American Electric Power (AEP) P25 WACN 92715

[mtindor]

I am still a a newbie when it comes to using unitrunker, so once I figure out how to extract the data from it and post it without screenshots I will try and do so.

1F6-51.51 Scottown / Crown City OH
1F6-62.62 Southpoint OH
1F7-02.02 Fallsburg KY
1F7-18.18 Kiahsville WV
1F7-35.35 probably Huntington WV (857.3375) but could be Crum WV or Paintsville KY, both less likely
1F7-38.38 probably Lavelette WV (855.0125) -- probably offline -- not going to be valid CC freq
1F7-73.73 probably Greenup KY
1F7-74.74 Catlettsburg KY
1F7-75.75 probably Hitchins KY
1F7-76.76 probably Fitch KY

RRDB for AEP P25
RR WIKI for AEP P25 - 1F7
Google Map for AEP P25

 

[Experiment626]

Awesome! I'll search around some more over the next few days and see if I can get a better antenna pointed towards those sites. I can hear 30+ EDACS sites ranging from KY, WV and VA at my location so as they roll out the P25 system I should be able to find quite a few more in the near future.

 

[mtindor]

Awesome! I'll search around some more over the next few days and see if I can get a better antenna pointed towards those sites. I can hear 30+ EDACS sites ranging from KY, WV and VA at my location so as they roll out the P25 system I should be able to find quite a few more in the near future.

Oh yeah, that's wonderful. We could use all the help we can get with not only KY sites but also WV sites over that area AND into VA.

Looking forward to hearing about your future sleuthing efforts!

Mike

 

[b1tr41d]

Looks like Unitrunker is seeing a new peer to the Bartlesville site.
Remote Control
001-125 00-0381

Not sure what this means exactly.
Tried deleted the multiple instances of this peer but they all seem to be coming back.

 

[mtindor]

Looks like Unitrunker is seeing a new peer to the Bartlesville site.
Remote Control
001-125 00-0381

Not sure what this means exactly.
Tried deleted the multiple instances of this peer but they all seem to be coming back.

NOt sure what to make of that. But given the RFSS/Zone info (001-125) I have to suspect that it's referencing some test / not yet fully configured site. I'd just say keep an eye on it over time. That CC would be 855.7625. So you might want to see if you can pick up 855.7625.

mike

 

[b1tr41d]

Agreed.
What I found strange, as you can see in the screenshot, is that there are multiple entries with the same info.
Not familiar enough with the with all the back end workings of a trunking system to know what this might indicate.

I'll keep an eye on it and see what happens.

 

[wx5uif]

Here is site 27.27. I was pulled in the rest area of i40 in Hinton, OK with a moderate signal.

 

[wx5uif]

Took a drive down to Talihina and Mcalester today.

I was unable to hear any P25 control channel in Talihina, only a very weak signal on the mountains near. That makes me think that 19 isn't Talihina.

 

[mtindor]

Took a drive down to Talihina and Mcalester today.

I was unable to hear any P25 control channel in Talihina, only a very weak signal on the mountains near. That makes me think that 19 isn't Talihina.

View attachment 97440
View attachment 97441View attachment 97442

I'm not sure, but maybe the reason you didn't pick up Talihina in Talahina is because it's outside of town on Buffalo Mtn. I realize that the Buffalo Mtn repeater site is only 3 mi outside of Talhina proper, and that if it were on Buffalo Mtn one should assume it would provide full and unadulterated coverage of Talihina. I can't really explain this, except to say that maybe it's only low power right now -- or maybe it's on "the other side" of the mountain.

I am confident that it is Talihina simply based upon the fact that there is no other unconfirmed FCC site left that would be it - and Site 7 (Poteau), 28 (McAlester) and 49 (Stigler) do list Site 19.19 as a neighbor (which would make perfect sense for 19.19 to be Talihina).

So I have added it to the DB as such. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I think we are on the right track with Talihina and that it is likely just either on the other side of Buffalo Mtn or running low power.

Mike

 

[mtindor]

Took a drive down to Talihina and Mcalester today.

I was unable to hear any P25 control channel in Talihina, only a very weak signal on the mountains near. That makes me think that 19 isn't Talihina.

View attachment 97440
View attachment 97441View attachment 97442

Site 21 is either going to be Hugo or Clayton with the 857.3875 CC. Either site would make sense with having 19 (Talihina), 20 (Calvin) and 28 (McAlester) as neighbors.

