Complaining about train noise is a national hobby, so the legal rules for noise protection have been significantly tightened up in the last decades and now multi-metre high noise barriers (up to four, five or even six metres) are a legal requirement. The end result being that people still complain about fear of more noise when infrastructure upgrades are proposed, but new they complain about visual blight, too. Even where local property owners would be okay with somewhat more elevated noise levels (or having sound-insulating windows installed) in return for lower noise barriers, the infrastructure operator is legally required to build the full-height wall even against the wishes of the adjacent property owners/local municipalities.
In the absence of national sensibilities on noise returning to e.g. Swiss levels (where AFAIK balancing noise protection vs. its visual impacts actually is an official planning goal), less ugly noise protection barriers are a worthwhile development. (They've also managed to make freight train noticeably quieter by requiring composite-materials brake shoes, which don't roughen up the wheel treads so much, but beyond that there aren't many more easy gains in noise reduction to be had…)
In the absence of national sensibilities on noise returning to e.g. Swiss levels (where AFAIK balancing noise protection vs. its visual impacts actually is an official planning goal), less ugly noise protection barriers are a worthwhile development. (They've also managed to make freight train noticeably quieter by requiring composite-materials brake shoes, which don't roughen up the wheel treads so much, but beyond that there aren't many more easy gains in noise reduction to be had…)