• Bilsdale mast "probabl[y] ... will have to be dismantled"

    From NY@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 8 16:20:41 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast


    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the fire
    means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how long
    the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 8 17:30:22 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast



    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
    fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
    dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
    long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
    as a reference, about 15-18 months

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Williamson@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Wed Sep 8 19:14:57 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>


    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
    fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
    dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
    long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
    as a reference, about 15-18 months

    If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't
    receive one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent
    broadband speed yet?

    Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
    little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.

    --
    Tciao for Now!

    John.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to John Williamson on Wed Sep 8 19:45:23 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
    On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>>


    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
    fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
    dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
    long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
    as a reference, about 15-18 months

    If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't receive
    one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent broadband
    speed yet?

    Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
    little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.

    The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3 but
    not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who previously
    had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And because the temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there will be a lot
    more shadow areas that get no reception.

    People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out for it
    to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some people will
    be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not as fast as VDSL, but will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet that is a few hundred
    metres away than for copper that goes several miles back to the exchange.

    Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good reception
    of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite plus the kit
    to receive/record it which they already have - but for terrestrial.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to John Williamson on Wed Sep 8 20:37:46 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ipsgjoF80tgU1@mid.individual.net...
    Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
    reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
    plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
    terrestrial.

    Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
    mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all you need is a card to put
    in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the dish, unless things have
    changed lately. My not very smart and cheap decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.

    Yes - *modern* TVs often include both satellite and terrestrial decoders. I imagine the same is true for modern PVRs. But older ones (even as recent as 2010 when we bought a TV) only came with terrestrial decoders (analogue and digital).

    A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change channel
    on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change channel on the
    TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need to be physically present to change channel if you want to record first from one channel and
    then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now coming with built-in recording and playback capabilities - it's ages since I've looked at the product
    range. (*)

    I'm amazed that throughout the years of analogue and then digital STBs and VHS/DVD/HDD recorders, the industry never introduced a standard cable and protocol for a recorder to instruct a decoder to turn on, change to a
    certain channel, and then turn off afterwards - repeat for as many
    programmes as you want to record. There were various botched attempts such
    as using an IR emitter on the recorder to mimic the decoders IR handset, but they relied on accurate placement of the two devices, and they usually only supported a pre-defined set of decoders (and none of the ones I tried were listed), instead of the user training the VCR (with the decoder remote) the codes that were used by some obscure decoder's remote.

    If you are starting with new kit nowadays, it is easy. But people bought new equipment when digital first became available or else when analogue was
    turned off, and don't want to have to buy new equipment which still works (though can't receive a signal).



    But your suggestion of a mesh of lower-powered transmitters *may* be useful, though is it cheaper to install many lower-powered ones or one big 300 metre mast like Bilsdale?


    (*) My setup is non-standard: I used a Raspberry Pi with terrestrial and satellite decoders to record to HDD and then edit out the commercials/continuity and save the edited program for later watching. So I don't know what dedicated Freeview and Freesat devices are capable of these days.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MikeS@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 8 20:53:36 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 08/09/2021 20:37, NY wrote:
    "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ipsgjoF80tgU1@mid.individual.net...
    Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
    reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
    plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
    terrestrial.

    Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
    mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap
    decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their
    circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that
    are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription
    services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all
    you need is a card to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the
    dish, unless things have changed lately. My not very smart and cheap
    decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.

    Yes - *modern* TVs often include both satellite and terrestrial
    decoders. I imagine the same is true for modern PVRs. But older ones
    (even as recent as 2010 when we bought a TV) only came with terrestrial decoders (analogue and digital).

    A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change
    channel on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change
    channel on the TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need
    to be physically present to change channel if you want to record first
    from one channel and then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now
    coming with built-in recording and playback capabilities - it's ages
    since I've looked at the product range. (*)

    Leaving aside that I have never heard anyone else refer to them as
    decoders, you are indeed behind the times.

    As far as I recall the only reasonable price Freesat STB still available
    is from Manhatten. Freesat themselves introduced one with and without a
    PVR but they are expensive and get mixed reviews on forums.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Williamson@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 8 20:18:15 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 08/09/2021 19:45, NY wrote:
    "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
    On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>>>



    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
    fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
    dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
    long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
    as a reference, about 15-18 months

    If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't
    receive one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent
    broadband speed yet?

    Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
    little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.

    The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3
    but not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who previously had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And
    because the temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there
    will be a lot more shadow areas that get no reception.

    Fair enough. Though depending on the topography, there must be a lot of
    shadow areas from Bilsdale as well, as the signal is pretty much
    propagating horizontally at the edges of its range. Each local link
    would be reasonably carefully sited to give the best coverage, I would
    assume, not just dumped on a local small hill?

    People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out for
    it to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some
    people will be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a
    shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not
    as fast as VDSL, but will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet
    that is a few hundred metres away than for copper that goes several
    miles back to the exchange.

    That could be a good reason to force Beattie to upgrade the system.

    Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
    reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
    plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for terrestrial.

    Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
    mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap decoder
    (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their circuitry) and
    there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on
    Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription services, (Which
    need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all you need is a card
    to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the dish, unless things
    have changed lately. My not very smart and cheap decoder could record to
    a USB stick quite happily.

    (I used to live in a house which, despite being in a city, could not get
    line of sight to any of the relatively close masts without a 15 metre
    long pole, which would have needed guys, attached to the chimney, but
    had a free line of sight to the sky in the South, and I got the same
    channels as everyone else, plus quite a few non-local ones they couldn't
    get.)

    --
    Tciao for Now!

    John.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andy Burns@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 8 20:30:35 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    NY wrote:

    It's a shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL
    is not as fast as VDSL

    But if BT were going to put any form of active kit into (or next to) why
    would they use ADSL instead of VDSL at this late stage?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tony sayer@21:1/5 to All on Wed Sep 8 21:36:17 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <ips6ovF65huU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
    On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>


    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
    fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
    dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
    long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
    as a reference, about 15-18 months


    I expect that they are taking the view that even "if" the mast is stable enough, someone said it had bulged quite possible with the heat level
    then that may well put it into an uncertain safety area. Of course you
    cant chop out a bit and replace it with another with that sort of weight
    being several hundred tons.

    Then they'll have to climb the inside of the thing soot that may well be carcinogenic as well as a very difficult to remove the shitty mess and
    may well take a long time then once its all out of the way then new
    feeders s and probably the aerial may well be OK.

    So much easier a few carefully placed explosive charges and get it to
    fall in the least damaging place, crested newts permitting of course!
    then clear up the mess at ground level.

    Could you imagine undoing the bolts or rivets on that structure starting
    from the top be rusted more like and take ages when one good Bang will
    see it sorted in seconds.

    The base may well be good enough the stay blocks will have much the same loads..

    And then use the chopper, not the rig derrick like P'boro say if a
    section was 10 feet long maybe use 2 choppers possible to do maybe 8 to
    10 sections a day so 100 feet a day before the weather gets too cold and
    days too dark?.

    Rigging and cables for TV first then the FM and DAB lower down so they
    can work on that after the TV is up and running?, And i suspect they
    may not go for the full 1000 height modern DTV reception is that bit
    more robust than analogue..

    I bet thats the way the Arqiva thinking is going....
    --
    Tony Sayer


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

    Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From williamwright@21:1/5 to John Williamson on Thu Sep 9 03:08:20 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 08/09/2021 20:18, John Williamson wrote:
    Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
    mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on
    Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription services, (Which
    need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all you need is a card
    to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the dish, unless things
    have changed lately. My not very smart and cheap decoder could record to
    a USB stick quite happily.

    Oh I just can't be bothered.

    Bill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From williamwright@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 9 03:11:22 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 08/09/2021 20:37, NY wrote:
    A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change
    channel on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change
    channel on the TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need
    to be physically present to change channel if you want to record first
    from one channel and then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now
    coming with built-in recording and playback capabilities - it's ages
    since I've looked at the product range.

    Freesat recorders operate just like Freeview recorders. Programme guide,
    set your recordings, series links, etc.

    Bill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From williamwright@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 9 03:05:31 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 08/09/2021 19:45, NY wrote:
    Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
    reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
    plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for terrestrial.

