General Motors Con+ SYS:395 switching to Tier 3?

[west-pac]

I noticed the Fort Wayne, Indiana GM Assembly plant switched from the Con+ System 395, Site 12, to a DMR Tier 3 S12-1 system. They kept the same TGs, RIDs, and frequencies.

The Marion, Indiana Stamping plant is still on the 395 Con+ system.

I'm curious if anyone else has noticed a change to T3. I'm wondering if the 395 site numbers are going to become the new Tier 3 System numbers. E.g 395-12 became T3 S12; maybe 395-14 will become T3 S14;

 

[mwjones]

I believe I saw that same thing the last time I was up near the Fairfax (Site 18) plant last month, as well as Arlington (Site 14) - but neither site was a focus of my interest when I saw them, so I didn't log any data). I will be up near the Fairfax plant next week, I'll try and scope it out - and the next time I am near Arlington (sometime in January likely) I'll check it as well.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

GM started testing a Capacity Max core ~4 years ago. The Arlington plant expansion kind of got wrapped up in the chaos Motorola created by Motorola with the whole no real upgrade path to from Con+ to CapMax debacle.

 

[mwjones]

I had other business in the area, so I was able to log a bit on the Arlington, Texas site (site 14 on the Con+ system) today. It is reading as a Tier 3 Capacity Max (Motorola) system with a System ID of S14 (hex 0E) and a site number 14. I'm in a rush since I leave town in the morning, so I won't have time to parse the logs until I get back in just over a week, but I do have most of the LCN's/LSN's identified, and they appear to be using the same talkgroups as on the Con+ system, so I have enough to submit to RRDB.

While on the road, I'll be near the Fairfax, Kansas plant, and I'll validate what System ID it is showing, but at this time it looks like GM went to standalone "Small" Capacity Max systems instead of a single North American system like they did with the Connect Plus. (The small single plant systems seems to be common with others like Ford and Toyota, as I doubt there's really any need for interoperability between plants).

 

[west-pac]

I had other business in the area, so I was able to log a bit on the Arlington, Texas site (site 14 on the Con+ system) today. It is reading as a Tier 3 Capacity Max (Motorola) system with a System ID of S14 (hex 0E) and a site number 14. I'm in a rush since I leave town in the morning, so I won't have time to parse the logs until I get back in just over a week, but I do have most of the LCN's/LSN's identified, and they appear to be using the same talkgroups as on the Con+ system, so I have enough to submit to RRDB.

While on the road, I'll be near the Fairfax, Kansas plant, and I'll validate what System ID it is showing, but at this time it looks like GM went to standalone "Small" Capacity Max systems instead of a single North American system like they did with the Connect Plus. (The small single plant systems seems to be common with others like Ford and Toyota, as I doubt there's really any need for interoperability between plants).

Thank you.

 

[Starcom21]

OK, I went out to the Wentzville MO Assembly Plant, I found that this site had also been converted to TYPE III.

It is using sysID 13h/ S19 site 1 (it was site 19 on the former system). I've added this as another system, like I did with the Fort Wayne system.

It was using 19xx talkgroups just like the former system.

DSD Plus showing 117/118 119/120 731/732 733/734 735/736 737/738 739/740 741/742 other LSN for control channel.

I tried LCN analyzer on SDS100, it got 5 LCNs, but didn't save it properly

 

[west-pac]

So how do we list all of these separate DMR T3 systems nationwide under one "General Motors" header? Those of us in-the-know, thus far, can presume that eventually all of those Con+ sites will become their own Tier 3 system.

Also, instead of deleting these Con+ sites when they convert to Tier 3, can we just strike them, or cross them out, on the Con+ system that way we know which sites have converted to T3, and which ones have not? Striking the Con+ sites, along with the verbiage of why, would inform newcomers to BOLO for changes in their local GM facilities.

 

[GTR8000]

So how do we list all of these separate DMR T3 systems nationwide under one "General Motors" header? Those of us in-the-know, thus far, can presume that eventually all of those Con+ sites will become their own Tier 3 system.

Are you 100% certain that the T3 sites are all completely independent, and not part of the same system as the Con+ is?

If yes (independent), then each system will be created and listed separately in the RRDB, assigned to the appropriate county. There won't be any "nationwide General Motors" listing anymore, just a bunch of independent T3 systems.

If no (interconnected), then the T3 system would be listed just as the Con+ system is.

