Two way radio communication was already well established in the aviation industry by the early 1930s, with all planes carrying 10 or more passengers requiring radio capability by 1930. But I've never heard of radio communication used with crews on steam locomotives. Were railroads late in accepting radio communication or were there railroads that communicated with their crews via radio in the steam era? I've never heard of radio equipped steam locomotives or anything regarding radio communication on the railroad prior to 1950.
Some of PRR's bigger locomotives and tenders - the M1 Mountains come to mind - had radio antennas that looked like handrails running the length of the top of the tender. Although I can't find good photos right now, refer to the comments here:
http://www.trainsim.com/vbts/showthread.php?272454-Okay-you-guys-this-is-what-we-need-for-Steam-Locomotives-in-the-new-game!!/page4
- Paul North.
In the Steam Era the railroads did not own any radio bandwidth.
PRR's answer was a inductive device known as Trainphone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainphone
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
At least one railroad actively (and quite successfully) adopted wireless telegraphy and radiotelephone before the First World War. I suspect more would have followed had the broadcast industry not found a 'better use' for modulated voice transmissions.
I still find it fascinating that Thornton (in Canada) started setting up a coast-to-coast radio network for CN as early as 1923 ... as far as I know optimized entirely for entertainment, and not rail operations! Since the programming was carried by CN landlines to both the 'official' and the phantom transmitters, it would not have been too difficult to arrange internal two-way phone or code transmissions (as was done in the USA a decade earlier).
Ulrich Two way radio communication was already well established in the aviation industry by the early 1930s, with all planes carrying 10 or more passengers requiring radio capability by 1930. But I've never heard of radio communication used with crews on steam locomotives. Were railroads late in accepting radio communication or were there railroads that communicated with their crews via radio in the steam era? I've never heard of radio equipped steam locomotives or anything regarding radio communication on the railroad prior to 1950.
Radio communication is line-of-sight, something the airlines could use because planes generally were up in the air when they were flying. Line-of-sight worked great for them, but for land based modes, it didn't work well at all, especially in the mountains or in hilly environments. Back in the 60's railroads tried out Locotrol, an early version of what is now DPU-equipped locomotives, but abandoned the effort because reliable radio contact with the trailing helper could not be maintained. Anyone using a scanner today knows that reception in the mountains is spotty, and sometimes you cannot even hear a detector 5 miles away.
The railroads employ lots of repeaters now so that the DS can talk to any train, but unless there is a provision otherwise, trains in tunnels lose radio contact entirely. I remember a radio conversation between a DS and a BNSF freight on the Keddie bridge asking the DS to repeat the last message because he was in a tunnel and got cut off.
There is a photo on the Classic Trains "Photo of the Day" section of men mounting the power supply beside the Dynamo, of what is said to be the first two way raidio communications set for any RR, onto a Missouri Pacific steam engine in the late 1950's. Dad didn't get a two way radio set up in the dispatchers office in Calgary until the early to mid-seventies. Of course, at that time train orders were still given to train crews by operators.
Official train control status for radios wasn't given in Canada until the intrduction of the CROC rule book in '91 or '92.
Bruce
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
I believe very late in the steam era the Erie used radios for communication between head end crews and the guys in the caboose using military surplus walkie-talkies. Mind you, the original "walkie-talkie" was a backpack radio set, the hand-held radio was called a "handy-talkie." When asked about them Erie crews said "Don't know how we ever got along without 'em!"
Overmod- That Thornton set up from coast to coast for CN morphed into the CBC ( Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) pretty quickly. At that time the country was very sparsley populated with numerous isolated communities from the Atlantic to the Pacific and up to the Arctic. There was no way private enterprise could have undertaken this venture and make any kind of profit. How else could you listen to a Montreal Canadians vs Toronto Maple Leafs hockey game?
Today of course we are stuck with a 1.2 billion $ a year Crown Corporation, in 2 languages, that serves essentially at the whim of government to deliver its "message" despite its claims to the contrary. The radio division is generally accepted as pretty good but the television side of things not so much. In a mega multi channel universe and crowded air waves it is quite unfair to its competitors as they do not have the deep pockets of government and must earn their way. Imagine PBS as the big dog of TV and radio with a subsidy of 12 billion a year ( using the 10-1 ratio of US /Canada). PBS has its devotees but is funded by donations and foundation grants. It is not rammed down the throats of the general population.
CN on the other hand eventually became privatized and a very succesful component of North American railroading.
