I can assure you that long distance rail travelers appreciated the AM radio service in the 30's. Conditions were different then and so were expectations. Radio was new, popular, and the major communications and entertainment medium. The frequency band used by AM radios had about 2% - 5% the total number of uses that it has today, so interference by multiple users was far far less of a problem. The modulation swing of the FM carrier under audio was also less limited, and if a radio drifted off exact tuning, thus quality did not deteriorate as fast. Indeed one could listen to just the side band with adequate intelligibility and reasonably decent music quality.
It was something like the railroad providing magazines and newspapers in the lounge cars. Anyone else remember that?
My personal experiences and observations do not match yours, but nevertheless, I wouldn't call my overall acquaintenace with this area and time to be exhaustive. It does bring back memories, but I am hardly the one to ever want to return to a bygone technological era.
I am surprised things then worked as well as they did, but I clearly prefer the personal empowerment and communication options available presently. I often speculate what the next ten or twenty years will bring, and as those years approach, I find that my predictions were vastly underestimated.
About the only thing constant is the monetary outlay for the new wizardry.
RJ Emery near Santa Fe, NM
rjemery wrote: tree68 wrote:Given the general nature of broadcast radio at the time (as already discussed here), it might be interesting to pass some time scouting the dial for something you wanted to listen to. And if you find it, maybe you'd pick up that book, or knitting, or just watch the passing scenery. With accompaniment. Or maybe even a ball game!I remain unconvinced that AM radio reception, even if good at the start, would stay that way for very long on a speeding train in 1937. Any decent performance would more likely be the exception rather than the rule. Anything with vacuum tube technology required constant maintenance, and I am certain radio sets on a jostling train broke down frequently.
tree68 wrote:Given the general nature of broadcast radio at the time (as already discussed here), it might be interesting to pass some time scouting the dial for something you wanted to listen to. And if you find it, maybe you'd pick up that book, or knitting, or just watch the passing scenery. With accompaniment. Or maybe even a ball game!
I remain unconvinced that AM radio reception, even if good at the start, would stay that way for very long on a speeding train in 1937. Any decent performance would more likely be the exception rather than the rule. Anything with vacuum tube technology required constant maintenance, and I am certain radio sets on a jostling train broke down frequently.
Tube type radios for me have been very durable. An example was the Johnson Viking transmitter I had for the car. In the 5 years I used it, never had to replace a tube. And since it was Chrystal controlled, there was never much drift. The Jeep of course was far more violent on a tube type than your standard sleeper, even from the 1930's.
VFO drift depended upon the design of the radio and stations on adjacent frequencies. Most folks fine tuned by ear, not using the dial display. Usually once a receiver was warmed up, the drifting should have become less noticeable. It was very common to fine tune from time to time, that was the level of technology back then. There was no expectation of solid state FM quality from the users. Normal VFO drift because of temperature was about 500hz (again based upon my old Hallicrafters S-85).
Going back to expectations again. As someone related here, the form of entertainment, and keeping up with the events of the world was by radio. Just as the TV and DVD is the base point of home entertainment today (also the computer), the technology rules the expectations we have. What took waiting til the top of the hour in the 1930's for weather as an example, we now click an icon on our desktop and get instant information. The mass distribution of music back then was radio. Now we have I-Pods, CD's which are all portable.
I can assure you, the AM band was far different than what we have today. The expectations of the quality and fidelity is worlds apart from the digital age we are in right now. I assume you have all heard a recording of Orson Wells' "War of the Worlds", or of the Hindenburg disaster. Most available now a days have been digitally remastered, so they do not reflect the actual conditions. But those were perfect examples of the technology back then. They put up with a lot more tinkering than people today.
....Sounds like me recently {with another product}. Just a few years before the onslought of digital cameras took off I had spent a few dollars {for me}, on a pretty good Canon EOS film camera.
Good camera, but Bad timing.
