whp3310
Member
Rawlins PD to Wyolink
Hello,
For those in or around the Rawlins area, The PD has gone to wyolink. The talk-group # that came up was 805. Found on the Divide Hill Tsys.
To my knowledge The SO, Fire, and EMS are still on their Conventional Systems.
(If an Admin finds this info would you please add the talkgroup to the Wyolink Datebase for Carbon County, WY. Thanks in advance)
Hello,
For those in or around the Rawlins area, The PD has gone to wyolink. The talk-group # that came up was 805. Found on the Divide Hill Tsys.
To my knowledge The SO, Fire, and EMS are still on their Conventional Systems.
(If an Admin finds this info would you please add the talkgroup to the Wyolink Datebase for Carbon County, WY. Thanks in advance)
hi does anyone have information for TG 2001 it showed up on unitrunker Saturday sept. 26 2015
5 unit's in the Cheyenne area and no hits after that, i was not available to hear the traffic,
school buses? law from out of town?
will keep an ear on it.
5 unit's in the Cheyenne area and no hits after that, i was not available to hear the traffic,
school buses? law from out of town?
will keep an ear on it.
hpycmpr
Member
The 2000 series numbers is allocated to Sublette county, probably the sheriff.
Someone dragged it there.
Steve
Someone dragged it there.
Steve
THX i forgot about post # 115
jimyhatt
Member
I will be headed to crook co, in another week or so, I will monitor their listed frequencies and the wyolink talk groups and report back my findings.
In other news, it sounds as though Sublette so has gone to wyolink. I was hearing the SO on TG 2001 the other day.
In other news, it sounds as though Sublette so has gone to wyolink. I was hearing the SO on TG 2001 the other day.
WyoWabbit
Member
If the new Archer 800 site is SITE 128, then what happened to the HELL HOLE site (it was 128)?
hpycmpr
Member
Hell Hole became site 106 back in Sept or earlier. Don't know the reason for the change.
Steve
Steve
WyoWabbit
Member
Oh, OK, I see Hell Hole's new site number now, site 133 Lander Landfill changed to site 231 back about Sept. also. Thanks! - Tom
Moosemedic
Member
I've looked at the Database:
Would I be correct in assuming that WSP dispatch is typically an encrypted conversation?
I see that each district has a dedicated Encrypted channel, and the car to car is in the clear (Digital) and they'd have to choose to go to a digital car to dispatch talkgroup as a second choice? Is this a correct assumption?
Would I be correct in assuming that WSP dispatch is typically an encrypted conversation?
I see that each district has a dedicated Encrypted channel, and the car to car is in the clear (Digital) and they'd have to choose to go to a digital car to dispatch talkgroup as a second choice? Is this a correct assumption?
wyomingmedic
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2008
- Messages
- 534
There is ALMOST no traffic on the encrypted channels. 99.999% of everything is done in the clear. But as you noted, be sure to include the car to car TGs for the various districts you might be in. There is usually quite a bit of traffic there.
KE7WQP
Member
Does anyone know if Kaycee fire and EMS have gone to WyoLink or changed frequencies? I used to be able to hear them all the time, but lately it seems quite.
whp3310
Member
KC Fire/EMS
Hello, To my knowledge KC Fire/EMS have NOT gone to wyolink they are still on conventional channels. KC Fire, EMS & Search and Rescue are all paged out off of the KC Fire channel of 154.4300, make sure to leave the PL/CTCSS in Search so you can get the page outs. What are you using to receive the radio traffic? Radio? Scanner?
Hello, To my knowledge KC Fire/EMS have NOT gone to wyolink they are still on conventional channels. KC Fire, EMS & Search and Rescue are all paged out off of the KC Fire channel of 154.4300, make sure to leave the PL/CTCSS in Search so you can get the page outs. What are you using to receive the radio traffic? Radio? Scanner?
KE7WQP
Member
I'm using a FTM-400 as a base station in Casper.
W7LES
Member
Wy-Co intertie
Howdy all: hope everyone had a Merry Christmas & Santa was very good to you.
Question came up the other day about the Wyo WyoLink to Colo CCNC intertie talkgroup & how it works.
The intertie is fairly simple, it's just a small Motorola Consolette 800 MHz base radio at the 85 South site, programmed up on the CCNC system and set on the WY-CO talkgroup. Not sure what site in Colo it would normally talk to, it was programmed up by Moto awhile back and being on CCNC would make the WY-CO talkgroup part of the Colo 800 system fleetmap.
On the WY end, it appears on all of the WHP & TMC dispatch consoles as a simple TG channel, which is then cross-patched to whatever WY TG will be used by the WY units, could be a CAT but more likely to be a MAT. Same thing happens on the CO end, the WY-CO TG is cross-patched to whatever CCNC TG they want to use for their cars in the operation.
We do not have WY-CO programmed into any subscriber units in WY that I know of - it's a CCNC 800 TG & our VHF units can't cross-program with the CCNC 800 system, so no point in it - and my understanding is that on the CO side it's also only going to their dispatch consoles for the patches. Haven't heard it used very often other than testing, which sounded pretty good and seemed to work well.
To a large degree, the limiting factor on CCNC-mobile-to-WyoLink-mobile operations looks to be CCNC 800 coverage into WY - unless the Colo units are set up for multi-system operation & can switch to WyoLink to get on to the Fox Farm & Archer sites & could access a WyoLink system WY-CO TG directly - but then how do they get back to their dispatch which probably isn't set up to access the WyoLink VHF or 800 directly, which would be needed because they're on WY-CO TG all right, and on 800 to boot, but now they're on a different trunking system. Even if WY-CO TG were duplicated on both systems, it wouldn't cross over.
