Surprised I'm the first to post this ...

Bilsdale transmitter: Replacement TV mast could take months to build
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58431922

"A temporary replacement TV mast for the fire-damaged Bilsdale
transmitter could take two months to build and would be unsuitable for
winter, it has emerged.

Mast operator Arqiva wants to put a 262ft (80m) mast in a quarry to
replace services lost on 10 August.

A meeting of the North York Moors National Park Authority (NPA) heard
its construction was some way from starting and would take a month alone.

Worst affected households will be given a partial refund of their TV
licence.

A million people across Teesside, North Yorkshire and County Durham were
impacted by the blaze, but the majority of homes have had services restored.

The NPA heard there is a legal wrangle with landowners to gain access to
the proposed site which has delayed proceedings, the Local Democracy
Reporting Service said."

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:sgtapt$ib8$5@gioia.aioe.org...
> Surprised I'm the first to post this ...
>
> Bilsdale transmitter: Replacement TV mast could take months to build
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58431922
>
> "A temporary replacement TV mast for the fire-damaged Bilsdale transmitter
> could take two months to build and would be unsuitable for winter, it has
> emerged.
>
> Mast operator Arqiva wants to put a 262ft (80m) mast in a quarry to
> replace services lost on 10 August.

Ah! Now the story about "permission" makes sense. Up to now I've not seen
anything about the temporary mast being in a *different* location to the
existing one. It seemed odd that the permission that covered the existing
mast didn't cover a temporary one close to it - but it's *not* close. I
wonder why the temporary mast is not in the same location as the old mast,
give or take 300 metres to allow for the old mast to be "dropped" if
necessary. Where is the quarry? I can see a few scars (precipices) about 1
km north and north-east of the mast, and a larger feature Trennet Bank about
2 km north, but otherwise no quarry-like features on the 1:25000 OS map.

It's good that more and more repeaters are coming back, but it's bad news
for the majority of the people who are served by the main mast as opposed to
the minority who are served by one of the repeaters.

Odd that Arqiva still haven't announced whether the old mast can be saved.
How long does it take to do a structural survey and produce a report that
says go/no-go? We can take it as read that if the old mast is OK, it *will*
need to be completely cleaned out of old cabling and all the cabling
re-installed, together maybe with new aerials.

On Fri 03/09/2021 17:11, NY wrote:
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:sgtapt$ib8$5@gioia.aioe.org...
>> Surprised I'm the first to post this ...
>>
>> Bilsdale transmitter: Replacement TV mast could take months to build
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58431922
>>
>> "A temporary replacement TV mast for the fire-damaged Bilsdale
>> transmitter could take two months to build and would be unsuitable for
>> winter, it has emerged.
>>
>> Mast operator Arqiva wants to put a 262ft (80m) mast in a quarry to
>> replace services lost on 10 August.
>
> Ah! Now the story about "permission" makes sense. Up to now I've not
> seen anything about the temporary mast being in a *different* location
> to the existing one. It seemed odd that the permission that covered the
> existing mast didn't cover a temporary one close to it - but it's *not*
> close. I wonder why the temporary mast is not in the same location as
> the old mast, give or take 300 metres to allow for the old mast to be
> "dropped" if necessary. Where is the quarry? I can see a few scars
> (precipices) about 1 km north and north-east of the mast, and a larger
> feature Trennet Bank about 2 km north, but otherwise no quarry-like
> features on the 1:25000 OS map.
>
> It's good that more and more repeaters are coming back, but it's bad
> news for the majority of the people who are served by the main mast as
> opposed to the minority who are served by one of the repeaters.
>
> Odd that Arqiva still haven't announced whether the old mast can be
> saved. How long does it take to do a structural survey and produce a
> report that says go/no-go? We can take it as read that if the old mast
> is OK, it *will* need to be completely cleaned out of old cabling and
> all the cabling re-installed, together maybe with new aerials.

The fact that Arqiva no longer owns the mast might just have summat to
do wi' it?

Look at
https://tinyurl.com/2bb2tfpz
for details.

