I've posted this on the Leyburn Facebook group:

TV RECEPTION (OR LACK OF) FROM SUTTON BANK
This is so stupid I’m embarrassed to tell you about it. The temporary
transmitter near Sutton Bank only sends signals out to the south-east
and south west. There are two transmission panels on the tower: one
beams out to the south-east and the other to the south-west. Everywhere
to the west and the north-west has been ignored. Basically what seems to
have happened is that some berk with no local knowledge has looked at a
Bilsdale coverage map and decided that York, Harrogate, etc are the most
important areas for the temporary transmitter to serve. What he
obviously didn’t know is that people in those areas don’t like Tyne Tees
and BBC NE so their aerials point towards Emley Moor. Hardly surprising
is it really that York and Harrogate prefer Yorkshire TV and BBC Leeds?
So almost nobody in those areas uses Bilsdale; they use Emley Moor if at
all possible. The signals from Emley and Bilsdale have a massive
overlap. So the signals that are really needed in the Leyburn (etc)
areas are instead being beamed out over Harrogate, Wetherby, Selby, and
York; places where hardly anybody has an aerial pointing north towards
Bilsdale. I admit there are a few places in and around Harrogate that
have to use Bilsdale, but York? Selby? Wetherby? I worked in those areas
installing communal TV systems for many years and I can tell you that if
I’d left a system with Tyne Tees and no YTV, unless I had a very good
reason I would have got my arse kicked good and proper. Occasionally I
had to use Bilsdale, but it was always as an absolute last resort.
It would have been perfectly possible to fit a panel on the other side
of the tower pointing north-west. No doubt the answer will be that it
would detract from the power sent south, but that’s rubbish because (a)
see above, and (b) only a small amount of power would need to be bled
off the feeder to serve a low-powered panel (which is all that it would
need to be because the service area is limited by the topography of the
Dales). In any case the south-west (Harrogate) could have been served
with one panel and the north-west with another.
Can I suggest that you people kick up a stink about this? It sounds like
a story for your local press, MP, local councils, etc. I really hate it
when the broadcasters ride roughshod over the public like this.

Bill

"williamwright" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:iq91v2FkohfU1@mid.individual.net...
> I've posted this on the Leyburn Facebook group:

It so happens that I've just spoken to my parents who have a holiday cottage
near Bellerby (a couple of miles north of Leyburn). Their neighbours at the
cottage say that their TV service has returned. Whether it's free of
glitches is another matter. Some people in Leyburn don't have a signal, so
they are probably in shadows due to the much lower mast at Sutton Bank, and
maybe the weaker signal due to that and the lower power is just the wrong
side of the digital cliff.

It does seem odd that Sutton Bank isn't also providing (as strong) coverage
to its west and north west. I saw reports somewhere that a lot of people in
Malton/Norton were complaining that they hadn't got a usable signal even
after Sutton Bank, but I wasn't sure whether the intention was to use the 80
metre temporary mast at Bilsdale to serve south east - but you say that
Sutton Bank is *supposed* to serve that direction, subject to the terrain
allowing it. At least Malton and Pickering are capable of receiving Emley
Moor - though for Bilsdale people it would need the aerial to be rotated and
maybe a different group of aerial if not wideband.

I like your comment about people in York and Harrogate using Emley Moor if
at all possible "if I’d left a system with Tyne Tees and no YTV, unless I
had a very good reason I would have got my arse kicked good and proper", so
making Sutton Bank point that way is a bit pointless. The north of Harrogate
is in the shadow of the hill that the town centre stands on, so need
Bilsdale or Sutton Bank, but south Harrogate, Knaresborough and parts of
Ripon can get Emley.

Us Yorkshire folk want Yorkshire local news if at all possible ;-) I'm sure
there are plenty of other places around the country which happen to get a
local news from a city which is further from them than the "centre" for
another local news, because of the vagaries of terrain and different
transmitters' coverage. But to Yorkshire folk, the world ends at the
Yorkshire border (as per the Yorkshire Airlines Hale and Pace sketch "if
it's not in Yorkshire, it's not worth going to" ;-)

Let's hope your Facebook posting has an effect and makes Arqiva rethink
things. My impression is that they have been very slow in getting a
replacement for Bilsdale itself, compared with getting Bilsdale's repeaters
working.