Quentin
Modelcar wrote:....My judgement on AM radios of the era we're discussing comes from the radios mostly in my home.Not sure I agree with the thought that any radio with vacuum tube technology required constant maintenance....I simply don't remember it that way.Now at the beginning of the TV era....In our case {In western Pennsylvania}, our first TV sets...{first one, Air King brand...summer of 1948}, seemed to be more sensitive to using up tubes....Too much heat...?? I don't know....Amp. tubes working too hard and heat...again I don't know, but seemed I was {quite often}, bringing home the tube checker from work....But simply do not remember that having to be done with the tube radios in the late 30's, etc....Sure must have been some, but don't remember our radio at home being out of service so often for such a reason.
....My judgement on AM radios of the era we're discussing comes from the radios mostly in my home.
Not sure I agree with the thought that any radio with vacuum tube technology required constant maintenance....I simply don't remember it that way.
Now at the beginning of the TV era....In our case {In western Pennsylvania}, our first TV sets...{first one, Air King brand...summer of 1948}, seemed to be more sensitive to using up tubes....Too much heat...?? I don't know....Amp. tubes working too hard and heat...again I don't know, but seemed I was {quite often}, bringing home the tube checker from work....
But simply do not remember that having to be done with the tube radios in the late 30's, etc....Sure must have been some, but don't remember our radio at home being out of service so often for such a reason.
PS: I did forget to comment of such comedy and variety shows early on in radio as mentioned above.
alphas wrote:Some of the reponders to this are forgetting the many comedy and variety shows on the radio in the days before TV. I suspect these got at least as many listeners as the music stations on any train. And the AM reception, especially at night, was better in those days, especially since most of the small town stations only broadcast from sunrise to sunset.
What intriques me is that if on early trains the availability of radios, AM or FM, were so popular, why weren't they offered in the 1960's? By that time, I'm not aware of any first-class passenger train that offered that extra.
Given the general nature of broadcast radio at the time (as already discussed here), it might be interesting to pass some time scouting the dial for something you wanted to listen to. And if you find it, maybe you'd pick up that book, or knitting, or just watch the passing scenery. With accompaniment.
Or maybe even a ball game!
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...
.....I think we're over doing the "fine tuning" aspect of it....
And if a radio was available in a sleeper compartment....why not have some music for a while....Believe we've established it was possible to receive long distance AM clear channels and lots of music was on those stations in that era....so why not listen.
I have no idea why ANYONE (in their right mind)would want to set up all night on a train trip fine tuning an am radio ! Of all things to do while on a train ride ! UNLESS,you were a kid on your first train ride !
It was an advertising gimmick to get more riders, wheather they listened to any radios or not is a matter of history we may never know..Granted some people may have listened to local stations once they got in range of Denver or Chicago just to get the lastest weather or get caught up on the lastest news...
For the question at hand....receiving AM radio signals adequately in a moving railroad car back in the 30's and 40's from clear channel 50 kw stations would have been very possible....and in my opinion probable.
Big band sounds from AM radios in the 30's in homes was a reality....Very much so. Clear channel stations were a reality and I remember well {my older brother}, had that sound on a lot and it was great. Several of our radios at home were Philco floor models and then right after the war a big new Zenith console with Phono and multiband receiver really brought out beautiful music sounds from big clear channel stations at night.
I remember an interview with Wolfman Jack in TV Guide in the 70s. He said he once worked on a Mexican station that broadcast at 500,000 watts and could be picked up in Korea. In the 1930s a station in Cincinnati broadcast at 500,000 at could be picked up in Australia.
I live in central South Dakota, and the only rock station we could get in the daytime was KFYR, Bismarck, ND 550 AM 300 miles away. At night you could choose between WLS Chicago 890 AM, 650 miles or KOMA Oklahoma City at 1520 which was further than Chicago. I listened to WLS, but I was told that KOMA often carried ads for concerts in NORTH Dakota. Out in Rapid City, SD 900 miles from Chicago, WLS was the station of choice, so much so that Rapid's first rock station (daylight only) adopted the letters KKLS. In 1976 I got WLS on my car radio while in Denver. It was staticy, but I could understand every word.
