were probably expecting clean sprinters to cover their route, but you can't have everything.

Why isn't it fair? They should have done their research. It isn't like they bought a house by a field that suddenly became an opencast mine or a fracking site. If they don't like it maybe it will encourage them to vote for a government that will invest in the railways and provide them with the latest state of the art technology instead of using 60 year old locos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I don't get it, the house buyer made an assumption so Northern should try and sort it out?

Thank you!

 

[Bertie the bus]

Anyway, you wouldn't want your windows open in summer until the 37s have left the sidings and what house doesn't have AC nowadays?

Why wouldn't you want to open your windows in summer until after 14:30?

A little knowledge before posting is always useful.

 

[najaB]

I don't get it, the house buyer made an assumption so Northern should try and sort it out?

Northern made a significant change to their operations (introducing Class 37s) so it is reasonable to expect them to try to mitigate the impact on homeowners. It's known as being a good neighbour. Note the important qualifier - "if possible (and practical)".

 

[Darandio]

Northern should seek to remedy the situation if possible (and practical).

It's quite simple really.

One part of the issue they note is the noise and smoke when the locos are started. Practical solution is to not turn them off at night, problem solved!

 

[507021]

I simply have no sympathy for them. They bought a house with a railway at the bottom of the garden as did my family. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to guess that things might change. I trust they never drive or catch a plane for fear of offending anyone living near ever busier roads and airports. What kind of idiot buys a house by a railway and thinks it will not get noisy.

Completely agreed. My sister used to live right next to the Northern Line (I know EMUs are quieter than DMUs, but still) for a number of years, she never once complained about the eight trains an hour a which went past right behind her house. The only reason she moved was because her family needed a bigger place to live, the noise of the trains was nothing to do with it.

 

[EM2]

It's essential in the south!

Is it 'eck! I live in the area that had the hottest day of last year and there was no need for AC.

 

[yorkie]

No sympathy. They could have chosen to live further from the line

I deliberately chose to live near enough to the railway so I can be about 10 minutes from the station, but far enough away not to be awoken by the noise. I can hear the trains at night (not during the day, due to traffic noise) but they do not wake or bother me.

 

[fowler9]

Northern made a significant change to their operations (introducing Class 37s) so it is reasonable to expect them to try to mitigate the impact on homeowners. It's known as being a good neighbour. Note the important qualifier - "if possible (and practical)".

How would you suggest they mitigate the impact of starting up a 37? Perhaps the people who bought a house right next to the railway would be happier if the trains stopped running? They are after all very expensively run to provide a service, not just to keep us Tractor Bashers happy. I understand some sections of the journies are actually really busy. I suspect that the home owner would rather the locos started up behind someone elses house. What they should realise is they probably got their house for the price they did because there is a railway at the bottom of the garden much like the one I live in, if there wasn't it would have cost a hell of a lot more.

 

[najaB]

How would you suggest they mitigate the impact of starting up a 37?

I don't know, and I don't know that it is even possible. And that would be an acceptable answer: "We looked at how we could reduce the noise, but couldn't find a solution that didn't have a big impact on operations."

Just saying "Tough, live with it." isn't being a good neighbour, and something like this could come back to be a problem when seeking planning permission for another development later.

 

[trash80]

Not much call for AC in Barrow in Furness.
Or anywhere else in England.
And why or why are those geriatric class 37s still staggering around the outer reaches of the railway system pouring poisons into the air ?

Well they are the second most reliable locos on the network for a start.

 

[fowler9]

I don't know, and I don't know that it is even possible. And that would be an acceptable answer: "We looked at how we could reduce the noise, but couldn't find a solution that didn't have a big impact on operations."

Just saying "Tough, live with it." isn't being a good neighbour, and something like this could come back to be a problem when seeking planning permission for another development later.

Yeah I totally agree. If I was dealing with a complaint from said householders I wouldn't just say to them "Tough". As a seasoned complaint handler I would have to explain that for their region the choice was this or no trains and to some how tactfully point out that they did choose to live there (Trust me, I have have had more awkward conversations). In fact at 10 past 7 this morning I was having a more awkward conversation with one of our companies own customers.