Maybe Arqiva's plan is that mini-Bilsdale will be the transmitter that will
face west/north-west, but who know when the powers that be will allow that
to be built and what the plans are for the winter when the first temporary
mast will not be suitable.

> TV RECEPTION (OR LACK OF) FROM SUTTON BANK
> This is so stupid I’m embarrassed to tell you about it. The temporary
> transmitter near Sutton Bank only sends signals out to the south-east and
> south west. There are two transmission panels on the tower: one beams out
> to the south-east and the other to the south-west. Everywhere to the west
> and the north-west has been ignored. Basically what seems to have happened
> is that some berk with no local knowledge has looked at a Bilsdale
> coverage map and decided that York, Harrogate, etc are the most important
> areas for the temporary transmitter to serve. What he obviously didn’t
> know is that people in those areas don’t like Tyne Tees and BBC NE so
> their aerials point towards Emley Moor. Hardly surprising is it really
> that York and Harrogate prefer Yorkshire TV and BBC Leeds? So almost
> nobody in those areas uses Bilsdale; they use Emley Moor if at all
> possible. The signals from Emley and Bilsdale have a massive overlap. So
> the signals that are really needed in the Leyburn (etc) areas are instead
> being beamed out over Harrogate, Wetherby, Selby, and York; places where
> hardly anybody has an aerial pointing north towards Bilsdale. I admit
> there are a few places in and around Harrogate that have to use Bilsdale,
> but York? Selby? Wetherby? I worked in those areas installing communal TV
> systems for many years and I can tell you that if I’d left a system with
> Tyne Tees and no YTV, unless I had a very good reason I would have got my
> arse kicked good and proper. Occasionally I had to use Bilsdale, but it
> was always as an absolute last resort.
> It would have been perfectly possible to fit a panel on the other side of
> the tower pointing north-west. No doubt the answer will be that it would
> detract from the power sent south, but that’s rubbish because (a) see
> above, and (b) only a small amount of power would need to be bled off the
> feeder to serve a low-powered panel (which is all that it would need to be
> because the service area is limited by the topography of the Dales). In
> any case the south-west (Harrogate) could have been served with one panel
> and the north-west with another.
> Can I suggest that you people kick up a stink about this? It sounds like a
> story for your local press, MP, local councils, etc. I really hate it when
> the broadcasters ride roughshod over the public like this.
>
> Bill

Yes I've heard of this kind of thing before back in the old days of analogue
where Hannington and one of the London transmitters used to overlap. Some
bright spark changed the polar responses to actually make it harder for
those wanting to view southern to actually get it.
I never did hear if it was fixed. Now however with so little difference
between it regions most of those who want to view the wrong region I think
are advised to use Freesat anyway.
It used to be fun when different regions would opt out a lot every day. It
went bland when it was turned into a network. Now of course local commercial
radio has gone down the same path.

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.!
"williamwright" <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:iq91v2FkohfU1@mid.individual.net...
> I've posted this on the Leyburn Facebook group:
>
> TV RECEPTION (OR LACK OF) FROM SUTTON BANK
> This is so stupid I'm embarrassed to tell you about it. The temporary
> transmitter near Sutton Bank only sends signals out to the south-east and
> south west. There are two transmission panels on the tower: one beams out
> to the south-east and the other to the south-west. Everywhere to the west
> and the north-west has been ignored. Basically what seems to have happened
> is that some berk with no local knowledge has looked at a Bilsdale
> coverage map and decided that York, Harrogate, etc are the most important
> areas for the temporary transmitter to serve. What he obviously didn't
> know is that people in those areas don't like Tyne Tees and BBC NE so
> their aerials point towards Emley Moor. Hardly surprising is it really
> that York and Harrogate prefer Yorkshire TV and BBC Leeds? So almost
> nobody in those areas uses Bilsdale; they use Emley Moor if at all
> possible. The signals from Emley and Bilsdale have a massive overlap. So
> the signals that are really needed in the Leyburn (etc) areas are instead
> being beamed out over Harrogate, Wetherby, Selby, and York; places where
> hardly anybody has an aerial pointing north towards Bilsdale. I admit
> there are a few places in and around Harrogate that have to use Bilsdale,
> but York? Selby? Wetherby? I worked in those areas installing communal TV
> systems for many years and I can tell you that if I'd left a system with
> Tyne Tees and no YTV, unless I had a very good reason I would have got my
> arse kicked good and proper. Occasionally I had to use Bilsdale, but it
> was always as an absolute last resort.
> It would have been perfectly possible to fit a panel on the other side of
> the tower pointing north-west. No doubt the answer will be that it would
> detract from the power sent south, but that's rubbish because (a) see
> above, and (b) only a small amount of power would need to be bled off the
> feeder to serve a low-powered panel (which is all that it would need to be
> because the service area is limited by the topography of the Dales). In
> any case the south-west (Harrogate) could have been served with one panel
> and the north-west with another.
> Can I suggest that you people kick up a stink about this? It sounds like a
> story for your local press, MP, local councils, etc. I really hate it when
> the broadcasters ride roughshod over the public like this.
>
> Bill