Also, instead of deleting these Con+ sites when they convert to Tier 3, can we just strike them, or cross them out, on the Con+ system that way we know which sites have converted to T3, and which ones have not? Striking the Con+ sites, along with the verbiage of why, would inform newcomers to BOLO for changes in their local GM facilities.

Our policy for the past few years has been to set dead sites to Deprecated status. This will show the site using the strikethrough font, and the site will auto-delete 30 days after being deprecated. If you wish to save the information for deprecated sites before that happens, I suggest getting the info into the wiki before the site vanishes.

 

[mwjones]

I've surveyed both Arlington Texas and Fairfax Kansas plants, both have converted to T3. They are independent, just in their system ID's. Arlington is SysID S14 Site 14, while Fairfax is SysID S18 Site 1. The fact that the SysID has an S prefix indicates that each is a "Small" system indicates that they are not likely using a common controller (which I would expect to see an "L" or "H" prefix (Large and Huge respectively) if it were a single interconnected system.

FedEx, UPS, Ford and others all have standalone systems that aren't networked across the country, and I suspect this move puts GM in the same context, since I doubt there's much need for inter-plant radio communications.

Now I'm going to get back to writing the submissions for those two systems for RRDB (along with a bunch of others for other systems).

 

[west-pac]

I've surveyed both Arlington Texas and Fairfax Kansas plants, both have converted to T3. They are independent, just in their system ID's. Arlington is SysID S14 Site 14, while Fairfax is SysID S18 Site 1. The fact that the SysID has an S prefix indicates that each is a "Small" system indicates that they are not likely using a common controller (which I would expect to see an "L" or "H" prefix (Large and Huge respectively) if it were a single interconnected system.

FedEx, UPS, Ford and others all have standalone systems that aren't networked across the country, and I suspect this move puts GM in the same context, since I doubt there's much need for inter-plant radio communications.

Now I'm going to get back to writing the submissions for those two systems for RRDB (along with a bunch of others for other systems).

S14 Site 14?... or was that a typo?

 

[mwjones]

S14 Site 14?... or was that a typo?

No typo (at least not on my part, but maybe on the contractor that installed the system):

2023/12/21 13:40:39 Freq=451.362500 Current network: S14
2023/12/21 13:40:39 Freq=451.362500 Current site: S14-14
2023/12/21 13:40:39 Freq=451.362500 Current network: S4007:14 General Motors Cap Max
2023/12/21 13:40:39 Freq=451.362500 Current site: S4007:14-14 Arlington Assembly

 

[Starcom21]

Are you 100% certain that the T3 sites are all completely independent, and not part of the same system as the Con+ is?

If yes (independent), then each system will be created and listed separately in the RRDB, assigned to the appropriate county. There won't be any "nationwide General Motors" listing anymore, just a bunch of independent T3 systems.

If no (interconnected), then the T3 system would be listed just as the Con+ system is.


Our policy for the past few years has been to set dead sites to Deprecated status. This will show the site using the strikethrough font, and the site will auto-delete 30 days after being deprecated. If you wish to save the information for deprecated sites before that happens, I suggest getting the info into the wiki before the site vanishes.

This was my original question to begin with, even though they have different system IDs, they may still be connected and/or radios could travel between systems or talkgroups possible talk across systems (IT, admin, etc) --- As we discussed in DMR Tier 3 conversions

Using the former site number as the system ID, using the same talkgroups and others have reported that the same RIDs are in use. (In my case, Wentzville had a different control channel than before)

I almost always put former "info" in the wiki to be saved forever, but I know that most others do not. Many time the system doesn't have a wiki page and I don't take the time to make one.

ALSO, just a couple weeks ago a new site was found/added site 21

 

[GTR8000]

Regarding the discussion in the other thread @west-pac started but never followed up on...generally speaking, site numbers have to be unique within the same system controller. If the T3 GM sites are showing unique system and site IDs, then chances are pretty good that they're standalone rather than networked. Oh and of course a lack of any peer sites might also provide some clues.

 

[west-pac]

Regarding the discussion in the other thread @west-pac started but never followed up on...generally speaking, site numbers have to be unique within the same system controller. If the T3 GM sites are showing unique system and site IDs, then chances are pretty good that they're standalone rather than networked. Oh and of course a lack of any peer sites might also provide some clues.

The other discussion is NOT specific to any one company or radio system. It was a procedural, administrative inquiry. For when CON+ systems, like the GM system, convert to Tier 3.

 

[GTR8000]

The other discussion is NOT specific to any one company or radio system. It was a procedural, administrative inquiry. For when CON+ systems, like the GM system, convert to Tier 3.

