Hartford County Intercity Fire

[tkline98]

Can someone give me an overview of the Intercity channels? We have both VHF and UHF mobiles in our apparatus, and both have Intercity channels. The UHF reception is miserable west of Avon Mountain.

In the code plugs, I see repeated channels and simplex channels with various PL's, and even some duplicate personalities, just with different names.

Can anyone offer an overview of the system so I can straighten out the mess I was handed?

Thanks!

 

[Alarmroom]

Intercity

Since you are located west of Avon mountain use 459.000 simplex (narrow) PL 167.9 which is the Avon cross patch to Intercity at this time. Use on the VHF side 154.265.159.795 repeater (narrow) PL 107.2.

 

[tkline98]

Thanks for the reply.

I finally had a chance to dig though most of the codeplugs and I came up with this assortment of "Intercity" (or so they were labeled) personalities. Not all of these were in all the radios, thus my attempt to clean it up.

"Intercity" 154.265 / 159.795 107.2 / 107.2
"Intercity Tac" 153.140 / 158.325 94.8 / 94.8
"Intercity CMD" 159.900 / 159.900 186.2 / 67.0 <---- Simplex but different PLs???


"Intercity BDL" 458.6875 167.9 Simplex
"Intercity EH" 452.550 167.9 Simplex
"UHF Calling" 453.2125 / 458.2125 156.7 / 156.7
"Intercity Avon" 459.000 167.9 Simplex
"Intercity Fire" 452.1375 / 457.1375 167.9 / 167.9

Some questions:

Where are the repeaters for "Intercity", "Intercity Tac", "UHF Calling", and "Intercity Fire" located so I can let people know when to use which?

What is "Intercity Fire"? (Is it an error? It was only in one radio.)

Is "UHF Calling" linked to the "VHF Calling" I see in the RR database (but I don't have in our radios for some reason)? Are they used?

Are the "Intercity BDL" and "Intercity EH" simplex cross patches similar to "Intercity Avon"?

"Intercity CMD" has different PLs. I don't understand why you would do that on a simplex channel.

Thanks for any input.

 

[CT22]

These are questions many of us have had for years. I would like some clarification too.

Seems like a band-aid approach on an aterial wound of interoperability issues.

Make one simulcast system per band and patch them together end of story. It will free up bandwidth and lead to less confusion. Who really has time to figure out which channel to use when responding to a call?

 

[Dave520]

Here is the license for 159.795 WNNU947

ULS License - Public Safety Pool, Conventional License - WNNU947 - CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS


153.14 / 158.325
http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=1780985

159.900

http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/license.jsp?licKey=1914222


Don't know if that helps you much.

 

[tkline98]

Thanks for the links. I dug though those (and more) and have a general idea of what's going on.

 

[cg]

One big problem is where do you locate a repeater to cover such a wide area? What frequencies do you use that allows the power for decent coverage? Who pays for it? The system didn't have the budget of the CSP system so using a simulcast system wasn't affordable.
Eventually, the state will be completing the VTAC/UTAC system and it's likely those and 800 ITAC could be all patched together as needed. But it would not be set up VHF/UHF/800 24/7 like the existing system is.

chris

 

[CT22]

Or is it even needed?

 

[cg]

it is.