New Ontario RCMP system waking up...

[IdleMonitor]

Anyone have an audio file of what to listen for in control channel noise to identify frequencies.

 

[mbstone99]

Oddly enough with the good conditions I am hearing the Cookstown (Site 3) site tonight.. It's only reporting 3 sites for neighbours, 6 (Orillia), 7 (Edgar) and 9 (King City) so it looks like sites 29-33 are no longer neighbours of Cookstown.

Matt

 

[tilt404]

Starting scanning today using Unitrunker and for Windsor on RR shows :

421.11250 421.46250c 421.61250

But in Unitrunker it shows 421.1125 as the control channel for me, not 421.4625.

I'm not sure what is going on though since under the channels tab it show doubles of the 3 frequencies for Windsor. First 3 have LCNs in order :

00-0001 421.1125
00-0002 421.4625
00-0003 421.6125

Then below the first 3, shows the same 3 in same order with different LCN numbers and only 00-1149 is highlighted as the Control Channel

00-1149 421.1125 Control
00-1477 421.4625
00-1489 421.6125

also one more

00-1517 421.9625

All show as Site 001-018 for Windsor.

Under peers for me, it shows:

Site 20 00-1469 421.3625
Site 21 00-1474 421.4250 (Wallaceburg)
Site 22 00-1465 421.3125 (Chatham)
Site 18 00-1495 421.6875 (Windsor)

 

[Jay911]

I'm not sure what is going on though since under the channels tab it show doubles of the 3 frequencies for Windsor. First 3 have LCNs in order :

00-0001 421.1125
00-0002 421.4625
00-0003 421.6125

Then below the first 3, shows the same 3 in same order with different LCN numbers and only 00-1149 is highlighted as the Control Channel

00-1149 421.1125 Control
00-1477 421.4625
00-1489 421.6125

Did you recently download the system from the RRDB thru Unitrunker?

UT doesn't know what the LCNs are of a system it downloads, because in most cases (including P25 systems), the RRDB doesn't provide that detail, so it saves the frequencies with LCNs 1, 2, 3, etc.

I get the same problem when I download a system local to me into UT. The frequencies are listed in both LCNs starting from 1 and in LCNs based on the proper calculations.

 

[tilt404]

Yes I did a import, so sorry about posting about it all. I guess it saved them into memory on unitrunker now so need to try to delete the doubles. I probably went through this before and posted here so sorry once again. Its been a while, months since I scanned this so my memory isn't that good from that last time I did it. : )

 

[Forts]

I've noticed quite an increase in activity on this system in the London/Sarnia area over the last month or so. A bunch of new talkgroups (everything encrypted of course) and radio ID's still show as '0'.

 

[VE3JSO]

I've noticed quite an increase in activity on this system in the London/Sarnia area over the last month or so. A bunch of new talkgroups (everything encrypted of course) and radio ID's still show as '0'.

when is the best time to monitor the sarnia site forts every time i try to monitor using pro 96com nothing shows up

 

[Forts]

I couldn't tell you. Not knowing the nature of the conversations that are taking place, there isn't really any way to tell. Just park PRO96Com on it for a day and see what you get.

 

[Forts]

I left UT running on Site 2 in London yesterday and the following talkgroups were logged:

44, 91, 93, 301, 302, 334, 401, 412, 415, 501, 502, 503, 517, 533, 549, 550, 552, 565, 601, 633, 634, 637, 639, 648, 701 & 740.

Of those... 533, 93, 550, 502, 44 & 639 were the most active.

 

[icarus1963]

New Ontario RCMP system waking up

Site 001-027 showing up today with control channel 421.3125. 3 bar reception from my Brantford location. 422.0375 and 422.7125 also attached to this site.I am unable to pick up Hamilton or Port Dover from my location due the fact my Sinclair antenna does not work on 400 MHz.so must be near by. Showing peers as sites 16,23,24,35.
All activity ENC on talk groups 412 and 415. I will submit to the database.

Andy

 

[Forts]

Encrypted talkgroups aren't supposed to be accepted into the database as there is no way to tell what there use is. That doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule however.

 

[icarus1963]

Both of the talkgroups mentioned are already in the database. It's the site information I am submitting.

 

[mciupa]

Encrypted talkgroups aren't supposed to be accepted into the database as there is no way to tell what there use is. That doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule however.

I hear what you are saying, but my feeling is that although we can't give an accurate description of the talkgroup, we have confirmed it's usage in the system and have identified it as digitally encrypted mode, so I include it.

I will use a generic description such as: (example: Police or TG 1234 in the DB listings)

 

[Forts]

It's a little easier in this case, since we know the system is exclusive to the RCMP. Encrypted talkgroups on a system such as Fleetnet (like the mystery 18xxx groups)... not so much.

 

[mikewazowski]

As always, the Admin Handbook is where to turn for the answer.

There's no specific rule against putting encrypted frequencies/talkgroups in the database.

The rule which typically would apply with encrypted frequencies/talkgroups is the "no unidentified data in the database" rule.

However, if there's something that can be used to somehow identify the user or agency, then the frequency/talkgroup can be included.

In a lot of cases, the Radio ID on a trunking system can be used to give a generic description of the talkgroup.

Those Fleetnet talkgroups are a good example. The RID's don't match any known user and with so many different agencies on the system, it's impossible to assign any sort of identity to them. As such, they can't be included in the database.

 

[mbstone99]

Site 001-027 showing up today with control channel 421.3125. 3 bar reception from my Brantford location. 422.0375 and 422.7125 also attached to this site.I am unable to pick up Hamilton or Port Dover from my location due the fact my Sinclair antenna does not work on 400 MHz.so must be near by. Showing peers as sites 16,23,24,35.
All activity ENC on talk groups 412 and 415. I will submit to the database.

Andy

I am actually currently hearing this CC today in downtown Hamilton quite strongly. I wonder if it is in either maybe Guelph or northern Halton Region or in the KW area with 3 of the peers being in Toronto and the other here in Hamilton.

Matt

 

[mciupa]

I can get Site 27 two to three bars in NW Toronto and Halton is on the fringe of my monitoring area. Other Guelph and KW area CC's, I can get "dirty" (with lots of noise) when I use a tapped radio.

 

[ATCTech]

Quick update to the Site 27 conversation - I haven't tracked it down in limited searching but I can receive the CC in the car with no antenna connected in parts of Milton and yet very little signal is present up on the Escarpment where many other trunking sites live. More to follow in the next few days but I have a suspicion it's in the more northern reaches of the county as the Town of Milton (politically speaking) reaches almost to Rockwood in the northwest quadrant.

 

[ATCTech]

Just to add to the information in my previous post here's the Morse ident being transmitted by site 27. For those of you that are no better at Morse code than I am, it spells MILTON. All the other sites I've checked are transmitting their license numbers - not this one!

 

[Jay911]

Just to add to the information in my previous post here's the Morse ident being transmitted by site 27. For those of you that are no better at Morse code than I am, it spells MILTON. All the other sites I've checked are transmitting their license numbers - not this one!

I once found a trunk site (non-RCMP) sending "T.B.D."