Discussion:
Ofcom report on domestic aerials
(too old to reply)
d***@postmaster.co.uk
2010-01-12 12:57:01 UTC
Permalink
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dsoind/aerials_research.pdf
That almost tells you as much about human nature as it does about TV
aerials!

The section quoting the public is quite revealing. It made me smile
that someone referred to an ITV-digital box as "one of the original
monkey boxes"!


Predictably, people are annoyed that it wasn't made clear that signal
level increases at DSO would mean very few people would actually
_need_ new aerials. They wish digital UK has just told people to "wait
and see".

Also lots of complaints of STBs which can't cope well with signals
from multiple regions, and older STBs/IDTVs that packed in completely.

Cheers,
David.
Geoff Berrow
2010-01-12 13:39:38 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:57:01 -0800 (PST),
Post by d***@postmaster.co.uk
Predictably, people are annoyed that it wasn't made clear that signal
level increases at DSO would mean very few people would actually
_need_ new aerials. They wish digital UK has just told people to "wait
and see".
The council house my mother lives in was built in the 60s and is an 8
house terrace. It has as large communal aerial on one end which
points at the Fenton transmitter about a mile away. Reception is, of
course, excellent. However, he council in its infinite wisdom have
installed new aerials on each of the properties (well except my
mother's because she owns her house). The communal aerial is still
working. Surely if there was a problem, which I doubt, it would have
been better and cheaper to fit a new communal aerial.

Sometimes I think Stoke on Trent council can't chuck money away fast
enough.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker
charles
2010-01-12 16:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoff Berrow
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:57:01 -0800 (PST),
Post by d***@postmaster.co.uk
Predictably, people are annoyed that it wasn't made clear that signal
level increases at DSO would mean very few people would actually
_need_ new aerials. They wish digital UK has just told people to "wait
and see".
The council house my mother lives in was built in the 60s and is an 8
house terrace. It has as large communal aerial on one end which
points at the Fenton transmitter about a mile away. Reception is, of
course, excellent. However, he council in its infinite wisdom have
installed new aerials on each of the properties (well except my
mother's because she owns her house). The communal aerial is still
working. Surely if there was a problem, which I doubt, it would have
been better and cheaper to fit a new communal aerial.
You contradict yourself when you say:
1. "The council house my mother lives in"
2. "...she owns her house"

Presumably your mother bought the house from the council.

When the original communal aerial was installed it is most likely that all
the houses belonged to the council. Think of the legal compexities if they
nw had to provide a feed to a non-council owned property. There'd have to
be wayleave agreements for the cable to be fixed to non council walls. etc.
Would your mother (and any others who might in the future own their house)
be prepared to pay a service charge - which would have to cover not only
the cost of the communal aerial but the time of the person administering
the charge nad any banking charges as well.

I reckon that 7 individual aerials would be a lot cheaper than a well
installed system
Post by Geoff Berrow
Sometimes I think Stoke on Trent council can't chuck money away fast
enough.
--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
wrightsaerials@aol.com
2010-01-12 19:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
When the original communal aerial was installed it is most likely that all
the houses belonged to the council.  Think of the legal compexities if they
nw had to provide a feed to a non-council owned property. There'd have to
be wayleave agreements for the cable to be fixed to non council walls. etc.
 Would your mother (and any others who might in the future own their house)
be prepared to pay a service charge - which would have to cover not only
the cost of the communal aerial but the time of the person administering
the charge nad any banking charges as well.
In practice the sale of a RTB house ('Right to Buy') has a clause
where the buyer has to agree to everything to do with the communal
system, just the same as in a block of private flats. In the case of
RTBs the buyer usually gets the use of the TV system free unless the
propery has other communal facilities such as open plan lawns, deck
lights, security, etc, in which case there's a service charge, again
like there would be for a private block.
Post by charles
I reckon that 7 individual aerials would be a lot cheaper than a well
installed system
Yes, but when the landlord remains responsible for maintenance it's
better to install a system. Cheaper in the long run. The other thing
is, if aerials are allowed the roofs get damaged.

Bill
Terry Casey
2010-01-13 11:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Geoff Berrow
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:57:01 -0800 (PST),
Post by d***@postmaster.co.uk
Predictably, people are annoyed that it wasn't made clear that signal
level increases at DSO would mean very few people would actually
_need_ new aerials. They wish digital UK has just told people to "wait
and see".
The council house my mother lives in was built in the 60s and is an 8
house terrace. It has as large communal aerial on one end which
points at the Fenton transmitter about a mile away. Reception is, of
course, excellent. However, he council in its infinite wisdom have
installed new aerials on each of the properties (well except my
mother's because she owns her house). The communal aerial is still
working. Surely if there was a problem, which I doubt, it would have
been better and cheaper to fit a new communal aerial.
1. "The council house my mother lives in"
2. "...she owns her house"
Presumably your mother bought the house from the council.
When the original communal aerial was installed it is most likely that all
the houses belonged to the council. Think of the legal compexities if they
nw had to provide a feed to a non-council owned property. There'd have to
be wayleave agreements for the cable to be fixed to non council walls. etc.
Would your mother (and any others who might in the future own their house)
be prepared to pay a service charge - which would have to cover not only
the cost of the communal aerial but the time of the person administering
the charge nad any banking charges as well.
I reckon that 7 individual aerials would be a lot cheaper than a well
installed system
I think the point that the OP was making was that all this expense is
completely unnecessary - "... it has a large communal aerial on one end
which points at the Fenton transmitter about a mile away. Reception is,
of course, excellent ..."
Post by charles
Post by Geoff Berrow
Sometimes I think Stoke on Trent council can't chuck money away fast
enough.
On the basis of the information provided, I must agree.

Terry
Geoff Berrow
2010-01-13 15:04:02 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:15:50 +0000, Terry Casey
Post by Terry Casey
Post by charles
I reckon that 7 individual aerials would be a lot cheaper than a well
installed system
I think the point that the OP was making was that all this expense is
completely unnecessary - "... it has a large communal aerial on one end
which points at the Fenton transmitter about a mile away. Reception is,
of course, excellent ..."
Exactly. And the power on that transmitter will increase.
Interestingly, the communal aerial has line of sight whereas IIRC the
individual ones have been mounted at gutter level pointing through the
roof space.
Post by Terry Casey
Post by charles
Post by Geoff Berrow
Sometimes I think Stoke on Trent council can't chuck money away fast
enough.
On the basis of the information provided, I must agree.
They have a long history of stupidity and wasting taxpayer's money.
You may have seen recent news items where they got into hot water by
agreeing to pay well over the odds for demolition of some properties.
Not necessarily dishonest, but suckers for the hard sell.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker
Paul D.Smith
2010-01-12 15:00:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@postmaster.co.uk
Also lots of complaints of STBs which can't cope well with signals
from multiple regions, and older STBs/IDTVs that packed in completely.
A real bugbear of mine. Even the really cheap STBs have serial ports hidden
on the chips used. In some cases these are even exposed through certain
pins on the SCART leads, and yet the manufacturers failed to add any way to
off-line update these boxes and then only transmitted the updates for a very
short period.

I have a Sagem "brick" - nothing wrong with it other than the wrong
firmware. OTOH Ferguson retransmitted an update for their old boxes after
the September retune ensuring that their customers are still smiling!

Paul DS.
Tony
2010-01-13 16:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul D.Smith
Post by d***@postmaster.co.uk
Also lots of complaints of STBs which can't cope well with signals
from multiple regions, and older STBs/IDTVs that packed in completely.
A real bugbear of mine. Even the really cheap STBs have serial ports
hidden on the chips used. In some cases these are even exposed through
certain pins on the SCART leads, and yet the manufacturers failed to add
any way to off-line update these boxes and then only transmitted the
updates for a very short period.
I have a Sagem "brick" - nothing wrong with it other than the wrong
firmware. OTOH Ferguson retransmitted an update for their old boxes
after the September retune ensuring that their customers are still smiling!
Paul DS.
I strongly agree, it is very helpful for field servicing and prevents
sets being binned, but the simple problem is that field support is not
the priority for most Developers, Sales people or retailers even in the
UK. The majority of box sales are from Chinese sources which are
fire-and-forget manufacturers using the retailers brand name.

Many also do not appreciate the poor uptake of OADs due to the box
asking permission for something the user doesn't understand, the user is
not using the product during the OAD, the box not being sold before the
OAD, bugs causing tuning problems and so on.

Customers mostly put up with failing boxes after the 1st year because
the Sales of Goods Act requires them to prove that the retailer is at
fault, or more directly that retailers tell them they won't support
after the 1st year.

Ferguson is a DSG brand name, the upgrade was probably provided
independently of 'Ferguson', probably at the cost of the DTG for
switchover issues.

--
Tony
Adrian
2010-01-13 22:28:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Ferguson is a DSG brand name, the upgrade was probably provided
independently of 'Ferguson', probably at the cost of the DTG for
switchover issues.
--
Tony
How long has Ferguson been a DSG brand name? Last I knew it was owned by
Thomson.
--
Adrian
MB
2010-01-14 01:06:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian
Post by Tony
Ferguson is a DSG brand name, the upgrade was probably provided
independently of 'Ferguson', probably at the cost of the DTG for
switchover issues.
--
Tony
How long has Ferguson been a DSG brand name? Last I knew it was owned by
Thomson.
No idea of the accuracy but according to Wikipedia







.......The Ferguson brand was licensed initially to DSI (Dixons and
Currys). DSI ceased using it in 2006 and competitor Comet took up the
licence........


Today

The Ferguson brand is used by Comet on a range of DAB digital radios as
well as Freeview set top boxes and a range of other electronics items.
Tony
2010-01-15 21:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adrian
Post by Tony
Ferguson is a DSG brand name, the upgrade was probably provided
independently of 'Ferguson', probably at the cost of the DTG for
switchover issues.
--
Tony
How long has Ferguson been a DSG brand name? Last I knew it was owned by
Thomson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_Electronics

Apparently I am only 'less' out of date that you. Owned by Comet now.

--
Tony
Mortimer
2010-01-13 15:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@postmaster.co.uk
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/reports/dsoind/aerials_research.pdf
That almost tells you as much about human nature as it does about TV
aerials!
The section quoting the public is quite revealing. It made me smile
that someone referred to an ITV-digital box as "one of the original
monkey boxes"!
Predictably, people are annoyed that it wasn't made clear that signal
level increases at DSO would mean very few people would actually
_need_ new aerials. They wish digital UK has just told people to "wait
and see".
The problem is that by the time people discover that their existing aerial
can't cope when the signal strength is increased, it's aready too late
because analogue has been turned off - and aerial fitters will be snowed
under with work once the switchover date has been passed so you'll be
without TV for a while.

My parents have a cottage in the Yorkshire Dales. Analogue reception has a
bit of noise and quite a bit of ghosting, which varies depending on weather
conditions. Digital reception is very weak (blocking, freezing) and only two
out of the transmitter's six muxes are received.

The question is: what will reception be like after DSO when the transmitter
is boosted? It's a gamble. My gut feeling is that the aerial is probably
tuned to that transmitter rather than being wideband, given that it was
fitted about 15-20 years ago.

Do aerial fitters tend to charge for assessing the current aerial to decide
whether it will need to be changed?
Post by d***@postmaster.co.uk
Also lots of complaints of STBs which can't cope well with signals
from multiple regions, and older STBs/IDTVs that packed in completely.
It would be nice if STBs *could* receive multiplexes from different
transmitters (assuming the aerial receives a strong enough signal) so you
can choose between different ITV/BBC regional news.