An old timer I used to know in Miller, SD was a huge fan of the St. Louis Cardinals, because way back when he could get St. Louis crystal clear. Miller is 550 miles from Kansas City, plus whatever the distance is to St. Louis from KC.
It was amazing what you could stumble across back then. Sometimes you'd get something once and never find it again.
In 1971 my cousin came out from Chicago and whipped out this 10 band radio with 2 antennas, I asked him what he was doing and he said he was trying to get WLS. I promptly turned on my piece of junk clock radio just in time for the words "WLS, CHICAGO!!!"
The look on his face was priceless.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
larsend wrote: What limits reception on the AM Radio Band is the noise (lightning, thunder static, and other radio stations you do not want to hear.)Back in the 1930s there were fewer AM Radio Stations on the air, hence less interference from undesired radio stations. In fact the FCC designated several Radio Stations as "Clear Channel Stations." Most of these Clear Channel Stations , especially those in the Midwest, were able to be heard all over the Contental USA.Today, the FCC has allowed other stations to broadcast on the Clear Channel frequencies, destroying their coverage.Listening to the AM radio band in the 1930s was much more enjoyable than it is now.
What limits reception on the AM Radio Band is the noise (lightning, thunder static, and other radio stations you do not want to hear.)
Back in the 1930s there were fewer AM Radio Stations on the air, hence less interference from undesired radio stations. In fact the FCC designated several Radio Stations as "Clear Channel Stations." Most of these Clear Channel Stations , especially those in the Midwest, were able to be heard all over the Contental USA.
Today, the FCC has allowed other stations to broadcast on the Clear Channel frequencies, destroying their coverage.
Listening to the AM radio band in the 1930s was much more enjoyable than it is now.
It is more of a challange today thanks to the FCC. But even in the late 60's to late 70's, it was fun to sit and tune around. At one time in my youth, I logged a station on every frequency in the AM band. Certain frequencies were difficult such as the "graveyard" frequency of 1230 khz.
WGN radio in Chicago had/has listeners in New Zealand and all over the world. So it is not at all a stretch to imagine the coverage back in the 30's.
rjemery wrote: The Burlington's Denver Zephyr's in 1937 offered desktop radios "for private use in bedrooms, compartments and drawing rooms." I have to wonder of what value an AM radio would be on a speeding train averaging at least 60 mph. These were overnight trains between Denver and Chicago, so any radio listening would be done at night when reception was better. Nevertheless, at that speed, any radio station that could be received would soon be out-of-range. Given that the train itself was constantly changing position and orientation, fine turning should have been all but impossible.Anyone have any idea how well received or effective these radios were? I don't believe radios were offered on any other trains of the day.
The Burlington's Denver Zephyr's in 1937 offered desktop radios "for private use in bedrooms, compartments and drawing rooms." I have to wonder of what value an AM radio would be on a speeding train averaging at least 60 mph. These were overnight trains between Denver and Chicago, so any radio listening would be done at night when reception was better. Nevertheless, at that speed, any radio station that could be received would soon be out-of-range. Given that the train itself was constantly changing position and orientation, fine turning should have been all but impossible.
Anyone have any idea how well received or effective these radios were? I don't believe radios were offered on any other trains of the day.
I recall using my transister in the 1960's picking up just about every kind of station in the U.S. from my bed. Of course there is a huge difference between that, and the noisey sleeper (electrical noise). Today, is no different that yesterday as far as AM reception. Yes, the radios are different.
One of the Philco table top models I recall, model 96 was an AC powered radio, which had the antenna linked into the power cord. (This might have been originally for local stations only) And yes, some tube type radios had to be retuned from time to time because of internal drift.
I am not sure the noise from the car electrical equipment could be quieted or not for long distance communication. However at that time, most big stations were 50,000 watts. Some at first were 500,000 watts (you should see the tubes for that transmitter!) Add to it, there were not as many stations out there, so you had some space between stations, i.e. less noise from adjecent frequencies. Plus these radios were less selective than what I had in the form of a Hellicrafters S-85 reciever in 1972. However given that, you should have gotten some real long distance reception.