On Fri 03/09/2021 18:09, Woody wrote:
> On Fri 03/09/2021 17:11, NY wrote:
>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:sgtapt$ib8$5@gioia.aioe.org...
>>> Surprised I'm the first to post this ...
>>>
>>> Bilsdale transmitter: Replacement TV mast could take months to build
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58431922
>>>
>>> "A temporary replacement TV mast for the fire-damaged Bilsdale
>>> transmitter could take two months to build and would be unsuitable
>>> for winter, it has emerged.
>>>
>>> Mast operator Arqiva wants to put a 262ft (80m) mast in a quarry to
>>> replace services lost on 10 August.
>>
>> Ah! Now the story about "permission" makes sense. Up to now I've not
>> seen anything about the temporary mast being in a *different* location
>> to the existing one. It seemed odd that the permission that covered
>> the existing mast didn't cover a temporary one close to it - but it's
>> *not* close. I wonder why the temporary mast is not in the same
>> location as the old mast, give or take 300 metres to allow for the old
>> mast to be "dropped" if necessary. Where is the quarry? I can see a
>> few scars (precipices) about 1 km north and north-east of the mast,
>> and a larger feature Trennet Bank about 2 km north, but otherwise no
>> quarry-like features on the 1:25000 OS map.
>>
>> It's good that more and more repeaters are coming back, but it's bad
>> news for the majority of the people who are served by the main mast as
>> opposed to the minority who are served by one of the repeaters.
>>
>> Odd that Arqiva still haven't announced whether the old mast can be
>> saved. How long does it take to do a structural survey and produce a
>> report that says go/no-go? We can take it as read that if the old mast
>> is OK, it *will* need to be completely cleaned out of old cabling and
>> all the cabling re-installed, together maybe with new aerials.
>
>
> The fact that Arqiva no longer owns the mast might just have summat to
> do wi' it?
>
> Look at
> https://tinyurl.com/2bb2tfpz
> for details.

I might have got that slightly wrong. There are a number of detail
locations on line and most give the impression that the TV masts are the
bits that have been or will be sold. In fact the above shows that only
the cellular and mobile radio infrastructure seems to be what its about.

Doubtless Mark will be along soon to correct me?

Woody wrote:

> The fact that Arqiva no longer owns the mast might just have summat to
> do wi' it?
>
> Look at
> https://tinyurl.com/2bb2tfpz
> for details.

Sounds like cellnex bought the telecoms bits of arqiva, not the
broadcast bits?

<https://www.cellnextelecom.com/noticia-146/>

On 03/09/2021 18:16, Woody wrote:
> On Fri 03/09/2021 18:09, Woody wrote:
>> On Fri 03/09/2021 17:11, NY wrote:
>>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:sgtapt$ib8$5@gioia.aioe.org...
>>>> Surprised I'm the first to post this ...
>>>>
>>>> Bilsdale transmitter: Replacement TV mast could take months to build
>>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58431922
>>>>
>>>> "A temporary replacement TV mast for the fire-damaged Bilsdale
>>>> transmitter could take two months to build and would be unsuitable
>>>> for winter, it has emerged.
>>>>
>>>> Mast operator Arqiva wants to put a 262ft (80m) mast in a quarry to
>>>> replace services lost on 10 August.
>>>
>>> Ah! Now the story about "permission" makes sense. Up to now I've not
>>> seen anything about the temporary mast being in a *different*
>>> location to the existing one. It seemed odd that the permission that
>>> covered the existing mast didn't cover a temporary one close to it -
>>> but it's *not* close. I wonder why the temporary mast is not in the
>>> same location as the old mast, give or take 300 metres to allow for
>>> the old mast to be "dropped" if necessary. Where is the quarry? I can
>>> see a few scars (precipices) about 1 km north and north-east of the
>>> mast, and a larger feature Trennet Bank about 2 km north, but
>>> otherwise no quarry-like features on the 1:25000 OS map.
>>>
>>> It's good that more and more repeaters are coming back, but it's bad
>>> news for the majority of the people who are served by the main mast
>>> as opposed to the minority who are served by one of the repeaters.
>>>
>>> Odd that Arqiva still haven't announced whether the old mast can be
>>> saved. How long does it take to do a structural survey and produce a
>>> report that says go/no-go? We can take it as read that if the old
>>> mast is OK, it *will* need to be completely cleaned out of old
>>> cabling and all the cabling re-installed, together maybe with new
>>> aerials.
>>
>>
>> The fact that Arqiva no longer owns the mast might just have summat to
>> do wi' it?
>>
>> Look at
>> https://tinyurl.com/2bb2tfpz
>> for details.
>
>
> I might have got that slightly wrong. There are a number of detail
> locations on line and most give the impression that the TV masts are the
> bits that have been or will be sold. In fact the above shows that only
> the cellular and mobile radio infrastructure seems to be what its about.
>
> Doubtless Mark will be along soon to correct me?
>