If two different transmitters' muxes could be received at sufficient
strength, how would the average STB react? Would it always go for the
stronger signal for a given mux?
Max Demian
2010-01-13 16:32:36 UTC
Permalink
[...]
Post by Mortimer
Post by d***@postmaster.co.uk
Also lots of complaints of STBs which can't cope well with signals
from multiple regions, and older STBs/IDTVs that packed in completely.
It would be nice if STBs *could* receive multiplexes from different
transmitters (assuming the aerial receives a strong enough signal) so you
can choose between different ITV/BBC regional news.
If two different transmitters' muxes could be received at sufficient
strength, how would the average STB react? Would it always go for the
stronger signal for a given mux?
If they are set for 'automatic scan', they usually scan all the UHF channels
in channel number order and put the first ones they find in the correct
logical channel numbers, and any further ones they find in channel numbers
starting with 800, regardless of the signal strength. Most have the option
to scan specific UHF channels instead, but you might have to delete the
existing channels first.

This means that you can have access to alternative regions with a certain
amount of fiddling about.
--
Max Demian
Java Jive
2010-01-13 17:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Another problem is that, surprisingly often, the post-DSO aerial group
is different from the pre-DSO group. While collating and checking all
the conflicting data sources for my aerial alignment calculator, I've
eyeballed its output for each and every transmitter (about 1125) at
least once, and found really quite a large number, even on main
transmitters.

In what follows, I don't include situations where a former wider band
group contains the final narrow band group, because that doesn't
require a new aerial. The calculator page is designed to flag in
bright purple where it is likely that a new aerial will be required,
or a realignment of polarity.

Bilsdale, a main transmitter, goes from A (analogue) through K (pre
DSO digital) to W (post DSO digital). Where the end result is a wider
group than previously, it's usual, though I have a feeling I spotted
some exceptions, for the PSB muxes to remain in the original group.
This is the case here - PSB:23,26,29 all A, Com:43,46,50 all B, so
to get them all you need W, though in good areas I guess you might get
by with a K (not being an installer, that really is a guess). I
wonder how this will impact on the business model for the Com
multiplexes, if the majority of customers would need a new aerial to
receive the transmissions, while they can receive the PSB ones without
cost? Will they think it worth the expense?

In other situations, I've noticed this especially in the West Country,
there are quite a few areas where post-DSO transmissions are in a
different narrow-band group from pre-DSO: Bossiney C/D to B, Bovey
Tracey B to C/D, Chideock B to C/D, Clennon Valley B to C/D, Compton
C/D to B, Croyde C/D to B, Harbertonford B to C/D, and Perranporth C/D
to B. Others have polarity changes: Braunton V to H, Porthleven V to
H, Porthtowan H to V, and Widecombe In The Moor V to H. There are
also Beacon Hill C/D to E, and Plymton C/D to E going to a wider group
similarly to Bilsdale.

Not being in the planning process, I can only speculate on the
rationale for these apparently arbitrary changes, but I bet the
installers down there are loving it ...
Post by Mortimer
The question is: what will reception be like after DSO when the transmitter
is boosted? It's a gamble. My gut feeling is that the aerial is probably
tuned to that transmitter rather than being wideband, given that it was
fitted about 15-20 years ago.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Mark Carver
2010-01-13 18:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
In other situations, I've noticed this especially in the West Country,
there are quite a few areas where post-DSO transmissions are in a
different narrow-band group from pre-DSO: Bossiney C/D to B, Bovey
Tracey B to C/D, Chideock B to C/D, Clennon Valley B to C/D, Compton
C/D to B, Croyde C/D to B, Harbertonford B to C/D, and Perranporth C/D
to B. Others have polarity changes: Braunton V to H, Porthleven V to
H, Porthtowan H to V, and Widecombe In The Moor V to H.
Where did that data come from, the Ofcom lists certainly indicate no
polarity changes for those stations ?

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/westcountryv5.pdf
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

http://www.paras.org.uk/
Java Jive
2010-01-13 19:11:03 UTC
Permalink
Compare with ...

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=1.html

Of course that assumes that both docs are correct, which may well an
assumption too far, but what can I do? I can't go chasing round the
country checking Ofcom's information for them.

This is why I cannot understand their failure to do what I have done,
and put all the info, pre and post, on one page. Discrepancies like
that stick out like a sore thumb when you do that (especially if, as I
have done, you write your software to highlight them specifically).

Whether or not both docs are correct on these particular points, their
public documentation as it stands is barely useable.

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:31:03 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Where did that data come from, the Ofcom lists certainly indicate no
polarity changes for those stations ?
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/westcountryv5.pdf
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Mark Carver
2010-01-13 19:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Where did that data come from, the Ofcom lists certainly indicate no
polarity changes for those stations ?
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/westcountryv5.pdf
Compare with ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=1.html
Of course that assumes that both docs are correct, which may well an
assumption too far, but what can I do? I can't go chasing round the
country checking Ofcom's information for them.
Porthtowan is the only discrepancy I can spot (HP on your pre DSO list),
the others are VP on the analogue list, and VP on the pre and post list.
The pictures on mb21 however show Porthtowan as VP, and I'm sure it
always has been ?

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/porthtowan.php
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

http://www.paras.org.uk/
Java Jive
2010-01-13 22:01:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:41:42 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Compare with ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=1.html
Of course that assumes that both docs are correct, which may well an
assumption too far, but what can I do? I can't go chasing round the
country checking Ofcom's information for them.
Porthtowan is the only discrepancy I can spot (HP on your pre DSO list),
the others are VP on the analogue list, and VP on the pre and post list.
The pictures on mb21 however show Porthtowan as VP, and I'm sure it
always has been ?
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/porthtowan.php
Braunton
Analog: Braunton 39 45 49 42 2W B V ...
Digital:Braunton ... BH 39 45 49 42

Porthleven
Analog: Porthleven 33 26 23 29 1.6W A V ...
Digital:Porthleven ... AH 33 26 23 29

Porthtowan
Analog: Porthtowan 21 27 24 31 8W A H ...
Digital:Porthtowan ... AV 21 27 24 31

Widecombe In The Moor
Analog: Widecombe 40 46 43 50 10W B V ...
Digital:Widecombe ... BH 40 46 43 50

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:31:03 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Others have polarity changes: Braunton V to H, Porthleven V to
H, Porthtowan H to V, and Widecombe In The Moor V to H.
Where did that data come from, the Ofcom lists certainly indicate no
polarity changes for those stations ?
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/westcountryv5.pdf
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Adrian
2010-01-13 22:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 19:41:42 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Compare with ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=1.html
Of course that assumes that both docs are correct, which may well an
assumption too far, but what can I do? I can't go chasing round the
country checking Ofcom's information for them.
Porthtowan is the only discrepancy I can spot (HP on your pre DSO list),
the others are VP on the analogue list, and VP on the pre and post list.
The pictures on mb21 however show Porthtowan as VP, and I'm sure it
always has been ?
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/porthtowan.php
Braunton
Analog: Braunton 39 45 49 42 2W B V ...
Digital:Braunton ... BH 39 45 49 42
Porthleven
Analog: Porthleven 33 26 23 29 1.6W A V ...
Digital:Porthleven ... AH 33 26 23 29
Porthtowan
Analog: Porthtowan 21 27 24 31 8W A H ...
Digital:Porthtowan ... AV 21 27 24 31
Widecombe In The Moor
Analog: Widecombe 40 46 43 50 10W B V ...
Digital:Widecombe ... BH 40 46 43 50
On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:31:03 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Others have polarity changes: Braunton V to H, Porthleven V to
H, Porthtowan H to V, and Widecombe In The Moor V to H.
Where did that data come from, the Ofcom lists certainly indicate no
polarity changes for those stations ?
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/westcountryv5.pdf
Porthleven has always been group A horizontal.
--
Adrian
Java Jive
2010-01-14 02:02:46 UTC
Permalink
I've now added a comparison between Analog data as read in from the
Analog files and the post DSO files to a number of other cross-checks
that I've already been forced to include. The current tally now
stands at approximately:

Transmitters with same name but different NGRs: 175
Transmitters with name variants:49
(+ countless other variations on B, HP, VP, C5, etc)
Transmitters with data mismatch in Analog and post DSO documentation:
49 (however of which 15 are misnaming E/W or K/W for E or K).
Post by Java Jive
Braunton
Analog: Braunton 39 45 49 42 2W B V ...
Digital:Braunton ... BH 39 45 49 42
Porthleven
Analog: Porthleven 33 26 23 29 1.6W A V ...
Digital:Porthleven ... AH 33 26 23 29
Porthtowan
Analog: Porthtowan 21 27 24 31 8W A H ...
Digital:Porthtowan ... AV 21 27 24 31
Widecombe In The Moor
Analog: Widecombe 40 46 43 50 10W B V ...
Digital:Widecombe ... BH 40 46 43 50
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Mark Carver
2010-01-14 16:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Braunton
Analog: Braunton 39 45 49 42 2W B V ...
Digital:Braunton ... BH 39 45 49 42
Old BBC and ITC printed matter says it was H pol analogue. Mb21 pictures show
HP Tx too:-

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/braunton.php
Post by Java Jive
Porthleven
Analog: Porthleven 33 26 23 29 1.6W A V ...
Digital:Porthleven ... AH 33 26 23 29
Old BBC and ITC printed matter also says it was V pol analogue. Mb21 pictures
show HP Tx , (and Adrian confirmed that discrepancy) and it's acknowledged by
Mb21.

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/porthleven.php
Post by Java Jive
Porthtowan
Analog: Porthtowan 21 27 24 31 8W A H ...
Digital:Porthtowan ... AV 21 27 24 31
Old BBC and ITC printed matter also says it was V pol analogue. Mb21 pictures
show VP Tx.

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/porthtowan.php
Post by Java Jive
Widecombe In The Moor
Analog: Widecombe 40 46 43 50 10W B V ...
Digital:Widecombe ... BH 40 46 43 50
Old BBC and ITC printed matter also says it was V pol analogue. Mb21 pictures
show HP Tx.

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/widecombe-in-the-moor.php

As you say the level of accuracy, surprisingly even on 'pre web' Beeb, and
ITC/IBA literature leaves a great deal to be desired.

I doubt any relay stations have physically changed polz, it's all down to
typos I suspect.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk
phil
2010-01-14 16:58:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Braunton
Analog: Braunton 39 45 49 42 2W B V ...
Digital:Braunton ... BH 39 45 49 42
Old BBC and ITC printed matter says it was H pol analogue. Mb21 pictures
show HP Tx too:-
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/braunton.php
Post by Java Jive
Porthleven
Analog: Porthleven 33 26 23 29 1.6W A V ...
Digital:Porthleven ... AH 33 26 23 29
Old BBC and ITC printed matter also says it was V pol analogue. Mb21
pictures show HP Tx , (and Adrian confirmed that discrepancy) and it's
acknowledged by Mb21.
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/porthleven.php
Post by Java Jive
Porthtowan
Analog: Porthtowan 21 27 24 31 8W A H ...
Digital:Porthtowan ... AV 21 27 24 31
Old BBC and ITC printed matter also says it was V pol analogue. Mb21
pictures show VP Tx.
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/porthtowan.php
Post by Java Jive
Widecombe In The Moor
Analog: Widecombe 40 46 43 50 10W B V ...
Digital:Widecombe ... BH 40 46 43 50
Old BBC and ITC printed matter also says it was V pol analogue. Mb21
pictures show HP Tx.
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/widecombe-in-the-moor.php
As you say the level of accuracy, surprisingly even on 'pre web' Beeb,
and ITC/IBA literature leaves a great deal to be desired.
I doubt any relay stations have physically changed polz, it's all down
to typos I suspect.
My old BBC "yellow book" gives Braunton as H, Porthleven as H and
Porthtowan as V. Too old for Widecombe, though I remember doing the pre
site test survey.