On 13/09/2021 20:19, NY wrote:
>
> It does seem odd that Sutton Bank isn't also providing (as strong)
> coverage to its west and north west.

No it's not. The Tx panels are only on the SE leg of the tower

http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=2566

On 14/09/2021 08:07, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Yes I've heard of this kind of thing before back in the old days of analogue
> where Hannington and one of the London transmitters used to overlap. Some
> bright spark changed the polar responses to actually make it harder for
> those wanting to view southern to actually get it.
>
Hannington's analogue radiation pattern was never modified. It was omni
directional right up to DSO.

It's pre DSO DTT transmissions were restricted to the east, to protect
Guildford's analogue channels, which were co channel.

Hannington's post DSO DTT transmissions are omni directional

In article <iq91v2FkohfU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> scribeth thus
>I've posted this on the Leyburn Facebook group:
>

Where it will do sod all good i suspect!..

Why not try Arqiva?..

Or Ofcom?...

>TV RECEPTION (OR LACK OF) FROM SUTTON BANK
>This is so stupid I’m embarrassed to tell you about it. The temporary
>transmitter near Sutton Bank only sends signals out to the south-east
>and south west. There are two transmission panels on the tower: one
>beams out to the south-east and the other to the south-west. Everywhere
>to the west and the north-west has been ignored. Basically what seems to
>have happened is that some berk with no local knowledge has looked at a
>Bilsdale coverage map and decided that York, Harrogate, etc are the most
>important areas for the temporary transmitter to serve. What he
>obviously didn’t know is that people in those areas don’t like Tyne Tees
>and BBC NE so their aerials point towards Emley Moor. Hardly surprising
>is it really that York and Harrogate prefer Yorkshire TV and BBC Leeds?
>So almost nobody in those areas uses Bilsdale; they use Emley Moor if at
>all possible. The signals from Emley and Bilsdale have a massive
>overlap. So the signals that are really needed in the Leyburn (etc)
>areas are instead being beamed out over Harrogate, Wetherby, Selby, and
>York; places where hardly anybody has an aerial pointing north towards
>Bilsdale. I admit there are a few places in and around Harrogate that
>have to use Bilsdale, but York? Selby? Wetherby? I worked in those areas
>installing communal TV systems for many years and I can tell you that if
>I’d left a system with Tyne Tees and no YTV, unless I had a very good
>reason I would have got my arse kicked good and proper. Occasionally I
>had to use Bilsdale, but it was always as an absolute last resort.
>It would have been perfectly possible to fit a panel on the other side
>of the tower pointing north-west. No doubt the answer will be that it
>would detract from the power sent south, but that’s rubbish because (a)
>see above, and (b) only a small amount of power would need to be bled
>off the feeder to serve a low-powered panel (which is all that it would
>need to be because the service area is limited by the topography of the
>Dales). In any case the south-west (Harrogate) could have been served
>with one panel and the north-west with another.
>Can I suggest that you people kick up a stink about this? It sounds like
>a story for your local press, MP, local councils, etc. I really hate it
>when the broadcasters ride roughshod over the public like this.
>
>Bill

--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:19:32 +0100, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> Let's hope your Facebook posting has an effect and makes Arqiva rethink
> things. My impression is that they have been very slow in getting a
> replacement for Bilsdale itself, compared with getting Bilsdale's repeaters
> working.

Maybe Radio Tees should get Bill on with Paul Donovan the next time he's on
(within a month he said last week).

On 14/09/2021 13:40, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:19:32 +0100, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Let's hope your Facebook posting has an effect and makes Arqiva rethink
>> things. My impression is that they have been very slow in getting a
>> replacement for Bilsdale itself, compared with getting Bilsdale's repeaters
>> working.
> Maybe Radio Tees should get Bill on with Paul Donovan the next time he's on
> (within a month he said last week).
I suspect Paul Donovan doesn't have a technical background, but whoever
had written his crib sheet for that interview had done a pretty job I
thought ?