I think Vodafone was hiving off their cellular towers into a seperate
business and flogging/floating it off?

https://www.ig.com/uk/shares/ipos/towerco-vodafone-ipo

Also Three are doing something similar....

https://telecoms.com/506770/three-could-become-the-latest-telco-to-cash-in-on-its-towers/

and of course:

Spain-based towerco Cellnex, which this time last year acquired UK
counterpart Arqiva’s telecoms business...

"SH" <i.love.spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:sgtppt$9us$1@gioia.aioe.org...

> I think Vodafone was hiving off their cellular towers into a seperate
> business and flogging/floating it off?
>
> https://www.ig.com/uk/shares/ipos/towerco-vodafone-ipo
>
> Also Three are doing something similar....
>
> https://telecoms.com/506770/three-could-become-the-latest-telco-to-cash-in-on-its-towers/

I've never understood why companies that used to do the whole job in-house
think it is a *good* idea to sell bits off to other companies which they
then have to deal with on non-in-house terms because they still want to
provide the full end-to-end service but instead of (for example) owning the
masts they now have to go through extra levels of indirection to deal with a
separate company that wants to make its own layer of profit for something
that was previously done at-cost when everything was in-house.

In the days of nationalised industries, "privatisation" was a dirty word and
was much reviled, but it wasn't the ownership (government versus private
shareholders) but the fragmentation that was the problem. For example, I
never understood the logic with railways of having one central company for
track, signalling and stations, but then *multiple* train-operating
companies. Why not one company (Railtrack / Network Rail) for track,
signalling and stations, and *one* company for all train operations? How did
having multiple TOCs benefit anyone? One single TOC would have avoided all
the complications of tickets being valid on one TOC's trains but not
another's for the same start and end stations and maybe even the same route.

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> "SH" <i.love.spam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:sgtppt$9us$1@gioia.aioe.org...
>
> > I think Vodafone was hiving off their cellular towers into a seperate
> > business and flogging/floating it off?
> >
> > https://www.ig.com/uk/shares/ipos/towerco-vodafone-ipo
> >
> > Also Three are doing something similar....
> >
> > <https://telecoms.com/506770/three-could-become-the-latest-telco-to-cash-in-on-its-towers/
>
> I've never understood why companies that used to do the whole job in-house
> think it is a *good* idea to sell bits off to other companies which they
> then have to deal with on non-in-house terms because they still want to
> provide the full end-to-end service but instead of (for example) owning the
> masts they now have to go through extra levels of indirection to deal with a
> separate company that wants to make its own layer of profit for something
> that was previously done at-cost when everything was in-house.
>

Cash Flow. It takes the asset off the capital account and liquidates
its value. It's like sale and lease-back of any commercial freehold.
The new rental costs go into the Expenses section of the accounts.

>
> In the days of nationalised industries, "privatisation" was a dirty word and
> was much reviled, but it wasn't the ownership (government versus private
> shareholders) but the fragmentation that was the problem. For example, I
> never understood the logic with railways of having one central company for
> track, signalling and stations, but then *multiple* train-operating
> companies. Why not one company (Railtrack / Network Rail) for track,
> signalling and stations, and *one* company for all train operations? How did
> having multiple TOCs benefit anyone? One single TOC would have avoided all
> the complications of tickets being valid on one TOC's trains but not
> another's for the same start and end stations and maybe even the same route.