Phil
Java Jive
2010-01-14 17:35:58 UTC
Permalink
I suppose I ought to thank you, and I do, but I groan inwardly at the
same time, as this means another 30 odd manual corrections to make,
each after spending considerable time trawling through the underworld
of broadcasting sites - not that there's anything wrong with them,
indeed they often appear to be more accurate than the 'official'
sites, but that's precisely the problem, I should be able to get the
information I require reliably from the 'official' sites, without
wasting my what's left of my life like this.

I wonder if there's any way of *forcing* Ofcom to update the
information on their site to be accurate? I dare say that even if one
succeeded, by the time one did so, DSO will be distant history anyway.

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:01:51 +0000, Mark Carver
<***@invalid.invalid> wrote:

[snip info which I will update on my calculator, for which, thanks]
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Java Jive
2010-01-14 23:26:46 UTC
Permalink
Here the full list of what I've found, excluding the resolutions
already achieved, and also excluding those arising from mis-applied
aerial nomenclature. My thoughts/conclusions are in CAPS:

1)
Ambergate 22 28 25 32 37W A V
Ambergate BV 51 44 41 47
COMPLETE MISMATCH. ANYONE ABLE TO HELP?

2)
Barnstaple 40 46 43 30 40W B V
Barnstaple KV 40 46 43 30
SECOND

3)
Bassenthwaite 52 45 49 42 160W C/D V
Bassenthwaite BV 52 45 49 42
SECOND

4)
Caldbeck 30 34 28 32 500kW A H
Caldbeck C5 56 10kW W H
Caldbeck WH 30 34 28 32 56
SECOND

5)
Caldbeck (Scottish) 24 20kW A H
Caldbeck (Scottish) WH 22 67 24
SECOND

6)
Cambret Hill 44 51 41 47 16kW B V
Cambret Hill C5 37 20kW B H
Cambret Hill BH 44 51 41 47 37
2:1 IN FAVOUR OF H
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/cambret-hill.php
Can't tell much from the pics, but the fact the more recent C5 info
agrees with the DSO info, which in turn agrees with the post DSO
transmission suggests H is correct.

7)
No info - I had presumed it was a transmitter new with DSO!
Chaigley AV 21 27 24 31
SECOND

8)
Chepstow 21 27 24 31 3.1W A V
Chepstow AV 21 27 24 31
NO REAL ERROR - CHANNEL 4/S4C NAMES

9)
Cilycwm 21 27 24 31 7W A V
Cilycwm AV 21 27 31 24
CHANNEL ORDER

10)
Compton 51 44 68 47 5W C/D V
Compton EV 51 44 68 47
SECOND

11)
Croyde 51 44 41 47 1.5W C/D V
Croyde BV 51 44 41 47
SECOND

12)
Darley Dale 30 48 34 52 16W W V
Darley Dale K/WV 30 48 34 52
FIRST

13)
Derby 48 30 200W W H
Derby K/WH 48 30
SECOND

14)
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V
Dunoon AV 21 27 24 31
CHANNEL ORDER

15)
Durness 57 63 53 60 7W C/D V
Durness C/DV 59 63 53 60
BBC1 MISMATCH - WHICH IS CORRECT?

16)
Ferryside 31 23W A V
Ferryside AV 31
Ferryside AV 27
DISAGREEMENT IN SAME DOC! 2:1 IN FAVOUR OF 31

17)
Frome 21 27 24 31 10W A V
Frome AV 21 24 27 31
CHANNEL ORDER

18)
Glyncorrwg 39 45 49 42 0.75W A V
Glyncorrwg BV 39 45 49 42
SECOND

19)
Headingley 58 64 61 54 12W C/D V
Headingley C/DH 58 64 61 54
SECOND?
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/headingley.php
Difficult to tell from the pics, but looks H, as is post DSO.

20)
Hebden Bridge 22 28 25 32 250W A H
Hebden Bridge AV 22 28 25 32
???
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/hebden-bridge.php
Can't tell from the pics. Post DSO is V.

21)
Holmfirth 39 66 56 68 26W C/D V
Holmfirth E/WV 39 66 56 68
SECOND

22)
No info - Again I had assumed this was a transmitter new with DSO!
Jurby C/DV 54 64
SECOND

23)
Les Touillets 56 48 54 52 2kW C/D H
Les Touillets C/DV 56 48 54 52
SECOND?
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/les-touillets.php
Presuming that the whitish vertical column at the top is the TV TX, as
that is vertical in shape, presumbalby V, and that agrees with post
DSO.

24)
No info - Again I had assumed this was a transmitter new with DSO!
Lochgoilhead AD AV 33 26 23 29
SECOND
(Not to be confused with Lochgoilhead. What does AD stand for?)

25)
Monksilver 45 48 52 42 15W B V
Monksilver BV 45 48 42 52
CHANNEL ORDER

26)
Neath Abbey HP 66 48 42 56 6.3W C/D H
Neath Abbey VP 66 48 42 56 8W C/D V
Neath Abbey HP E/WH 66 48 42 56
Neath Abbey VP E/WV 66 48 42 56
SECOND

27)
No info - Again I had assumed this was a transmitter new with DSO!
Ramsey C/DH 66 68
SECOND

28)
Rumster Forest 31 27 24 21 100kW A H
Rumster Forest AH 31 27 24 21
Rumster Forest AV 31 27 24 21
DISAGREEMENT IN SAME DOC! 2:1 IN FAVOUR OF H, WHICH AGREES WITH POST
DSO

29)
Salcombe 51 41 44 30 17W K V
Salcombe WV 51 41 44 30
SECOND

30)
St. Brelades 57 67 63 54 8W C/D V
St Brelades C/DH 57 67 63 54
FIRST?
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/st-brelades.php
Looks to me as though it receives in H (correct for Fremont) and
rebroadcasts in V?

31)
St Neot 39 45 49 42 3.2W B V
St Neot BV 39 42 49 45
CHANNEL ORDER

32)
Storeton 22 28 25 32 2.8kW A V
Storeton C5 39 2.8kW K V
Storeton KV 22 28 25 32 39
SECOND/THIRD

33)
Wrexham-Rhos 22 28 32 25 200W A V
Wrexham Rhos K/WV 39 28 32 25
CHANNEL NUMBERS.
Post by Java Jive
I suppose I ought to thank you, and I do, but I groan inwardly at the
same time, as this means another 30 odd manual corrections to make,
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Mark Carver
2010-01-15 11:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Here the full list of what I've found, excluding the resolutions
already achieved, and also excluding those arising from mis-applied
Using old BBC and IBA guides, these are the correct ones, assuming my guides
are, which they'll most likely to be
Post by Java Jive
Ambergate 22 28 25 32 37W A V
Barnstaple KV 40 46 43 30
However now post DSO, now 43, 46, 50 and Group B (though of course K will
still work)
Post by Java Jive
Bassenthwaite BV 52 45 49 42
BV and still BV post DSO
Post by Java Jive
Caldbeck WH 30 34 28 32 56
Calbeck now Post DSO, all channels in Group A and H
Post by Java Jive
Cambret Hill BH 44 51 41 47 37
Cambret now post DSO, 44, 41, 47 Still BH
Post by Java Jive
No info - I had presumed it was a transmitter new with DSO!
Chaigley AV 21 27 24 31
Which parent station ? Can't be a post DSO Tx, it's 4 channel, and using Ch
31 (a non DSO alloction)
Post by Java Jive
Chepstow 21 27 24 31 3.1W A V
Chepstow AV 21 27 24 31
NO REAL ERROR - CHANNEL 4/S4C NAMES
Chepstow is a BBC Wenvoe (Wales) and IBA Mendip (Bristol) relay. Carries C4
not S4C, after DSO will be Wenvoe relay for all three muxes
Post by Java Jive
Cilycwm 21 27 24 31 7W A V
Cilycwm AV 21 27 31 24
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
Post by Java Jive
Compton EV 51 44 68 47
However now post DSO, now 41, 44, 47 and Group B (though of course E will
still work)
Post by Java Jive
Croyde BV 51 44 41 47
However now post DSO, now 41, 44, 47 and Group B
Post by Java Jive
Darley Dale 30 48 34 52 16W W V
Darley Dale K/WV 30 48 34 52
Both K and W groups are valid (K covers 21-48)
Post DSO will be 41, 44, 47 Group B but K and W still valid.
Post by Java Jive
Derby 48 30 200W W H
Derby K/WH 48 30
Both K and W groups are valid (K covers 21-48)
Post DSO will be 48, 51, 52 Group B but K and W still valid.
Post by Java Jive
14)
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V
Dunoon AV 21 27 24 31
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
Post by Java Jive
Durness 57 63 53 60 7W C/D V
Ferryside 31 23W A V
Ferryside AV 31
Ferryside AV 27
Ferryside was the site of an early DSO experiment, it's been all over the
shop, but pre and post DSO has remained AV. It's also the only post DSO small
relay to carry 4 muxes (rather than the usual three)
Post by Java Jive
17)
Frome 21 27 24 31 10W A V
Frome AV 21 24 27 31
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
Post by Java Jive
Glyncorrwg BV 39 45 49 42
Now post DSO, 42,45,49 BV
Post by Java Jive
Headingley C/DH 58 64 61 54
Hebden Bridge AV 22 28 25 32
Holmfirth 39 66 56 68 26W C/D V
Holmfirth E/WV 39 66 56 68
BBC and IBA 1989 data shows BBC 1 on 49 (not 39). It must have moved to 39 in
1998 to avoid a clash with Mux D at Emley, thus requiring an aerial group
change from C/D to W (or E). The DVB-T2 mux from Emley starts this March on Ch
39, so there might be another move soon. Post DSO it will be 54, 58, 61 so
back to C/D (though Es and Ws will be OK)
Post by Java Jive
No info - Again I had assumed this was a transmitter new with DSO!
Jurby C/DV 54 64
Jurby (along with Ramsey) was an odd relay, only ever carried BBC 1 and 2 on
54 and 64, no ITV or C4. Post DSO it now carries three muxes on 43,46,50 so
has moved from C/DV to B
Post by Java Jive
Les Touillets 56 48 54 52 2kW C/D H
Les Touillets C/DV 56 48 54 52
SECOND?
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/les-touillets.php
Presuming that the whitish vertical column at the top is the TV TX, as
that is vertical in shape, presumbalby V, and that agrees with post
DSO.
No Les Touillets is (unsually for a high power relay) HP. Group C/D.
The Ofcom data does indeed say V post DSO. I suspect this is wrong, and it
will remain HP.
Post by Java Jive
No info - Again I had assumed this was a transmitter new with DSO!
Lochgoilhead AD AV 33 26 23 29
SECOND
(Not to be confused with Lochgoilhead. What does AD stand for?)
Lochgoilhead AD must be an active deflector to feed the main Lochgoilhead site.
Parent station Darvel uses 33,26,23,29 too. It may well have viewers of its
own however. I suspect it will remain Group A following Darvel's 22,25,28 post
DSO allocations.
Post by Java Jive
Monksilver 45 48 52 42 15W B V
Monksilver BV 45 48 42 52
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
Post by Java Jive
Neath Abbey HP E/WH 66 48 42 56
Neath Abbey VP E/WV 66 48 42 56
SECOND
Yes, Neath Abbey carries H and V signals to different parts of its service
area. Now Post DSO it is 48,52,56 and Group CD H and V (E is still OK to use)
Post by Java Jive
No info - Again I had assumed this was a transmitter new with DSO!
Ramsey C/DH 66 68
Like Jurby, only ever carried BBC 1 and 2 on 66 and 68, no ITV or C4. Post DSO
it now carries three muxes on 42,45,49 so has moved from C/DH to BH
Post by Java Jive
Rumster Forest 31 27 24 21 100kW A H
Main station, always been HP and will be still post DSO
Post by Java Jive
Salcombe WV 51 41 44 30
Now post DSO, 41,44, 47 Group B V (W aerials OK still)
Post by Java Jive
St. Brelades 57 67 63 54 8W C/D V
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/st-brelades.php
Looks to me as though it receives in H (correct for Fremont) and
rebroadcasts in V?
Yes
Post by Java Jive
St Neot 39 45 49 42 3.2W B V
St Neot BV 39 42 49 45
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
Post by Java Jive
Storeton KV 22 28 25 32 39
Post DSO now English DTT transmissions all in Group A (New Welsh post DSO
transmissions are a different kettle of fish)
Post by Java Jive
Wrexham-Rhos 22 28 32 25 200W A V
Wrexham Rhos K/WV 39 28 32 25
The site has jumbled up its analogue allocations several times over the years,
to allow for DTT transmissions. It started life as a two channel relay
carrying BBC 1 Wales on 39, and S4C on 67. So it was Group E, ended life as a
analogue site carrying the four Welsh channels on 39, 28, 32, 67, plus C4
England on 25. Making it Wideband. Post DSO is now 22,25,28 and A Vert
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-15 12:14:25 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:55:45 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
No info - I had presumed it was a transmitter new with DSO!
Chaigley AV 21 27 24 31
Which parent station ? Can't be a post DSO Tx, it's 4 channel, and using Ch
31 (a non DSO alloction)
Chaigley
power 8w.
parent Winter Hill
Mark Carver
2010-01-15 13:15:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@address.invalid
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:55:45 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
No info - I had presumed it was a transmitter new with DSO!
Chaigley AV 21 27 24 31
Which parent station ? Can't be a post DSO Tx, it's 4 channel, and using Ch
31 (a non DSO alloction)
Chaigley
power 8w.
parent Winter Hill
Ah yes, found it. Thank you. Still Grp A Vert, 21, 24, 27.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk
Java Jive
2010-01-15 15:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Thanks to Nemo, and especially to you, for all the help with this,
Mark. To correct these, I shall devise for the programme a system
similar to the ones already in place to correct the names and NGRs.