On 14/09/2021 13:26, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <iq91v2FkohfU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> scribeth thus
>> I've posted this on the Leyburn Facebook group:
>>
>
> Where it will do sod all good i suspect!..
>
> Why not try Arqiva?..
>
> Or Ofcom?...
>

Because no-one will be interested in the opinions of a common aerial
rigger who doesn't even live in the area. Better by far to put the true
facts in front of the great and good of Leyburn, not to mention the hoi
polloi. Already some have written to Arqiva and the BBC, and a couple
are talking about ringing their MP and associate Rishi Sunak.

Bill

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 14:42:43 +0100, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>>> Let's hope your Facebook posting has an effect and makes Arqiva rethink
>>> things. My impression is that they have been very slow in getting a
>>> replacement for Bilsdale itself, compared with getting Bilsdale's repeaters
>>> working.
>>
>> Maybe Radio Tees should get Bill on with Paul Donovan the next time he's on
>> (within a month he said last week).
>
> I suspect Paul Donovan doesn't have a technical background, but whoever
> had written his crib sheet for that interview had done a pretty job I
> thought ?

Yes, I thought so too. If true, then he at least gave the impression he
knew what he was talking about.
Much better all round than the first Vine thing, which I wasted my time on
and wished I hadn't.

In article <iqc06iF7m9dU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> scribeth thus
>On 14/09/2021 13:26, tony sayer wrote:
>> In article <iq91v2FkohfU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
>> <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> scribeth thus
>>> I've posted this on the Leyburn Facebook group:
>>>
>>
>> Where it will do sod all good i suspect!..
>>
>> Why not try Arqiva?..
>>
>> Or Ofcom?...
>>
>
>Because no-one will be interested in the opinions of a common aerial
>rigger who doesn't even live in the area. Better by far to put the true
>facts in front of the great and good of Leyburn, not to mention the hoi
>polloi. Already some have written to Arqiva and the BBC, and a couple
>are talking about ringing their MP and associate Rishi Sunak.
>
>Bill

They could try gluing themselves to the M62 of course'!....

Darn sarfff they sure know how to protect;!!!
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 13/09/2021 14:28, williamwright wrote:
> I've posted this on the Leyburn Facebook group:
>
> TV RECEPTION (OR LACK OF) FROM SUTTON BANK
> This is so stupid I’m embarrassed to tell you about it. The temporary
> transmitter near Sutton Bank only sends signals out to the south-east
> and south west. There are two transmission panels on the tower: one
> beams out to the south-east and the other to the south-west. Everywhere
> to the west and the north-west has been ignored. Basically what seems to
> have happened is that some berk with no local knowledge has looked at a
> Bilsdale coverage map and decided that York, Harrogate, etc are the most
> important areas for the temporary transmitter to serve. What he
> obviously didn’t know is that people in those areas don’t like Tyne Tees
> and BBC NE so their aerials point towards Emley Moor. Hardly surprising
> is it really that York and Harrogate prefer Yorkshire TV and BBC Leeds?
> So almost nobody in those areas uses Bilsdale; they use Emley Moor if at
> all possible. The signals from Emley and Bilsdale have a massive
> overlap. So the signals that are really needed in the Leyburn (etc)
> areas are instead being beamed out over Harrogate, Wetherby, Selby, and
> York; places where hardly anybody has an aerial pointing north towards
> Bilsdale. I admit there are a few places in and around Harrogate that
> have to use Bilsdale, but York? Selby? Wetherby? I worked in those areas
> installing communal TV systems for many years and I can tell you that if
> I’d left a system with Tyne Tees and no YTV, unless I had a very good
> reason I would have got my arse kicked good and proper. Occasionally I
> had to use Bilsdale, but it was always as an absolute last resort.
> It would have been perfectly possible to fit a panel on the other side
> of the tower pointing north-west. No doubt the answer will be that it
> would detract from the power sent south, but that’s rubbish because (a)
> see above, and (b) only a small amount of power would need to be bled
> off the feeder to serve a low-powered panel (which is all that it would
> need to be because the service area is limited by the topography of the
> Dales). In any case the south-west (Harrogate) could have been served
> with one panel and the north-west with another.
> Can I suggest that you people kick up a stink about this? It sounds like
> a story for your local press, MP, local councils, etc. I really hate it
> when the broadcasters ride roughshod over the public like this.
>
>

That would be the same idiot that originally decided the local DTTV
transmissions for York should be radiated from Bilsdale.

