Radio Call format?

Unlike all other FCC regulated activities, RR communications began by the originating caller identifying himself, followed by the station called. Anyone know why they do this?

It always made sense to me the other way -- pilot calls the tower, mentions tower name/ID first (gets tower's attention), then ID's themselves.

RR's ID themselves first, then the called party -- then the called party says, "this is xxx, who's calling?" Seems really inefficient.

I think the railroad "Way" works better. I like hearing who's calling me first, because it gives me an immediate understanding of what they need and where they are. For instance, let's say I have a coal train headed east. If they call me much earlier than they should, given the point where I know they are, then I am immediately focused on them because this implies there's an issue afoot other than "here's my location." This really could work for any movement, and this also implies that you are indeed paying attention and are familiar with the territory.

I think since railroads do not work with unlimited space (the sky) it's not as important to be identified first, since they could be up there anywhere. I know they have to be in a specific place, roughly, but it's not like one stretch of track where they have no ability to swerve. I'm not knowledgeable with reasons why an airliner would contact a tower outside of takeoff and landing.

It still surprises me that they wouldn't identify themselves first: an ATC could still get a visual on who was calling and might be able to get a clue first about what they want. Anyone's thoughts are welcome. There's probably a specific reason from the past.

Dave Becker

I know from my experience as a public safety dispatcher on several different fronts, I find it helpful (especially during slow times) for the unit calling to say my name first, then his/her ID. This gives me a chance to 'turn on the brain' and listen. I have seen studies have shown that people don't comprehend the first couple of words of any conversation, and if you can waste those words, then the dispatcher doesn't miss anything important.

Railroad procedure is typical of most "land mobile" services. The only FCC regulated services that generally use called station name first are marine and aviation.

The reason given by keeper1616 is the most common explaination for this procedure.

Aslo, in most land mobile services, unlike marine and aviation, most calls are to a particular dispatcher for the territory. In the early days of marine and aviation radio, and still common today in the marine service, calls could be to any of many stations monitoring the frequency so it was important to first indicate who you were calling. Standard marine procedure is still to give the name of the station called 3 times followed by your identification 3 times.

This is why railroad and public safety works well by giving your identification once (to "wake up" the dispatcher) followed by who you are calling. That way, the dispatcher or called unit will hear the call for them.
If they missed your ID, they at least know someone called and can respond "Dispatcher, who is calling?, over".

furthermore - 90% of people using radios don't know how to use them and assume because they depressed the button, they are transmitting. In fact, most radios wait a few milliseconds before transmitting, and the users first few syllables are never transmitted. (or the receiver takes a few syllables to start receiving)

clearblock wrote:Railroad procedure is typical of most "land mobile" services. The only FCC regulated services that generally use called station name first are marine and aviation.

Not true...Amateur Radio also goes "Called Station" first, followed by "Calling Station."

As do military communications (radio, sound-powered phones, etc.), and even CB: "Chicken-Hawk, this is War-Lord. You got your ears on?"

I'll even bet that when you call someone on the phone and they answer, "Hello?" you say, "Hi, Bob, this is Steve..." (insert correct names). I'll bet you DON'T say, "Steve to Bob..."

The railroad method works, but it is ass-backward from the rest of the world.

73 de Dan, KE7HLR

danco wrote: Not true...Amateur Radio also goes "Called Station" first, followed by "Calling Station."

As do military communications

You are correct that I did not mention Ham which also uses the military/marine/aviation format all of which evolved from earlier morse code calling priocedures.

But the large majority of the "land mobile" services (business, industrial, land transporation and public safety) which evolved with the development of VHF FM after WWII adopted the "Car 1 to Base, over" format because it was the most efficient for this type of communications.

I have an APCO public safety communications manual from the 60s that recommends this procedure for exactly the reasons given by Pablo and keeper1616.

clearblock wrote:But the large majority of the "land mobile" services (business, industrial, land transporation and public safety) which evolved with the development of VHF FM after WWII adopted the "Car 1 to Base, over" format because it was the most efficient for this type of communications.

If the "callee, caller" format originated with the telegraph and days of Morse Code ("CQD CQD CQD DE MGY MGY MGY"), it seems odd that railroad radio would evolve into the "Me to You" format, since railroads also used standard telegraph procedures and Morse Code.

The "Car 1 to Base, over" method isn't really more efficient, since you added two more (unnecessary) words, "to" and "over." Remember, brevity and accuracy are key, especially when radio traffic is heavy.

In my area (Reno, NV), public safety agencies (police, fire) have always used "callee, caller" format. Even the old TV show "CHiPS" used the "callee, caller" format. Ponch to dispatch: "LA, 7-Mary-3 and -4..."

To trained communicators, the informal "Me to You" format shows a lack of communications discipline. Of course, this is hardly important for the majority of jobs where formal communications isn't the primary focus of the job, such as railroading, service technicians, delivery trucks, etc., where a more relaxed conversational tone can be used.

~Dan

danco wrote: it seems odd that railroad radio would evolve into the "Me to You" format, since railroads also used standard telegraph procedures and Morse Code.

The "Car 1 to Base, over" method isn't really more efficient, since you added two more (unnecessary) words, "to" and "over."

To trained communicators, the informal "Me to You" format shows a lack of communications discipline.

Ships used morse extensively and aircraft used it on a limited basis before voice communications was available. Railroad morse was generally used for point to point communications between stations and I am not aware of any general use of mobile morse on trains which would have influenced how voice communications procedures developed.

The word "over" is not unnecessary. It is a necessary procedure word. The FRA Rules for railroad communications require the use of "over" for any transmission for which a response is expected (220.35a) and "out" if no response is expected (220.35b).