There are one or two points remaining, and I've also added some more
comments ...

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:55:45 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Here the full list of what I've found, excluding the resolutions
already achieved, and also excluding those arising from mis-applied
Using old BBC and IBA guides, these are the correct ones, assuming my guides
are, which they'll most likely to be
Post by Java Jive
Ambergate 22 28 25 32 37W A V
As both yourself and nemo and post DSO transmissions suggest, the
original analogue data appears to be correct for that one.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Caldbeck WH 30 34 28 32 56
Calbeck now Post DSO, all channels in Group A and H
Yes. In a sense this is not a disagreement, the analogue data splits
the transmissions into 4 main as A + C5 as W, while the DSO doc lumps
them together them as one transmission in W.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Cambret Hill BH 44 51 41 47 37
Cambret now post DSO, 44, 41, 47 Still BH
Similarly to Caldbeck, only here it's B for the main 4 + W for C5, and
additionally the main four polarity was wrong in the analogue doc.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
No info - I had presumed it was a transmitter new with DSO!
Chaigley AV 21 27 24 31
Which parent station ? Can't be a post DSO Tx, it's 4 channel, and using Ch
31 (a non DSO alloction)
Answered by nemo as Winter Hill, so it will be retro-fitted with
DVB-T2 in March.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Chepstow 21 27 24 31 3.1W A V
Chepstow AV 21 27 24 31
NO REAL ERROR - CHANNEL 4/S4C NAMES
Chepstow is a BBC Wenvoe (Wales) and IBA Mendip (Bristol) relay. Carries C4
not S4C, after DSO will be Wenvoe relay for all three muxes
So analogue doc was correct then.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Cilycwm 21 27 24 31 7W A V
Cilycwm AV 21 27 31 24
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
No, it won't, and therefore it's not critically important, but as the
data will be displayed in full in the calculator, as far as possible I
would like to avoid negative impressions created by any of it being
wrong, and therefore if possible would like to get the channel orders
correct as well.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Darley Dale 30 48 34 52 16W W V
Darley Dale K/WV 30 48 34 52
Both K and W groups are valid (K covers 21-48)
... but not 52 ...
Post by Mark Carver
Post DSO will be 41, 44, 47 Group B but K and W still valid.
So analogue doc was right for that one.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Derby 48 30 200W W H
Derby K/WH 48 30
Both K and W groups are valid (K covers 21-48)
Post DSO will be 48, 51, 52 Group B but K and W still valid.
But AIUI, K being the narrower banded alternative is preferable for
performance reasons, so that's what I'll use, unless anyone tells me
different.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
14)
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V
Dunoon AV 21 27 24 31
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
As above.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
17)
Frome 21 27 24 31 10W A V
Frome AV 21 24 27 31
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
As above
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Hebden Bridge AV 22 28 25 32
Thanks, I couldn't tell that from the pics.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Holmfirth 39 66 56 68 26W C/D V
Holmfirth E/WV 39 66 56 68
BBC and IBA 1989 data shows BBC 1 on 49 (not 39). It must have moved to 39 in
1998 to avoid a clash with Mux D at Emley, thus requiring an aerial group
change from C/D to W (or E). The DVB-T2 mux from Emley starts this March on Ch
39, so there might be another move soon.
Oh gawd! If DVB-T2 is going to start moving all the existing analogue
channels around again, there's no hope! Given Ofcom's analogue data
is already apparently some years out of date, how the devil can an
ordinary member of the public like myself hope to keep up with these
things?
Post by Mark Carver
Post DSO it will be 54, 58, 61 so
back to C/D (though Es and Ws will be OK)
Post by Java Jive
No info - Again I had assumed this was a transmitter new with DSO!
Jurby C/DV 54 64
Jurby (along with Ramsey) was an odd relay, only ever carried BBC 1 and 2 on
54 and 64, no ITV or C4. Post DSO it now carries three muxes on 43,46,50 so
has moved from C/DV to B
And is now a relay of Douglas.

As an aside, I can't understand why the Isle of Man is not put in its
own region like the Channel Islands. Since it's a tax haven, I can't
think they are much interested in mainland-oriented regional news and
mainland-oriented advertisements for furniture sales!
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Les Touillets 56 48 54 52 2kW C/D H
Les Touillets C/DV 56 48 54 52
SECOND?
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/les-touillets.php
Presuming that the whitish vertical column at the top is the TV TX, as
that is vertical in shape, presumbalby V, and that agrees with post
DSO.
No Les Touillets is (unsually for a high power relay) HP. Group C/D.
The Ofcom data does indeed say V post DSO. I suspect this is wrong, and it
will remain HP.
Anyway you can suggest of finding out for sure? I've mailed Ofcom
already about 3 or 4 issues arising out of DVB-T2, and I was already
awaiting a reply to a mail sent pre-Christmas concerning 50(!) other
problems, so I'd rather avoid troubling them again at least until I've
had a reply to the big first one!
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
No info - Again I had assumed this was a transmitter new with DSO!
Lochgoilhead AD AV 33 26 23 29
SECOND
(Not to be confused with Lochgoilhead. What does AD stand for?)
Lochgoilhead AD must be an active deflector to feed the main Lochgoilhead site.
Parent station Darvel uses 33,26,23,29 too. It may well have viewers of its
own however. I suspect it will remain Group A following Darvel's 22,25,28 post
DSO allocations.
Ah, AD = Active Deflector (which does what exactly? But don't worry
too much about answering that ...). Google sat photos aren't too hot
in that region, so I'm also unsure of exactly where Lochgoilhead and L
AD are. This is what I wrote about them in my big Christmas present
to Ofcom:

"""
I remain perplexed about Lochgoilhead NS194978 and Lochgoilhead AD
NS190977, the latter of which is only listed under digital
transmissions (and therefore we have no way of knowing whether, as
with Ridge Hill West, this is likely to be an oversight in the
analogue data, or it is a new transmitter post DSO, for which, by the
way, we therefore need the aerial height). Are these really two
different sites, or are they two transmissions from the one site? The
fact that the NGRs are different suggests the former, but a close
examination of the locations in Google Maps satellite view obscures
rather than enlightens:

NS194978
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.138623,-4.908107&ll=56.138623,-4.908107&z=18

This just doesn't look right at all. It's in the middle of a forest
where a small relay is likely to be obscured by trees and has no
visible vehicle access. However, in Google there appears to be a
transmitter about 300m ESE of this, at NGR NS196976, and this is
actually marked on OS maps.

NS190977
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.137574,-4.914468&ll=56.137574,-4.914468&z=18

This is also a bit questionable. It's not on the highest ground
around and also has no visible vehicle access. However, in Google
Maps there is what might be a transmitter about 130m SE of this, at
NGR NS190976.

However, I note also that it would be easy to misread a hand-written 6
as a 0, which would turn NS196977 into NS190977 as listed, and if the
original location noted down was in fact the former, that's almost
exactly on the transmitter that is marked on OS maps and appears
actually to be there.

So what exactly is the situation with these transmitters?
"""
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Monksilver 45 48 52 42 15W B V
Monksilver BV 45 48 42 52
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
As above
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
St. Brelades 57 67 63 54 8W C/D V
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/st-brelades.php
Looks to me as though it receives in H (correct for Fremont) and
rebroadcasts in V?
Yes
Thanks for the confirmation.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
St Neot 39 45 49 42 3.2W B V
St Neot BV 39 42 49 45
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
As above.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Wrexham-Rhos 22 28 32 25 200W A V
Wrexham Rhos K/WV 39 28 32 25
The site has jumbled up its analogue allocations several times over the years,
to allow for DTT transmissions. It started life as a two channel relay
carrying BBC 1 Wales on 39, and S4C on 67. So it was Group E, ended life as a
analogue site carrying the four Welsh channels on 39, 28, 32, 67, plus C4
England on 25. Making it Wideband. Post DSO is now 22,25,28 and A Vert
Yes it's just the channel numbers again, but less important here as it
has already switched.

