Should the Roanoke and Franklin County systems be combined?

[jemassey]

I believe the Roanoke and Franklin County systems should be combined into a single Roanoke/Franklin County system. They both have the same System ID and WACN and they list each other as neighbors as seen in SDRTrunk:

Roanoke

Network
WACN:BEE00[781824] SYSTEM:349[841] NAC:341[833] LRA:00[0]

Current Site
SYSTEM:349[841] NAC:341[833] RFSS:01[1] SITE:01[1] LRA:00[0] STATUS:ACTIVE RFSS NETWORK CONNECTION

Neighbor Sites
SYSTEM:349[841] NAC:341[833] RFSS:01[1] SITE:02[2] LRA:00[0] CHANNEL:0-989 DOWNLINK:857187500 UPLINK:812187500 STATUS:[VALID INFORMATION, ACTIVE RFSS CONNECTION]

Franklin County

Network
WACN:BEE00[781824] SYSTEM:349[841] NAC:342[834] LRA:00[0]

Current Site
SYSTEM:349[841] NAC:342[834] RFSS:01[1] SITE:02[2] LRA:00[0] STATUS:ACTIVE RFSS NETWORK CONNECTION

Neighbor Sites
SYSTEM:349[841] NAC:342[834] RFSS:01[1] SITE:01[1] LRA:00[0] CHANNEL:0-985 DOWNLINK:857162500 UPLINK:812162500 STATUS:[VALID INFORMATION, ACTIVE RFSS CONNECTION]

I remember the systems were originally combined and then separated later. Does anybody know the reason they were separated? Until recently, the sites did not list each other as neighbors which might be the explanation.

Joe

 

[clbsquared]

Looks like Franklin went all Phase 2 while Roanoke is still mostly Phase 1. Not sure if that has anything to do with it or not. Maybe someone forgot to sign a current MOU. As for the WACN, a lot of systems use BEE00.

 

[GTR8000]

The two simulcast cells clearly reside on the same ASTRO 25 system core/zone controller, as evidenced by them sharing the same SysID/WACN and announcing each other as adjacent sites (non-ISSI link), and should therefore be combined as a single system per RRDB rules. The fact that one cell is Site 1 and the other is Site 2 is also a pretty obvious clue.

 

[jemassey]

The two simulcast cells clearly reside on the same ASTRO 25 system core/zone controller, as evidenced by them sharing the same SysID/WACN and announcing each other as adjacent sites (non-ISSI link), and should therefore be combined as a single system per RRDB rules. The fact that one cell is Site 1 and the other is Site 2 is also a pretty obvious clue.

I've submitted a change request. We'll see how it goes.

Joe

 

[dtscho]

Correct, Roanoke and Franklin were in the RRDB as one system until a few years ago. I've emailed the submitter who asked us to split them if he would comment on this thread.

Dave

 

[dtscho]

Here's what the submitter emailed me (he said it was OK to post this info):

To my knowledge, they are still technically separate systems. Yes, users ‘roam’ between the two systems, especially the medic crews taking patients to the hospitals in Roanoke from Franklin County. But according to the Techs who installed it, they simply copy/pasted the WACN and other info for convenience into the other system.

Dave

 

[BigLebowski]

It's the same System ID, WACN, and shares the same core. It's even called the Roanoke Valley Radio System (RVRS). It is one system.

 

[jemassey]

More proof it's the same system:

Roanoke Valley Radio System | Roanoke County, VA - Official Website
Agencies served include Franklin County.

Coming Together to Save Seconds, Save Lives - Motorola Solutions Blog

Interoperability has also allowed the System to expand its geographical footprint to adjacent Franklin County with which it shares sites.

Local Perspective on Homeland Security for 2018

Recently, neighboring Franklin County joined the system, adding seven more radio sites and increasing the system's reach to 950 square miles.

Joe

 

[GTR8000]

Here's what the submitter emailed me (he said it was OK to post this info):

To my knowledge, they are still technically separate systems. Yes, users ‘roam’ between the two systems, especially the medic crews taking patients to the hospitals in Roanoke from Franklin County. But according to the Techs who installed it, they simply copy/pasted the WACN and other info for convenience into the other system.

Dave

That makes absolutely no sense...MSI doesn't simply "copy/paste" the WACN and SysID. The core is shared, it's a single system, and needs to be combined in the RRDB.