--
\|/
(((Ï))) Mr Ön!on <https://youtu.be/V-mhdIVwky0>

When we shake the ketchup bottle
First none comes and then a lot'll.

On 03/09/2021 21:33, NY wrote:
> I've never understood why companies that used to do the whole job in-house
> think it is a*good* idea to sell bits off to other companies which they
> then have to deal with on non-in-house terms because they still want to
> provide the full end-to-end service but instead of (for example) owning the
> masts they now have to go through extra levels of indirection to deal with a
> separate company that wants to make its own layer of profit for something
> that was previously done at-cost when everything was in-house.
>
> In the days of nationalised industries, "privatisation" was a dirty word and
> was much reviled, but it wasn't the ownership (government versus private
> shareholders) but the fragmentation that was the problem. For example, I
> never understood the logic with railways of having one central company for
> track, signalling and stations, but then*multiple* train-operating
> companies. Why not one company (Railtrack / Network Rail) for track,
> signalling and stations, and*one* company for all train operations? How did
> having multiple TOCs benefit anyone? One single TOC would have avoided all
> the complications of tickets being valid on one TOC's trains but not
> another's for the same start and end stations and maybe even the same route.

Because the beancounters love outsourcing or leasing things rather than
buying. A large number of companies and organisations do not own their
vehicles including emergency services.

Theoretically it means if you have a problem you just ring the leasing
company but in practice it can be a PITA getting things done.

On 03/09/2021 23:16, Mr Ön!on wrote:
> Cash Flow. It takes the asset off the capital account and liquidates
> its value. It's like sale and lease-back of any commercial freehold.
> The new rental costs go into the Expenses section of the accounts.

It gets silly, we used keep a good range of spares from equipment that
had been re-engineered. It could save you a lot of time in the event of
a fault, particularly a serious one. But the beancounters would charge
us the full new value of the items whilst we had them so they would sent
back to stores, of course we had to pay the cost of sending it back and
when it got there it would just be scrapped.

I would imagine that the new site might be higher than the current one which
also may be why they are worrying about how it will fare in Wintry
conditions.
As has been said there has to be room at the current site, so surely the
temper mast, though a lot lower would be possibly more viable long term. The
old mast may take a lot longer than you think to be tested as the devices
that test various critical points of it are going to have to be moved very
slowly up and down those parts. Then there is the problem of the building
and siting the transmitters as well.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message
news:sgthfl$hcf$1@dont-email.me...
> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:sgtapt$ib8$5@gioia.aioe.org...
>> Surprised I'm the first to post this ...
>>
>> Bilsdale transmitter: Replacement TV mast could take months to build
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58431922
>>
>> "A temporary replacement TV mast for the fire-damaged Bilsdale
>> transmitter could take two months to build and would be unsuitable for
>> winter, it has emerged.
>>
>> Mast operator Arqiva wants to put a 262ft (80m) mast in a quarry to
>> replace services lost on 10 August.
>
> Ah! Now the story about "permission" makes sense. Up to now I've not seen
> anything about the temporary mast being in a *different* location to the
> existing one. It seemed odd that the permission that covered the existing
> mast didn't cover a temporary one close to it - but it's *not* close. I
> wonder why the temporary mast is not in the same location as the old mast,
> give or take 300 metres to allow for the old mast to be "dropped" if
> necessary. Where is the quarry? I can see a few scars (precipices) about 1
> km north and north-east of the mast, and a larger feature Trennet Bank
> about 2 km north, but otherwise no quarry-like features on the 1:25000 OS
> map.
>
> It's good that more and more repeaters are coming back, but it's bad news
> for the majority of the people who are served by the main mast as opposed
> to the minority who are served by one of the repeaters.
>
> Odd that Arqiva still haven't announced whether the old mast can be saved.
> How long does it take to do a structural survey and produce a report that
> says go/no-go? We can take it as read that if the old mast is OK, it
> *will* need to be completely cleaned out of old cabling and all the
> cabling re-installed, together maybe with new aerials.