Right, however it was obviously related to what is happening with the GM system. In any event, it would've been nice for you to acknowledge the replies by myself and @Starcom21 🤷‍♂️

 

[Starcom21]

Right, however it was obviously related to what is happening with the GM system. In any event, it would've been nice for you to acknowledge the replies by myself and @Starcom21 🤷‍♂️

Regarding the discussion in the other thread @west-pac started but never followed up on...generally speaking, site numbers have to be unique within the same system controller. If the T3 GM sites are showing unique system and site IDs, then chances are pretty good that they're standalone rather than networked. Oh and of course a lack of any peer sites might also provide some clues.

OH, that was the reason why I went out to Wentzville to begin with, was to see if there were any peers/neighbor list.

I meant to mention that in my last comment. DSD+ DID NOT show any peers. So therefore I started going with single sites.

 

[west-pac]

ALSO, just a couple weeks ago a new site was found/added site 21

I found that site; and more than anything, it was likely not new, but just undocumented in our DB. I believe there are a lot more CON+ sites out there that are not documented. They wouldn't skip site numbers on the CON+ system, so there are a lot of undocumented sites out there that haven't been found yet.

The reason for keeping the CON+ system intact is for documentation. As long as the CON+ system is there, we know how many GM facilities were not explored/discovered. That's how I knew the Defiance, OH GM facility had not been looked at. After I found the T3 site for Fort Wayne, Indiana I checked the Marion, Indiana GM radio system, they're still on the CON+ system. Last time I check the Kokomo, Indiana GM facility it was on its own CAP+ system.

I planned a road trip to Toledo,OH to see which radio system they were on, and to see if I could find more GM T3 systems. Toledo was not listed on the CON+ system, nor was Defiance. The Defiance county-level information was wrong. It listed an analog system but the license only has DMR emissions. I knew I was going to find new data in Defiance, and I was hoping to find a T3 system in Toledo, but they're still on their own CAP+ system.

Right now, there is no CON+ Site 22 or Site 23 that is documented in the DB. However, we can reasonably assume they are (or were) in use at a facility somewhere. We also know if we scroll across a CON+ "395-22" or Tier 3 "S22-1" that there is a likelihood those may be one of those undocumented GM facilities. If we delete the CON+ system we won't know that 22 and 23 were never found.

So much can be learned about new radio systems by looking at the former versions of those radio systems. If we delete the former versions we lose all of that knowledge and data that we worked so hard to gain.

 

[GTR8000]

So much can be learned about new radio systems by looking at the former versions of those radio systems. If we delete the former versions we lose all of that knowledge and data that we worked so hard to gain.

Our policy is not to outright delete trunked systems, instead we set them to deprecated status once they're no longer active. However, the wrinkle in that policy is the 30 day auto-delete of sites/talkgroups that are set to deprecated status, which is a relatively new feature (implemented a year or two ago). This normally only comes into play with larger multi-site systems that are migrating to a new system, where the idea is to flag the sites that are no longer active on the old system to make it obvious to anyone looking in the database. Of course this could result in an old system winding up with no sites left, somewhat negating the point of setting the entire system to deprecated status once it's off the air.

Perhaps that auto-delete site policy should be reconsidered, however as it currently stands, they're gone in 30 days so make sure to screenshot or catalog the system(s) in the wiki before they are an empty shell.

 

[mtindor]

Just an FYI - a submitter indicated that the Bowling Green Assembly Plant in Warren KY changed from CON+ to TIII. But the submitter provided no further details . As such, if you are reading this thread, are around Warren KY area and have the ability to check into it, please do so.

Thanks

 

[Starcom21]

Our policy is not to outright delete trunked systems, instead we set them to deprecated status once they're no longer active. However, the wrinkle in that policy is the 30 day auto-delete of sites/talkgroups that are set to deprecated status, which is a relatively new feature (implemented a year or two ago). This normally only comes into play with larger multi-site systems that are migrating to a new system, where the idea is to flag the sites that are no longer active on the old system to make it obvious to anyone looking in the database. Of course this could result in an old system winding up with no sites left, somewhat negating the point of setting the entire system to deprecated status once it's off the air.

Perhaps that auto-delete site policy should be reconsidered, however as it currently stands, they're gone in 30 days so make sure to screenshot or catalog the system(s) in the wiki before they are an empty shell.

Yes, I was quite confused by what would be the long term effects. I think for legacy sakes, system should stay in there complete.

Even with conventional frequencies, I wish after depreciating the entry, we could click a button and "see" all the depreciated entries.