I will have to check.  We have a lot of new hams that don't have much 
experience in trans. hunts, but it might be a very good exercise for our ARES 
program.  Will look into that.

It's sad, as the people that first started installing the radio out here when 
out of business, then next group that took over has no records of the repeater 
locations, the next group only installs in the buses themselves and another 
company came in and sold them them some of the Ht's that are use by maint. and 
mechs. and have no clue about anything else that the correct freq. to place 
them on.

The saga continues.

Thanks
Chris KE5IGO

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Gary" <n6...@...> wrote:
>
> You didn't mention the maintenance dept. having their own channel. If buses
> are using your channel (45x.750) then the repeater is likely at a higher
> location so it can better cover the area. If you've exhausted all available
> records, can't contact the previous tech, and can't find a dealer that knows
> where your repeater is then I'd suggest a good ol' fashioned transmitter
> hunt. Do you have any amateurs in your area that are up to the task?
> Gary
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Christopher Hodgdon
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 5:43 PM
> To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Motorola MTR2000 Question
> 
> I wish I had a picture of the repeater house.  The frequency listed on the
> MTR2000 is that of the schools maint. department.  The other MTR2000, hook
> to the other antenna, is the Schools PD.  I know those for a fact.  Now its
> time to locate the other repeater system.  
> 
> The only odd ball thing I do know is that every once in a while, when a bus
> is talking to another bus or dispatch, you get a high squeal walk on over
> them, but its most likely another drive not paying attention and trying to
> key their radio.  But I wonder if it might be the maint. since their
> frequency is so close to ours.
>


Reply via email to