 

[N4ANJ]

The bottom line is if you live in Franklin County and are a scanner listener you don't really want to hear Roanoke, Roanoke County, Vinton, and Salem. If you live in Roanoke, Roanoke County, Vinton, or Salem you probably don't want to hear Franklin County. I know it is all ONE system but I think 99% of scanner listeners are gonna want this left as is. I know I was pretty happy when they were separated.

 

[DanRollman]

Here's what the submitter emailed me (he said it was OK to post this info):

To my knowledge, they are still technically separate systems. Yes, users ‘roam’ between the two systems, especially the medic crews taking patients to the hospitals in Roanoke from Franklin County. But according to the Techs who installed it, they simply copy/pasted the WACN and other info for convenience into the other system.

Dave

He doesn't know it, but that's actually another way of saying they are the SAME system, but two different jurisdictions paid for their respective sites on that system (and tied in to the same system core).

Exact same thing is happening in Georgia on the Cobb system Cobb Regional Radio System Trunking System, Various, Georgia - Scanner Frequencies. Cobb County built a system, and is now gradually letting adjacent counties buy and build their own simulcast cells and tie into the Cobb County core to save the cost of their own core.

 

[GTR8000]

The bottom line is if you live in Franklin County and are a scanner listener you don't really want to hear Roanoke, Roanoke County, Vinton, and Salem. If you live in Roanoke, Roanoke County, Vinton, or Salem you probably don't want to hear Franklin County. I know it is all ONE system but I think 99% of scanner listeners are gonna want this left as is. I know I was pretty happy when they were separated.

So then don't scan/program the other sites/talkgroups. Simple enough.

RRDB policy is clear: any P25 systems that share a core are to be listed as a single system in the database.

 

[wa8pyr]

He doesn't know it, but that's actually another way of saying they are the SAME system, but two different jurisdictions paid for their respective sites on that system (and tied in to the same system core).

Exact same thing is happening in Georgia on the Cobb system Cobb Regional Radio System Trunking System, Various, Georgia - Scanner Frequencies. Cobb County built a system, and is now gradually letting adjacent counties buy and build their own simulcast cells and tie into the Cobb County core to save the cost of their own core.

The same thing is done with Ohio MARCS. Cites and counties can enter a partnership with MARCS and build out their own sites to share the system core. Depending on the Tier level they can either be a MARCS customer (Tier 1 and 2), a separate connected system (Tier 3), a core-sharing partner with local control over their own sites and subscribers (Tier 4), or a county which operates one of the zone controllers (Tier 5).

it's actually not a bad way of doing things; system cores aren't cheap, and a partnership to share the costs of maintenance is a good thing.

 

[BoxAlarm187]

The bottom line is if you live in Franklin County and are a scanner listener you don't really want to hear Roanoke, Roanoke County, Vinton, and Salem.

You won't hear the other localities if you don't program their respective talkgroups in.

 

[DanRollman]

The bottom line is if you live in Franklin County and are a scanner listener you don't really want to hear Roanoke, Roanoke County, Vinton, and Salem. If you live in Roanoke, Roanoke County, Vinton, or Salem you probably don't want to hear Franklin County.

Why not? I enjoy listening to activity beyond just my own neighborhood. Frankly, sometimes I like to monitor everything within listening range, and if more distant jurisdictions are within listening range, all the better. To each his own when it comes to hobby radio monitoring.

 

[wa8pyr]

That makes absolutely no sense...MSI doesn't simply "copy/paste" the WACN and SysID. The core is shared, it's a single system, and needs to be combined in the RRDB.

This is true, and in fact is simply is not done (although they can get away with it if the systems are widely separated geographically). The danger is too great that a radio in control channel scan would find a control channel for the wrong system, then register and affiliate to that system; all of a sudden the talkgroup in the user's radio that says "PD DISP" or whatever turns out to be trash trucks (or whatever). Safety and security nightmare.

You can copy/paste systems and personalities within the codeplug for a radio, and perhaps that's what the techs were referring to; this is quite common to save time when building codeplugs for radios. I've built many codeplugs where I copied a system and personality, then made minor changes to the new one to make it appear to the radio that it's a stand-alone site so the radio would not roam when using it.

RRDB policy is clear: any P25 systems that share a core are to be listed as a single system in the database.

This is correct. The info quoted by by @jemassey in post #8 as well as the fact that the two sites report each other as neighbors make it pretty clear that it's a single system, so the debate about splitting these systems is moot; they will remain combined.

 

[dtscho]

Systems have been combined.

Dave