Erie County P25 System
- Thread starter MarkPalmer
- Start date
- Status
I recently avoided the city site on the system to eliminate bad reception. I am receiving all County talkgroups and tac channels and city and Millcreek Fire dispatch great now. I wonder if even though I am getting city and Millcreek Fire dispatch that are in the city zone on the county site, should I be getting their tac channels also thru the county site? I haven’t had it on long enough to see if I am receiving traffic on those channels Yet.
I don’t know if the city and Millcreek Fire tac channels are only through the city sight? Anyone know for sure?
I don’t know if the city and Millcreek Fire tac channels are only through the city sight? Anyone know for sure?
It depends on how the system is provisioned. The city and Millcreek dispatch TGs might be configured to be transmitted on both the Countywide and Urban sites at all times - or somebody who has a subscriber that is affiliated with the Countywide site is monitoring the city and / or Millcreek dispatch TGs from time to time. The city / Millcreek TAC TGs are likely not transmitted on the Countywide site by default, but when a user monitoring those TAC TGs affiliates with the Countywide site, then those TGs will be heard on the Countywide site while that user is affiliated.
All this said, new systems take a while to map out, and understand what TGs are enabled on what site - and if they are assigned full time, or per use. Configuring all TGs to be carried on both sites full time is inefficient, and defeats the purpose of this type of system.
2 main things I'm noticing so far. I only receive TG 305 which is the 911 Center to ECI on certain days. When it does come in it's a strong signal. Also, I still get East County very weakly, only on a scanner on the second floor. The other county TG's come in fine. This is from west Millcreek. I have asked John Grappy about these issues, and am waiting for a response.
So there is really no sense of people working to monitor and verify data for submission. Just wait for someone in the know to submit a list of data that they may or may not have actually verified by monitoring.
1. Is the second floor monitoring location within the footprint (boundaries) of the Urban Simulcast site?
2. When you are receiving "East County" from the location above, what specific TGs are you referring to?
3. When you are receiving "East County" from the location above, what site does your radio indicate you are receiving - the Urban Simulcast site or the Countywide site?
I would say that in my experience, most system info is submitted by monitors. Sometimes the submitted data is augmented or corrected by people with firsthand, operational knowledge of the system (either a user or administrator.) Both sources are valuable.
Last edited:
Based on the map I've seen, I would say I'm within the Urban site. I was referring to East County Dispatch and their TAC TG's (109-113). I've heard these TG's a little, but usually broken up. Not sure what site displays when I hear them - I'll check next time. I do know people in Lake City get it fine. Seems weird with me being much closer to the east side.
If you look at the information in the actual FCC licenses you will be hard pressed to find a site 2 transmitter beaming to your location. The Lake City tower is beamed right over the town. I have no idea why my site 2 reception is so good as I am not directly in the beam pattern of any site 2 towers either. However most of my monitoring is either mobile or using a mast mounted UHF antenna or attic mounted discone at home. I seldom use the 436 with the duck.
Can anyone further explain what he means? It does sound like they'll fix it anyway.
As of this morning, it’s still squawking away...
It’s skip coming in on the countywide paging frequency. You can hear talking at the beginning of this video. Sounds like CSQ isn’t going to work on this setup. Link to video below:
Example of Countywide Skip
Example of Countywide Skip
Maybe they will investigate on Monday, if John gets involved it might get fixed sooner than later.
Matt I heard another station on that freq earlier today also hope it doesn't interfere in the future.
Lake City lies within the service area ("footprint") ot the Countywide Simulcast site. Judging by the system map, the east side of Erie County also lies within the service area of the Countywide Simulcast site. It makes perfect sense that Lake City listeners are able to receive the East Side TGs without issues, particularly because there is a Countywide Simulcast site tower located in Lake City.
You *could* try an experiment with your radio, and lockout the Urban Simulcast site and only monitor the Countywide Simulcast site. Make sure you use ID Search mode, and discover what TGs you are able to receive, and judge their quality.
Last edited:
Regarding the "skip" on county paging: it isn't skip. The skip is way too strong to be heard on a pager with a built-in antenna all across the County with no fluctuation of signal strength variation. We've never heard this interference before over the years on this frequency.
If you haven't noticed, the "skip" has the same signal strength as the paging transmitter. There is in fact an active input frequency of 458.950 with no form of squelch signalling to open it: I just tested this with an HT in the City. Also, you can hear two carriers dropping if you monitor closely enough: the distant signal dropping, then the countywide paging transmitter dropping. Not sure how the paging channel is set up, however it appears to be using a repeater. This being said, the repeater is receiving another signal from high atop the tower(s) it is set up at, and with no form of squelch signalling implemented, the distant signals are being repeated over the paging channel from the input. Until the county enables squelch tone (PL, DPL) on the repeater input(s), or disables the repeater input altogether, this interference will continue. Furthermore, the county is licensed for 458.950 - so they will need to investigate their transmitter sites and enable squelch signalling accordingly.
You will notice this interference didn't occur on the old Millcreek Fire West repeater, as signalling squelch (DPL 226) was used.
You would think the County "Radio Division" team would be smart enough to figure this out by now.
The same thing happened several years ago on the sheriff frequency. It was repeating Indiana, PA police radio traffic: the input of the sheriff repeater was an output of Indiana, PA PD. The PL had to be changed to eliminate the interference.
If you haven't noticed, the "skip" has the same signal strength as the paging transmitter. There is in fact an active input frequency of 458.950 with no form of squelch signalling to open it: I just tested this with an HT in the City. Also, you can hear two carriers dropping if you monitor closely enough: the distant signal dropping, then the countywide paging transmitter dropping. Not sure how the paging channel is set up, however it appears to be using a repeater. This being said, the repeater is receiving another signal from high atop the tower(s) it is set up at, and with no form of squelch signalling implemented, the distant signals are being repeated over the paging channel from the input. Until the county enables squelch tone (PL, DPL) on the repeater input(s), or disables the repeater input altogether, this interference will continue. Furthermore, the county is licensed for 458.950 - so they will need to investigate their transmitter sites and enable squelch signalling accordingly.
You will notice this interference didn't occur on the old Millcreek Fire West repeater, as signalling squelch (DPL 226) was used.
You would think the County "Radio Division" team would be smart enough to figure this out by now.
The same thing happened several years ago on the sheriff frequency. It was repeating Indiana, PA police radio traffic: the input of the sheriff repeater was an output of Indiana, PA PD. The PL had to be changed to eliminate the interference.
Last edited:
Drachen_Fire
Member
The squawking is probably NXDN digital coming in from South Pymatuning Twp PD, down in Mercer County. They're going to have to put DCS or PL on both sides of that paging channel.
If they do that, older scanners without PL tones will still hear the noise, right?
Drachen_Fire
Member
First thing to think about is to monitor the 458 side. If that's not guarded at all, it's going to retransmit everything it hears. If they put a PL on the input, it will probably quiet things down
Is that kind of a push a button task, or is it an involved project?
- Status
Similar threads
