Kelty or Radioreference, who's right?

[b52hbuff]

I'm looking at the entries for SF's trunked radio:
http://www.radioreference.com/modules.php?name=TRSDB&sid=60

Radioreference shows them as a single system with twi sites.

The Kelty reference shows these as two separate systems. 'Site 1' is
listed as 'San Francisco Dispatch Emergency Radio System Talk Groups'.
The talk groups between these two match, and are your basic Fire and
PD listings...

Kelty shows 'Site 2' as 'San Francisco Public Works Radio System Talk Groups'. There are TGIDs in the 4x000, 5x000 and 6x000 range, and
these are labelled as you would expect as PW-type users.

So who's right??

 

[crayon]

I, Carnack the Magnificent, by holding an envelope to my head will "divine" the answer to the question posed:

So who's right??

Upon tearing open the envelope the answer is ... "Have you tried the chicken?"



Speaking objectively, I would go with what is listed in the RRDB. Here is the reason:

1. Site ID is known. Up until of late, this could only be known if someone ran Trunker on the control channel. If they were two seperate systems as indicated by Kelty, then we would have seen two seperate system ID's.

2. Different CT for site two. This is why Kelty might have segerated the system, showing PW on site two. However, it is a simple matter to program a radio that can move between systems.


As I said, these are just objective observations. Perhaps someone in the know will post more detail information ..

 

[kk6rq]

And then some more...

OK maybe this'll help- The old system was originally for DPW; I helped install radios back around '91, I think. It's a type-2 system. I expect they
will eventually merge the channels into the newer system as
they need capacity. But as far as I've seen, they're nowhere near that
point yet. Tell you the truth, it'd make more sense to sell the channels to ALCO, where they most definitely need the capacity. Big budget deficit,
Gavin... Shoulda stayed on UHF, actually...

As far as the system IDs being the same; as long as you keep your programming straight, there's no reason why you can't have 50 different
systems with the same system ID. And since I seem to recall you have to pay Big-M for legitimate (sp?) syskeys, why not double up?

 

[WayneH]

When it comes to trunked radio in the Bay Area, since I keep the network specifics in line, RR is correct by all means.

The SF system is a SmartZone system meaning two non-networked (including Simulcast) trunked systems can be combined to form one large network with the same system id and use the same subscriber/TG database.

For what SF wanted to do they had to go SmartZone. With this they simply absorbed the old analog PW system into the SmartZone network as site 2.

There's a hierarchy to Motorola's networks. SmartZone networks are a combination of single-site and Simulcast systems. The old controllers are still used but become remote site controllers and are commanded by the SmartZone controller in a slave mode.

OmniLink networks are combinations of SmartZone networks. Everything is modular and is built off one another.

-Wayne

 

[w0web]

San Francisco Trunking system's

There are two systems that were merged together a few years ago,
DPW was the first system in the city and it started life as a Type I and was upgrade to a Type II before the new system on Turk St went on line
You will find that the higher the TG-ID 45XXX on up are the old DPW system TG-ID's
The newer system ID's start with 16 and go on up from there.
Hopes this helps

 

[als365]

try programming the way radioreference says, and then try programming the way kelty says and see which works better. the only thing it will cost you is time.