Thanks again for all your help, past and present, Mark.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Mark Carver
2010-01-15 16:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Thanks to Nemo, and especially to you, for all the help with this,
Mark. To correct these, I shall devise for the programme a system
similar to the ones already in place to correct the names and NGRs.
There are one or two points remaining, and I've also added some more
comments ...
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Cilycwm AV 21 27 31 24
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
No, it won't, and therefore it's not critically important, but as the
data will be displayed in full in the calculator, as far as possible I
would like to avoid negative impressions created by any of it being
wrong, and therefore if possible would like to get the channel orders
correct as well.
Understood. I've left the likely correct one quoted above, and likewise below
the the other stations.
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Both K and W groups are valid (K covers 21-48)
Post DSO will be 48, 51, 52 Group B but K and W still valid.
But AIUI, K being the narrower banded alternative is preferable for
performance reasons, so that's what I'll use, unless anyone tells me
different.
No, that's right.
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V
Dunoon AV 21 27 24 31
CHANNEL ORDER
Don't know. I assume it's in Argyll, that would make it a Black Hill or Darvel
relay, but I can find no details. Must have been one of the very last analogue
relays, circa 1998 ?
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Frome 21 27 24 31 10W A V
CHANNEL ORDER
BBC and IBA 1989 data shows BBC 1 on 49 (not 39). It must have moved to 39 in
1998 to avoid a clash with Mux D at Emley, thus requiring an aerial group
change from C/D to W (or E). The DVB-T2 mux from Emley starts this March on Ch
39, so there might be another move soon.
Oh gawd! If DVB-T2 is going to start moving all the existing analogue
channels around again, there's no hope! Given Ofcom's analogue data
is already apparently some years out of date, how the devil can an
ordinary member of the public like myself hope to keep up with these
things?
There's probably going to be more tweaks such as this as DSO progresses
between now and 2013. In the same part of the world, Sheffield (aka Crosspool)
Mux 1 moves this March from Ch 39 to 63, so that Emley can transmit its
interim DVB-T2 service.
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Jurby (along with Ramsey) was an odd relay, only ever carried BBC 1 and 2 on
54 and 64, no ITV or C4. Post DSO it now carries three muxes on 43,46,50 so
has moved from C/DV to B
And is now a relay of Douglas.
As an aside, I can't understand why the Isle of Man is not put in its
own region like the Channel Islands. Since it's a tax haven, I can't
think they are much interested in mainland-oriented regional news and
mainland-oriented advertisements for furniture sales!
Well, ITV wise it was always part of Border TV's region, probably to make that
franchise economically viable. In fact Border struggled and in 1982 the IBA
added the Kendal, Windermere, and Coniston relays in the Lake District that
were until then Granada's. Now Border is part of ITV Ltd, and has been more or
less assimilated into Tyne Tees, it made sense for the IOM to switch to
Granadaland at DSO. It's a good question though, why the ITA didn't give the
IOM the same autonomy as the Channel Is ?
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
No Les Touillets is (unsually for a high power relay) HP. Group C/D.
The Ofcom data does indeed say V post DSO. I suspect this is wrong, and it
will remain HP.
Anyway you can suggest of finding out for sure? I've mailed Ofcom
already about 3 or 4 issues arising out of DVB-T2, and I was already
awaiting a reply to a mail sent pre-Christmas concerning 50(!) other
problems, so I'd rather avoid troubling them again at least until I've
had a reply to the big first one!
It would cause havoc on Guernsey, as the majority of the island use the
transmitter. If it does change pol I'd be amazed, but who knows given the
proximity to France. It's due to switch on Nov 17th this year, so I'd expect
updated info from Ofcom/DUK soon.
Post by Java Jive
Ah, AD = Active Deflector (which does what exactly? But don't worry
too much about answering that ...).
It's a relay that transmits its output on the same frequency as its input.

Further reading:-

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/bethesda.php
Post by Java Jive
Google sat photos aren't too hot
in that region, so I'm also unsure of exactly where Lochgoilhead and L
AD are. This is what I wrote about them in my big Christmas present
I'll let them answer that one !
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Monksilver 45 48 52 42 15W B V
CHANNEL ORDER
St Neot BV 39 42 49 45
CHANNEL ORDER
Thanks again for all your help, past and present, Mark.
No worries, it's a useful exercise and cross check for me, because I help
compile this data for publication in the annual 'TV Viewers Guide'
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-15 17:54:48 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:29:12 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Thanks to Nemo, and especially to you, for all the help with this,
Mark. To correct these, I shall devise for the programme a system
similar to the ones already in place to correct the names and NGRs.
There are one or two points remaining, and I've also added some more
comments ...
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Cilycwm AV 21 27 31 24
CHANNEL ORDER
Why worry, doesn't affect aerial usage ?
No, it won't, and therefore it's not critically important, but as the
data will be displayed in full in the calculator, as far as possible I
would like to avoid negative impressions created by any of it being
wrong, and therefore if possible would like to get the channel orders
correct as well.
Understood. I've left the likely correct one quoted above, and likewise below
the the other stations.
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Both K and W groups are valid (K covers 21-48)
Post DSO will be 48, 51, 52 Group B but K and W still valid.
But AIUI, K being the narrower banded alternative is preferable for
performance reasons, so that's what I'll use, unless anyone tells me
different.
No, that's right.
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V
Dunoon AV 21 27 24 31
CHANNEL ORDER
Don't know. I assume it's in Argyll, that would make it a Black Hill or Darvel
relay, but I can find no details. Must have been one of the very last analogue
relays, circa 1998 ?
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Frome 21 27 24 31 10W A V
CHANNEL ORDER
BBC and IBA 1989 data shows BBC 1 on 49 (not 39). It must have moved to 39 in
1998 to avoid a clash with Mux D at Emley, thus requiring an aerial group
change from C/D to W (or E). The DVB-T2 mux from Emley starts this March on Ch
39, so there might be another move soon.
Oh gawd! If DVB-T2 is going to start moving all the existing analogue
channels around again, there's no hope! Given Ofcom's analogue data
is already apparently some years out of date, how the devil can an
ordinary member of the public like myself hope to keep up with these
things?
There's probably going to be more tweaks such as this as DSO progresses
between now and 2013. In the same part of the world, Sheffield (aka Crosspool)
Mux 1 moves this March from Ch 39 to 63, so that Emley can transmit its
interim DVB-T2 service.
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Jurby (along with Ramsey) was an odd relay, only ever carried BBC 1 and 2 on
54 and 64, no ITV or C4. Post DSO it now carries three muxes on 43,46,50 so
has moved from C/DV to B
And is now a relay of Douglas.
As an aside, I can't understand why the Isle of Man is not put in its
own region like the Channel Islands. Since it's a tax haven, I can't
think they are much interested in mainland-oriented regional news and
mainland-oriented advertisements for furniture sales!
Well, ITV wise it was always part of Border TV's region, probably to make that
franchise economically viable. In fact Border struggled and in 1982 the IBA
added the Kendal, Windermere, and Coniston relays in the Lake District that
were until then Granada's. Now Border is part of ITV Ltd, and has been more or
less assimilated into Tyne Tees, it made sense for the IOM to switch to
Granadaland at DSO. It's a good question though, why the ITA didn't give the
IOM the same autonomy as the Channel Is ?
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
No Les Touillets is (unsually for a high power relay) HP. Group C/D.
The Ofcom data does indeed say V post DSO. I suspect this is wrong, and it
will remain HP.
Anyway you can suggest of finding out for sure? I've mailed Ofcom
already about 3 or 4 issues arising out of DVB-T2, and I was already
awaiting a reply to a mail sent pre-Christmas concerning 50(!) other
problems, so I'd rather avoid troubling them again at least until I've
had a reply to the big first one!
It would cause havoc on Guernsey, as the majority of the island use the
transmitter. If it does change pol I'd be amazed, but who knows given the
proximity to France. It's due to switch on Nov 17th this year, so I'd expect
updated info from Ofcom/DUK soon.
Post by Java Jive
Ah, AD = Active Deflector (which does what exactly? But don't worry
too much about answering that ...).
It's a relay that transmits its output on the same frequency as its input.
Further reading:-
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/bethesda.php
Post by Java Jive
Google sat photos aren't too hot
in that region, so I'm also unsure of exactly where Lochgoilhead and L
AD are. This is what I wrote about them in my big Christmas present
I'll let them answer that one !
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Monksilver 45 48 52 42 15W B V
CHANNEL ORDER
St Neot BV 39 42 49 45
CHANNEL ORDER
Thanks again for all your help, past and present, Mark.
No worries, it's a useful exercise and cross check for me, because I help
compile this data for publication in the annual 'TV Viewers Guide'
Dunoon NS 167 771
parent Black Hill


Lochgoilhead has an intermediate active deflector because the active
relay can't get a reliable signal direct.

AD = NS190 977
23 26 29 33

relay = NS 194 978
53 57 60 63
as always, treat the last NGR digits with caution
Java Jive
2010-01-15 20:22:31 UTC
Permalink
I've noted all the changes that I'll need to make. As I see it, that
leaves the three points below, which I list again in case anyone else
can help with them. Thanks again.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:29:12 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Understood. I've left the likely correct one quoted above, and likewise below
the the other stations.
Thanks, details noted.

1)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V
Dunoon AV 21 27 24 31
CHANNEL ORDER
Don't know. I assume it's in Argyll, that would make it a Black Hill or Darvel
relay, but I can find no details. Must have been one of the very last analogue
relays, circa 1998 ?
If it helps you or anyone else resolve this, the full details I have
for Dunoon are:

Relay of Black Hill
NGR: NS167771
Ht: 82m

The full data lines from the files are (they may wrap of course) ...
Scottish - Analogue - 4 Channels.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=10.html
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V 105.78 Arq NS167771 82
Scotland
STV Central - DSO - v2.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/STV_Central_DSO_v20.pdf
Dunoon NS167771 27 2W 24 2W 21+ 2W AV AV 21 27 24 31
Post by Mark Carver
There's probably going to be more tweaks such as this as DSO progresses
between now and 2013. In the same part of the world, Sheffield (aka Crosspool)
Mux 1 moves this March from Ch 39 to 63, so that Emley can transmit its
interim DVB-T2 service.
I'll keep the cyanide tablet handy then ...

2)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
No Les Touillets is (unsually for a high power relay) HP. Group C/D.
The Ofcom data does indeed say V post DSO. I suspect this is wrong, and it
will remain HP.
Anyway you can suggest of finding out for sure? I've mailed Ofcom
already about 3 or 4 issues arising out of DVB-T2, and I was already
awaiting a reply to a mail sent pre-Christmas concerning 50(!) other
problems, so I'd rather avoid troubling them again at least until I've
had a reply to the big first one!
It would cause havoc on Guernsey, as the majority of the island use the
transmitter. If it does change pol I'd be amazed, but who knows given the
proximity to France. It's due to switch on Nov 17th this year, so I'd expect
updated info from Ofcom/DUK soon.
Looks like another mail to Ofcom ...

3)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Ah, AD = Active Deflector (which does what exactly? But don't worry
too much about answering that ...).
It's a relay that transmits its output on the same frequency as its input.
Further reading:-
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/bethesda.php
Thanks.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Google sat photos aren't too hot
in that region, so I'm also unsure of exactly where Lochgoilhead and L
AD are. This is what I wrote about them in my big Christmas present
I'll let them answer that one !
Again, if it helps anyone else resolve the NGRs, the full details I
have for Lochgoilhead and Lochgoilhead AD are:

Relay of Darvel

Scottish - Analogue - 4 Channels.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=10.html
Lochgoilhead 57 63 53 60 6W C/D V 152.35 Arq NS194978 48
Scotland
(No info on Lochgoilhead AD)
STV Central - DSO - v2.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/STV_Central_DSO_v20.pdf
Lochgoilhead NS194978 53 2W 57 2W 60 2W C/DV C/DV 57
63 53 60
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977 22 0.02W 25 0.02W 28 0.02W AV AV
33 26 23 29