    As always they'll be rode roughshod over. Nobody in power gives a fuck
    about ordinary people.

    Bill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 9 07:11:40 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 08/09/2021 19:45, NY wrote:

    The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3
    but not COM4,5,6,7.

    Not so.

    Eston Nab has all seven muxes now, plus the local TV mux.

    Arncliffe has the main six muxes

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Indy Jess John@21:1/5 to williamwright on Thu Sep 9 08:13:59 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 09/09/2021 03:11, williamwright wrote:
    On 08/09/2021 20:37, NY wrote:
    A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change
    channel on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change
    channel on the TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need
    to be physically present to change channel if you want to record first
    from one channel and then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now
    coming with built-in recording and playback capabilities - it's ages
    since I've looked at the product range.

    Freesat recorders operate just like Freeview recorders. Programme guide,
    set your recordings, series links, etc.

    Bill

    They do, bur to do so they require two connections to the LNB.

    Jim

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Gaff (Sofa)@21:1/5 to John Williamson on Thu Sep 9 08:27:20 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    There is also the fact of course that having a punt around freeview last
    night a good half of the channels could vanish tomorrow and the content
    would not suffer, as they are nearly all running repeats of stuff which have been on elsewhere many many times, crappy old movies or American el cheapo
    fly on the walls or various police and border forces around the world, not
    to mention jus thinly disguised clones of otherwise successful programs.
    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.!
    "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ipsgjoF80tgU1@mid.individual.net...
    On 08/09/2021 19:45, NY wrote:
    "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
    news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
    On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast




    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
    fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
    dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how >>>>> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5 >>>> as a reference, about 15-18 months

    If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't
    receive one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent
    broadband speed yet?

    Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
    little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.

    The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3
    but not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who
    previously had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And
    because the temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there
    will be a lot more shadow areas that get no reception.

    Fair enough. Though depending on the topography, there must be a lot of shadow areas from Bilsdale as well, as the signal is pretty much
    propagating horizontally at the edges of its range. Each local link would
    be reasonably carefully sited to give the best coverage, I would assume,
    not just dumped on a local small hill?

    People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out for
    it to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some
    people will be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a
    shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not
    as fast as VDSL, but will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet
    that is a few hundred metres away than for copper that goes several
    miles back to the exchange.

    That could be a good reason to force Beattie to upgrade the system.

    Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
    reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
    plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
    terrestrial.

    Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
    mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all you need is a card to put
    in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the dish, unless things have
    changed lately. My not very smart and cheap decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.

    (I used to live in a house which, despite being in a city, could not get
    line of sight to any of the relatively close masts without a 15 metre long pole, which would have needed guys, attached to the chimney, but had a
    free line of sight to the sky in the South, and I got the same channels as everyone else, plus quite a few non-local ones they couldn't get.)

    --
    Tciao for Now!

    John.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Gaff (Sofa)@21:1/5 to me@privacy.invalid on Thu Sep 9 08:21:48 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    This will depend on time scale. After all, you might expect to have to
    change as in digital switchovver after many years, but not just because of
    an accident.
    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:shb0cm$2n9$1@dont-email.me...
    "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
    On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>>>


    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
    fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
    dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
    long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
    as a reference, about 15-18 months

    If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't receive
    one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent broadband
    speed yet?

    Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
    little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.

    The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3 but not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who previously had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And because the temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there will be a lot more shadow areas that get no reception.

    People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out for
    it to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some people will be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not as fast as VDSL, but will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet that is a few hundred metres away than for copper that goes several miles back to the exchange.

    Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
    reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
    plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for terrestrial.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Gaff (Sofa)@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Thu Sep 9 08:17:03 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    Do you think it was insured against fire damage? 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.!
    "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:ips6ovF65huU2@mid.individual.net...
    On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>

    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the fire
    means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
    long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5 as
    a reference, about 15-18 months

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Gaff (Sofa)@21:1/5 to John Williamson on Thu Sep 9 08:18:52 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    The problem will be one of direction of aerial. Who is going to want to
    resite or replace their aerial etc?
    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.!
    "John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
    On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>>


    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
    fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
    dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
    long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
    as a reference, about 15-18 months

    If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't receive
    one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent broadband
    speed yet?

    Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
    little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.

    --
    Tciao for Now!

    John.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to tony sayer on Thu Sep 9 09:09:08 2021
    tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote:

    In article <ips6ovF65huU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
    On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
    https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>


    Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
    fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
    dismantled".

    No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
    long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.

    As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
    as a reference, about 15-18 months


    I expect that they are taking the view that even "if" the mast is stable enough, someone said it had bulged quite possible with the heat level
    then that may well put it into an uncertain safety area. Of course you
    cant chop out a bit and replace it with another with that sort of weight being several hundred tons.

    You could, but it might not be economic to do so.


    Then they'll have to climb the inside of the thing soot that may well be carcinogenic as well as a very difficult to remove the shitty mess...

    That is the problem with 'self-extinguishing' plastic, it usually works
    by producing toxic chemicals that are equally capable of extinguishing
    fires and people.

    If there is a good draught, such as inside a chimney or a loose bonfire,
    the gassy chemicals get blown away and the fire continues to burn. The
    mast would have acted like a chimney - although it looks as though there
    were some sort of semi-effective draught stoppers that prevented the
    full effect.

    When it burns, pure polyethylene just turns to gas and leaves no residue (except melted unburnt polyethylene). Even the fumes from the burning
    are relatively benign compared to something like plasticised P.V.C.
    which generates a whole cocktail of nasties and coats external surfaces
    and the interior of lungs with toxic soot. Nylon produces cyanide.

    The breakdown products of some neoprene-like rubbers may possibly
    include hydrofluoric acid, but the story that residue from burnt
    neoprene has killed people is an urban myth (according to the HSE).
    Decomposed neoprene is very difficult to remove - as many Ferrograph
    Series 7 owners will confirm.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to Andy Burns on Wed Sep 8 20:47:08 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message news:ipsharF839uU2@mid.individual.net...
    NY wrote:

    It's a shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is
    not as fast as VDSL

    But if BT were going to put any form of active kit into (or next to) why would they use ADSL instead of VDSL at this late stage?

    Because ADSL works over a longer distance albeit at a lower speed. Combined with FTTC it would still give the advantage of fibre to keep the distance shorter than all-the-way-back-to-the-exchange, but could be used at
    distances beyond which VDSL would give up and a router would fail to sync at all.

    Where we used to live, we got about 1 Mbps down and 0.2 Mbps up over ADSL, because our cable went all the way back to the exchange, 7 km away. The
    wires passed right over the top of a green cabinet which was plastered with adverts exhorting people to upgrade to FTTC, but BT would not re-route the cables into the cabinet to offer xDSL from there to the premises, which
    would have reduced the distance to about 2 km.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Andy Burns@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 9 10:24:35 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    NY wrote:

    Because ADSL works over a longer distance albeit at a lower speed.
    Combined with FTTC it would still give the advantage of fibre to keep
    the distance shorter than all-the-way-back-to-the-exchange, but could be
    used at distances beyond which VDSL would give up and a router would
    fail to sync at all.

    You'd think VDSL could drop to the same number of bins and bits per bin
    that ADSL uses, i.e. be no worse?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to Andy Burns on Thu Sep 9 10:38:23 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message news:ipu26lFgv5qU1@mid.individual.net...
    NY wrote:

    Because ADSL works over a longer distance albeit at a lower speed.
    Combined with FTTC it would still give the advantage of fibre to keep the
    distance shorter than all-the-way-back-to-the-exchange, but could be used
    at distances beyond which VDSL would give up and a router would fail to
    sync at all.

    You'd think VDSL could drop to the same number of bins and bits per bin
    that ADSL uses, i.e. be no worse?

    Yes you would. But I've heard of cases where BTOR will not upgrade a line to FTTC because the line length to the cabinet will be too long to support
    VDSL, whereas the much longer line to the exchange will support ADSL (at
    some stupidly low rate).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From williamwright@21:1/5 to Indy Jess John on Thu Sep 9 12:02:47 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 09/09/2021 08:13, Indy Jess John wrote:


    Freesat recorders operate just like Freeview recorders. Programme guide,
    set your recordings, series links, etc.

    Bill

    They do, bur to do so they require two connections to the LNB.

