Last Friday, June 12, 2009, was the final day for analog TV broadcasting; however, some may not be aware of two future conversion dates that will affect the railroads radio operations.
According to Railcom’s web site – www.railcom.net - the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has mandated the separation between radio transmission frequencies in the 154 -174 MHz VHF commercial radio frequency band must be reduced from 25 KHz to 12.5 KHz effective January 1, 2013; the reduced separation between the transmission frequencies is called narrow-band channel spacing. The railroads’ radio frequencies occupy the 160.215 – 161.565 MHz part of the VHF commercial radio frequency band, and the spacing between their channels is 15 KHz. Moreover the Federal Railroad Administration has mandated locomotives in run-through and interchange service must be equipped with radios that are capable of operating with narrow-band channel spacing effective January 1, 2010.
The change to narrow-band channel spacing is dictated by the increasing demand for radio communications frequencies. If I interpret the changeover to narrow-band channel spacing correctly it includes the railroads’ radio operations along with other radio users in the 154 -174 MHz VHF commercial radio frequency band so the railroads will have to change their radio frequencies to correspond to the narrow-band channel spacing frequencies.
Railfans should have no problems scanning the changed railroad radio frequencies assuming the railroads stay in the 160 - 161 MHz part of the VHF commercial radio frequency band and their scanners can be programmed to accept the 12.5 KHz narrow-band channel spacing frequencies in the 154 – 174 MHz frequency band. Most of the scanners available today will accept the narrow-band channel spacing frequencies, and in fact some of the newer scanners will even accept the narrower narrow-band channel spacing frequencies – 6.25 KHz.
Here are the frequencies, old and new.
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...
Just a small clairification, the only thing converting to digital is FULL POWER television broadcasts. There are still pleanty of analog translators and low power stations still analog.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
CShaveRRThanks for posting that, Larry--I like the numbering system they chose for the new intermediate frequencies. What interests me is, will railroads really get twice as many channels, or will they be restricted to an even smaller portion of the band?
Are there planned channel number reassignments, or will the same channels continue to be used?
Ed
I didn't see ch's 2 - 6 and then in-turn 102 - 106, is there a reason to this.
We all get heavier as we get older, because there is a lot more information in our heads. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
Per this document, 2-6 are used for RR trucking operations. I'd guess that 102-106 might follow the same path.
tree68CShaveRRThanks for posting that, Larry--I like the numbering system they chose for the new intermediate frequencies. What interests me is, will railroads really get twice as many channels, or will they be restricted to an even smaller portion of the band?Look carefully and you'll see that the new channels are in between the existing channels. Twice as many channels, same chunk of bandwidth.
I'm guessing that more frequencies will allow a re-distribution of the channels. Right now I can listen to NS or CSX or Amtrak or who-knows-who on the same channel, depending on where I am - a legacy of numerous mergers, etc.
It might also allow some railroads to pick up some needed channels.
I haven't heard any rumors to the effect that channels will be lost.
There is a lot of other rebanding going on - part of the reason for the move to digital TV - much of the old spectrum is headed for use in the public safety arena.
RudyRockvilleMDRailfans should have no problems scanning the changed railroad radio frequencies assuming the railroads stay in the 160 - 161 MHz part of the VHF commercial radio frequency band and their scanners can be programmed to accept the 12.5 KHz narrow-band channel spacing frequencies in the 154 – 174 MHz frequency band. Most of the scanners available today will accept the narrow-band channel spacing frequencies, and in fact some of the newer scanners will even accept the narrower narrow-band channel spacing frequencies – 6.25 KHz.
Is there a way to check this on scanners now? I bought a scanner from Radio Shack about...16 months ago or so and sometimes it receives 'bleed over' from other frequencies...usually when I'm trying to hear something I really want to. Is there a filter or something that will help this?
Dan
Dan:
I assume the bleedover you are talking about is interference from another channel. I don't know of any filter that can be applied to wipe out the interference
RudyRockvilleMDDan: I assume the bleedover you are talking about is interference from another channel. I don't know of any filter that can be applied to wipe out the interference
There are actually a couple of issues working here with current scanners. One is tuning, i.e. can the scanner tune to the new frequencies. This is probably true and easy to check out.
The other issue which is more problematic is something called "adjacent channel rejection" (preventing what was called "bleedover") which is a function of the IF (intermediate frequency) bandwidth of the receiver. This is probably going to be an issue with scanners and legacy radios as well, requiring some additional frequency coordination efforts in the user community. In general, though, if this communications engineering work is done properly, the scanner users shouldn't be impacted by the new frequency scheme in most cases, so long as their scanners can tune the new frequencies OK.
One could spend a lot of internet bandwidth going into the communications engineering details, but it would bore the crud out of almost everybody. I'll spend a little of that bandwidth to say that there is no external filter one can reasonably use to help the adjacent channel rejection capability of a scanning receiver.
Thank you very much Larry.
Some of those UHF 452/457 MHz bands are the Locontrol frequencies. I've only ever heard them described as being in the UHF 400 MHZ band. DPU fanatics take note.
AgentKid
So shovel the coal, let this rattler roll.