Yes, but in this case its going to be temporary, and normally things can
easily be agreed even if the cost is a bit more.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:sgtksv$c5t$1@dont-email.me...
> On Fri 03/09/2021 17:11, NY wrote:
>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:sgtapt$ib8$5@gioia.aioe.org...
>>> Surprised I'm the first to post this ...
>>>
>>> Bilsdale transmitter: Replacement TV mast could take months to build
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58431922
>>>
>>> "A temporary replacement TV mast for the fire-damaged Bilsdale
>>> transmitter could take two months to build and would be unsuitable for
>>> winter, it has emerged.
>>>
>>> Mast operator Arqiva wants to put a 262ft (80m) mast in a quarry to
>>> replace services lost on 10 August.
>>
>> Ah! Now the story about "permission" makes sense. Up to now I've not seen
>> anything about the temporary mast being in a *different* location to the
>> existing one. It seemed odd that the permission that covered the existing
>> mast didn't cover a temporary one close to it - but it's *not* close. I
>> wonder why the temporary mast is not in the same location as the old
>> mast, give or take 300 metres to allow for the old mast to be "dropped"
>> if necessary. Where is the quarry? I can see a few scars (precipices)
>> about 1 km north and north-east of the mast, and a larger feature Trennet
>> Bank about 2 km north, but otherwise no quarry-like features on the
>> 1:25000 OS map.
>>
>> It's good that more and more repeaters are coming back, but it's bad news
>> for the majority of the people who are served by the main mast as opposed
>> to the minority who are served by one of the repeaters.
>>
>> Odd that Arqiva still haven't announced whether the old mast can be
>> saved. How long does it take to do a structural survey and produce a
>> report that says go/no-go? We can take it as read that if the old mast is
>> OK, it *will* need to be completely cleaned out of old cabling and all
>> the cabling re-installed, together maybe with new aerials.
>
>
> The fact that Arqiva no longer owns the mast might just have summat to do
> wi' it?
>
> Look at
> https://tinyurl.com/2bb2tfpz
> for details.

Easy to say "there has to be room" but not so easy to use it lawfully
with all the environmental protection laws. If Arqiva don't get their
ducks in a row on that anyone can hive off to the courts for an order to
stop the work. Highlighted in recent reports such as:

"Although a replacement mast would not need to go through planning
process, international environmental regulations mean that the
development must not harm the sensitive moorland habitat."

<https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19556844.bilsdale-transmitter-thirsk-mp-raises-delay-oliver-dowden/>

On 04/09/2021 08:35, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> I would imagine that the new site might be higher than the current one which
> also may be why they are worrying about how it will fare in Wintry
> conditions.
> As has been said there has to be room at the current site, so surely the
> temper mast, though a lot lower would be possibly more viable long term. The
> old mast may take a lot longer than you think to be tested as the devices
> that test various critical points of it are going to have to be moved very
> slowly up and down those parts. Then there is the problem of the building
> and siting the transmitters as well.
> Brian
>

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Fri, 3 Sep 2021 21:33:07 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>I've never understood why companies that used to do the whole job in-house
>think it is a *good* idea to sell bits off to other companies which they
>then have to deal with on non-in-house terms because they still want to
>provide the full end-to-end service but instead of (for example) owning the
>masts they now have to go through extra levels of indirection to deal with a
>separate company that wants to make its own layer of profit for something
>that was previously done at-cost when everything was in-house.

The main advantage of doing things this way is that if anything goes
wrong, everybody has somebody else to blame.

Rod.

In article <sgua5u$tmu$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 03/09/2021 21:33, NY wrote:
> > I've never understood why companies that used to do the whole job in-house
> > think it is a*good* idea to sell bits off to other companies which they
> > then have to deal with on non-in-house terms because they still want to
> > provide the full end-to-end service but instead of (for example) owning the
> > masts they now have to go through extra levels of indirection to deal with a
> > separate company that wants to make its own layer of profit for something
> > that was previously done at-cost when everything was in-house.
> >
> > In the days of nationalised industries, "privatisation" was a dirty word and
> > was much reviled, but it wasn't the ownership (government versus private
> > shareholders) but the fragmentation that was the problem. For example, I
> > never understood the logic with railways of having one central company for
> > track, signalling and stations, but then*multiple* train-operating
> > companies. Why not one company (Railtrack / Network Rail) for track,
> > signalling and stations, and*one* company for all train operations? How did
> > having multiple TOCs benefit anyone? One single TOC would have avoided all
> > the complications of tickets being valid on one TOC's trains but not
> > another's for the same start and end stations and maybe even the same route.

