US-36 DTRS Dead Spots?

[epbernstein]

I drive between Boulder and Denver frequently, and it appears that my 396t can't find a control channel for much of the way between about Broomfield and the I-25/Broadway/Pecos area. I think I've got all the control channels loaded--can anyone advise the best site(s) along that corridor so I can double check?

Many thanks in advance!

 

[scanlist]

I'm sure it would be a pain trying to identify where the radio loses what tower while trying to keep from getting run over on 36.

There are a lot of Verizon and Nextel (800 MHz) sites along the US-36 corridor which probably does not help the situation.

Thorodin Mountain is considered the tower for coverage in that area. I would also look at having the Adams 700 simulcast cluster, Lookout Mountain and Squaw Mountain for that stretch along 36 and DTB (Glendale) and/or Auraria for downtown Denver.

 

[jfab]

I can also tell you it's not just your scanner. Broomfield units out at the mall are "digital" all of the time out there. That, from what I'm told, is a main reason Broomfield is wanting to switch to 700mhz. I would suggest the Adams County Simulcast site and see if that makes a difference.

 

[jimmnn]

Indeed the Flat Irons parking lot even though it seems high, is an awful place to stop for some monitoring, can barely get a control channel. Got to love the "statewide" system at times.

For that matter DTRS coverage in Boulder sucks as well, and you wonder why they want to remain on VHF.

Jim<

 

[MMIC]

Indeed the Flat Irons parking lot even though it seems high, is an awful place to stop for some monitoring, can barely get a control channel. Got to love the "statewide" system at times.

That's not what you said before:

http://www.radioreference.com/forums/showpost.php?p=735393&postcount=21

But anyway, who ever said DTRS covers every square inch of the state with a portable? Got to love those "comments" at times.

For that matter DTRS coverage in Boulder sucks as well, and you wonder why they want to remain on VHF.

Is Boulder built out for 100% portable coverage in the city limits? No. So why expect screaming coverage there, particularly when nobody needs it?

 

[jimmnn]

Is Boulder built out for 100% portable coverage in the city limits? No. So why expect screaming coverage there, particularly when nobody needs it?[/QUOTE]

Always nice to see my friends are paying attention. We've missed you MMIC..

I would submit CSP needs DTRS coverage in Boulder City and County.

Jim<

 

[scanlist]

Not surprising about Greeley 35th showing in odd places in Northglenn and Broomfield. I wouldn't recommend it for full time monitoring for either agency but they do show up a lot on S. Greeley.

Where Boulder portable coverage has anything to do with Broomfield coverage is pointless there is a major terrain difference between the two .

I sense sour grapes over Boulder and Boulder county telling M/A, Mot and CCNC no thanks. I see the big rush for Longmont hasn't happened either.

 

[Thayne]

Yep, I sense grapes too--

 

[datainmotion]

I love grapes. :lol:

 

[Thayne]

I love grapes. :lol:

Our neighbor gave us some purple ones that taste really good but I had to get used to chomping up the seeds. By the way, the south boulder channel comes in really good here in Denver on a Kenwood handheld, while on a Pro-96 it won't crack the squelch--

 

[scanlist]

Something about the PRO-96 not really engineered for that range. Never did understand why GRE's for radioshack high end portables started at 760 MHz for UHF-HI (PRO-43. 60) while the 96 started at 806.

I have a fair signal at the office for the VC's off of Gunbarrel but it's 90% inactive during the weekdays.