    Jim


    Which is trivial, and standard practice. And if the telly has a sat
    tuner three LNB feeds are needed.

    Bill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Unsteadyken@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 9 13:51:44 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <ipsgjoF80tgU1@mid.individual.net>,

    John Williamson says...

    there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on
    Freesat, from what I remember.

    The only notable absences for me are Channel 4 HD and Freesports.
    Channel 4 HD is available FTA, as is Freesports HD.

    On Freesat but not Freeview: SportyStufftv HD, Smithsonian HD.
    plus 20 News national Propaganda channels; 12 in HD.
    and BBC Scotland HD, BBC Alba and S4C HD plus all the BBC regions.



    --
    Ken

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. P. Gilliver (John)@21:1/5 to briang1@blueyonder.co.uk on Thu Sep 9 20:36:41 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 at 08:17:03, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)"
    <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points
    raised):
    Do you think it was insured against fire damage? Brian

    Big enough companies don't insure, if they can persuade whatever
    authorities regulate that risk that they have enough assets to cover the liability insured against; all insurance is a bet, and overall, the only
    winner is the bookie (the insurance company) - it's cheaper to cover it yourself if your company is broad enough, unless forced by legislation
    (as we are for car etc. insurance). I have no idea whether Arqiva are
    big enough to think that way. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they
    weren't insured against the replacement costs, only third-party
    injury-type liabilities, and quite possibly not even those, if they were
    able to persuade the relevant authorities they could cover the
    liability.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    "Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to G6JPG@255soft.uk on Fri Sep 10 09:09:28 2021
    J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

    ... unless forced by legislation
    (as we are for car etc. insurance).

    There used to be an exemption from that if you were able to ring-fence
    or deposit a large enough sum. I don't know if the law has changed
    since the 1950s, which was when I heard about it.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Brian Gaff (Sofa)@21:1/5 to G6JPG@255soft.uk on Fri Sep 10 09:19:13 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a
    tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points
    of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
    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.!
    "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:MVlTOPLJJmOhFwPN@255soft.uk...
    On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 at 08:17:03, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points
    raised):
    Do you think it was insured against fire damage? Brian

    Big enough companies don't insure, if they can persuade whatever
    authorities regulate that risk that they have enough assets to cover the liability insured against; all insurance is a bet, and overall, the only winner is the bookie (the insurance company) - it's cheaper to cover it yourself if your company is broad enough, unless forced by legislation (as
    we are for car etc. insurance). I have no idea whether Arqiva are big
    enough to think that way. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they weren't insured against the replacement costs, only third-party injury-type liabilities, and quite possibly not even those, if they were able to
    persuade the relevant authorities they could cover the liability.
    --
    J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

    "Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 10 09:25:20 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
    I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points of those you surely have an unsafe structure.

    The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.

    The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robin@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Fri Sep 10 12:07:54 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
    I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a
    tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor
    points
    of those you surely have an unsafe structure.

    The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.

    The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

    But think of the birds!

    Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
    serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not just an
    even more expensive alternative).

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Max Demian@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Fri Sep 10 11:33:28 2021
    On 10/09/2021 09:09, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
    J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

    ... unless forced by legislation
    (as we are for car etc. insurance).

    There used to be an exemption from that if you were able to ring-fence
    or deposit a large enough sum. I don't know if the law has changed
    since the 1950s, which was when I heard about it.

    Used to be £20,000. Likely to be much more now. I think bus companies do
    it, which is why they (and not insurance companies) pursue alleged
    fraudsters with their multiple CCTV cameras. (There are lots of TV
    programmes about this in the mornings.)

    --
    Max Demian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to Robin on Fri Sep 10 12:30:29 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
    On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
    I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling
    such a
    tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the
    anchor points
    of those you surely have an unsafe structure.

    The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.

    The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

    But think of the birds!

    Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
    serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
    solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
    just an even more expensive alternative).

    Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
    less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tony sayer@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 10 13:24:55 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <iq0j3hF1c0mU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
    On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
    I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a
    tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points >> of those you surely have an unsafe structure.

    The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.

    The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.


    Pulling it over Mark;!...