MiningmanOvermod- That Thornton set up from coast to coast for CN morphed into the CBC ( Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) pretty quickly. At that time the country was very sparsley populated with numerous isolated communities from the Atlantic to the Pacific and up to the Arctic. There was no way private enterprise could have undertaken this venture and make any kind of profit.
You need to look more carefully at your own history.
The CN broadcasting plant worked beautifully as private enterprise; in fact, far better than a "Government" incentive to provide propaganda could. Remember that the Thornton scheme was intended to provide entertainment to CN trains (in that era when other forms of onboard entertainment were difficult or impossible to provide effectively) and the 'profitability' was linked to the take rate of CN over CP (or other competitors') passenger trains. It made use of the company wirelines to provide the synchronized 'network feeds' required, almost assuredly far more cheaply than any entity other than a railroad could have done in that era, and it leveraged timesharing on other people's transmitters (very cleverly, in my opinion) to accomplish full coverage of service to the trains when required ... without having to pay for the airtime or the 'rest' of the transmitter overhead when not.
I think you will find that it was CP complaining, and perhaps CP favoritism in government, that led to CNR broadcasting being taken away from the railroad and given to a propaganda ministry. (I don't think it was coincidental that Thornton lost his job and his pension along about this time.)
I will say that, in principle, a government is more likely to have the sustained level of finance and bad-times subsidy needed to do extensive multicultural and entertainment programming; certainly, they have more of a remit than a railroad (which is only concerned with satisfying its passengers en route) would. The problem is that the operational model is based on Britain, which famously handed control of telephones over to the Post Office and as a more or less direct result didn't have any kind of sensible or reliable phone communications until quite recently.
My problem with CBC, or BBC, or PBS, is that we tend to get adherence to what Stephen Hunter called "The Narrative", some institutionalized world view that becomes tacitly supported at taxpayer expense whether it's in the best interests of taxpayers or not. When I was younger I thought a government-supported piece of media would be about the truth, carefully separated from any particular interest group popular or unpopular. I've certainly learned differently since.
All right! Thanks for the additional information and the corrections. Sounds as if poor Thornton got royally screwed. Nonetheless we have what we have today with the CBC.
As Marshall McLuhan pointed out " The Medium is the Message".
There is a mention of the "telephone" at about 10 mins in this video.
Memo to self: When retired, go back and read everything Mike / wanswheel has posted on the Forum.
Once again, thanks !
I would think that several items contributed to a general lack of radios in the steam era.
One is the circuitry required for the radios themselves. Through the 1960's, the transmitters used by fire and police units required a motor generator in order to get the voltages necessary to operate the tube-based transmitters. The receiver side was tube based as well. I suspect that coming up with the power necessary to operate such an arrangement on a steam locomotive would be a challenge.
The invention of the transistor (and eventually the IC) allowed radios to operate with less current draw, but by that time, steam was essentially dead.
As noted in several of the photos, the antennas required by early radios were cumbersome at best. VHF High Band (including 160-161 MHz) didn't really come into play until after WWII. The common quarter wave "spike" for railroad band is less than 18" long, as compared to "several car lengths..."
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68One is the circuitry required for the radios themselves. Through the 1960's, the transmitters used by fire and police units required a motor generator in order to get the voltages necessary to operate the tube-based transmitters.
I finally found the photo I referenced earlier:
http://ctr.trains.com/photo-of-the-day/2010/03/radio-comes-to-the-mopac
Tree, is this the type of power supply you mentioned?
AgentKidTree, is this the type of power supply you mentioned?
No - the motor generators in 50's era mobile radios were driven by a 12v motor inside the radio chassis box, which was the size of a fairly small suitcase (and definitely mounted in the trunk). That motor in turn spun a higher voltage generator that would supply the higher voltages necessary to operate the radio.
The turbogenerator in the photo was likely essentially the same as the one next to it, which powered the lights. The power generated may have been different, to meet the needs of the radios themselves.
Cabeese probably were able to use power from an axle mounted generator.
Larry, you described what I knew as a dynamotor used in military aircraft--about three inches in diameter and eight inches long (I haven't seen one in more than forty years)--12 vdc in and 250? vdc out. It made a nice whirring nose, unlike the chatter of the vibrators used in automobiles for many years(6 vdc in, and high voltage ac, which needed rectifying, out.
I know it was 12 vdc in, because we also got a bunch of vacuum tubes with 12.6 volt heaters from military surplus.
Johnny
Deggesty...dynamotor...
And that may be what they were called for mobile radios at the time - I'm sure the technology made it's way over to non-aircraft uses. I just call them motor-generators. There were many applications, even to powering catenary.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.