> Because the beancounters love outsourcing or leasing things rather than
> buying. A large number of companies and organisations do not own their
> vehicles including emergency services.

A few years ago, I attended a talk given by the new financial head for
Surrey CC. The had proved to her own satisfaction that contracting out road
repairs was a serious waste of money. They needed to be taken back
"in-house". Funny how she didn't keep her job very long.

> Theoretically it means if you have a problem you just ring the leasing
> company but in practice it can be a PITA getting things done.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

The definition of temporary though should I would have thought make it a lot
easer.
If they spend too long talking about it then they will never get it sorted
out.

I do question such a short temp mast though. I'd have thought it could be
accommodated within the footprint of the old one assuming its guyed up in
some way already, and shorter, its guys must be closer together.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:7aaddb4b-2afa-de01-1972-88fff601600a@outlook.com...
> Easy to say "there has to be room" but not so easy to use it lawfully with
> all the environmental protection laws. If Arqiva don't get their ducks in
> a row on that anyone can hive off to the courts for an order to stop the
> work. Highlighted in recent reports such as:
>
> "Although a replacement mast would not need to go through planning
> process, international environmental regulations mean that the development
> must not harm the sensitive moorland habitat."
>
> <https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/19556844.bilsdale-transmitter-thirsk-mp-raises-delay-oliver-dowden/>
>
>
> On 04/09/2021 08:35, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
>> I would imagine that the new site might be higher than the current one
>> which
>> also may be why they are worrying about how it will fare in Wintry
>> conditions.
>> As has been said there has to be room at the current site, so surely
>> the
>> temper mast, though a lot lower would be possibly more viable long term.
>> The
>> old mast may take a lot longer than you think to be tested as the
>> devices
>> that test various critical points of it are going to have to be moved
>> very
>> slowly up and down those parts. Then there is the problem of the building
>> and siting the transmitters as well.
>> Brian
>>
>
>
> --
> Robin
> reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 05/09/2021 09:47, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> The definition of temporary though should I would have thought make it a lot
> easer.

Temporary can be quite flexible.

I remember (about 50 years ago) a road near where I was living at the
time had a sign warning of a Temporary Road Surface which was probably
true because the 100 yards or so of the road after the sign was pretty
rough. That sign had been there for so long it was badly rusted and
only just legible.

Jim

“Temporary” traffic lights on the A82 by Loch Lomond were there for a mere
30 years.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21243893

Tim

Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The definition of temporary though should I would have thought make it a lot
> easer.
> If they spend too long talking about it then they will never get it sorted
> out.
>
> I do question such a short temp mast though. I'd have thought it could be
> accommodated within the footprint of the old one assuming its guyed up in
> some way already, and shorter, its guys must be closer together.
> Brian
>

--
Please don't feed the trolls

[top-posting for Brian]
Income tax was temporary but its third tenure, started in 1842, seems to
have persisted.

Tim+ <tim.downie@gmail.com> writes:
> “Temporary” traffic lights on the A82 by Loch Lomond were there for a
> mere 30 years.
>
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-21243893
>
> Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> The definition of temporary though should I would have thought make
>> it a lot easer.
>> If they spend too long talking about it then they will never get it
>> sorted out.
>>
>> I do question such a short temp mast though. I'd have thought it
>> could be accommodated within the footprint of the old one assuming
>> its guyed up in some way already, and shorter, its guys must be
>> closer together.
--
Pete Forman
https://payg.pythonanywhere.com

In article <sgthfl$hcf$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid>
scribeth thus
>"Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:sgtapt$ib8$5@gioia.aioe.org...
>> Surprised I'm the first to post this ...
>>
>> Bilsdale transmitter: Replacement TV mast could take months to build
>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58431922
>>
>> "A temporary replacement TV mast for the fire-damaged Bilsdale transmitter
>> could take two months to build and would be unsuitable for winter, it has
>> emerged.
>>
>> Mast operator Arqiva wants to put a 262ft (80m) mast in a quarry to
>> replace services lost on 10 August.