MB21:
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/lochgoilhead.php

Google Satellite Views ...
Lochgoilhead NS194978
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.138623,-4.908107&ll=56.138623,-4.908107&z=18
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.137574,-4.914468&ll=56.137574,-4.914468&z=18
... from which I conclude that the NGR of one of them, probably
Lochgoilhead, is most likely NS196976, but am less sure of the other.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-15 21:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
I've noted all the changes that I'll need to make. As I see it, that
leaves the three points below, which I list again in case anyone else
can help with them. Thanks again.
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:29:12 +0000, Mark Carver
Post by Mark Carver
Understood. I've left the likely correct one quoted above, and likewise below
the the other stations.
Thanks, details noted.
1)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V
Dunoon AV 21 27 24 31
CHANNEL ORDER
Don't know. I assume it's in Argyll, that would make it a Black Hill or Darvel
relay, but I can find no details. Must have been one of the very last analogue
relays, circa 1998 ?
If it helps you or anyone else resolve this, the full details I have
Relay of Black Hill
NGR: NS167771
Ht: 82m
The full data lines from the files are (they may wrap of course) ...
Scottish - Analogue - 4 Channels.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=10.html
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V 105.78 Arq NS167771 82
Scotland
STV Central - DSO - v2.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/STV_Central_DSO_v20.pdf
Dunoon NS167771 27 2W 24 2W 21+ 2W AV AV 21 27 24 31
Post by Mark Carver
There's probably going to be more tweaks such as this as DSO progresses
between now and 2013. In the same part of the world, Sheffield (aka Crosspool)
Mux 1 moves this March from Ch 39 to 63, so that Emley can transmit its
interim DVB-T2 service.
I'll keep the cyanide tablet handy then ...
2)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
No Les Touillets is (unsually for a high power relay) HP. Group C/D.
The Ofcom data does indeed say V post DSO. I suspect this is wrong, and it
will remain HP.
Anyway you can suggest of finding out for sure? I've mailed Ofcom
already about 3 or 4 issues arising out of DVB-T2, and I was already
awaiting a reply to a mail sent pre-Christmas concerning 50(!) other
problems, so I'd rather avoid troubling them again at least until I've
had a reply to the big first one!
It would cause havoc on Guernsey, as the majority of the island use the
transmitter. If it does change pol I'd be amazed, but who knows given the
proximity to France. It's due to switch on Nov 17th this year, so I'd expect
updated info from Ofcom/DUK soon.
Looks like another mail to Ofcom ...
3)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Ah, AD = Active Deflector (which does what exactly? But don't worry
too much about answering that ...).
It's a relay that transmits its output on the same frequency as its input.
Further reading:-
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/bethesda.php
Thanks.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Google sat photos aren't too hot
in that region, so I'm also unsure of exactly where Lochgoilhead and L
AD are. This is what I wrote about them in my big Christmas present
I'll let them answer that one !
Again, if it helps anyone else resolve the NGRs, the full details I
Relay of Darvel
Scottish - Analogue - 4 Channels.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=10.html
Lochgoilhead 57 63 53 60 6W C/D V 152.35 Arq NS194978 48
Scotland
(No info on Lochgoilhead AD)
STV Central - DSO - v2.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/STV_Central_DSO_v20.pdf
Lochgoilhead NS194978 53 2W 57 2W 60 2W C/DV C/DV 57
63 53 60
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977 22 0.02W 25 0.02W 28 0.02W AV AV
33 26 23 29
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/lochgoilhead.php
Google Satellite Views ...
Lochgoilhead NS194978
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.138623,-4.908107&ll=56.138623,-4.908107&z=18
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.137574,-4.914468&ll=56.137574,-4.914468&z=18
... from which I conclude that the NGR of one of them, probably
Lochgoilhead, is most likely NS196976, but am less sure of the other.
See my earlier post at 17.54, but also:

Lochgoilhead AD was not intended for domestic reception so there was
no need to publish data.

The original planned ERP's were 8w (relay) and 0.1w (link), but with
such a setup in a remote area it's very possible that they were
tweaked on commissioning. However these are directional transmissions
so the powers are academic unless you have polar diagrams.
Java Jive
2010-01-15 23:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by Java Jive
Again, if it helps anyone else resolve the NGRs, the full details I
Relay of Darvel
Scottish - Analogue - 4 Channels.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=10.html
Lochgoilhead 57 63 53 60 6W C/D V 152.35 Arq NS194978 48
Scotland
(No info on Lochgoilhead AD)
STV Central - DSO - v2.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/STV_Central_DSO_v20.pdf
Lochgoilhead NS194978 53 2W 57 2W 60 2W C/DV C/DV 57
63 53 60
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977 22 0.02W 25 0.02W 28 0.02W AV AV
33 26 23 29
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/lochgoilhead.php
Google Satellite Views ...
Lochgoilhead NS194978
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.138623,-4.908107&ll=56.138623,-4.908107&z=18
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.137574,-4.914468&ll=56.137574,-4.914468&z=18
... from which I conclude that the NGR of one of them, probably
Lochgoilhead, is most likely NS196976, but am less sure of the other.
Lochgoilhead has an intermediate active deflector because the active
relay can't get a reliable signal direct.
AD = NS190 977
23 26 29 33
relay = NS 194 978
53 57 60 63
as always, treat the last NGR digits with caution
Yes, I'd spotted that ...
Post by n***@address.invalid
Lochgoilhead AD was not intended for domestic reception so there was
no need to publish data.
The original planned ERP's were 8w (relay) and 0.1w (link), but with
such a setup in a remote area it's very possible that they were
tweaked on commissioning. However these are directional transmissions
so the powers are academic unless you have polar diagrams.
Ah, that explains the absence of published data.

How reliable or unreliable do you think the NGRs you give are? Did
you take a look at the Google maps and the description I wrote for
Ofcom that I quoted in my post of 15:40? I'm fairly certain I've
spotted the relay, but on the satellite view AD is tenuous to say the
least.

Thanks for the help, anyway.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-16 10:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Post by n***@address.invalid
Lochgoilhead has an intermediate active deflector because the active
relay can't get a reliable signal direct.
AD = NS190 977
23 26 29 33
relay = NS 194 978
53 57 60 63
as always, treat the last NGR digits with caution
Yes, I'd spotted that ...
Post by n***@address.invalid
Lochgoilhead AD was not intended for domestic reception so there was
no need to publish data.
The original planned ERP's were 8w (relay) and 0.1w (link), but with
such a setup in a remote area it's very possible that they were
tweaked on commissioning. However these are directional transmissions
so the powers are academic unless you have polar diagrams.
Ah, that explains the absence of published data.
How reliable or unreliable do you think the NGRs you give are? Did
you take a look at the Google maps and the description I wrote for
Ofcom that I quoted in my post of 15:40? I'm fairly certain I've
spotted the relay, but on the satellite view AD is tenuous to say the
least.
Thanks for the help, anyway.
The NGR's are ones that I found in my old reference, which are the
ones quoted when the sites were originally planned.
I didn't look at Google, but the AD would be a couple of yagis on a
thin post. It might be entirely invisible from above. Next time I run
up GE I'll have a look.

I would always allow a 1 km tolerance on the NGR's, especially in
remote areas. That sounds bad I know. Not everyone followed the
convention of rounding down the last digit. Some went to the nearest
digit up or down, or even rounded up which is wrong. With two sites
close together like these, that allows significant relative errors in
the records but hey - it worked. Like everything in life it would be
done differently now.
Java Jive
2010-01-20 00:15:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
1)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V
Dunoon AV 21 27 24 31
CHANNEL ORDER
According to data kindly sent by a pro reader, second is correct.
Post by Java Jive
2)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
No Les Touillets is (unsually for a high power relay) HP. Group C/D.
The Ofcom data does indeed say V post DSO. I suspect this is wrong, and it
will remain HP.
Anyway you can suggest of finding out for sure? I've mailed Ofcom
already about 3 or 4 issues arising out of DVB-T2, and I was already
awaiting a reply to a mail sent pre-Christmas concerning 50(!) other
problems, so I'd rather avoid troubling them again at least until I've
had a reply to the big first one!
It would cause havoc on Guernsey, as the majority of the island use the
transmitter. If it does change pol I'd be amazed, but who knows given the
proximity to France. It's due to switch on Nov 17th this year, so I'd expect
updated info from Ofcom/DUK soon.
Looks like another mail to Ofcom ...
According to same data, H is correct. I will have to email Ofcom
concerning this.

Which just leaves ...
Post by Java Jive
3)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Ah, AD = Active Deflector (which does what exactly? But don't worry
too much about answering that ...).
It's a relay that transmits its output on the same frequency as its input.
Further reading:-
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/bethesda.php
Thanks.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Google sat photos aren't too hot
in that region, so I'm also unsure of exactly where Lochgoilhead and L
AD are. This is what I wrote about them in my big Christmas present
I'll let them answer that one !
Again, if it helps anyone else resolve the NGRs, the full details I
Relay of Darvel
Scottish - Analogue - 4 Channels.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=10.html
Lochgoilhead 57 63 53 60 6W C/D V 152.35 Arq NS194978 48
Scotland
(No info on Lochgoilhead AD)
STV Central - DSO - v2.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/STV_Central_DSO_v20.pdf
Lochgoilhead NS194978 53 2W 57 2W 60 2W C/DV C/DV 57
63 53 60
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977 22 0.02W 25 0.02W 28 0.02W AV AV
33 26 23 29
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/lochgoilhead.php
Google Satellite Views ...
Lochgoilhead NS194978
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.138623,-4.908107&ll=56.138623,-4.908107&z=18
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.137574,-4.914468&ll=56.137574,-4.914468&z=18
... from which I conclude that the NGR of one of them, probably
Lochgoilhead, is most likely NS196976, but am less sure of the other.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-21 15:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Post by Java Jive
1)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Dunoon 21 24 27 31 2W A V
Dunoon AV 21 27 24 31
CHANNEL ORDER
According to data kindly sent by a pro reader, second is correct.
Post by Java Jive
2)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Post by Mark Carver
No Les Touillets is (unsually for a high power relay) HP. Group C/D.
The Ofcom data does indeed say V post DSO. I suspect this is wrong, and it
will remain HP.
Anyway you can suggest of finding out for sure? I've mailed Ofcom
already about 3 or 4 issues arising out of DVB-T2, and I was already
awaiting a reply to a mail sent pre-Christmas concerning 50(!) other
problems, so I'd rather avoid troubling them again at least until I've
had a reply to the big first one!
It would cause havoc on Guernsey, as the majority of the island use the
transmitter. If it does change pol I'd be amazed, but who knows given the
proximity to France. It's due to switch on Nov 17th this year, so I'd expect
updated info from Ofcom/DUK soon.
Looks like another mail to Ofcom ...
According to same data, H is correct. I will have to email Ofcom
concerning this.
Which just leaves ...
Post by Java Jive
3)
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Ah, AD = Active Deflector (which does what exactly? But don't worry
too much about answering that ...).
It's a relay that transmits its output on the same frequency as its input.
Further reading:-
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/bethesda.php
Thanks.
Post by Mark Carver
Post by Java Jive
Google sat photos aren't too hot
in that region, so I'm also unsure of exactly where Lochgoilhead and L
AD are. This is what I wrote about them in my big Christmas present
I'll let them answer that one !
Again, if it helps anyone else resolve the NGRs, the full details I
Relay of Darvel
Scottish - Analogue - 4 Channels.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=10.html
Lochgoilhead 57 63 53 60 6W C/D V 152.35 Arq NS194978 48
Scotland
(No info on Lochgoilhead AD)
STV Central - DSO - v2.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/STV_Central_DSO_v20.pdf
Lochgoilhead NS194978 53 2W 57 2W 60 2W C/DV C/DV 57
63 53 60
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977 22 0.02W 25 0.02W 28 0.02W AV AV
33 26 23 29
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/lochgoilhead.php
Google Satellite Views ...
Lochgoilhead NS194978
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.138623,-4.908107&ll=56.138623,-4.908107&z=18
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.137574,-4.914468&ll=56.137574,-4.914468&z=18
... from which I conclude that the NGR of one of them, probably
Lochgoilhead, is most likely NS196976, but am less sure of the other.
What *exactly* do you still need on those?
Java Jive
2010-01-21 20:06:54 UTC
Permalink
As indicated up thread, in the Channel Islands, Les Touillets is
marked as being V in Ofcom's DSO info, including the column referring
to legacy analogue, but H in the analogue info. Other external
sources also suggest it's currently H, and MC thinks it unlikely to
change.

