Radio Communications

I thought it might be interesting if we build up a thread in regards to proper radio communication on the railroads.From my flying experience...this is what I know already...OVER: End of transmission...waiting response
OUT: End of transmission...NO response required.What are some other commonly used "words" or "phrases" that railroads use? This could come in handy for people who have Multiplayers. >Mike Forster<
Perth, Western Australiapacificnational_nr103@hotmail.com
http://www.trainweb.org/aussiepix

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

RE: Radio Communications, Nels_Anderson, Jun-30-04, 07:01 AM, (1) RE: Radio Communications, BLW_1946, Jun-30-04, 09:04 AM, (2) RE: Radio Communications, highball5, Jun-30-04, 10:27 AM, (3) RE: Radio Communications, chazlee1, Jun-30-04, 10:59 AM, (4) RE: Radio Communications, NS185, Jun-30-04, 04:28 PM, (5) RE: Radio Communications, highball5, Jun-30-04, 09:01 PM, (6) RE: Radio Communications, rd4man, Dec-24-04, 09:11 AM, (7) RE: Radio Communications, RAILDOG, Dec-24-04, 10:05 AM, (8) RE: Radio Communications, shoskins, Dec-24-04, 01:06 PM, (9) RE: Radio Communications, wakeboarder82, Dec-25-04, 02:05 AM, (10) RE: Radio Communications, John 136 6000 GO, Dec-25-04, 08:41 AM, (11) RE: Radio Communications, rd4man, Dec-25-04, 12:45 PM, (12) RE: Radio Communications, wakeboarder82, Dec-27-04, 07:47 PM, (13) RE: Radio Communications, rd4man, Dec-28-04, 02:51 PM, (14) RE: Radio Communications, MikeF, Dec-29-04, 11:35 AM, (15) RE: Radio Communications, rd4man, Dec-29-04, 12:10 PM, (16) RE: Radio Communications, CPR_9102, Dec-29-04, 12:29 PM, (17) RE: Radio Communications, CPR_9102, Dec-29-04, 12:36 PM, (18) RE: Radio Communications, wakeboarder82, Dec-29-04, 02:05 PM, (19)

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

From my flying experience, I don't believe "over" and "out" are used, at least not in this country.I listen to CSX on the scanner frequently, and sometimes Guilford and P&W. None of them seem to have much in the way of set protocols. Generally it's just a call to someone from someone, i.e. "Q423 NA Dispatcher" ("NA dispatcher calling train Q423") but other than that they just say what they have to say.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

I hear a lot of 'overs' on all four rail lines, but it seems to vary with individual dispatchers and train crews and the type of information being transmitted.Tim Baldwin
Buffalo NYMilepost 5 on the Buffalo Belt Line
CSX - NS - CP - CN

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

In this area both UP and BNSF use the 'overs' and 'outs' consistently. As for identification BNSF uses the full 'longhand' version... "BNSF Omaha line dispatcher calling the BNSF 8853 west, over". At least in this area both lines seem to adhere pretty closely to the GCOR rules for radio.GCOR Radio Rules

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Exactly...BNSF requires the "over and out" on the entire system. In addition, identification requires us to use "bnsf, bn, atsf, etc, when identifying our locomotive number as we still use units belonging to the old roads. Direction is also used as well, especially when copying track warrants (authority to occupy main track in dark territory), such as BNSF 6301 West...our division does not use South and North, south would be east and north would be west...(and people wonder why we look confused sometimes

Happy Rails,
Chaz
(BNSF Conductor)
<>

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

"Over" and "Outs" is in my rulebook and I believe also its in the NS rulebook.

1st & 3rd shift post junkie
1259A-359P

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>> south would be east and north would be westAh ha! So I was right... St. Joe IS east of Omaha... I knew that geography teacher I had was goofy.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

"Over" and "Out" are OK.....just don't use 'em in the same sentence like they do in the movies!!

