Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post frequencies and talkgroups for Riverside County. In this area you will find some of the most up-to-date frequency/talkgroup notes and information about newly discovered systems.
brandon
Posts: 706
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Riverside County
Contact:

Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post by brandon » Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:44 am

Temecula CHP is now using 39.340 162.2 PL. I also heard the dispatcher mention they were no longer simulcasting with Oceanside units on the Tan.

They had been using the Blue 1 (39.140) for a while due to problems with the Tan simulcast.

cvrules90
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:08 am

Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post by cvrules90 » Thu Sep 11, 2014 7:05 pm

brandon wrote:Temecula CHP is now using 39.340 162.2 PL. I also heard the dispatcher mention they were no longer simulcasting with Oceanside units on the Tan.

They had been using the Blue 1 (39.140) for a while due to problems with the Tan simulcast.
Brandon could this have possibly been caused by interference?

brandon
Posts: 706
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Riverside County
Contact:

Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post by brandon » Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:57 pm

The VRS is on 769.91875 using NAC of DB9

I don't know exact reason other than they had been using the Blue 1 for a while. The Tan wasn't working too well up this way. There is a thread on the RadioReference forums with more information. http://forums.radioreference.com/san-di ... ecula.html

cvrules90
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:08 am

Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post by cvrules90 » Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:34 am

OK. I was only mentioning the interference because I know the Lo-Band 46MHz channels tend to have a lot of interfence. Explains why there are usualy no trunked systems using that band.

zz0468
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:35 pm

Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post by zz0468 » Sat Sep 13, 2014 1:46 pm

cvrules90 wrote:Explains why there are usualy no trunked systems using that band.
That's not why you don't EVER find trunking systems on low band.

cvrules90
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:08 am

Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post by cvrules90 » Sat Sep 13, 2014 1:49 pm

The trunked systems I know don't use any frequencies below the standard VHF public safety band.

zz0468
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:35 pm

Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post by zz0468 » Sun Sep 14, 2014 4:22 pm

cvrules90 wrote:The trunked systems I know don't use any frequencies below the standard VHF public safety band.
It's just not practical. let's see...

1. Filters, TX combiners and duplexers for low band are huge and expensive.
2. Frequency management and licensing for multiple repeaters can be difficult at low band.
3. Low band antennas frequently don't lend themselves well to wide band performance. Trying to transmit 39 MHz channels and 46 MHz channels is difficult on one antenna, and the nature of licensing on low band could make it close to impossible to get enough channels close together enough to work.
4. Continuous control channels on low band would occasionally be a world wide problem when propagation conditions open up.
5. Etc. etc.

sp1989
Posts: 1017
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:08 pm

Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post by sp1989 » Sun Sep 14, 2014 10:46 pm

Thank you, zz, for some valuable information. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge on the technical side of radio monitoring...it is much appreciated.

cvrules90
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:08 am

Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post by cvrules90 » Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:48 am

sp1989 wrote:Thank you, zz, for some valuable information. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge on the technical side of radio monitoring...it is much appreciated.
I want to add interference to that list.

800
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:30 am

Re: Temecula CHP on 39.340

Post by 800 » Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:52 pm

cvrules90 wrote:
brandon wrote:Temecula CHP is now using 39.340 162.2 PL. I also heard the dispatcher mention they were no longer simulcasting with Oceanside units on the Tan.

They had been using the Blue 1 (39.140) for a while due to problems with the Tan simulcast.
Brandon could this have possibly been caused by interference?
The issue was the spacing between the transmit sites and the area covered. The Riverside sites created unwanted noise on the signal in the Oceanside operating area, and the San Diego County sites created unwanted noise on the signal in the Temecula operating area. Separating the two Areas has greatly resolved the problem.

Post Reply