To the editor:
Two recent articles (“Layover facility advisory panel grows,” Nov. 29, and “Private audience,” Nov. 30) cite a noise study made by Charlie Wallace on behalf of Bob McEvoy, a new member of the train layover facility project advisory committee.
This study purports to show how noise levels for a locomotive idling overnight at the Brunswick West site exceed “World Health Organization criteria for sleep disturbance.”
There is something missing from reports of this study, and its omission is potentially fatal to the purported findings. Who was the locomotive’s owner? What is the make and model?
Just like cars and trucks, the idling noise of locomotives varies greatly. Alco and Bombardier products are notoriously loud. The twocycle whine of EMD units tends to be less noticeable , and those engines made by General Electric sometimes idle so quietly they can’t be heard even at close distance.
For what it’s worth, the foregoing claims come on the basis of having worked on and around trains for 10 years. Let me also add that for 13 years I lived close to a busy freight yard, roundhouse and refueling racks. I never experienced a bad night’s rest on account of locomotive noises.
The point here is that Mr. Wallace’s conclusions would vary greatly depending on the make and model of the locomotive he recorded with his instruments. It seems to me his report can be taken seriously only if he has recorded the noise from the make and model of locomotive likely to use the layover facility.
You don’t make your neighbor spend all kinds of money for a fence to block out a hot rod’s noise when they only own whispering Cadillacs, do you?
And you can’t demand that Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) mitigate for circumstances that will not arise.
Furthermore, since Mr. McEvoy’s presence on the advisory committee appears to be based on his relationship to Mr. Wallace’s study, should it turn out to be the case that an altogether “alien” locomotive was recorded, Mr. McEvoy should resign from the committee, given that his reason for being on it has been shown, at best, not relevant.
Jeff Reynolds
Brunswick
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less