 

[mike57]

Can remember about 10 years ago working in an office close to where Class 37's were started every morning. We used to joke that you could run a (diesel) car on what they chucked out. Windows had to be shut if the wind was carrying it towards the offices.

Having said that if you buy a house next to a railway you have to expect that rail services will not stay the same, probably classic case would be Stalybridge - Guide bridge, went from 1 tph each way + freight to current 4 tph, but will probably end up back at 1tph once everything goes though Man Vic. I haven't any sympathy, how many loco hauled trains a day are there anyway.

 

[Bromley boy]

http://www.spiegel.de/international...on-protests-increase-in-germany-a-925806.html

http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/europe/german-quiet-track-strategy-to-reduce-rail-noise.html

http://www.internoise2016.org/satellites-in-berlin/european-noise-policy/

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...city-subway-trains-noise-pollution-jet-engine

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/12/nyregion/after-complaints-lirr-studies-whistles.html

http://nypost.com/2014/01/19/noise-tops-new-yorkers-quality-of-life-complaints/

Touché!

 

[najaB]

I haven't any sympathy, how many loco hauled trains a day are there anyway.

The issue that the couple are complaining about isn't one of passing services, but rather the starting up of locos early in the morning, and stabling running locos through the day.

 

[Domh245]

Having said that if you buy a house next to a railway you have to expect that rail services will not stay the same, probably classic case would be Stalybridge - Guide bridge, went from 1 tph each way + freight to current 4 tph, but will probably end up back at 1tph once everything goes though Man Vic. I haven't any sympathy, how many loco hauled trains a day are there anyway.

It's not unreasonable to assume that it would change for the better - not for worse. They might have realistically expected the sprinters to be replaced with more modern DMUs with fewer emissions, or even electrification, not to go back to engines from the 1960s.

 

[fredk]

It's not unreasonable to assume that it would change for the better - not for worse. They might have realistically expected the sprinters to be replaced with more modern DMUs with fewer emissions, or even electrification, not to go back to engines from the 1960s.

The railway uses different traction types when they are required. There are many cases where newer stock has been permanently replaced with older stock.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Of course one issue that people in these situations in general often fail to mention is that they usually got the house cheaper, because of the noise issues.

So they gained from the problem by getting a cheaper house, but now of course want rid of the issue.

 

[158756]

Of course one issue that people in these situations in general often fail to mention is that they usually got the house cheaper, because of the noise issues.

So they gained from the problem by getting a cheaper house, but now of course want rid of the issue.

But they got the house cheaper because of a few sprinters going past, like many thousands of houses around the country. If the current situation is much worse, then their house will now be worth much less, which might be causing them a significant financial problem, especially if they're considering the option of moving to escape the problem. Barrow's not exactly a property hotspot, if the problem is that bad it might be unsellable.

 

[AndrewE]

But they got the house cheaper because of a few sprinters going past, like many thousands of houses around the country. If the current situation is much worse, then their house will now be worth much less, which might be causing them a significant financial problem, especially if they're considering the option of moving to escape the problem. Barrow's not exactly a property hotspot, if the problem is that bad it might be unsellable.

Their house (and all the rest of Barrow) might suffer a step-change down in value if the rail service suddenly got significantly worse...

 

[anme]

But they got the house cheaper because of a few sprinters going past, like many thousands of houses around the country. If the current situation is much worse, then their house will now be worth much less, which might be causing them a significant financial problem, especially if they're considering the option of moving to escape the problem. Barrow's not exactly a property hotspot, if the problem is that bad it might be unsellable.

If you buy a house, that's your risk.

 

[furnessvale]

But they got the house cheaper because of a few sprinters going past, like many thousands of houses around the country. If the current situation is much worse, then their house will now be worth much less, which might be causing them a significant financial problem, especially if they're considering the option of moving to escape the problem. Barrow's not exactly a property hotspot, if the problem is that bad it might be unsellable.

This happens to hundreds of thousands of houses in the UK alongside main roads as traffic increases yearly. There is absolutely no come back on roads but people, and MPs etc, seem to believe there is a come back on rail.