Rocky Mtn National Park new freqs

[tbiggums]

It seems RMNP has some new repeaters on the air... Driving through Larimer County a couple of days ago on I-25, I heard RMNP's "east net" on 170.3875. This repeater appears to be linked to their old east side repeater on 166.350, so the same traffic is heard on both. There's a 110.9 tone on the output of both repeaters. This 170.3875 repeater seems to cover the front range pretty well.

Hopefully I'll make it up to the west side in a few weeks to see if there's anything new up there...

[Squad10]

Originally Posted by tbiggums

It seems RMNP has some new repeaters on the air... Driving through Larimer County a couple of days ago on I-25, I heard RMNP's "east net" on 170.3875. This repeater appears to be linked to their old east side repeater on 166.350, so the same traffic is heard on both. There's a 110.9 tone on the output of both repeaters. This 170.3875 repeater seems to cover the front range pretty well.

Hopefully I'll make it up to the west side in a few weeks to see if there's anything new up there...

August 2008, I found a VHF P25 repeater the RMNP Rangers use in addition to the analog system. I'll have to look at my notes. I think they called it Channel 16.

[ScannerSK]

Good to see this topic... I was considering starting a thread. I have a list of new freq's Rocky Mountain (ROMO) has been using these days. I'm not certain whether these are additional repeater inputs / links or new channels?

168.6125 P25 (channel 16?)
170.3875 110.9 PL
171.5375
172.4000 110.9 PL
416.5125 127.3 PL

and possibly a few others...

Existing list:

164.425
164.475
166.300
166.350
166.900
166.950
168.350
417.825

Shawn

[Squad10]

Originally Posted by Squad10

August 2008, I found a VHF P25 repeater the RMNP Rangers use in addition to the analog system. I'll have to look at my notes. I think they called it Channel 16.

The P25 repeater output I came across in RMNP was 168.6125 NAC389. Very strong signal strength that could be heard on my PSR-500 throughout the Park. Could not find my notes as to what I heard it referred to, but to the best of my memory I'm thinking Channel 16.

[zerg901]

Great Smokey Mtns - Shenandoah Natl Park - Blue Ridge Parkway - they seemed to have added lots of new repeaters also recently - per posts to the Virginia & NC Forums. Peter Sz

[milf]

New changes to narrowband and or digital.... Over the last five years- Natchez Trace Nat Parkway, GSMNP, BRP, Shanandoah, RMNP,... And probably others wehave not got info on yet. Oh let me add- Ozarks/Ouachita Nat Forest/Lake Ouachita..... Keep watching lots of changes happening..

[tbiggums]

Did you hear all of these on the east side, or did you make it over to the west side at all?

Some of the recent wildland fire frequency plans I've seen suggest that 168.6125 simplex is "National Common / BLM work net", but I'll make sure it's in my list. Was the P25 traffic on it clear or encrypted?

Since I was only driving through, I couldn't play with the radio all that much. I was lucky enough to be able to catch the 110.9 tone and verify that 170.3875 was indeed linked to 166.3500.

Originally Posted by ScannerSK

Good to see this topic... I was considering starting a thread. I have a list of new freq's Rocky Mountain (ROMO) has been using these days. I'm not certain whether these are additional repeater inputs / links or new channels?

168.6125 P25 (channel 16?)
170.3875 110.9 PL
171.5375
172.4000 110.9 PL
416.5125 127.3 PL

and possibly a few others...

Existing list:

164.425
164.475
166.300
166.350
166.900
166.950
168.350
417.825

Shawn

[Squad10]

Originally Posted by tbiggums

Did you hear all of these on the east side, or did you make it over to the west side at all?

Some of the recent wildland fire frequency plans I've seen suggest that 168.6125 simplex is "National Common / BLM work net", but I'll make sure it's in my list. Was the P25 traffic on it clear or encrypted?

Since I was only driving through, I couldn't play with the radio all that much. I was lucky enough to be able to catch the 110.9 tone and verify that 170.3875 was indeed linked to 166.3500.

I camped at (Eastside) Moraine Park for three nights. Park Rangers used an analog system for traffic stops, MVAs, assist motorist, and other general traffic. When one Ranger told another Ranger to go to what I think they called Channel 16, I started a 160 to 174 search and found 168.6125. Traffic was P25 NAC389 and in the clear. For the short time I was at RMNP, the P25 system was used for Ranger chit chat and not often used. No dispatcher was called or heard calling on the digital channel. I did receive 168.6125 in the (far Southwest) Grand Lake area, but the signal was marginal. Traffic was light on the channel, so one would want to "sit on it". I never heard encryption used. I maybe heard the channel used five or six times during my visit.

[ScannerSK]

I heard the top five frequencies from Gilcrest (15 miles South of Greeley). Some of the freq's may be related to the west side however more likely to the east side.