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

thats about right around here dispatchers say BNSF Thayer North Sub dipatcher to BNSF,BN,ATSF, they just say abbreviations I think.At night the dispatcher's say BNSF Thayer North Sub FT.Worth to BNSF,BN,ATSF still useing abbreviations and crews say the over and over but it's said when they are done talking. Jeremy Smith West Plains,MO
BNSF Thayer Subdivision

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>I thought it might be interesting if we build up a thread in
>regards to proper radio communication on the railroads. PROPER radio communication?If you listen to railroad radio enough, you'll see there's all too much "banter" and IMproper use of the radios.I remember back in the days when I lived in Riverside, CA, on a high spot in town...could hear the rail radios for miles around with the scanner. It was interesting to see the differences between the three local roads. AT&SF always seemed to identify themselves with "Santa Fe" proceeding their engine or train numbers. Union Pacific would always go by their call letters, KIZ-436. And Southern Pacific? It was like a kindergarten. Pick up the radio and yell, scream, cuss, swear, say anything that came tomind but don't identify oneself. The SP channel was always good for some kind of comedy. I'll never forget one night they had a derailment next to the main at West Colton Yard, and mainlines traffic was heavy. One crew insisted on "going to beans" (lunching...) at the yard and called the dispatcher to request permission to do so. Dispatcher refused and explained the derailment situation. The crew came back on the radio yelling "They treat us like a bunch of F***ing animals on this railroad!!" And immediately, everyone with a radio in hand started making animal noises over the frequency and it lasted about 15 minutes!! Sounded like the Zoo Channel or something like that.Then there was a time some engineer was pre-trip checking his engines ans called the roundhouse department to inform them that "there was not enough toilet paper on the engine!" Someone else replied on the radio "Don't come to work full of #h!t!!!" Of course, no ID on that transmission....Ah, the good ol' days on the SP....

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

well I don't think they use over and out around here(new hampshire) for flying or trains. That's more Hollywood I think. I listen to Guilford sometimes on the scanner. Like Nels said, there doesn't seem to be a set protocol for grs. Typical conversation is something like this:
------
"ST District 2 North Billrica to the WARJ.WARJHey Rick, how you guys making out? you at Rockingham yet?We're just at Dover right now. OK, uhhhhh, Let me know when your getting close to rock, I think I'm gonna have you leave the 503 there for PH-1. Uhhh PH-1 has the 343, uhhh you guys are gonna swap those engines. Then if you guys want to go ahead and take lunch when you get to lowell that would be good. "
------
You can see that there is almost no protocol to follow. They just say what has to be said. Often times, the dispatcher is thinking out loud about what to do. That is nice because you get a better idea of what is going on. Well Merry Christmas everyone.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

The use of terms such as "over" and "out" originated in the days of simplex transmission (or so I believe), when radio or telephone sets were always in recieve mode, and to talk the user had a press a "push-to-talk" (PTT). This being becuase the telephone or radio link was not capable of transmitting speach in both directions (only one speach channel provided).With the advent of radio telephones with duplex transmission (both ends of the lne can speak at the same time, and be heard at the other end) or multiplex transmission (allows for more than 2 participants) then expressions like "over" and "out" would be of less significance - though they might still be of some use.Can some of you folk out there who are more familiar with the equipment railways are now using let us know whether they are still using simplex (one way at a time - don't all speak at once!) equipment, or have moved on to more technically advanced methodsPlease note that I don not intend to imply any criticism of remaining with the simple methods, since they have some advantages and using complex equipment and methods where simple ones will do the job is simply an invitation to extra expense for equipment and maintenance and more chances for things to go wrong.Cheers, and a happy Christmas to allJohn

