Radio Traffic

[lyndhurst25]

The Ravenglass and Eskdale Railway use a radio signalling system. Holidaying in West Cumbria a few years back, I managed to pick up the conversations on a radio scanner. Not very interesting: just drivers asking for permission to proceed to the next passing loop, and then the signal box saying OK. This year they have changed to a digital radio system so a simple scanner will no longer work.

 

[D Foster]

May I ask why ?

Most of the communication is boring and functional.

Here is a typical transcript from my location.

"Morning Signaller, this is the Driver of 5XXX, permission to drop down to the exit signal on 1rd sidings to TRTS, over."

"Yes Driver, you have my permission to pull up to XXXX signal and TRTS. Await change of aspect, got one in front I gotta let out first. Signaller out"

"Driver out"

"Safety Critical Messages".
As I recall them - which might be a little out of date - for radio (and radio type communication) the Driver should begin the dialogue by getting the signallers attention with a start-up call. -
Then - dealing with this example...
1. The Driver should check that he/she is talking to the correct signaller - if this isn't made clear by the signaller's first response.
2. The driver hasn't said where his train is standing.
3. "Permission to..." sounds like the driver is giving permission to the signaller. He/she should be clear that he/she is asking for permission.
4"Drop Down to" is incorrect. "Down" and "Up" are both directions of movement and nominated directions of travel on lines that aren't bi-directional or reversible - (which gain their identified direction when signalled for a specified direction). Having first made clear his/her position the driver should ask for clearance to "move to" or "draw forward to".
5. The signal should be referred to only by its correct number. This would obviate the rest of the suggested wording. Although the track that is referred to should have been defined more clearly at the start.
6. Using "Over" may not be essential but it does make clear that the communication is complete. For radios it was required in my experience.

Once the first communication is "over" in this case the Signaller is the "Lead" communicator. that is - in charge of the communications on this subject.

7.The signaller should repeat back the id of who he/she is talking to and where they are. (If there is any doubt there should then be a pause - achieved by a request to confirm ending with "Over") The action requested should also be confirmed - with particular reference to the signal the movement is to be made to. This ends with "Over".
8. The driver should confirm that his/her request has been correctly understood. Ending with "Over".
9. The signaller should then give or deny permission to make the movement to the specified signal (stated). Ending with "Over".
10. The Driver then confirms the permission to the named signal. Ending with "Over".
11. The signaller (as "Lead") then concludes with "thankyou Driver. Out".

It is always preferable to avoid or at least minimise comments about any other movement - either of other trains or other areas of track.
It is not necessary to instruct a Driver to wait for a change of aspect in normal working - because that would be what they would do anyway. The difference that might occur could be to make contact again at the signal - particularly if there were delays or other information that should be given when the train was at the signal.

Okay... So - I know that I've written in a lot of confirming and repeating back. I also know that (shall we say) "some of this isn't always done" and some of what is done isn't exactly "according to the book". However; communications are nearly all recorded now - and the evidence I have been shown/listened to all showed up that incidents - big and small - occurred where corners were cut in communications - particularly where one or both parties assumed that the other party knew what they were talking about.
Yes "repeat back" is a pain. I've done what probably added up to hours of it. Both ends of a communication know exactly what's going on though - provided they both listen carefully and are actually doing what they say. Repeat-back cannot prevent all errors. But it does mitigate against the more obvious ones.
Also - recording is a good thing. So long as anyone is "doing it by the book" and carefully the use of recordings as evidence protects the people that do the job right. It is also useful for identifying "what went wrong". this is not only important for identifying who got it wrong but how. The how is often more important than any disciplinary action. Understanding "what went wrong" can lead to better practice. In particular it can be used in training.

In the old days we sat around in lobbies and lineside huts and listened to the "old timers" reminiscing about how xxx had screwed up. We discreetly learned things. later on track we would recall the stories - and avoid the same mistakes.
In the modern period we rarely sit and listen in the same way. If we sit we all too often tend to be on the phone or playing a game. We lose out on the opportunity to hear old stories - in fact - we often disrespect them. This makes classroom sessions with nice films to show us how people screwed up more essential.

The core thing about communications is to be precise, clear, brief and to confirm understanding by both ends as far as practical.

I don't see any reason why anyone not working would want to listen in. As my example shows - most of the talk is repetitive and boring.

 

[Llanigraham]

^^^^^^^
All correct. However I do read the quote that there might have been a question from the driver but it hasn't been written that way.

All conversations, phone and GSM-R, are recorded at the Box, and from my own experience, the LOM's do listen to them and the signallers do get marked on their communications. Our LOM was very strict and clamped down hard on those that took "short cuts" or didn't follow the laid-down procedure, even to reporting drivers that weren't do it correctly. Even I got marked down and have I instructed radio communications to a First Aid organisation and to rally safety operators!
Perhaps some LOM's aren't as strict.

 

[SPADTrap]

"Signaller out" and "driver out" are unnecessary on a simplex system and not mandated by any rule (except in the case of a REC call where the GSM-R reverts to a simplex system as has been stated). Many signallers (myself included) also find them somewhat rude; although we realise that most of it is the habit of using the old CSR (in my neck of the woods) system; which did require "out"; rather than any malice of forethought.
I essentially treat the GSM-R like a telephone. It looks like a phone; it rings like a phone; you can both talk at the same time; it's got a spiral cable; basically it's a phone and saying "out" on the phone to someone is the height of bad manners.

I think you're confusing your terms saying they're unnecessary on a Simplex system but only needed when the GSMR reverts to Simplex during a REC?

 

[TwistedMentat]

If the encryption being used is the encryption in the original base GSM standard then it's woefully inadequate as its been broken by security researchers multiple times now.

So theoretically it's should be totally plausible to listen in.

As to why you would want to? Well others here know more about how boring that sounds.

 

[nom de guerre]

"Signaller out" and "driver out" are unnecessary on a simplex system and not mandated by any rule (except in the case of a REC call where the GSM-R reverts to a simplex system as has been stated). Many signallers (myself included) also find them somewhat rude; although we realise that most of it is the habit of using the old CSR (in my neck of the woods) system; which did require "out"; rather than any malice of forethought.
I essentially treat the GSM-R like a telephone. It looks like a phone; it rings like a phone; you can both talk at the same time; it's got a spiral cable; basically it's a phone and saying "out" on the phone to someone is the height of bad manners.

I'll have to respectfully disagree.

I don't see anything rude about ending a routine GSM-R call with 'Signaller/Driver out' - and I've never heard another signaller (or driver) suggest that doing so is somehow bad-mannered, either.

 

[ComUtoR]

Wow ! I've never seen such a response to a simple conversation that happens day in and day out to a greater or lesser degree. As we are all picking things apart about communications.....

I've been pulled up for saying both 'Good morning' and 'Thank you' Neither are required and are totally superfluous and in no way safety critical.

On a more personal note.

I like GSMR but I'm disappointed by the way in which we limit its use. It has the potential to be so much more than it is. One of the good things it can do is the ability to connect to any telephone number. It does however, pose the question of it being a 'radio' or a 'phone'

The phone books aren't always as filled as they can be and the ability to direct dial has been restricted (at least on ours) There is a question where mobile phone use is not permitted but you can have the same conversation and connect to someone who doesn't specifically use safety communication.

 

[AndyW33]

I think that the original post might have been inspired by US railway practice where the predominantly untimetabled freight railway is to a large extent run by unencrypted radio messages between dispatchers and train crews. Enthusiasts routinely monitor radio activity using scanners as in large parts of the country they'd hang around all day waiting for a train to observe otherwise.

Quite different in the UK of course.