Shawn

[tbiggums]

I was able to hear 170.3875 and 172.400 in the metro area last night, and confirmed that both are linked to 166.350. At least for my location, 166.350 still had the slightly stronger signal. Everything I heard last night was analog with a 110.9 tone on all three.

Has anyone ever heard anything other than a 127.3 tone on 166.300 on the west side? The database indicates 110.9 is used for direct, but I've never noticed anything other than a 127.3 every time I've been on the west side. Of course with their repeaters having no hang time, it's sometimes difficult to tell if a transmission is direct or repeated.

[ScannerSK]

I just located yet an additional new frequency for Rocky Mountain National Park.

407.5125 110.9 PL (linked to 166.350). This freq. appears to be an input to the 166.350 repeater.

Shawn

[jeffreyinberthoud]

For clarity this is what I either have or copied from this post if all is correct let me know Ill send spread sheet to Green thumb.Note 168.6125 RMNP has always and is logged as ROMO TAC
they use it alot durring the rutt............

166.3500 RMNP EAST Off 110.9
168.6125 RMNP TAC Off Search
164.4250 RMNP E TAC Off 110.9
166.3000 RM WEST DIR Off 110.9
166.3000 RMNP WEST Off 127.3
171.5375 RMNP Off Search
166.3500 RMNP Off Search
170.3875 RMNPlink to166.350 Off 110.9
164.4250 RMNP Off Search
164.4750 RMNP Off Search
166.3000 RMNP Off Search
166.9000 RMNP Off Search
166.9500 RMNP Off Search
168.3500 RMNP Off Search
417.8250 RMNP Off Search
170.3875 RMNP Off 110.9
171.5375 RMNP Off Search
172.4000 RMNPlink to166.350 Off 110.9
416.5125 RMNP Off 127.3
407.5125 RMNPlink to166.350 Off 110.9

[Exsmokey]

Originally Posted by tbiggums

Some of the recent wildland fire frequency plans I've seen suggest that 168.6125 simplex is "National Common / BLM work net", but I'll make sure it's in my list. Was the P25 traffic on it clear or encrypted?

I'm picking up listings for 168.6125 on a few National Parks. I believe it is replacing 168.350. 168.6125 is one of the four new "federal government itinerant wide area simplex" frequencies assigned in the NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) "Redbook." It appears to be replacing 168.350, which the Redbook now lists as an input for a 163.100 repeater pair to be used for wide area temporary repeater use. These four new frequencies include 168.6125, 163.7125, 167.1375 and 173.625.

I hadn't heard that this was to be a BLM work net as well. Most BLM systems have a "SOA" or Scene of Action frequency, but not a "work net." The USFS and BLM have tightened up on the use of the NIFC or National Incident Radio Support Cache tacticals for non fire use and must be assigned by a local comm center according to incident needs. That has resulted in more work or project frequencies being used. When I was in the Forest Service we used 168.200 (Tac 2) for almost all of our simplex use. Some National Forests have individual work nets and some use frequencies assigned to an entire National Forest region.

Lots of changes for all the federal natural resource agency radio systems as a result of narrow banding. Most agencies are taking advantage of new frequencies available to expand their systems to relieve the overloading of use on the few frequencies and nets they used to have. A good example of this is the law enforcement nets being established in parks with a significant law enforcement workload. Grand Canyon now has a fire/rescue, EMS, law enforcement, and administrative net (everyone else such a maintenance, resource management, etc.)

National Forests are adding additional nets to take fire and law enforcement off of their "Forest Nets", are dividing the forests into geographical nets (north-south, east-west and the like), or establishing nets to be used for local incident management command.

Lots to search for and communicate with each other on.

[zerg901]

Historically the federal UHF freqs (*) have been used to link repeater sites to dispatch centers, or repeater sites to repeater sites.. Nowadays, maybe they have dual band portable radios. In which case, they could use UHF for -

1. linking repeaters

2. communicating from repeater sites to UHF portables (RMNP might be using VHF mobiles and UHF portables)

3. covering certain areas - who knows, maybe everything on the west side of RMNP might actually be UHF - with everything on the east side being VHF

4. providing patches to outside agencies

Peter Sz

(*) (I think the only exception to this is that DEA and GSA have historically been UHF only - no VHF to speak of - and some military bases used UHF - but basically the Feds have seemed to use VHF for portables and mobiles and repeaters - and UHF for links)

[Exsmokey]

I don't think any of the federal natural resource agencies would have dual band radios or using UHF "in the field" or in non-linking situations. UHF would not allow for interoperability. Remember that an incident could occur at Rocky Mtn. requiring resources (crews, engines, aircraft, law enforcement officers, etc.) from all over the country to arrive, set up an incident command structure and communicate within 24 hours or less.

I have looked at some frequency lists for National Parks showing some of the small historic sites and national monuments (we call them "cannonball" parks here in the west) using UHF simplex. I've never confirmed these as my eastern U.S. experience is almost nil.

