At 500 meters, the "kachunck" of a train wheel going over a bump will take ~1.4 seconds to reach you by air, but only ~0.08 seconds to reach you through the rail.
A pretty big difference.
At 5km, sound will take 15 seconds to cover the distance. That's negligible compared to the time the train will take, assuming a good old train going at ~40 km/h (7'30"). Using the quoted 6 km/s, that gives ~ 0.8 s inside the rail.
I admit I was initially expecting a smaller difference. But I still think that the 14 seconds advantage is negligible over just knowing that the train is arriving from a far away distance: to hear the train at all, wind needs to blow in the right direction, and the train needs not be too far away (~d^2 energy propagation, so ~log(d) in dB vs virtually no attenuation in a simplified model). I wish I had time to look up and compute the attenuation in both cases....
As for energies, I used a short example of 500 meters to make it more probable, but near ~150 meters you still have around half a second of difference, which is more than enough to notice.
Got it, thanks. I had somehow lost sight of the original context.
I am sceptical, I don't think this makes a big difference until the train approaches the speed of sound. What makes a difference, however, is that the energy is constrained into moving one-dimensionally, along the rail, so that it travels much further.