Also as indicated up thread, there is uncertainty about the NGRs of
Lochgoilhead and Lochgoilhead AD, and possibly the aerial height AOD
of the latter (the latter is in the info supplied by a reader as 310 +
2 = 312, but 2m for height AGL seems questionable to me, and if I've
picked up the TX correctly on Google as being at NS190976, then the
site height is nearer 270m, and the mast height looks certainly higher
than quoted).

However, before you jump in your car and pay a visit to the site (I
jest), the same list has raised some other conflicts, which I am
currently working through, so, unless you have any of the information
above specifically to hand, then you may wish to hold fire pending
further developments.

Whichever, thanks as always for the help that you, Mark Carver, and
others have given.
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by Java Jive
Again, if it helps anyone else resolve the NGRs, the full details I
Relay of Darvel
Scottish - Analogue - 4 Channels.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/reception_advice/regions/view_transmitters.asp-itv_region_id=10.html
Lochgoilhead 57 63 53 60 6W C/D V 152.35 Arq NS194978 48
Scotland
(No info on Lochgoilhead AD)
STV Central - DSO - v2.dat, derived from ...
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/tech/dsodetails/STV_Central_DSO_v20.pdf
Lochgoilhead NS194978 53 2W 57 2W 60 2W C/DV C/DV 57
63 53 60
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977 22 0.02W 25 0.02W 28 0.02W AV AV
33 26 23 29
http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/lochgoilhead.php
Google Satellite Views ...
Lochgoilhead NS194978
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.138623,-4.908107&ll=56.138623,-4.908107&z=18
Lochgoilhead AD NS190977
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=56.137574,-4.914468&ll=56.137574,-4.914468&z=18
... from which I conclude that the NGR of one of them, probably
Lochgoilhead, is most likely NS196976, but am less sure of the other.
What *exactly* do you still need on those?
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-21 21:11:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
As indicated up thread, in the Channel Islands, Les Touillets is
marked as being V in Ofcom's DSO info, including the column referring
to legacy analogue, but H in the analogue info. Other external
sources also suggest it's currently H, and MC thinks it unlikely to
change.
I can't think of any reason why it would change from H.
Post by Java Jive
Also as indicated up thread, there is uncertainty about the NGRs of
Lochgoilhead and Lochgoilhead AD, and possibly the aerial height AOD
of the latter (the latter is in the info supplied by a reader as 310 +
2 = 312, but 2m for height AGL seems questionable to me, and if I've
picked up the TX correctly on Google as being at NS190976, then the
site height is nearer 270m, and the mast height looks certainly higher
than quoted).
I'm sure the 2m AGL is correct for the AD. It was a self-supporting
pole erected on a bare hilltop. Looking at Google Earth I reckon it
was at about N56.13795 W4.91410, which does give it a height of 310m
as your other informant said.

The actual relay was amongst trees. Looking at GE I can't see any
feature to identify it. The nominal location of NS 194 978 puts it at
N56.13867 W4.90815.
Looking at the contours, and from the fact that there is an access
track not far away, I suspect that location is not very far off.
Java Jive
2010-01-21 23:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Thanks nemo, see below ...
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by Java Jive
As indicated up thread, in the Channel Islands, Les Touillets is
marked as being V in Ofcom's DSO info, including the column referring
to legacy analogue, but H in the analogue info. Other external
sources also suggest it's currently H, and MC thinks it unlikely to
change.
I can't think of any reason why it would change from H.
The general consensus does seem to come down solidly on a mistake by
Ofcom.
Post by n***@address.invalid
I'm sure the 2m AGL is correct for the AD. It was a self-supporting
pole erected on a bare hilltop. Looking at Google Earth I reckon it
was at about N56.13795 W4.91410, which does give it a height of 310m
as your other informant said.
You seem to be saying that there is nothing wrong with Ofcom's data
then. Fair enough, I'll just leave as is. I had thought that perhaps
it was this (red circle), which, if it isn't LAD, I wonder what it is?
It looks quite like a pylon, but I can't see the cables or any others,
and I think it's too small. Of course, it could just be an outcrop
that happens to have a vague resemblance to a mast-like structure:
Loading Image...
Post by n***@address.invalid
The actual relay was amongst trees. Looking at GE I can't see any
feature to identify it. The nominal location of NS 194 978 puts it at
N56.13867 W4.90815.
Looking at the contours, and from the fact that there is an access
track not far away, I suspect that location is not very far off.
I'm reckon it's almost certainly this:
Loading Image...
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-21 23:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Thanks nemo, see below ...
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by Java Jive
As indicated up thread, in the Channel Islands, Les Touillets is
marked as being V in Ofcom's DSO info, including the column referring
to legacy analogue, but H in the analogue info. Other external
sources also suggest it's currently H, and MC thinks it unlikely to
change.
I can't think of any reason why it would change from H.
The general consensus does seem to come down solidly on a mistake by
Ofcom.
Post by n***@address.invalid
I'm sure the 2m AGL is correct for the AD. It was a self-supporting
pole erected on a bare hilltop. Looking at Google Earth I reckon it
was at about N56.13795 W4.91410, which does give it a height of 310m
as your other informant said.
You seem to be saying that there is nothing wrong with Ofcom's data
then. Fair enough, I'll just leave as is. I had thought that perhaps
it was this (red circle), which, if it isn't LAD, I wonder what it is?
It looks quite like a pylon, but I can't see the cables or any others,
and I think it's too small. Of course, it could just be an outcrop
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/LochgoilheadAD.jpg
Pehaps your eyes are better than mine. I can't really make out a
structure. also it's 45m lower there which doesn't make much sense.
Post by Java Jive
Post by n***@address.invalid
The actual relay was amongst trees. Looking at GE I can't see any
feature to identify it. The nominal location of NS 194 978 puts it at
N56.13867 W4.90815.
Looking at the contours, and from the fact that there is an access
track not far away, I suspect that location is not very far off.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/Lochgoilhead.jpg
I agree that looks very like it, and you can almost make out the yagi
pointing at the AD. But - it doesn't look seem well placed to serve
all the dwellings at the top of the loch. I've just done a path plot
to the caravan site and it's heavily obscured.
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-21 23:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by Java Jive
Thanks nemo, see below ...
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by Java Jive
As indicated up thread, in the Channel Islands, Les Touillets is
marked as being V in Ofcom's DSO info, including the column referring
to legacy analogue, but H in the analogue info. Other external
sources also suggest it's currently H, and MC thinks it unlikely to
change.
I can't think of any reason why it would change from H.
The general consensus does seem to come down solidly on a mistake by
Ofcom.
Post by n***@address.invalid
I'm sure the 2m AGL is correct for the AD. It was a self-supporting
pole erected on a bare hilltop. Looking at Google Earth I reckon it
was at about N56.13795 W4.91410, which does give it a height of 310m
as your other informant said.
You seem to be saying that there is nothing wrong with Ofcom's data
then. Fair enough, I'll just leave as is. I had thought that perhaps
it was this (red circle), which, if it isn't LAD, I wonder what it is?
It looks quite like a pylon, but I can't see the cables or any others,
and I think it's too small. Of course, it could just be an outcrop
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/LochgoilheadAD.jpg
Pehaps your eyes are better than mine. I can't really make out a
structure. also it's 45m lower there which doesn't make much sense.
Post by Java Jive
Post by n***@address.invalid
The actual relay was amongst trees. Looking at GE I can't see any
feature to identify it. The nominal location of NS 194 978 puts it at
N56.13867 W4.90815.
Looking at the contours, and from the fact that there is an access
track not far away, I suspect that location is not very far off.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/Lochgoilhead.jpg
I agree that looks very like it, and you can almost make out the yagi
pointing at the AD. But - it doesn't look seem well placed to serve
all the dwellings at the top of the loch. I've just done a path plot
to the caravan site and it's heavily obscured.
PS Further to above its' possible of course that only the dwellings on
the east side of the loch are served by this and the north end has
another service. I'll check tomorrow.
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-22 00:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by Java Jive
Thanks nemo, see below ...
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by Java Jive
As indicated up thread, in the Channel Islands, Les Touillets is
marked as being V in Ofcom's DSO info, including the column referring
to legacy analogue, but H in the analogue info. Other external
sources also suggest it's currently H, and MC thinks it unlikely to
change.
I can't think of any reason why it would change from H.
The general consensus does seem to come down solidly on a mistake by
Ofcom.
Post by n***@address.invalid
I'm sure the 2m AGL is correct for the AD. It was a self-supporting
pole erected on a bare hilltop. Looking at Google Earth I reckon it
was at about N56.13795 W4.91410, which does give it a height of 310m
as your other informant said.
You seem to be saying that there is nothing wrong with Ofcom's data
then. Fair enough, I'll just leave as is. I had thought that perhaps
it was this (red circle), which, if it isn't LAD, I wonder what it is?
It looks quite like a pylon, but I can't see the cables or any others,
and I think it's too small. Of course, it could just be an outcrop
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/LochgoilheadAD.jpg
Pehaps your eyes are better than mine. I can't really make out a
structure. also it's 45m lower there which doesn't make much sense.
Post by Java Jive
Post by n***@address.invalid
The actual relay was amongst trees. Looking at GE I can't see any
feature to identify it. The nominal location of NS 194 978 puts it at
N56.13867 W4.90815.
Looking at the contours, and from the fact that there is an access
track not far away, I suspect that location is not very far off.
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/Lochgoilhead.jpg
I agree that looks very like it, and you can almost make out the yagi
pointing at the AD. But - it doesn't look seem well placed to serve
all the dwellings at the top of the loch. I've just done a path plot
to the caravan site and it's heavily obscured.
PS Further to above its' possible of course that only the dwellings on
the east side of the loch are served by this and the north end has
another service. I'll check tomorrow.
PPS If the north end of the loch does have a service direct from
Darvel or elsewhere, why not put the relay there and avoid the need
for the AD? Time for bed!
Java Jive
2010-01-22 00:59:55 UTC
Permalink
Not realising at the time I published the current live data how steep
the terrain was, I took the height of AD from the relay, but if choose
AD as the tx, then change tx selection to grid reference so I can move
the marker to the position you suggest and enter the height manually,
I reckon the town as far round under the hill as the caravan site can
see AD.
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by Java Jive
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c219/JavaJive/TV/Lochgoilhead.jpg
I agree that looks very like it, and you can almost make out the yagi
pointing at the AD. But - it doesn't look seem well placed to serve
all the dwellings at the top of the loch. I've just done a path plot
to the caravan site and it's heavily obscured.
PS Further to above its' possible of course that only the dwellings on
the east side of the loch are served by this and the north end has
another service. I'll check tomorrow.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-22 10:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
Not realising at the time I published the current live data how steep
the terrain was, I took the height of AD from the relay, but if choose
AD as the tx, then change tx selection to grid reference so I can move
the marker to the position you suggest and enter the height manually,
I reckon the town as far round under the hill as the caravan site can
see AD.
But the AD did NOT serve anyone direct. Anyone looking at it from the
town would also be looking at Darvel and would get severe multipath.