The National Incident Radio Support Cache or NIFC system has many UHF frequencies assigned. They are used for logistics, linking VHF command repeaters, and for camp nets.

I've been out of the loop for awhile, but still have some access to official frequency lists, most of which I cannot share with anyone, and have yet to see any UHF shown for anything other than linking. I've not noticed any discussion of UHF on the NIFC website in regard to radio communications, with the exception of the logistics, etc. equipment.

Based on this I would not call 407.5125 an input for ROMO's 166.350 repeaters. The new allocation of the federal government UHF band is for down links to be in the 406 to 410.9875 range and the up links to be 9 MHz higher. Up links originate at ranger stations, dispatch centers, and remote bases (also linked via UHF) to repeaters and remote bases. The repeaters and remote bases then transmit back to these locations using the lower of the UHF frequency pair. Repeater locations and remote bases have cross band receivers/transmitters. In most cases there is a hub remote base linked by UHF to dispatch etc., that is line of sight with all the distant and widespread repeaters. This remote base then transmits on the VHF repeater input frequency and receives on the VHF repeater output, just like a mobile or portable does. The advantage, of course, is that the remote base is at a much higher location than dispatch or most mobiles and portables. The exception would be lookout facilities on the high mountain locations on parks and forests.

I do know of one National Forest that uses UHF links between some repeaters back to those sites that have repeaters linked to base stations via a microwave backbone system. Not all of their repeater sites can use microwave due to power, access, and scenic value considerations. This is the only situation I've run across where repeater sites have cross band receivers and transmitters. There is somewhat of a trend on some western National Forests to remove microwave links as they are more expensive to maintain than UHF links. During the narrow banding system replacements one National Forest removed the entire microwave backbone they had and replaced it with UHF, which is what they had before they used microwave. Just the power bill alone costs much more for microwave than for UHF.

The UHF links pass along the appropriate tones to control each repeater. Some systems have a feature where the input tone is also transmitted on the output frequency. If you are within the receiving coverage of a remote base link, you are able to program in the down link and hear exactly what the dispatcher is hearing, complete with the tone to help identify the repeater being used, unless there is a common CTCSS used for all repeater outputs. In most cases a unique output tone is assigned to each repeater so that the dispatch console can identify the repeater in use.

For the scanner listener it is great to be in down link range as sometimes you can listen to an entire National Park, National Forest, or BLM District radio system, sometimes including repeaters dozens or hundreds of miles away. All the advantages of taking a handheld scanner with you on a peak climb, but while in the comfort of your home, campsite, or vehicle.

I hope this helps someone.

[Exsmokey]

I should add that interoperability would not be achieved using UHF for federal natural resource agencies because VHF is used for over 95% of their communications, and except for the east, 100% of the field, or non-fixed point communications. Wildland fire communications are almost all on VHF High. This is likely to continue for quite some time, due to the disadvantages of UHF communications in mountainous terrain. UHF often reflects too much and won't bend over terrain. This is another reason that I doubt ROMO would be using UHF for mobile/portable use. This park certainly has what I would consider significant topography.

[ScannerSK]

Intra-Crew Communications:
Frequency Type

163.7125 M National Intra-Crew (for assembling crew and travel)
167.1375 M Primary Initial Attack & On-scene of Incident
168.6125 M Secondary Initial Attack & On-scene of Incident
173.6250 M Tertiary Initial Attack & On-scene of Incident

National Incident Radio Support Cache - The RadioReference Wiki

Shawn

[zerg901]

I was thinking of the UTac freqs for UHF interops - with county and state level public safety agencies. I suppose that Rocky Mtn NP should also have 800 Mhz DTRS coverage for more complete interops. Peter Sz

[jimmnn]

Originally Posted by zerg901

I was thinking of the UTac freqs for UHF interops - with county and state level public safety agencies. I suppose that Rocky Mtn NP should also have 800 Mhz DTRS coverage for more complete interops. Peter Sz

Ha no DTRS coverage in the park for the most part and counties to the North, South, East and West of the part still use VHF when they seek dependable communications!

Jim<

[tbiggums]

I agree that the UHF frequencies appear to be just repeater links, and nothing more. The UHF frequencies carry the same traffic as the VHF repeaters, except they have less coverage due to the use of directional antennas.

There's hardly any public safety users on UHF in Colorado anymore, so I can't imagine anyone looking to use the U-TAC's.

Maybe there's some UHF link frequency (or pair) to allow the office in Estes Park to communicate with the west side. If so, one could possibly listen to it to hear the west side traffic on the east side.

The 166.900 and 166.950 frequencies are just repeater inputs.

That 168.6125 will be an interesting one to watch. I agree it's probably simplex, as it appears to be a federal itinerant frequency. I did hear some analog simplex traffic on 168.350 while driving through as well, but it wasn't enough to identify who it was, and since that freq was an itinerant, it could be just about any federal user.