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>The use of terms such as "over" and "out" originated in the
>days of simplex transmission (or so I believe), when radio
>or telephone sets were always in recieve mode, and to talk
>the user had a press a "push-to-talk" (PTT). This being
>becuase the telephone or radio link was not capable of
>transmitting speach in both directions (only one speach
>channel provided).
>
>With the advent of radio telephones with duplex transmission
>(both ends of the lne can speak at the same time, and be
>heard at the other end) or multiplex transmission (allows
>for more than 2 participants) then expressions like "over"
>and "out" would be of less significance - though they might
>still be of some use.
>
>Can some of you folk out there who are more familiar with
>the equipment railways are now using let us know whether
>they are still using simplex (one way at a time - don't all
>speak at once!) equipment, or have moved on to more
>technically advanced methods
>All aircraft/railroad/steamship/and other forms of transport that use two-way radios are "one-way" only. Oh, you can both talk at the same time, but you won't hear the other end if you're talking at the same time. A third party listening on the same freq will just hear a squeel probably if both talk at once.FS9 demonstrates this nice if you try and talk over ATC.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>>Can some of you folk out there who are more familiar with
>>the equipment railways are now using let us know whether
>>they are still using simplex (one way at a time - don't all
>>speak at once!) equipment, or have moved on to more
>>technically advanced methods >All aircraft/railroad/steamship/and other forms of transport
>that use two-way radios are "one-way" only. Oh, you can
>both talk at the same time, but you won't hear the other end
>if you're talking at the same time.This is far from fact. Guilford Rail System uses Duplex in districts 2,3,and 4 (old Boston and Maine). Only in district 1 (Old Maine Central) do they use simplex. For those who don't know what the difference is, simplex is when both radios involved in a transmission operate on the same frequency to transmit and recieve. Duplex uses two different frequencies. Radio 1 transmits on Frequency A, but receives on frequency B. Radio 2 transmits on frequency B but receives on frequency A.
If your still confused, this is how Guilford rail uses duplex to avoid stepping on each others transmissions. In districts 2,3, and 4, the dispatcher sends on 161.16. The train listens to the message on that same frequency. Then they send a message back to the dispatcher on 161.52. The dispatcher then recieves that message on 161.52.
In district 1 the train and dispatcher only use one frequency, 160.62. This is an example of simplex.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

LAST EDITED ON Dec-28-04 AT 02:51 PM (EST)

> If your still confused, this is how Guilford rail uses
>duplex to avoid stepping on each others transmissions. In
>districts 2,3, and 4, the dispatcher sends on 161.16. The
>train listens to the message on that same frequency. Then
>they send a message back to the dispatcher on 161.52. The
>dispatcher then recieves that message on 161.52.
> In district 1 the train and dispatcher only use one
>frequency, 160.62. This is an example of simplex.
Well, I didn't make it too clear, I guess. What I meant was two people cannot talk on the SAME frequency at the SAME time (like a telephone) and hear one another.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Interesting. So the dispatcher transmits on one frequency, and the trains on another, while their respective receivers are tuned to the opposite frequency.But if two trains try to transmit at the same time, they would 'stomp' on each other's signal and the dispatcher would hear only a garbled message? And one train cannot hear another??Seems like simplex with some discipline on the part of the operators would be better.

Mike F

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>Interesting. So the dispatcher transmits on one frequency,
>and the trains on another, while their respective receivers
>are tuned to the opposite frequency. This is NOT true for most railroads.

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Here on the Canadian Pacific Railway transcon, here are some stuff they RTC's & crew's say..."CP 9591 clear signal to the mile sign Marathon"
"CP 5722 west, we got a clear signal Marathon"
"1024 west clear signal mile sign Marathon"
"CEFX 1056 clear signal" -does not say location but @ town... sometimes say direction afer loco #.
"CP RTC Calgary out"The only time I hear out are when some of the crew's... mostly those lazy westenders.. "CP 9152 proceding on clearnce from signal 741 to MP 3 Heron Bay sub, out"Chris Wilson / CP 9102
Marathon, ON
www.trainweb.org/cprnosa
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=4201

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Sometimes the RTC also will say..."CP 9830 with train 102 over" -RTC
"CP 9830 over"
RTC and crew goes on...
"CP RTC Calgary out"
"9830 out"Chris Wilson / CP 9102
Marathon, ON
www.trainweb.org/cprnosa
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=4201

Alert | IP

Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

>But if two trains try to transmit at the same time, they
>would 'stomp' on each other's signal and the dispatcher
>would hear only a garbled message? And one train cannot
>hear another?? Well that all depends on the radio the dispatcher is using and the settings. Some radios will cut out the weaker of the two signals. This can be done by turning up the squelch. As far as the trains not hearing each other, I think you are right. I'll have to ask my dad about that one. He's not a railfan, but he is a radio expert. He has been designing them for years, so that's the only reason I know about this stuff. Of course half of what I'm saying is probably wrong, so I'll ask him.

Alert | IP

[ Home | MSTS Forum | MSTS FAQ | How To... | File Library ] Copyright © 2004 by Nels Anderson. All Rights Reserved.