AD's were always considered *very* cautiously because of their
potential to cause more harm than good.
I'll look at it again later.
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-22 13:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@address.invalid
Post by Java Jive
Not realising at the time I published the current live data how steep
the terrain was, I took the height of AD from the relay, but if choose
AD as the tx, then change tx selection to grid reference so I can move
the marker to the position you suggest and enter the height manually,
I reckon the town as far round under the hill as the caravan site can
see AD.
But the AD did NOT serve anyone direct. Anyone looking at it from the
town would also be looking at Darvel and would get severe multipath.
AD's were always considered *very* cautiously because of their
potential to cause more harm than good.
I'll look at it again later.
Well JJ,
Here's a contour map showing the area and villages around the loch.

http://www.mediafire.com/?qgznjzjqkzz

The red symbols show the 'official' locations of the AD (with path
from Darvel) and the relay. The blue symbol is the 'apparent' location
of the relay from Google Earth. I will leave it to you to decide which
is correct!

The path from this 'apparent' relay location up to the north end of
the loch seems to be obstructed, particularly when you allow for the
trees to the immediate north of the relay. But this may be
deceiving.***

From what I can establish this relay is the only signal source for the
all the villages shown. You can see that their direct path from Darvel
is blocked by a very high peak further south. The AD's path avoids it.

Looking around it does seem that there are alternative relay sites
which could work without needing a midpoint, but there may very well
have been access or power supply problems.***

** This is why, however good your mapping or prediction facilities,
you can never begin to plan a new site without a site visit and area
survey.

This is about all I can contribute!
Java Jive
2010-01-22 14:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@address.invalid
The red symbols show the 'official' locations of the AD (with path
from Darvel) and the relay. The blue symbol is the 'apparent' location
of the relay from Google Earth. I will leave it to you to decide which
is correct!
Unless and until I hear from Ofcom:
1) I'll leave the NGR of AD unchanged, on the grounds that no
*definite* alternative is visible, no source gives an alternative NGR,
and others such as yourself have tentatively confirmed it as being
correct.
2) I'll set the NGR of the relay to the apparent position found,
NS196976, on the grounds that there is something that looks like a
relay there, what little detail is discernible is consistent with
mb21, and that is the position of a transmitter marked on OS maps, and
there is nothing visible at the given location.
Post by n***@address.invalid
From what I can establish this relay is the only signal source for the
all the villages shown. You can see that their direct path from Darvel
is blocked by a very high peak further south. The AD's path avoids it.
Yes, I'd worked that out using my path plotter.
Post by n***@address.invalid
Looking around it does seem that there are alternative relay sites
which could work without needing a midpoint, but there may very well
have been access or power supply problems.***
** This is why, however good your mapping or prediction facilities,
you can never begin to plan a new site without a site visit and area
survey.
This is about all I can contribute!
But, as always, you and Mark have been immensely helpful. Many thanks
for your advice.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Java Jive
2010-01-22 14:03:13 UTC
Permalink
I tried a direct path from Darvel to the town, it's heavily obscured.
Post by n***@address.invalid
But the AD did NOT serve anyone direct. Anyone looking at it from the
town would also be looking at Darvel and would get severe multipath.
AD's were always considered *very* cautiously because of their
potential to cause more harm than good.
I'll look at it again later.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
charles
2010-01-22 07:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@address.invalid
I agree that looks very like it, and you can almost make out the yagi
pointing at the AD. But - it doesn't look seem well placed to serve
all the dwellings at the top of the loch. I've just done a path plot
to the caravan site and it's heavily obscured.
When the uhf services were planned, caravan sites were not counted towards
"households" or "target population".
--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-22 10:46:53 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:43:53 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by charles
Post by n***@address.invalid
I agree that looks very like it, and you can almost make out the yagi
pointing at the AD. But - it doesn't look seem well placed to serve
all the dwellings at the top of the loch. I've just done a path plot
to the caravan site and it's heavily obscured.
When the uhf services were planned, caravan sites were not counted towards
"households" or "target population".
Yes Charles I remember that well, and there were lots of grumbles from
site owners about that policy. But if you look at GE you will see
there is quite a lot of static housing in that area as well.
charles
2010-01-22 13:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@address.invalid
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:43:53 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by charles
Post by n***@address.invalid
I agree that looks very like it, and you can almost make out the yagi
pointing at the AD. But - it doesn't look seem well placed to serve
all the dwellings at the top of the loch. I've just done a path plot
to the caravan site and it's heavily obscured.
When the uhf services were planned, caravan sites were not counted
towards "households" or "target population".
Yes Charles I remember that well, and there were lots of grumbles from
site owners about that policy.
The Caravan Club installed a number of Self Helps at 'unserved' sites. I
got involved in quite a few.
Post by n***@address.invalid
But if you look at GE you will see there is quite a lot of static housing
in that area as well.
yes, but they're probably holiday chalets rather than permanent homes
--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-22 13:41:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:31:47 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by charles
Post by n***@address.invalid
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:43:53 +0000 (GMT), charles
Post by charles
Post by n***@address.invalid
I agree that looks very like it, and you can almost make out the yagi
pointing at the AD. But - it doesn't look seem well placed to serve
all the dwellings at the top of the loch. I've just done a path plot
to the caravan site and it's heavily obscured.
When the uhf services were planned, caravan sites were not counted
towards "households" or "target population".
Yes Charles I remember that well, and there were lots of grumbles from
site owners about that policy.
The Caravan Club installed a number of Self Helps at 'unserved' sites. I
got involved in quite a few.
Post by n***@address.invalid
But if you look at GE you will see there is quite a lot of static housing
in that area as well.
yes, but they're probably holiday chalets rather than permanent homes
agreed.
Mark Carver
2010-01-22 11:05:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
As indicated up thread, in the Channel Islands, Les Touillets is
marked as being V in Ofcom's DSO info, including the column referring
to legacy analogue, but H in the analogue info. Other external
sources also suggest it's currently H,
Oh there's absolutely now doubt Les Touillets is currently H pol, I've
been to Guernsey, and seen the evidence with my own eyes !
Doctor D
2010-01-17 20:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Carver
Chepstow 21 27 24 31 3.1W A V
Chepstow AV 21 27 24 31
NO REAL ERROR - CHANNEL 4/S4C NAMES
Chepstow is a BBC Wenvoe (Wales) and IBA Mendip (Bristol) relay. Carries
C4 not S4C, after DSO will be Wenvoe relay for all three muxes
That will cause some upset with those having dealings "over the bridge".
They currently have the option of ITV1 West news at 6pm and BBC Wales news
at 6.30pm.
Wonder what the Sky EPG 103 allocation is for a Chepstow postcode?
Mark Carver
2010-01-17 20:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doctor D
Post by Mark Carver
Chepstow 21 27 24 31 3.1W A V
Chepstow AV 21 27 24 31
NO REAL ERROR - CHANNEL 4/S4C NAMES
Chepstow is a BBC Wenvoe (Wales) and IBA Mendip (Bristol) relay.
Carries C4 not S4C, after DSO will be Wenvoe relay for all three muxes
That will cause some upset with those having dealings "over the bridge".
They currently have the option of ITV1 West news at 6pm and BBC Wales
news at 6.30pm.
Wonder what the Sky EPG 103 allocation is for a Chepstow postcode?
Good question. IIRC the original allocation was as a result of an IBA survey
before the relay was built (it was an IBA site). The good folk of the service
area voted for BBC/HTV West and C4, so the IBA made it a Mendip relay. The
Beeb took the view that most of the service area was in Wales, so it would be
a Wenvoe relay for BBC1 and 2. Of course post DSO the relay will carry C4 and
S4C, though as you point out, neither of the 'Bristol' BBC/ITV local news
programmes will be available.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk
n***@address.invalid
2010-01-15 12:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Java Jive
1)
Ambergate 22 28 25 32 37W A V
Ambergate BV 51 44 41 47
COMPLETE MISMATCH. ANYONE ABLE TO HELP?
The first line certainly WAS correct until a few years ago.

If the second line comes from a very recent source it might be due to
a site change, otherwise I would suggest it is wrong.
A complete change like this is not unknown, but quite rare for obvious
reasons.
Mark Carver
2010-01-13 20:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mortimer
The question is: what will reception be like after DSO when the
transmitter is boosted? It's a gamble.
A diminishing one though. Three and a half regions have now switched,
and evidence suggests that as long as you had reasonably clean analogue
reception, digital reception is fine. (Assuming the post DSO allocations
are in group for the aerial). If anything the post DSO transmissions are
too powerful. c.f. Moel-y-Parc's overlap into Granadaland.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

http://www.paras.org.uk/
J G Miller
2010-01-14 02:26:04 UTC
Permalink
If anything the post DSO transmissions are too powerful.
c.f. Moel-y-> Parc's overlap into Granadaland.
But Moel-y-Parc has always overlapped into Granadaland and Winter Hill
into Gogledd Cymru.

The difference now however is that whereas previously the analog signals
usually produced a bad picture because the antenna was pointing the wrong
way and was thus a bit snowy and corrupted, the digital signal is above
the threshold and give an equal quality picture to the in region
transmitter.

You would think that people would be glad of the extra choice and the
exposure to different news and culture from across the territorial
frontier, but all many English people do is complain and whine about
having the minor inconvenience of having to re-order the stations on
their digital converter boxes.

Will there be equally strident whining from people in North Yorkshire
complaining about Bilsdale West transmissions appearing first in their
EPG before those of Emley Moor, when Bilsdale West goes to full power?
Mark Carver
2010-01-14 16:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by J G Miller
If anything the post DSO transmissions are too powerful.
c.f. Moel-y-> Parc's overlap into Granadaland.
But Moel-y-Parc has always overlapped into Granadaland and Winter Hill
into Gogledd Cymru.
Indeed it has. It might have been appropriate if the DSO re-engineering at MyP
had included a provision to reduce this overlap, perhaps using beam tilt
techniques ?
Post by J G Miller
You would think that people would be glad of the extra choice and the
exposure to different news and culture from across the territorial
frontier, but all many English people do is complain and whine about
having the minor inconvenience of having to re-order the stations on
their digital converter boxes.
Such action is way beyond the ability of millions.
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk
d***@postmaster.co.uk
2010-01-14 10:09:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mortimer
The problem is that by the time people discover that their existing aerial
can't cope when the signal strength is increased, it's aready too late
because analogue has been turned off - and aerial fitters will be snowed
under with work once the switchover date has been passed so you'll be
without TV for a while.
This sounds like scaremongering to me. You say people will be "without
TV" - yet you'd have to be watching a spectacularly awful analogue
picture pre-DSO to be "without TV" after DSO.
Post by Mortimer
My parents have a cottage in the Yorkshire Dales. Analogue reception has a
bit of noise and quite a bit of ghosting, which varies depending on weather
conditions.
Well, in that case, maybe you can't know beforehand. To be fair, if
the location is such that the best analogue reception is noisy with
lots of ghosting, a new aerial for digital may not help either - even
the aerial installer won't know until switch over! Just as getting the
best analogue might need some creative thinking, getting the best
digital will do too - and the solution might be totally different.

I think a kind son would have bought them Sky or Freesat by now
anyway! ;)
Post by Mortimer
Digital reception is very weak (blocking, freezing) and only two
out of the transmitter's six muxes are received.
So, you'll get something after switch over - something better than you
get now, but maybe not perfect. The thing is, a new aerial fitted now
is also unlikely to _guarantee_ that post-DSO reception will be
perfect.
Post by Mortimer
The question is: what will reception be like after DSO when the transmitter
is boosted? It's a gamble. My gut feeling is that the aerial is probably
tuned to that transmitter rather than being wideband, given that it was
fitted about 15-20 years ago.
...and in an area with challenging reception, it might be better to
stick with a grouped aerial and sacrifice a few of the COM muxes for
optimum reception of the PSB ones.

The thing is, if you have the understanding to keep up with
discussions in this group, then I'm sure you can figure out which
transmitter they're using, what's in+out of group now, and what will
be after DSO.

Cheers,
David.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...