Posted 16th March 2010 | 11 Comments
New noise policy could mean major bills for railways
Larbert has been a focus for complaints about railway noise
NEW government policy on noise levels in major urban areas could land Network Rail with major bills for sound barriers alongside busy railways. Some line speeds may also have to be reduced at night. The policy is a response to an EU Noise Directive.
But Network Rail has warned that some of the proposed sound reduction measures could be ‘inappropriate’.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published ‘noise maps’ for 23 English cities and towns with populations of more than 250,000. They include London, the West Midlands, Manchester, West Yorkshire, Nottingham, Bristol, Reading, Brighton, Tyneside, the Potteries and Liverpool.
DEFRA says in its Noise Policy Statement for England that the intention is to ‘promote good health and a good quality of life through the management of noise within the context of Government policy on sustainable development’.
Roads and airports as well as railways are coming under scrutiny. In general, lines carrying more than 80 trains each way daily will be targeted.
This would mean many sections of main and commuter lines in England, including most of the West Coast Main Line, the Great Western Main Line from London to Bristol, much of the East Coast Main Line, many lines in Greater Manchester, urban Yorkshire and the West Midlands and also the majority of lines in south east England. The Midland Main Line is also a candidate: there are, for example, considerably more than 80 trains each way daily through Leicester – another of the cities on DEFRA's list – especially when east-west passenger trains, freight and Network Rail movements are taken into account.
DEFRA's solutions for railways would mean noise barriers and, in some instances, reductions of line speeds at night. It also says transport providers will pay for noise reduction methods.
Network Rail said: ‘Network Rail has been working closely with Defra on the development of noise maps and action plans to manage noise. The plans require the rail industry to consider action to reduce noise, where feasible and affordable and where it is practical. They do not force the industry to introduce any particular mitigation measures and Network Rail has made clear that particular measures, such as noise barriers and speed restrictions, may be inappropriate and have disadvantages that outweigh the perceived benefits.’
Network Rail has already been in dispute over noise recently with people living alongside a Scottish route. Coal trains to Kincardine are now running through Larbert and Stirling following the reopening of the line via Alloa, and there have been more than 50 complaints and calls for compensation, including many in the Larbert area.
Most were rejected, although nine were being given ‘further consideration’. Although Scotland is outside the scope of the new DEFRA noise policy this may be an overture to further disputes elsewhere.
DEFRA said its new policy on noise would begin to be enforced in July.
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Helen, Gloucester
Not all of us have a choice where we live, its what we cant afford to rent. I certainly wouldnt have bought a house near a railway line thats for sure, I have no idea why people do that.
As for a train taking 30 seconds to run by... that makes no difference if you have been woken up by it, your sleep has been disturbed and your health can then be put at risk if it happens every couple of hours, let alone several times an hour.
MartynG, Manchester, UK
Peter Hove - you missed the point, if their homes are in the path then they wont be living there when trains run !?!?
Noise is a major factor for anyone who experiences it but surely this should be about an element of common sense...if you slow the trains down too much won't more people consider driving...creating even more noise?
Peter, Hove, UK
@railwaylad
"Well if you buy a house next to a railway line then expect noise if you dont want noise buy a house in the country!
The railway was there well before any housing was built"
I think the 4000 people with homes in the path of the proposed HS2 will be only too happy to contest your point!
Peter, Hove, UK
Speed restrictions can be a red herring. I would much prefer the sound of a quick swish from a train passing rapidly than the cacophonous clanking of one trundling past over a longer time period.
I used to live next to a line feeding a nearby cement works and regularly suffered the dastardly din of wagons banging about on uneven tracks at 4am. By contrast, the passenger services running along the adjacent lines caused no aural annoyance.
There were other assorted noises that were more problematic, from antisocial behaviour causing frequent car and property alarms, pre-chav-era scallies shouting and haring about in stolen vehicles, the flight path for a major international airport directly overhead and the continual delights of cars being dropped from great height all day long in the nearby metal processing yard. The trains were the very least of my concerns. I think there is also a key difference in negative perceptions between noises than can be expected or anticipated and those that cannot.
railwaylad, Lanarkshire, UK
Well if you buy a house next to a railway line then expect noise if you dont want noise buy a house in the country!
The railway was there well before any housing was built
Patrick, London, England
Is this some kind of joke? It's about time we get out of the EU before they come up with other pointless money wasting ideas.
Chris Reynell, Longstock, Hampshire.
Road noise, for purposes of highway noise barriers and compensation, is calculated by equations that assume all traffic keeps to the designated maximum speed. Ho ho - since when has all the road traffic kept to speed limits?
As road vehicle speeds rise, the noise levels rise exponentially (I think it is roughly double the sound output per 20mph increase in speed).
Also it is the type of sound from roads that is causing annoyance, the all-day whine from tyres of fast cars, rumble from heavy lorries (presumably complying the weight limit) and music from chavmobiles!
Fortunately trains keep within the speed limits and the noise can be reduced by use of vibration absorbing track and sound barriers close to the source. Such barriers can use caged spent ballast, earth/compost bunds and solid fencing.
So let's be fair for all people living near to road and rail transport routes; more noise barriers, restricted night time use and slower speeds for trains and road vehicles at night. As for airports - 7 am to 9 pm.
Sam Green, Bournemouth, uk
What about roads?What about sound barriers for lorrys on motorways and the loonies who roar through the underpass I live near on friday and saturday nights.With no traffic police to be seen for miles!
les Burge, leicester, england
Any money to be spent on noise reduction would be better spent on electrification.
David Spencer, Bolton, Lancashire, UK
Whilst the Noise Directive is an important piece of legislation, the social question and prospective must also be considered.
Generally trains whether freight or passenger are "friendly" noise producers whereas motorways are very definitely alien in cities whether day or night.
I fondly remember in my childhood the clanking of mineral wagons at the local sidings as I lay in bed at night and this sound gave me a real sense of reassurance.
I do hope that railways are not unnecessarily targeted - being too harsh will ruin the fabric of town life. Life would be far better in our communities if there was less road traffic on our motorways - this mode of travel is the real source of noise alluded to in the Directive.
Llion, Aberdare
This is silly, we have always got something to moan about. I can understand noisy planes and roads, but railways, the train only takes about 30 seconds at the most to go by, planes take atleast 5 mins, and roads, well, there is never a quiet interval on the roads. This is silly and it seems its just another money making scheme, worst of all, its targeting the only one thing we realy need to invest in, railways