I've updated the DB, the wiki and the map. Hopefully I didn't botch anything up.

Thanks again for the great sleuthing, T!

Mike

 

[mtindor]

Pending FCC update for the Bartlesville OK site -- showing deletion of multiple [likely unneeded] freqs. And one of those was originally an alternate CC.

So I would expect the CC/VC lineup on Bartlesville to change in the future. Anyone who can monitor Bartlesville with UT / DSDPlus please check when you are able to see what current reported CCs are.

ULS Application - Other Indust/Land Transp. 806-821/851-866 MHz, Trunked - 0009387819 - American Electric Power Service Corporation - Frequency Summary

Bartlesville
- delete
854.9125
855.4375
856.2875
858.3125
858.3375
859.3125

- keep
855.5875
855.9125
857.3625
858.8875

 

[b1tr41d]

This is what I show currently for the Bartlesville site.

 

[mtindor]

This is what I show currently for the Bartlesville site.View attachment 97991

The problem with UT (I think) is that it stores that info forever. If the CC's change,the info markedin UT doesn't change. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if that site switched to three brand new freqs never used before, the oldchannels would remain in the channels table.

The best way to fix that issue is to just park on the active control channel whilst you are on the site's channel tab. Go through and delete every channel, and it'll then repopulate with only the latest information.

Did you happen to have poor decode during some point monitoring that site? I ask because 855.65 is not a freq that would be used/licensed on any system.

Mike

 

[west-pac]

The problem with UT (I think) is that it stores that info forever. If the CC's change,the info markedin UT doesn't change. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if that site switched to three brand new freqs never used before, the oldchannels would remain in the channels table.

The best way to fix that issue is to just park on the active control channel whilst you are on the site's channel tab. Go through and delete every channel, and it'll then repopulate with only the latest information.

I believe you are correct, with the way UT operates, Mike. I've dealt with that issue myself.

 

[b1tr41d]

The problem with UT (I think) is that it stores that info forever. If the CC's change,the info markedin UT doesn't change. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that if that site switched to three brand new freqs never used before, the oldchannels would remain in the channels table.

The best way to fix that issue is to just park on the active control channel whilst you are on the site's channel tab. Go through and delete every channel, and it'll then repopulate with only the latest information.

Did you happen to have poor decode during some point monitoring that site? I ask because 855.65 is not a freq that would be used/licensed on any system.

Mike

At your suggestion, I cleared out the channels and reinitialized Unitrunker.
This is what is showing now.
No one has talked yet so I don't have any voice channels.

As far as signal dropping out, while possible, I would say its unlikely since I live about 4.5 miles from the tower site.
Could they have been doing some tweaking to the system and UT didn't understand something? Who knows.

 

[mtindor]

At your suggestion, I cleared out the channels and reinitialized Unitrunker.
This is what is showing now.
No one has talked yet so I don't have any voice channels.

As far as signal dropping out, while possible, I would say its unlikely since I live about 4.5 miles from the tower site.
Could they have been doing some tweaking to the system and UT didn't understand something? Who knows.

Thank you. Looks like they fat-fingered a frequency when they entered it into the site controller. The licensed freq is 855.4375. But the freq they have programmed into the site is 854.5375 (not licensed to them anywhere in OK). And if that is indeed what happened, it looks like from their latest FCC submission that they will be deleting 855.4375. From the looks of it, nothing has changed on the site yet. If you can, periodically check out the site (perhaps once every week or two) and see if anything has changed -- most notably that 854.5375 freq.

Mike

 

[b1tr41d]

After running UT for a couple of days on the Bartlesville site, this is what it has come up with.



I will keep monitoring it and see if anything new develops.

 

[mtindor]

After running UT for a couple of days on the Bartlesville site, this is what it has come up with.

View attachment 98272

I will keep monitoring it and see if anything new develops.

Thank you. I have updated the site in the RRDB (you wont see it green though). I added 857.3625.

Mike

 

[fordcobra04]

Any word on sites in the Dayton, OH area? News came out today that Dayton Power and Light (who was bought by AES in 2011) will now be known as AES Ohio... I can only assume there will be a site locally at some point...

 

[mtindor]

Any word on sites in the Dayton, OH area? News came out today that Dayton Power and Light (who was bought by AES in 2011) will now be known as AES Ohio... I can only assume there will be a site locally at some point...

THis isn't a DPL thread. This is about the AEP system. AEP is not AES. DPL is not AEP.