I recall playing with a tube type car radio in the late 80's, with a normal car antenna. The result was surprising. Driving from Chicago to Moline, IL, (120 miles) I was able to get WGN radio, 720khz with perfect clarity. My records by the way, were a station on 800khz in 1972 from Bonaire, in the Netherlands Antilles, and a 5,000 watt daytime/500 watt night time radio station from Sikeston, Mo. On Shortwave, it was Springbok Radio from South Africa, at 5,000 watts. (I had to slip that in to gloat a bit)
So, the answer is, given a good model of radio, I have no doubt that it would work well in your compartment, even at 60 mph. Yep, I can imagine falling asleep listening to the Big Band sounds from KOA 850 khz in Denver.
.......10-4 and 73's.
Modelcar wrote:....Enjoyed the conversation...better turn it back to the subject at the heading.
Modelcar wrote:...Back several decades ago we had an AM station {can't remember it's call letters now}, and it had a cluster of antennas.....exactly how many I'm not sure...perhaps about 6 of them maybe 200 to 250' towers but it was a day time only station....and low power.It's still here but now a completely different set up and it's now an FM station and I believe it broadcasts from several nearby towns.
....Enjoyed the conversation...better turn it back to the subject at the heading.
...Back several decades ago we had an AM station {can't remember it's call letters now}, and it had a cluster of antennas.....exactly how many I'm not sure...perhaps about 6 of them maybe 200 to 250' towers but it was a day time only station....and low power.
It's still here but now a completely different set up and it's now an FM station and I believe it broadcasts from several nearby towns.
Modelcar wrote:....Yes, the "clear channel stations" were awarded a frequency that no one else in the lower 48 could transmit on. I remember KDKA, PGh., and WBZA, Boston were very close in frequency and were a bit tricky to keep separated.Believe Des Moines, Iowa and Omaha, Neb. had clear channel stations too. Again, {I just thought of it}, coming across the Pacific in 1954 when we were still out {from Seattle, Wa.}, hundreds of miles, I picked up Des Moines on a hand held small portable....At night.
....I believe I remember reading of a Mexican {or several}, stations with up to 250 KW power back in those days....
....A bit of Trivia:
As a youngster, I had a crystal set....{no power...no batteries}, and I managed {several times}, to pick up Kearney, Neb. {at night}, from western Pennsylvania....!
dldance wrote:Even in the 1960's in Idaho I listened to KOMA (Oklahoma City) and Wolf Man Jack (Del Rio Texas - actual across the river in Mexico). Good clear reception after dark. A good quality AM radio would pick up clear channel stations all across the midwest and Chicago-Denver is definately midwest.
That station in Mexico transmitted at least at 100 KW if not 150 KW. I'm not sure if it was operating in the late 1930's.
While US-based commercial radio stations were limited to 50 KW (with some notable exceptions), they usually did not transmit at their full power until after dark. Since the Denver Zephyrs were overnight trains, US stations would have been at full power.
Modelcar wrote:....There was an AT&T heavy double cable line {2 cables}, perhaps 3" in dia. and it passed our home about no farther away than 50'.We always did wonder if the lightning hit might have run along that cable line and fed the power to our antenna line somehow.....
....Yes, the "clear channel stations" were awarded a frequency that no one else in the lower 48 could transmit on. I remember KDKA, PGh., and WBZA, Boston were very close in frequency and were a bit tricky to keep separated.
Believe De Moines, Iowa and Omaha, Neb. had clear channel stations too. Again, {I just thought of it}, coming across the Pacific in 1954 when we were still out {from Seattle, Wa.}, hundreds of miles, I picked up De Moines on a hand held small portable....At night.
Even in the 1960's in Idaho I listened to KOMA (Oklahoma City) and Wolf Man Jack (Del Rio Texas - actual across the river in Mexico). Good clear reception after dark. A good quality AM radio would pick up clear channel stations all across the midwest and Chicago-Denver is definately midwest.
dd
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.