Racenut,
while this is a `tad bit' `late' answer I have to agree with ericcarlson. Looking at the `data' for the systems you are considering you *are* going to have to have a bank for each one. It isn't going to matter what brand of scanner you are thinking about using or are currently using. Now... *Maybe?* sometime in the unforeseeable `future?' some electronic / programming `chromedome' *might* figure out a way to allow some sort of `tagging?' scheme that *might* allow one to cram together a rag-tag collection of freqs into a single bank and set that bank to handle a particular trunking scheme and associated `TGs'. But, *I* have this nagging suspicion that it won't be really any `improvement' over just assigning separate banks like we already do.
Now... Having said all that there *may* be *some* `relief?' on the horizon. Uniden, and I suspect GRE also, is/has been working upon a `dynamic' memory allocation scheme that *might* help. The way it *might* help *might* be that one will be able to have more than just the 10, or more, banks we already have within about the same, or a tad bit more, memory. This would effectively help by letting one program those systems that only use, lessay, 20 `channels' or so, in as many banks as needed and leave room for other systems in banks sized for their needs. (IE: 20 channels for LTR systems and their LCNs, 20 - 50 channels for, lessay, EDACS systems and their LCNs, and maybe some 100, or so, channel banks for P25 systems and their CCs while still only having a *total* number of overall channels of maybe 1,000 - 1,500 or so.) The place *I* still see a `problem' is when it comes down to being able to have enough storage space for `TGs' *and* how that space will be `dealt out' to the various banks as needed. All one has to do is `listen', or `read', all the kwetches, moans, and groans out there about now having enough room to handle existing systems and their `TGs' to see that while it *may* be possible to `diddle' with memory enough to cram a lot of systems freqs into memory with `dynamic allocation' there is still another `step' that has to be taken care of and it is going to be *very* `interesting?' watching all the various attempts.
*Personally* I am fairly happy that there finally is a radio like the PRO-97 out there. While it *does* add a bit to the already existing `clutter' at my `listening post', or that I have to carry around, it *doesn't* put quite the `hit' on my `pocketbook' like some other radios would and it seems to do it `job' quite well. (I *will* admit that *I* would like them to hurry up and get a `base'/`mobile' version out.) I *will* also admit that I believe that one can really never have too many radios. {VB GRIN!} (I've still got a couple 2004s, several 2006s, and and assortment of miscellaneous other radios sitting around within reach. [And that *isn't* including my `HF' / `SWLing' radios or other miscellaneous `oddball' radios. I could probably put together several different `DC-to-Daylight' combinations if I wanted to and tried. 'Course that is just one of the things that makes this such and enjoyable hobby. {GRIN!}] It's also kinda neat being able to actually see where we've come from and where we are and might possibly be going.)
Oh, well... Just an `Olde Fart's' 2¢ worth. {WAN GRIN!}