Which will restore quite a lot of the area. So smaller mast, get rid of
the old one, makes some sense but it will mean these poor hard up
Yorkshire folk might need to upgrade their aerial or even get an aerial
wot which they will grumble worse that our Bill W about the WOKE BBC!!!

>
>Ah! Now the story about "permission" makes sense. Up to now I've not seen
>anything about the temporary mast being in a *different* location to the
>existing one. It seemed odd that the permission that covered the existing
>mast didn't cover a temporary one close to it - but it's *not* close. I
>wonder why the temporary mast is not in the same location as the old mast,
>give or take 300 metres to allow for the old mast to be "dropped" if
>necessary. Where is the quarry? I can see a few scars (precipices) about 1
>km north and north-east of the mast, and a larger feature Trennet Bank about
>2 km north, but otherwise no quarry-like features on the 1:25000 OS map.
>
>It's good that more and more repeaters are coming back, but it's bad news
>for the majority of the people who are served by the main mast as opposed to
>the minority who are served by one of the repeaters.
>
>Odd that Arqiva still haven't announced whether the old mast can be saved.
>How long does it take to do a structural survey and produce a report that
>says go/no-go? We can take it as read that if the old mast is OK, it *will*
>need to be completely cleaned out of old cabling and all the cabling
>re-installed, together maybe with new aerials.
>

Well there was a bit somewhere on a northern newspaper that an engineer
for Arqiva said that the mast has a bad bulge in a part of it so it can
be supposed that it may well be dangerous or unsafe to work on so it may
need to be blown down.

Course hit one newt of the wrong sort:(

It would i expect be neigh on impossible to change a part of a mast of
that type safely unless you did a lot of work propping it up and
suchlike, so possible cheaper to get rid and put a more conventional one
up?.

Wonder if the old ex Emley ones still around?....
--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

>
>I think Vodafone was hiving off their cellular towers into a seperate
>business and flogging/floating it off?
>
>https://www.ig.com/uk/shares/ipos/towerco-vodafone-ipo
>
>Also Three are doing something similar....
>
>https://telecoms.com/506770/three-could-become-the-latest-telco-to-cash-in-on-
>its-towers/
>
>
>and of course:
>
> Spain-based towerco Cellnex, which this time last year acquired UK
>counterpart Arqiva’s telecoms business...

Its not too surprising as they don't like paying site owner fees when
you can stick your mast in the highway for less money?.

Where it seems most all new 5G sites are to be....

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

In article <ipf4sfFl62dU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> scribeth thus
>Woody wrote:
>
>> The fact that Arqiva no longer owns the mast might just have summat to
>> do wi' it?
>>
>> Look at
>> https://tinyurl.com/2bb2tfpz
>> for details.
>
>Sounds like cellnex bought the telecoms bits of arqiva, not the
>broadcast bits?
>
><https://www.cellnextelecom.com/noticia-146/>

Yes thats what did happen...

--
Tony Sayer

Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 05/09/2021 22:29, tony sayer wrote:
> Which will restore quite a lot of the area. So smaller mast, get rid of
> the old one, makes some sense but it will mean these poor hard up
> Yorkshire folk might need to upgrade their aerial or even get an aerial
> wot which they will grumble worse that our Bill W about the WOKE BBC!!!

Shut yer gob!

