Factory fire Mitchell ACT

[Longreach]

Hi all, you probably all know by now about the fire in Mitchell. At the moment there has been a flare up and Mitchell is a no go. Plenty of activity on the ACT TRN via unitrunker but as we all know fire, police and ambos are not listenable.
Been monitoring ACTION buses B FLT OPS for road changes seems is it intensifies Gungahlin dr gets closed and re opened as it's a couple of hundred meters from the fire.
The smoke can be seen 75km north near Goulburn.
Cheers
Matt

[Bigfella237]

G'day Matt,

Quick question... what's "ACTION buses B FLT OPS"?

Andrew

[matthewn1983]

welcome back....

[Longreach]

Hi all
yeah TG 44010 from what i can work out, just general announcements to drivers and stuff. found it thru listening one day while testing.
cheers
Matt

[SKEYGEN]

Interesting how they do that, the buses themselves are still fitted out with Tait radios and MDTs on the ActewAGL MPT1327 network.

I'm in Canberra and I'm unfortunate enough to be a frequent bus commuter, I haven't seen any Motorola gear yet. Might just be the supervisors etc at this stage.

[Longreach]

there are only 2 buses at this stage, 438 is one. there is another on the northside.
the ACTEW MPT system is due to be punted off the buses due to union concerns.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/act-govt-to-ove ... 314304.htm

http://actbus.net/forum/index.php?topic=3103.0

cheers
matt

[SKEYGEN]

Kinda funny hearing ACTION drivers wanting to be on the GRN, most users who have anything to say about it say the opposite.

fFrom the ACT perspective I guess it's good enough for their purposes though, it certainly doesn't cut it for rural firefighting in some of the most mountainous country in Australia (Basic physics says UHF has no place there, let alone digital UHF trunking.)

[ivahri]

Geez Skeygen, I've sat back & thought I should ignore your sweeping statements of opinion dressed as "facts" but this one can't go through unchallenged.

Most users of the GRN would choose not to be on it eh? Evidence? What absolute rubbish... most agencies are extremely pleased with it and if you spoke to a cross section of users about which the prefer- PMR or GRN trunking- I know which one they would choose.

And your comment about VHF versus UHF digital is just plain silly. Designing a radio system is about achieving the required coverage- whether it takes one base or five bases, if the required coverage is achieved then game set & match- that is what the user needs. In the real world "physics" is influenced by many things, and is limited by many things. You can achieve equivalent coverage from UHF digital as VHF, it just comes down to proper design. If you ask any rational person which they prefer, a properly engineered & maintained UHF trunking system over a poorly engineered & maintained, single agency managed, VHF system- I know which one they would choose. And they don't need an understanding of physics to decide- they just get in their car & talk...

I wish you would put your name to your comments. It might give you more credability.

Cheers,

Richard

[SKEYGEN]

Most users of the GRN would choose not to be on it eh? Evidence? What absolute rubbish... most agencies are extremely pleased with it and if you spoke to a cross section of users about which the prefer- PMR or GRN trunking- I know which one they would choose.

The ACT experience has been interesting there, particular with SES and RFS if you talk to those at the coalface. Fine around Canberra, but head into the mountains and the story becomes ugly.

And your comment about VHF versus UHF digital is just plain silly. Designing a radio system is about achieving the required coverage- whether it takes one base or five bases, if the required coverage is achieved then game set & match- that is what the user needs.

You can use spectrum 20GHz if like if you have the time, space and money to build an infinite amount of supporting infrastructure. In the real world, the resources required to do that not exist, and it's all gotta be put somewhere.

Look to the ADF as an example. they have spectrum available to them almost literally from DC to daylight. Their primary land combat net radio band is 30-88MHz, why is that?

In the real world "physics" is influenced by many things, and is limited by many things. You can achieve equivalent coverage from UHF digital as VHF, it just comes down to proper design.

Throwing a disproportionate amount of infrastructure at a problem does not make for good design. Choosing appropriate radio frequencies plays a huge part of that decision.

If you ask any rational person which they prefer, a properly engineered & maintained UHF trunking system over a poorly engineered & maintained, single agency managed, VHF system- I know which one they would choose.

The front page of The Canberra Times over the last few years has painted a much different picture of the situation from the users' perspective.

And they don't need an understanding of physics to decide- they just get in their car & talk...

I wish you would put your name to your comments. It might give you more credability.

I'll consider doing that if you stop resorting to silly attempts at character assassination; it does your own credibility no favours. I'm not here to prove myself to anyone. There are at least three other people on this board who are well aware of who I am and my professional background. If you don't like what I have to say, nobody's forcing you to read it.

[ivahri]

Well let's look at the ACT as it is an area I know well... the ACT government replaced a whole lot of individual, clapped out, poorly maintained PMR systems and replaced it with one that has 24/7 monitoring, layers of redundancy, functions PMR never could provide, and you just mention RFS & SES- again without actually providing evidence of those agencies not wanting to use the GRN. Quoting the odd disgruntled
RFS person is not evidence of widespread dissatisfaction- everything has critics but it doesn't make them right.

A short retort on the merits of VHF versus UHF... and I have years of experience on both... so you can cover a given area with one VHF base & need two UHF bases to achieve the same. So your VHF base gets hit by lightning- how much coverage do you lose? 100%. You still have UHF coverage, less than normal but something is better than nothing. Emergency services need robust networks, not ones that can fail because of one base. The challenge is NOT how much area you cover with the least number of sites, but how to do it reliably.

And when was the last time you saw a VHF dipole enjoy the prime position on the top of a major comms tower? Have you ever thought that theoretical coverage does not always equal REAL coverage. But I can put a 6db UHF binary on the top of most towers while the poor old SMD1 is hanging off the side down in the guts of the tower.... mate I work in the real world, you are living in the theoretical world. And you still think the VHF will outperform the UHF? Bollocks!

Why would we use 20GHz? Well that is just silly... but with the users wanting more bandwidth intensive features the only direction is UP- enjoy VHF coz you are going to be very lonely down there!

Cheers,

Richard