Fortunately someone realised in time but even then got it wrong. They
could have used the existing aerial system and equipment accommodation
at Ascomb water tower (junc A64/A1237 SW of York.) Instead they put it
on a cell tower about a mile west of there at Bilborough Top.

D'oh!

On 14/09/2021 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 13/09/2021 20:19, NY wrote:
>>
>> It does seem odd that Sutton Bank isn't also providing (as strong)
>> coverage to its west and north west.
>
> No it's not. The Tx panels are only on the SE leg of the tower
>
> http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=2566
>

The bit that everyone is missing is that the mast is not at the top of
Sutton Bank, it is at an old police mast called Cleeve Dyke about a
1.5Km NNE of Sutton Bank and maybe 800m back from the nearest edge,
hence why places underneath it such as Thirsk might be having problems.

If someone had asked the emergency services - all of whom used the site
in pre Airwave days - they would have soon found the reality of the
coverage!

In article <si2pqa$s89$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com>
scribeth thus
>On 14/09/2021 08:09, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 13/09/2021 20:19, NY wrote:
>>>
>>> It does seem odd that Sutton Bank isn't also providing (as strong)
>>> coverage to its west and north west.
>>
>> No it's not. The Tx panels are only on the SE leg of the tower
>>
>> http://tx.mb21.co.uk/gallery/gallerypage.php?txid=2566
>>
>
>The bit that everyone is missing is that the mast is not at the top of
>Sutton Bank, it is at an old police mast called Cleeve Dyke about a
>1.5Km NNE of Sutton Bank and maybe 800m back from the nearest edge,
>hence why places underneath it such as Thirsk might be having problems.

Surely they would have done coverage displays and checks on that ?..
>

>If someone had asked the emergency services - all of whom used the site
>in pre Airwave days - they would have soon found the reality of the
>coverage!
>

Local knowledge eh;!....
--
Tony Sayer

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

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

On 17/09/2021 20:20, Woody wrote:
> The bit that everyone is missing is that the mast is not at the top of
> Sutton Bank, it is at an old police mast called Cleeve Dyke about a
> 1.5Km NNE of Sutton Bank and maybe 800m back from the nearest edge,
> hence why places underneath it such as Thirsk might be having problems.

You can see the mast from a lot of the little roads between Thirsk and
the hills on Google Maps.

Bill

On 18/09/2021 01:44, williamwright wrote:
> On 17/09/2021 20:20, Woody wrote:
>> The bit that everyone is missing is that the mast is not at the top of
>> Sutton Bank, it is at an old police mast called Cleeve Dyke about a
>> 1.5Km NNE of Sutton Bank and maybe 800m back from the nearest edge,
>> hence why places underneath it such as Thirsk might be having problems.
>
> You can see the mast from a lot of the little roads between Thirsk and
> the hills on Google Maps.
>
> Bill

Are you sure on that Bill? There is also a broadcast/PMR mast at
Woolmmor (actually a hill called Kirkby Knowle) which can be seen for
some distance around - could it be misleading you? I used to look after
kit at Cleeve Dyke and have never seen it from the west even knowing
exactly where it is.

On 18/09/2021 13:06, Woody wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 01:44, williamwright wrote:
>> On 17/09/2021 20:20, Woody wrote:
>>> The bit that everyone is missing is that the mast is not at the top
>>> of Sutton Bank, it is at an old police mast called Cleeve Dyke about
>>> a 1.5Km NNE of Sutton Bank and maybe 800m back from the nearest edge,
>>> hence why places underneath it such as Thirsk might be having problems.
>>
>> You can see the mast from a lot of the little roads between Thirsk and
>> the hills on Google Maps.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Are you sure on that Bill? There is also a broadcast/PMR mast at
> Woolmmor (actually a hill called Kirkby Knowle) which can be seen for
> some distance around - could it be misleading you? I used to look after
>  kit at Cleeve Dyke and have never seen it from the west even knowing
> exactly where it is.
>
Yes, Woolmoor is further south. I'm talking about the one on top of the
moor north of Sutton Bank. You can only see the top half and it's quite
thin but it is there.

Bill