Lubbock Skywarn...

[2112]

Hi, all...

Is there someone here who's an authority on what repeaters are in use by Lubbock Skywarn to cover their 24-county CWA? I'm interested in both the CWA-wide net (a linked system, if I'm not mistaken) and also the local county nets.

I didn't find any web sources to be helpful (including online listings of all the Texas repeaters, which are outdated at best or not informative enough).

Many thanks...

 

[mam1081]

444.975+ 162.2 tone in Lubbock.

There are other links in Brownfield (VHF), Floydata (UHF), Littlefield (UHF), and maybe others? I can't remember exact freqs.

I'll look at my notes and freq lists when I get home this evening.

 

[2112]

444.975+ 162.2 tone in Lubbock.

There are other links in Brownfield (VHF), Floydata (UHF), Littlefield (UHF), and maybe others? I can't remember exact freqs.

I'll look at my notes and freq lists when I get home this evening.

So far, I've been able to come up with these repeaters for the linked CWA-wide system (all run PL 162.2):

444.975/R+ Lubbock (Lubbock)
444.775/R+ Floyd (Floydada)
444.375/R+ Hockley (Levelland)
444.850/R+ Lamb (Littlefield)
147.340/R+ Terry (Brownfield)
146.620/R- Stonewall (Aspermont)

I'm pretty sure that all of these are WA5OEO repeaters. Don't know if there are others linked in or not... just seems like that on UHF, even as flat as the area tends to be, that this wouldn't be enough to cover the entire CWA.

Also, I wonder if this system is operated like that of NWS Tulsa, where (if I'm not mistaken) the system takes reports directly from spotters and has by and large replaced the local nets.

 

[mam1081]

That looks like a good list. I don't know if they still tie into 146.62 in Aspermont (but that is a MONSTER of a repeater - when it works).

The UHF does pretty good to cover a lot of the area. It does not cover the entire LBB WX coverage area. Usually during severe weather, it is a closed system, and the NWS only takes reports from trained spotters in the field, or by anyone that has urgent reports of severe weather.

I'll see if I can make a map from memory of approx coverage area and post it later.

As for local nets, I don't think there were a lot of those. It seemed all the people that were out there pretty much were on that system when severe WX came through.

 

[2112]

Here's a little map that I cobbled together with the repeaters plotted on it...

Thanks for the info... I'll be looking forward to anything else you can find...

 

[mam1081]

I had to shrink it a lot to get it small enough to get on this forum, but here it is.

Keep in mind this is approximate coverage. I didn't have the exact heights of the different repeaters, but this map looks about right from using it (although most of my use was in LBB, and E and N and SW of it).

 

[2112]

Wow... no kidding about the 62 in Aspermont...

According to the Artsci DB, the 444.800 in Hale Center (Hale County) is also linked in for Skywarn...

Thanks for the image.

 

[2112]

In looking at the small list of repeaters in the CWA, there just aren't that many in the SE quadrant. Motley, Cottle, Dickens, King, and Kent Counties don't even have any repeaters listed. King Co is no surpise... I'd be surprised if they even have any hams there, what with only 356 people living there.

Briscoe, Parmer, Yoakum, Cochran, Bailey and Castro Counties also don't have anything listed. So that's pretty much half the counties in the CWA. The other counties that have a repeater in use only for a local net don't seem have any other repeaters listed. I guess it's hard to have a robust system when there's just not that many people/resources in the area...

I also suspect the 147.340/R+ in Crosby County to be involved in the linked system, but only because all the other repeaters claiming to run PL 162.2 are, and the 34 does, too. So now the little map I made looks like this:

 

[wx5emt]

Lubbock Skywarn

I can shed some light on this, because I am the authority on this subject. I happen to be the coordinator/president for the South Plains Storm Spotting Team which is the "Skywarn" amatuer group for the Lubbock CWA. Most of the repeaters you all spoke of are correct. We do not have a machine in Crosbyton. As far as the Double Mtn. machine, it is working pretty well right now and has for the past about year or so. Thanks to Joey Johnston (KC5MVZ), and I guess I have to take some credit since I have been the driving force behind getting this machine linked into Lubbock. We are in the process of doing some revamping to have this link capable to our machine in Lubbock. This is will be done for our spotting activities only. As most people know, our systems status goes to the "closed" status once we activate our spotters. The fact that there are limited repeaters in some of those mentioned areas has nothing to do with population. My folks live in Jayton, and they are just important to provide coverage to as the folks here in Lubbock. One of these days when we have all of our other sites working properly, we plan to have the entire CWA covered. It will take lots of money and lots of man hours. I might mention that our team does take tax deductable donations! Take care.

Kendall Stanaland
WX5EMT

 

[wx5emt]

Lubbock Skywarn

I forgot to mention that the 444.800 machine is no longer a part of our link system. To my knowledge, it is not even working since it was taken down by the owner (K5BUZ) several years ago. 73, ks

 

[2112]

Thanks for the info, Kendall. Just to be clear: when you say "closed status", do you mean that the CWA-wide net does not take spotter reports when activated, or that it is not open to routine traffic during activation?

Thanks again...

 

[wx5emt]

LBB Skywarn

First of all 2112, are you a Rush fan by chance?

You are correct. Our repeater is for anyone to use when our team is not out "barking at the clouds. When we are activated, we close it down to nomal traffic. Our "net" for the lack of a better word at this moment, is open to our team only. We have had numerous problems with "bad" reports in the past and it has worked best for us to close the system to non team members. Not to mention our safety is comprimised when someone wants to get on the system and give some stupid rain report while one of our team members may have a significant event cornered. We obviously would take any report concerning a life threatening situation for liability purposes. I hope this clears it up a bit. If you have any more questions about our team, feel free to contact me by email. 73,Take care,
kendall
wx5emt@valornet.com

 

[2112]

First of all 2112, are you a Rush fan by chance?

Nah... I'm a Rush fan by choice...

I hope this clears it up a bit. If you have any more questions about our team, feel free to contact me by email.

Yup... that clears it up plenty. Look for an e-mail in the next day or two.

Thanks again