California Radio Interoperable System (CRIS)

franks_ham

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
593
Location
Sonoma Co., California
My guess is Seigler will be site 12, it may or may not be online yet.

I also "confirmed" 13 as St. Helena while I was in the area last month so you are definitely on the money with that.
IF Seigler were to go online, I wouldn't need even an external antenna to receive it, just one 'long wire' and I'd be good! :LOL: That's how I know it isn't online yet...

Regards,

-Frank C.
 

N6ML

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,149
Location
SF Bay / Delta, CA
Is it possible that site 18 could be Diablo? That would line up with the numbering scheme they seem to be following, lower numbers to the north and higher numbers to the south.
I can see the towers on Diablo from my bedroom window, without binoculars. If it was Diablo, it should be LOUD here, but it isn't.... unless it's running (very) low power, or a temporary antenna on the roof of the building, or something.
 

N6ML

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,149
Location
SF Bay / Delta, CA

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,736
I can see the towers on Diablo from my bedroom window, without binoculars. If it was Diablo, it should be LOUD here, but it isn't.... unless it's running (very) low power, or a temporary antenna on the roof of the building, or something.
This is interesting because while I was out checking on the Mt. Vaca site it seemed like the signal was weaker than I would have expected in a few areas where I had direct line of sight to the tower. If 18 is Diablo it would appear you may be experiencing the same thing. If 18 isn't Diablo it's someplace else that is receivable in Sacramento.
 

N6ML

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,149
Location
SF Bay / Delta, CA
My current view from Brentwood. This is slightly skewed by my eclectic antenna setup, which has an omni groundplane combined with a horizonally-polarised yagi pointed west (I need it to get EBRCS CCCO Central reliably).

770-control-channels-20210523.png
 

franks_ham

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
593
Location
Sonoma Co., California
Ahh, right, I found that too, but it seemed less detailed than http://www.napco.org/documents/2020-07_CRIS.pdf It does seem newer, though, so I guess some of the planned sites didn't work out.
That's an interesting document! Thanks...I got someone to my 7/800 antenna up a little higher today and I still can't hear *that far* South remotely...

Regards,

-Frank C.
 

N6ML

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,149
Location
SF Bay / Delta, CA
Well @N6ML better swing their antenna towards Diablo then...
If site 18 is on Diablo, it's *seriously* impaired (in my direction). It should be BOOMING here. My horizontal yagi is pointed close to diablo, and it should be strong on the vertical too. Look at the spectrum snapshot above and compare it to the others. Mt Oso is "off the back corner" of my yagi, and it's ~12dB stronger than Site 18. Oso is about 35 miles away, vs. 14 miles for Diablo. I may be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that Site 18 is not on Diablo. It may be *behind* Diablo for me (but LOS from Martinez), but I still have not ruled out Sonoma Mountain.
 

scannerboy02

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Messages
1,736
If site 18 is on Diablo, it's *seriously* impaired (in my direction). It should be BOOMING here. My horizontal yagi is pointed close to diablo, and it should be strong on the vertical too. Look at the spectrum snapshot above and compare it to the others. Mt Oso is "off the back corner" of my yagi, and it's ~12dB stronger than Site 18. Oso is about 35 miles away, vs. 14 miles for Diablo. I may be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure that Site 18 is not on Diablo. It may be *behind* Diablo for me (but LOS from Martinez), but I still have not ruled out Sonoma Mountain.
It is always possible that it's not Diablo. Until someone takes a drive to the site I guess we'll never really know. I will do this on my next trip out to California if someone else doesn't do it first.

It's also possible that they are running it at a lower power due to its elevation as to not affiliate every radio in northern California :)
 

es93546

A Member Twice
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 18, 2020
Messages
555
Location
East of the Sierra Crest-Right Side of CA on Map
Ahh, right, I found that too, but it seemed less detailed than http://www.napco.org/documents/2020-07_CRIS.pdf It does seem newer, though, so I guess some of the planned sites didn't work out.
Thanks for this link, it lays out what the future of this system is. They have left the most rural and most difficult to provide coverage for area for last. Area 4 is going to be tough based on the experience of Caltrans and State Parks. Area 5 contains some remarkable topography, it is interesting that the table of the roadmap shows Budget Years 2023-34. I'm wondering if that is a typo and they meant to show 2023-24. It might be a Freudian slip though, between Areas 4 & 5, it might be 2034 before they sort of reach buildout. Caltrans District 9 is still adding repeaters after starting to convert from 47 MHz to 800 MHz in 1982. That is nearly 40 years and they still don't have just state maintained highways covered.
 

N6ML

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 26, 2008
Messages
1,149
Location
SF Bay / Delta, CA
More ID's have popped up...

RID 11321 & 11342 on an 8xx TG
RID 298 on TG 136

Regards,

-Frank C.
I heard some more mobile coverage testing today on Site 2, TGID 861, subscribers 11044 and 11031, identifiers in voice like DC04 and DC62. I'm assuming that these are test IDs, and probably still not something worth documenting.
 

AM909

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 10, 2015
Messages
145
Site 30 has been heard near Ontario, CA, with signal level very generally consistent with Santiago Pk. The RRDB entry could use updating I think. The primary CC should be 770.44375 and three secondary control channels, 773.06875, 773.56875, 774.05625. There were 36 hits on TG 1302 from four units when I monitored this afternoon. The only voice channel grants were 774.29375 TDMA (both slots; LCN 03-1966, 03-1967).

Should the other freqs shown for this site be removed, or do we need more long-term monitoring to be sure? I just happened to read this thread and tune to it for half an hour or so silently with Unitrunker (v2.1.0.55) before I remembered I needed to use DSD+ to get the TDMA audio (right?), so I didn't actually hear any of it.
 

franks_ham

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
593
Location
Sonoma Co., California
I heard some more mobile coverage testing today on Site 2, TGID 861, subscribers 11044 and 11031, identifiers in voice like DC04 and DC62. I'm assuming that these are test IDs, and probably still not something worth documenting.
I believe it's DC104 which would line up with 11044 in my notes. Good catch! I've heard what I suspect that TG to be CHP related but not enough info has been gathered at this time...

What kind of traffic other than testing unless it was strictly radio checks between the two of them?

Regards,

-Frank C.
 
Top