I have logged close to 4000 new radios on the system since November. A good portion of those are NJDOC radios also.
New Jersey Interoperability Communication System (NJICS)
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,992
Indeed. This afternoon, Site 1, 2, 7, 8, 28, all carrying B2-5 traffic. Have not seen activity like that before. Radom site activity w B2-5 been slowly increasing, but not seen widespread like this.
As per my friend at Motorola, the systems will remain separate during the upgrade process, with continued patching as needed via the core cross-connects. The major work should begin sometime around the end of Q1 2021.
When all is said & done, the new system will be 100% integrated with the NJICS. Those that monitor the system on UniTrunker & other similar apps will only need 2 dongles to keep track of things when the upgrade is complete.
I'm a little suspect about the 6000's, unless those were bought a long time ago & kept in storage. Moto is really only pushing the 8000 & 4000 portables these days (6000 & 7000 are EOL).
When all is said & done, the new system will be 100% integrated with the NJICS. Those that monitor the system on UniTrunker & other similar apps will only need 2 dongles to keep track of things when the upgrade is complete.
I'm a little suspect about the 6000's, unless those were bought a long time ago & kept in storage. Moto is really only pushing the 8000 & 4000 portables these days (6000 & 7000 are EOL).
NJSP South Simulcast = NJICS Site 10
NJSP North Simulcast = NJICS Site 11
NJSP Central Simulcast = NJICS Site 12
NJSP IR's = NJICS Sites 41-54
The 6x00 series is very much still a current product, with the 6000 BN revision released just a couple of years ago (based on the 8000). The BN mobiles were released this year, including the 6500 series. The 7x00 series has been EOL for a number of years.
That's a tiny bit misleading. Those site numbers are not actually part of the NJICS ASTRO 25 core, but are unavailable to use on the NJICS currently due to the SmartX site converters tying the two systems together. The site numbers have to be unique across both system, hence the gaps in the NJICS site numbering due to the existing SmartZone site numbers.
Trivia: Why did they start the SmartZone numbering at Site 10? Because 10 in decimal value is A in hexadecimal, 11 is B, and 12 is C...matching the NJSP Troops.
Thanks for the correction/lesson.
Right. I know someone that bought a bunch of 6000's fresh from Motorola fairly recently. It's not all just the 8000's now that they discontinued the 7000 series.
Thanks for the clarification on that. I had no idea they moved into a BN revision for that model.
I remember dealing with that years ago on the XTS2500's...
Long Branch (Site 39) is now NAC397, as expected. Update submitted.
No changes to Bordentown, New Brunswick, STR-II, Union County, or West Orange.
STR-I not deployed.
No changes to Bordentown, New Brunswick, STR-II, Union County, or West Orange.
STR-I not deployed.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,992
I am finally off Uniden and on a SDR stick with UT. Fantastic difference on NJICS. Attack time and decode much improved. I too had a look around. Pulled in
Bordentown, Telegraph Hill, Cranbury, Freehold, Martinville, Rutgers, Union County and Hunterdon all in order as @RadioDitch observed.
I did note a Union Twsp 2019xxx get denied on Site (2) for TG4679. Also noticed a Peers question or perhaps better stated a question on two sites.
Sites 27 & 28 ( Martinsville & Walpack) on UT and the DB show they use the same CC and site frequencies. I assume they are not Simulcast. Is it the terrain between the two sites what makes this possible? I do see the NAC different as well.
Hamburg Mtn is the third subsite of the future Sussex simulcast, not Bearfort (which is in Passaic and will be part of that simulcast).
Distance and a different NAC are what make it possible for 27 and 28 to share the same frequencies. At one point 25 and 26 also had identical lineups. Sites 26 and 27 always had unique NAC from the rest of the sites, even prior to this most recent realignment, for just that reason.
Distance and a different NAC are what make it possible for 27 and 28 to share the same frequencies. At one point 25 and 26 also had identical lineups. Sites 26 and 27 always had unique NAC from the rest of the sites, even prior to this most recent realignment, for just that reason.
Holy freaking brain fart. Sorry, been up for two days with work. Not sure how the hell I crossed those wires. I of all people should know better.
West Orange, Bordentown, Union County, New Brunswick, and Penn Station NAC's remain unchanged.
richee2000
Communications Professional
New TG 5161 on Union Co site, doing a Fire Dept Roll Call. (no Radio Ids observed)
N2NHL
Member
I also heard TG 3137 on UC Simulcast this morning. Sounded like fire activity on a highway, but something about spraying foam on the highway was mentioned. But I guess it could have also been DOT. I'm not sure.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,992
I suspect you heard Plainfield Fire. They were reported on 5163 over on the municipal migration thread. They are all ICS able now. Likely both 5161 and 5163 are Plainfield Fire.
With some RID’s a DB sub could be made. I have no UT access presently.
NJICS Municipal Migration Discussion - Statewide
Seeing some USAR radios affiliating to TG 4769. Maybe TGs 4769 to 4787 and the 247xxxx radios are actually NJTF1 and not NJSP? That would probably explain why I randomly see a 247xxxx radio affiliated to RWJ TGs (Right now 2470134 is affiliated to RWJ 1 Central 4407). There's some...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked