During a quick visit to the Edison area this morning I gathered some updated info on the system. I just submitted an update to the database but here's an overview with some commentary.
Active control channel was 484.9875, as previously reported. Alternate control channels are 484.3625, 484.6125, and 484.8625. 483.8625 was in use as a voice channel, techs were apparently conducting fidelity testing on TGID 2001. I was getting a continuous digital stream on 484.1125, it sounded like a control channel but wasn't decoding as one and I'm not even sure that it was originating from Woodbridge.
The control channel is pushing tables for the following frequency ranges: 450-469, 470-499, 500-512, although the configuration of the 450-469 table seemed to be off (it was showing a Tx offset of +3 when it should be +5, but that may have been a glitch on my end). Earlier in the year the only table was 500-512, and as long as that table is being transmitted then it's theoretically possible that the 506-507 channels are still in the mix.
After 478.5625 and 478.7375, which were recently issued in a trunked license, there are only a few other existing 47# channels which Woodbridge might migrate to the trunked system. Many of their channels in that range are for mobiles-only and I expect they would face a battle to get repeaters licensed on them. With that 450 table entry, though, I'm wondering if they're planning on bringing 453.2 & 453.225 into the trunked system.
So here's how you monitor the system. Set it up as P25 Auto and put in those four control channels; if you scanner has Control Channel Only Mode then make sure it is turned on. If you have a Pro-96/2096 then you should use software to enter a custom multi-table, look for that data to appear in the database from my update. If you don't have software then you can enter just the table entry for Base=470 through the keypad but you may miss some comms when the system expands down the road.
Scott, since Woodbridge committed to returning those 506-507 channels upon final system configuration, and since there's no indication they're presently in use, and since the system can be monitored without programming them in, I'd suggest you not bother putting them back into the database.
Jim