Letter writers suggest the Peninsula’s critics of train noise and supporters of rail relocation need more information.

Letter writers suggest the Peninsula’s critics of train noise and supporters of rail relocation need more information.

LETTERS: Noise levels not up to train crew

Editor:

Re: Hoping for change down the line, Aug. 26 letters.

Editor:

Re: Hoping for change down the line, Aug. 26 letters.

Although I appreciate letter-writer John Oliver’s noise-pollution concerns, the Canadian Rail Operating Rule #14(L) states that at public crossings at grade, trains operating at a speed less then 44 m.p.h. must blow their whistles – two long, one short and one long – to provide 20 seconds warning prior to entering the crossing until the crossing is fully occupied.

If an accident occurred at a crossing, and the above rule was not adhered to by the train crew, they could be dismissed by the railway for non-compliance of the rules. If there were injuries or deaths, the train crew could be sued for damages caused by the accident.

Unfortunately, the new locomotives do not have a whistle cord or valve that one could regulate the amount of air going to the whistles. They are now equipped with a button that electronically operates a valve that supplies main reservoir air – approximately 130 pounds – to the whistles, which gives the maximum output.

West Vancouver has had an anti-whistle bylaw for years. Maybe you should try this route.

Barry Turriff, Delta

• • •

Relocation hurdles add up

Editor:

Sorry, folks, in spite of all the whining, that railway ain’t movin’.

And a pox on all politicians for pandering and telling you it’s possible.

Let’s peg the cost at over $5 billion, including a long tunnel under the Peninsula: think the $1.9-billion Canada Line times two, or nearly $4 billion right there.

And if you love TransLink, you’re going to just die for a cost-overrun project like this one.

Then consider buying at least a thousand or so million-dollar properties for the right-of-way, no matter where that right-of-way goes, and building railway-strength bridges over two rivers.

This is only on the Canadian side, mind you. How about property acquisition and bridges and overpasses on the American side, for example over the I-5? Not to mention BNSF and various levels of U.S. local, state and federal governments having to sign off on any changes.

Seem likely to you?

Perry Kilby, White Rock