AARC

Kudos on getting the Davidsonville and North County machines linked. What is the policy concerning when the link is in operation? I wanted to test using Echolink on the 075 for Skywarn this weekend, but the link did not seem to be active.

73,

Bill/W3NWS

Having the ability to link the machines is good. However, since there is so much traffic on the 105 machine, I would recommend keeping that separate and linking one of the other, less used machines... consider how the linking could increase the 220 machine traffic, or maybe the 440 machine.
This could also apply to the proposed linking to the southern md system. It might just justify that new 220 rig!

-Mike.
WA3SKN

I suggest that some of the individuals who now use the linked repeaters in Calvert and St. Mary's counties be asked for their experiences, good and/or bad, before any decision on the 105 & 075 machines is made. I can see an advantage of greater area coverage, but also a disadvantage of longer wait times when a large number of users are trying to use a linked system.
At one time the military had a rule of thumb that, when a system was in use more than X minutes per hour, it was time to start up a separate system and transfer some of the traffic to it. Since we are considering combining two separate systems, have any calculations been made as to the total usage minutes per hour a 105/075 linked system would generate?
KA3ZPE - Ed

I'm all for linking them as well. I also think that if the controllers can handle it we could throw in the Davidsonville 440 machine as it has better coverage in a couple of places than the 105 machine does plus it gives us another option. I listen to the 075 somewhat frequently and although it does get some use it is more frequently silent than is the 105. Also, from the home QTH it is often easier to hit the 075 than the 105 as it is pretty much a straight shot up the bay rather than over the hills to Davidsonville. The option to bring up/down the link quickly to support something special on one or the other machines is a good thing and as was pointed out in the case of emergency nets, having the expanded coverage would be a very good thing.

That's my $0.02 anyway..
Chuck - AA3CS

Linking the two repeaters would be very advantageous for The Skywarn Net. The north county repeater also has Echolink capability, which would allow me to stay on the air when there is lightning near my QTH (which forces me to use an HT and a weaker signal until the storm has passed). Obviously, the added coverage would garner more spotter reports.

Bill - W3NWS
AA County Skywarn Coordinator

I have been asking why they were not linked for ten years.

I used to commute from Edgewater to Ellicott City daily, and this about doubles the coverage.

I thoroughly believe "dead air" is "no air".

Works great in western PA counties.

John Crawford WB3KDB

I like the idea. Except for the rush hour periods, there really isn't a lot of traffic on these repeaters. 105 is marginal over where I am, but I can easily hit the 075 machine on a handheld. Linking these two will greatly increase coverage and activity. Great concept!

Barry
K3NDM

I agree with Tom. Let's try it and see how things turn out. We can always un-link them if people don't like it. The only comment is that perhaps it should be un-linked during busy times - otherwise link them.

73

Dick WW3R

I'm one of those (and maybe only a few) who even use the 075, especially for side conversations when the 105 and/or 805 is busy. There are probably some other 2m repeaters that are good for that purpose, but the few I know if are more limited range. I'd like to hear from others what good alternative repeaters are. I imagine this came from some of our northerly users who have trouble getting into the 105, although hearing the 105 from anywhere south of the harbor is never a problem.

Linking the repeaters is a good technical project, and having people understand how linking is done, and how to use DTMF for functions other than auto-patch is probably worth educating hams on, as well.

All in all, I'm for optionally linking, meaning keep it linked, except when a side conversation is requested, in which case we just need a simple protocol, e.g.

Holly: (stuff) "over to K3TH, N3MB..."
Tom: (stuff) "over to K3FOR"
Skip: "Hey, I wanted to talk to Bob for a sec, anybody linked via 075?" ....
Skip: "Nothing heard, unlinking, QSY to 075, back in a few, K3FOR clear"
[or]
Rick: "Hi, yes, KK4GV is coming through 075, but the 805 (or 043) is open"
K3FOR: "Ok, K3FOR going QSY 043 simplex, 73" (or whatever)
[or]
Rick: "Hi, yes, KK4GV is coming through 075, but hold on, I'm south enough now, I'm QSY to 105, go ahead and unlink"
K3FOR: "Roger, thanks, K3FOR unlinking and QSY to 075, 73"

later...
K3FOR: "N3MB, K3FOR, hi, Holly, I'm done, the 075 has no traffic, am linking it back in.... "
[or]
KK4GV (on 075): "KK4GV testing"... "Hmmmm, somebody left the 075 unlinked... ... "

Hey, btw, we linking on 220 or 440, and do we need an allocation or have an existing one?

Anyway, great idea, 73,
Skip

I say let's try it for a while and see how it goes. The only time where they might need to be unlinked might be for some particular public service event that is more local to one or the other where direct communications will not suffice.

Let's link them now and through the summer and try it out.

Tom
K3TH