Bill

On Sun 05/09/2021 22:29, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <sgthfl$hcf$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid>
> scribeth thus
>> "Java Jive" <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:sgtapt$ib8$5@gioia.aioe.org...
>>> Surprised I'm the first to post this ...
>>>
>>> Bilsdale transmitter: Replacement TV mast could take months to build
>>> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-58431922
>>>
>>> "A temporary replacement TV mast for the fire-damaged Bilsdale transmitter
>>> could take two months to build and would be unsuitable for winter, it has
>>> emerged.
>>>
>>> Mast operator Arqiva wants to put a 262ft (80m) mast in a quarry to
>>> replace services lost on 10 August.
>
> Which will restore quite a lot of the area. So smaller mast, get rid of
> the old one, makes some sense but it will mean these poor hard up
> Yorkshire folk might need to upgrade their aerial or even get an aerial
> wot which they will grumble worse that our Bill W about the WOKE BBC!!!
>
>>
>> Ah! Now the story about "permission" makes sense. Up to now I've not seen
>> anything about the temporary mast being in a *different* location to the
>> existing one. It seemed odd that the permission that covered the existing
>> mast didn't cover a temporary one close to it - but it's *not* close. I
>> wonder why the temporary mast is not in the same location as the old mast,
>> give or take 300 metres to allow for the old mast to be "dropped" if
>> necessary. Where is the quarry? I can see a few scars (precipices) about 1
>> km north and north-east of the mast, and a larger feature Trennet Bank about
>> 2 km north, but otherwise no quarry-like features on the 1:25000 OS map.
>>
>> It's good that more and more repeaters are coming back, but it's bad news
>> for the majority of the people who are served by the main mast as opposed to
>> the minority who are served by one of the repeaters.
>>
>> Odd that Arqiva still haven't announced whether the old mast can be saved.
>> How long does it take to do a structural survey and produce a report that
>> says go/no-go? We can take it as read that if the old mast is OK, it *will*
>> need to be completely cleaned out of old cabling and all the cabling
>> re-installed, together maybe with new aerials.
>>
>
> Well there was a bit somewhere on a northern newspaper that an engineer
> for Arqiva said that the mast has a bad bulge in a part of it so it can
> be supposed that it may well be dangerous or unsafe to work on so it may
> need to be blown down.
>
> Course hit one newt of the wrong sort:(
>
> It would i expect be neigh on impossible to change a part of a mast of
> that type safely unless you did a lot of work propping it up and
> suchlike, so possible cheaper to get rid and put a more conventional one
> up?.
>
> Wonder if the old ex Emley ones still around?....
>

If you mean the temporary mast at EM it is very much still in place but
the work on the Tower is almost if not fully completed. I did suggest
quite early on in this thread that if Bilsdale has to go the temp mast
ex EM would be a good bet, even if they didn't use the whole 1050ft of
it. The downside is that it took the better part of size months to erect
at Emley so if it had to be taken down and re-erected (assuming the
groundworks at Bilsdale were done concurrently) it would be getting on
for a year before everything is back to normal which somehow I don't
think would be acceptable?

The other way of looking at it would be for Arqiva to do the sums to
provide a Freesat box of some sort to those that cannot get anything
other than Bilsdale (such as in Helmsley for instance) and compare that
against the the cost of mast replacement. Get a Chinese company to mass
produce a low-cost Freesat box and dish and I bet there wouldn't be that
much difference. The coverage for the Vale of York and northwards from
Teesside could be covered by higher powered transmitters at Arncliffe
Wood, and the southern end (e.g. parts of York and Harrogate) could be
'back-filled' by either a transmitter at Woolmoor or at Acklam Wold or
Settrington Beacon. Unfortunately (or otherwise) that might mean people
in Yorkshire having to watch Yorkshire TV instead of Tyne Tees!

What puzzles me at the moment is that here in Harrogate with a multibeam
pointed at Emley (and Bilsdale being around 30deg off line on the back
of it) I can get a reasonably strong signal off Arncliffe Wood but the
TV will not decode it. Conversely I can get a stonking signal from
Belmont which is off the side of my aerial. Eh??

On 06/09/2021 08:15, Woody wrote:
>
> What puzzles me at the moment is that here in Harrogate with a
> multibeam pointed at Emley (and Bilsdale being around 30deg off line
> on the back of it) I can get a reasonably strong signal off Arncliffe
> Wood but the TV will not decode it. Conversely I can get a stonking
> signal from Belmont which is off the side of my aerial. Eh??
>
Arncliffe is using 40,43,46 for the PSBs. Those three channels are also
used by a number of Emley's relays, I suspect what you're getting is
just 'signal'

How do you know it's Arncliffe, if you can't decode it ?