VHF coverage south into Colo isn't a problem, neither is coverage east in Neb. In both cases, during early WyoLink construction, we reached out to those states on frequency coordination agreements that if they would allow the border sites 85 South & Russell Hill to use omnidirectional antennas for the Interstate highways, instead of the standard "beam-it-into-your-own-area-with-directional-antennas" approach, we would provide room for their respective systems to use these sites for enhanced cross-border coverage on their systems. This cooperative philosophy was continued at all of the later WyoLink sites such as Mt Pisgah & Warren Peak, and also the WyoLink installations in ID at Hell Hole & Black Mountain. Gives good mobile coverages, but importantly also enables nearby dispatch centers in the adjacent state to access WyoLink directly with a control station if & where desired.
There was some talk awhile back about a similar WY-UT intertie, UCAN 800 system has a couple of sites in Uinta County WY so 800 coverage wouldn't be nearly as limited. Bigger problem is WHP VHF cars running west into Echo Canyon down I80 and is being looked at first.
A WY-ID intertie to their 700 system would be about identical to the WY-CO link, and so would Montana and South Dakota and Nebraska, looks like these have not been pursued mostly because of waiting for the CSSI and ISSI interfaces to be worked out so that they could be used instead (along with funding, of course...).
Regards,
Howdy all: hope everyone had a Merry Christmas & Santa was very good to you.
Question came up the other day about the Wyo WyoLink to Colo CCNC intertie talkgroup & how it works.
The intertie is fairly simple, it's just a small Motorola Consolette 800 MHz base radio at the 85 South site, programmed up on the CCNC system and set on the WY-CO talkgroup. Not sure what site in Colo it would normally talk to, it was programmed up by Moto awhile back and being on CCNC would make the WY-CO talkgroup part of the Colo 800 system fleetmap.
On the WY end, it appears on all of the WHP & TMC dispatch consoles as a simple TG channel, which is then cross-patched to whatever WY TG will be used by the WY units, could be a CAT but more likely to be a MAT. Same thing happens on the CO end, the WY-CO TG is cross-patched to whatever CCNC TG they want to use for their cars in the operation.
We do not have WY-CO programmed into any subscriber units in WY that I know of - it's a CCNC 800 TG & our VHF units can't cross-program with the CCNC 800 system, so no point in it - and my understanding is that on the CO side it's also only going to their dispatch consoles for the patches. Haven't heard it used very often other than testing, which sounded pretty good and seemed to work well.
To a large degree, the limiting factor on CCNC-mobile-to-WyoLink-mobile operations looks to be CCNC 800 coverage into WY - unless the Colo units are set up for multi-system operation & can switch to WyoLink to get on to the Fox Farm & Archer sites & could access a WyoLink system WY-CO TG directly - but then how do they get back to their dispatch which probably isn't set up to access the WyoLink VHF or 800 directly, which would be needed because they're on WY-CO TG all right, and on 800 to boot, but now they're on a different trunking system. Even if WY-CO TG were duplicated on both systems, it wouldn't cross over.
VHF coverage south into Colo isn't a problem, neither is coverage east in Neb. In both cases, during early WyoLink construction, we reached out to those states on frequency coordination agreements that if they would allow the border sites 85 South & Russell Hill to use omnidirectional antennas for the Interstate highways, instead of the standard "beam-it-into-your-own-area-with-directional-antennas" approach, we would provide room for their respective systems to use these sites for enhanced cross-border coverage on their systems. This cooperative philosophy was continued at all of the later WyoLink sites such as Mt Pisgah & Warren Peak, and also the WyoLink installations in ID at Hell Hole & Black Mountain. Gives good mobile coverages, but importantly also enables nearby dispatch centers in the adjacent state to access WyoLink directly with a control station if & where desired.
There was some talk awhile back about a similar WY-UT intertie, UCAN 800 system has a couple of sites in Uinta County WY so 800 coverage wouldn't be nearly as limited. Bigger problem is WHP VHF cars running west into Echo Canyon down I80 and is being looked at first.
A WY-ID intertie to their 700 system would be about identical to the WY-CO link, and so would Montana and South Dakota and Nebraska, looks like these have not been pursued mostly because of waiting for the CSSI and ISSI interfaces to be worked out so that they could be used instead (along with funding, of course...).
Regards,
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 3,620
The WY/CO talkgroups are (were) in Laramer county radios, but no one has seemed to tell anyone on their use and how it inferfaces with Wyoming from the Colorado perspective. I know of a few WY agencies who have CCNC programmed radios for mutual aid, and those do not have that talkgroup programmed in them.
Perhaps some more coordination and training is needed from both ends - and let's not forget the FRCC.
There has been several cross border incidents with emergency services with a form of communications issues.
Something can be learned from the Washington DC area with the NCR protocols. There are several trunked systems in play and each have common interconnected talkgroups for each of the emergency services that enable users to talk to each other quickly - and without intervention or hunting for channels - in time critical incidents (i.e. Pursuits, MCI's unfolding, extreme grass fires).
Having seen it working in person for a pursuit/OIS incident across several jurisdictions one day, it was very slick.
Perhaps some more coordination and training is needed from both ends - and let's not forget the FRCC.
There has been several cross border incidents with emergency services with a form of communications issues.
Something can be learned from the Washington DC area with the NCR protocols. There are several trunked systems in play and each have common interconnected talkgroups for each of the emergency services that enable users to talk to each other quickly - and without intervention or hunting for channels - in time critical incidents (i.e. Pursuits, MCI's unfolding, extreme grass fires).
Having seen it working in person for a pursuit/OIS incident across several jurisdictions one day, it was very slick.
Similar threads