I do not disagee with your statements in favor of the "traditional" procedure used by military, marine and aviation in the services where it is customary and appropriate. My point is that the railroads and most land mobile users developed a procedure which the majority of "trained communicators" in those services found to be most effective for their use.

I have been a ham since 1960 (currently Extra class) and have held commercial operators licenses and woked in all types of communications since 1962. I formerly held a First Class Radiotelephone Operators license until that was abolished and I now hold General Radio Telephone Operator and GMDSS Operator/Maintainer licenses with Ship Radar Endorsement.

As a "trained communicator" with over 40 years in the radio communications field, I think most systems use procedures that work best for their needs. I had an off-line discussion with "pablo" on his question about why aircraft do not use the railroad procedure. My comment was that aircraft procedure works for them and while some of the original operating conditions have changed, there is no reason to change a procedure that is standardized and works.

My belief on procedure is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I do not agree that the standard communication procedure used by railroads and most land mobile systems is "lack of communications discipline".

The form and content of railroad radio communications is closely regulated by FCC Rules, FRA Rules and railroad operating rules. The exact form of station indentification and use of procedure words is specified. An abbreviated procedure for switching and yard operations is also specified. Railroad radio is probably subject to more formal operating procedures than many other land mobile services.

keeper1616 wrote:I know from my experience as a public safety dispatcher on several different fronts, I find it helpful (especially during slow times) for the unit calling to say my name first, then his/her ID. This gives me a chance to 'turn on the brain' and listen. I have seen studies have shown that people don't comprehend the first couple of words of any conversation, and if you can waste those words, then the dispatcher doesn't miss anything important.

In EMS, rescue, I have seen it done both ways also, you listen for your Base ID, such as DISPATCH from Unit 29, you won't listen as much to Unit 29 to Dispatch until you hear dispatch, then you might think hmmm what unit was that again, usually dismisses the need to make the other end repeat their unit number.

pablo wrote:For instance, let's say I have a coal train headed east. If they call me much earlier than they should, given the point where I know they are, then I am immediately focused on them because this implies there's an issue afoot other than "here's my location." This really could work for any movement, and this also implies that you are indeed paying attention and are familiar with the territory.

What the... does all that mean, if you dont mind me asking.

clearblock wrote: I had an off-line discussion with "pablo" on his question about why aircraft do not use the railroad procedure. My comment was that aircraft procedure works for them and while some of the original operating conditions have changed, there is no reason to change a procedure that is standardized and works.

My belief on procedure is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I do not agree that the standard communication procedure used by railroads and most land mobile systems is "lack of communications discipline".

Aircraft typically use a combined procedure. On the callups the called station is said first followed by the sending station's callsign. E.g, "Teterboro Tower, Cessna one-six-zero-one-niner, over." But upon receiving instructions from the tower, the aircraft would then say only its callsign, or abbeviated callsign if the controller used it, e.g., "Zero-one-niner, roger," or a reading back tower's instructions "Zero-one-niner, report left downwind for runway one-niner" or whatever. Like the other examples, this evolved over time, in this case to save time in busy airspace with lots of radio traffic.

My philosophy is a bit different, something like. 'just because it ain't broke, doesn't mean it can't be made better.'

73

Interesting debate here.....

I've lived my working life (and most of my non-working life) behind a microphone. I'm a public safety dispatcher (16 years for 2 agencies-1 full-time, 1 part-time). I was a train dispatcher for 1 year at NJT, and I've had my Technician-class Amateur license since March of 2006.

At both public safety agencies the radio protocol is "Dispatch to ----". Obviously the PD/FD/EMS units answer in reverse..."---- to Dispatch". Most of the surrounding public safety agencies in my area follow the same protocol. On NJT it was "NJ Rail Hoboken Mainline Dispatcher to Train ----". Well that's how the employee timetable said it was supposed to be done...it usually came out as "Mainline Dispatcher to Train ----"!

When I got my ham license earlier this year I had to learn the other way....."Station Being Called from the Station Calling". Not a hard thing to do but more than once I've keyed up and called "KC2PJL to -----".

Of course there is no right and wrong here, as far as FCC regs are concerned. You won't lose your license or be brought up on charges by the FCC if you do it 'wrong'. Each type of service that uses radio has it's preferred method, that's all.

pablo wrote:For instance, let's say I have a coal train headed east. If they call me much earlier than they should, given the point where I know they are, then I am immediately focused on them because this implies there's an issue afoot other than "here's my location." This really could work for any movement, and this also implies that you are indeed paying attention and are familiar with the territory.

Hey pablo, still dont quite know what you ment there buddy. (read your post many times) The location part you mention, throws me off. Theres times when you have to give your location from the train, but... just casual transmissions... Emergency calls, you give your location after your unit number.

Whos the they in..."If they call me much earlier than they should"

danco wrote: I'll even bet that when you call someone on the phone and they answer, "Hello?" you say, "Hi, Bob, this is Steve..." (insert correct names). I'll bet you DON'T say, "Steve to Bob..."

The railroad method works, but it is ass-backward from the rest of the world.

When you talk on the phone at work its the same way as the radio. If you call anyone this is what they say....No Hello is used.

Managers phone, office or cell "...UP MTO Davidson..." "Local 3 were dead"
Tower "....Tower..." "Westend switch crew we need..."
Dispatcher ".....Dispatcher...." "Two o'clock dogcatch crew, whats next?"
Crew Caller ".....CMS...." "Bob Stevens in Salt Lake, need to lay off...."
Timekeeper "...Timekeeping..." "Bob Stevens in Salt Lake, whats the...?"