"A Train is a Place Going Somewhere" CP Rail Public Timetable
"O. S. Irricana"
. . . __ . ______
There's a reason why some folks espouse the wonders of using Ham radios as railroad scanners - they are a better quality radio than your average scanner. That will include adjacent channel rejection as well as general overall sensitivity.
The problem is that a ham radio can be set up to transmit on those frequencies as well, something that is at once dangerous and illegal.
And not all bleedover comes from railroad sources. The local taxicab company (to pick a random example) could cause you no end of grief is their antenna is close enough to you and carries enough power.
A handy frequency to listen to is the EOT channel (457.9375 or 452.9375). It's relatively short range as compared to the VHF-High railroad radios, but those little data bursts (you won't hear any voice there) will tell you a train is within 3-5 miles in most cases. It might not be as useful if there are several lines in the area within radio range but not visual range, but if you're watching the only game in town, it could help you get your camera ready.
tree68The problem is that a ham radio can be set up to transmit on those frequencies as well, something that is at once dangerous and illegal
Larry, most, if not all ham radio equipment cannot be used for transmitting outside of the ham bands. 20 or more years ago, if you could hear something, you could call it, no matter where, but not any more. For instance, I can listen to CSX on my 2 meter transceiver, but cannot transmit there. FWIW, my ham transceiver runs rings round my scvanner....
Tom
COAST LINE FOREVER
It is better to dwell in the corner of a roof than to share a house with a contentious woman! (Solomon)
A contentious woman is like a constant dripping! (Solomon)
grampaw pettibone tree68The problem is that a ham radio can be set up to transmit on those frequencies as well, something that is at once dangerous and illegal Larry, most, if not all ham radio equipment cannot be used for transmitting outside of the ham bands. 20 or more years ago, if you could hear something, you could call it, no matter where, but not any more. For instance, I can listen to CSX on my 2 meter transceiver, but cannot transmit there. FWIW, my ham transceiver runs rings round my scanner....
Larry, most, if not all ham radio equipment cannot be used for transmitting outside of the ham bands. 20 or more years ago, if you could hear something, you could call it, no matter where, but not any more. For instance, I can listen to CSX on my 2 meter transceiver, but cannot transmit there. FWIW, my ham transceiver runs rings round my scanner....
'Xactly. For that matter, commercial grade two-way radios can be had very easily. Just don't get caught transmitting on frequencies you aren't licensed for (which for the average citizen is any of them).
I've also seen discussions about the railroads going digital, digital P25, and even encrypted, none of which bode well for the scanning community - at least until digital scanners become more widely available (and cheaper).
Sounds like my old Radio Shack/ Uniden 16 channel scanner is gonna be just a fancy weather radio someday!
Is there a website with the latest RR frequencies? My Compendium of Railroad Frequencies book is somewhat out of date...was the 1st edition right after the BNSF merger! Actually I think it was the last edition printed - I've never seen it since.
Why would they use encrypted? And why not agree on some digital format now? I don't see how it would be so hard to decide on a standard in the near future...
kolechovski Why would they use encrypted? And why not agree on some digital format now? I don't see how it would be so hard to decide on a standard in the near future...
Encryption is up to the user - perhaps they feel that it would be better if unknown persons weren't able to listen in. The unfortunate side effect is that railfans are unknown persons as far as they are concerned. (Cue the "they're not there to entertain us" point of view.)
I know of a sheriff who selected a trunking technology specifically because it's not scannable at present. He really wants to keep his comms to himself. Add encryption to that logic and you'll never know when you local cops are headed for the doughnut shop again.
There are digital standards - the best known is P25, which is not proprietary. The scanners are still a bit pricey, but I'm sure they'll come down as production ramps up.
Does the fact or doctrine that the airwaves are supposedly 'public' enter into the encryption question at all [Q]
I can see Sheriff Andy having a legitimate need for that - so the bad guys can't track where Deputy Barney Phife [or Fife] is and plan their misdeeds for where he isn't, as well as the other emergency services providers, etc.
But I don't see the same general need for railroad communications or taxis or tow trucks, etc. to be encrytpted. Privacy, secrecy, and confidentiality is nice to have, of course - but if that is wanted, then shouldn't the user then have to be compelled to buy that kind of service from a commercial provider of same, like a wireless phone company, Nextel, etc. If the public airwaves are going to be used, then the transmissions should generally remain public as well. Kind of like using the public streets - or not.
'I don't have a dog in this fight' - just putting this idea out here for debate and discussion, etc.
- Paul North.
Encryption serves two functions: privacy and authentication. Privacy is probably not so important an issue in the land mobile world, for the most part, but authentication can be of importance. It becomes an extra layer of assurance that the communications received are actually from the proper source.
As for encryption on the "public" airwaves, bear in mind, for instance, that digital cell phone traffic is now encrypted. There has been some weak assumption in the privacy of radio communications, I say 'weak' because in practicality, the laws prohibiting disclosure of intercepted transmissions have rarely been enforced. Nonetheless, every commercial radio operator license I have been issued over the past 40+ years has had the reminder on the back that it was a violation of law to disclose the content of an intercepted transmission.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.