Help needed from LTR System Manager

[kingpin]

I'm in the process of doing a feasability study for upgrading to a county wide LTR radio network. I am looking at a VHF system in a mixed rural setting to cover 1600 square miles. I am quite confident this will need to be a multi site system for this coverage. I'm interested to see what other folks have in place.

Thanks,

[fireboy]

I think there are mixed feelings when it comes to LTR for public safety operations. Where Im from my county is building out a VHF Passport system, While our neighboring county is building out a VHF P25 Smartnet system. I think you have to think out price, availability, and interoperability options. someone can go on and on about this. In my opinion I wouldnt go LTR or Passport for countywide communications because for one reason being if youre home repeater goes down your whole system goes down. and second from what I understand JPS doesnt make the voter cards for LTR anymore. If I could I would try to see about what it would take to possibly go Smartnet or maybe even EDACS.

[rattlerbb01]

Originally Posted by fireboy

I think there are mixed feelings when it comes to LTR for public safety operations. Where Im from my county is building out a VHF Passport system, While our neighboring county is building out a VHF P25 Smartnet system. I think you have to think out price, availability, and interoperability options. someone can go on and on about this. In my opinion I wouldnt go LTR or Passport for countywide communications because for one reason being if youre home repeater goes down your whole system goes down. and second from what I understand JPS doesnt make the voter cards for LTR anymore. If I could I would try to see about what it would take to possibly go Smartnet or maybe even EDACS.

You wouldn't happen to be from Medina County, would ya? If so, that would explain the YW license with sites having as little as two repeaters.

[slicerwizard]

Originally Posted by fireboy

In my opinion I wouldnt go LTR or Passport for countywide communications because for one reason being if youre home repeater goes down your whole system goes down.

Every site can have multiple home repeaters and radios can roam to neighbour sites, so it's not that bad. Still inappropriate for public safety.

[fmon]

Originally Posted by kingpin

I'm in the process of doing a feasability study for upgrading to a county wide LTR radio network. I am looking at a VHF system in a mixed rural setting to cover 1600 square miles. I am quite confident this will need to be a multi site system for this coverage. I'm interested to see what other folks have in place.

Thanks,

Ya otta check out the EDACS Network system in the county next door, my understanding is it works very well.

Edit: At least it did prior to Katrina.

[52to12]

Brunswick Co. NC "upgraded "to 2 LTR trunked systems. A VHF- TRS for Fire &EMS and a UHF-TRS for Law Enforcement agencies (sheriff and local leo's)
B.C.Sherrif has discontinued using the new LTR -TRS and returned to the "old" UHF system due to problems with communications with portables outside of vehicles.
Many of the FD'S are experiencing the same problems on" tac channels" There is no "talk around capability, all transmissions must be channeled through a repeator. Many of Brunswick Counties FD's Have had to switch abck to the "old/original systems for fire ground communications. Basically 2 soup cans and a ball of string would provide better communications

[DaveNF2G]

I live in a county that is using LTR MultiNet II for public safety. Coverage is generally bad because the county is both too large and too mountainous for complete 800 MHz coverage without a lot more sites. That is not an LTR issue, though.

From what I've heard, most users of the system (which only carries fire, EMS, and the county's highway department) complain about it most of the time. The police agencies that were originally supposed to move to the system have no intentions of doing so because of its technical limitations.

MultiNet is the "LTR" answer to Motorola and EDACS, being allegedly designed to overcome the shortcomings of plain LTR in a public safety environment. In actual practice, it's more expensive than plain LTR and not nearly as good as the competition.

[kingpin]

Originally Posted by 52to12

Many of the FD'S are experiencing the same problems on" tac channels" There is no "talk around capability, all transmissions must be channeled through a repeator. Many of Brunswick Counties FD's Have had to switch abck to the "old/original systems for fire ground communications. Basically 2 soup cans and a ball of string would provide better communications

This sounds more like a programming issue. The radios other nearby agencies LTR systems have conventional groups setup in them for talkaround operation. It's all in how you program them.

While mulling over the aspect of Kenwood's digital LTR system, I was also presented with another possibility of going with a MA/COM EDACS system. I only know 800 MHz EDACS. Has anyone seen a VHF EDACS?

[BaLa]

Apparently
there is a VHF EDACS System in MD
http://www.radioreference.com/module...me=RR&sid=2672
Also that system doesn't have any TGs.

looking more in the DB, but I don't see an easy way to do this.
You can search for a given frequency and type but that still means picking the frequency, can't put a range in there.

This looks like it's old from around 2000.
http://www.macom-wireless.com/Channe...d%20system.pdf
Couldn't find in the DB.


http://cazcom.net/news.html

http://mt-fedfiles.blogspot.com/2007...mysteries.html

lol this thread is about 2 months old.