    --
    Tony Sayer


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

    Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ian Jackson@21:1/5 to mark.carver@invalid.invalid on Fri Sep 10 13:37:55 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In message <iq0tulF3dkgU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
    On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
    On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
    I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling >>>>such a
    tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the
    anchor points
    of those you surely have an unsafe structure.

    The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.

    The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

    But think of the birds!

    Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some >>serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
    solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
    just an even more expensive alternative).

    Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
    less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !

    If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
    would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However,
    might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such
    as the main aerials)?
    --
    Ian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tony sayer@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 10 13:25:56 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <iq0tulF3dkgU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
    On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
    On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
    I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling
    such a
    tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the
    anchor points
    of those you surely have an unsafe structure.

    The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.

    The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

    But think of the birds!

    Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
    serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
    solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
    just an even more expensive alternative).

    Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
    less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !


    Apart from the poor saps who were working there!....



    --
    Tony Sayer


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

    Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to Ian Jackson on Fri Sep 10 15:09:46 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:

    If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
    would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
    However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged
    bits (such as the main aerials)?

    Yes, but how ?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to tony sayer on Fri Sep 10 15:19:34 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 10/09/2021 13:24, tony sayer wrote:
    In article <iq0j3hF1c0mU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
    On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
    I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a >>> tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points
    of those you surely have an unsafe structure.

    The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.

    The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

    Pulling it over Mark;!...

    I've always preferred rear wheel drive

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tony sayer@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 10 17:57:01 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <YpXh$IDjG1OhFwfA@brattleho.plus.com>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVE THISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> scribeth thus
    In message <iq0tulF3dkgU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver ><mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
    On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
    On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
    I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling >>>>>such a
    tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the >>>>>anchor points
    of those you surely have an unsafe structure.

    The mast is made up of welded together metal panels.

    The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.

    But think of the birds!

    Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some >>>serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
    solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
    just an even more expensive alternative).

    Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
    less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !


    If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
    would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However, >might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such
    as the main aerials)?

    Well that wont be that simple. To get up there someone would have to go
    up inside the mast a to arrange the man bucket on of the up most stay
    or they'd have to get a s chopper in that that means having someone up
    there to undo all the bolts etc..

    Bit of a bugger if the mast decided to collapse while the chopper was
    just lifting the main TX aerial parts..

    Far too dangerous.

    A few pounds the bangin stuff in the right places and that will be
    that..
    --
    Tony Sayer


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

    Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Fri Sep 10 18:00:15 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
    On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:

    If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down would
    be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However, might
    they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such as the
    main aerials)?

    Yes, but how ?

    Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes. You need an old car horn with a rubber bulb, which you belatedly sound *after*
    the mast has fallen, at which point you run like buggery, and then turn
    round to the camera and grin, saying "Did yer like that?".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MB@21:1/5 to tony sayer on Fri Sep 10 19:07:18 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 10/09/2021 18:44, tony sayer wrote:
    I wonder how old Fred would have bought this down?, don't think his
    chimney propping methods would have worked that well somehow;!...

    If only they had built it of brick.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tony sayer@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 10 18:44:42 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <shg2vu$p3s$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid>
    scribeth thus
    "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
    On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:

    If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down would >>> be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However, might >>> they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such as the >>> main aerials)?

    Yes, but how ?

    Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes >unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes. You >need an old car horn with a rubber bulb, which you belatedly sound *after* >the mast has fallen, at which point you run like buggery, and then turn
    round to the camera and grin, saying "Did yer like that?".


    LOL!

    I wonder how old Fred would have bought this down?, don't think his
    chimney propping methods would have worked that well somehow;!...

    --
    Tony Sayer


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

    Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MB@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 10 19:06:30 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 10/09/2021 18:00, NY wrote:
    Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes. You need an old car horn with a rubber bulb, which you belatedly sound*after*
    the mast has fallen, at which point you run like buggery, and then turn
    round to the camera and grin, saying "Did yer like that?".

    They could also have cutting charges at several points to cut into
    several pieces.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MB@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 10 19:25:24 2021
    Do you think it was insured against fire damage? Brian

    At the time of Eitshal, we were told that we had permission to use the
    items that were going to be scrapped, to restore service. Which
    suggests that there was some insurance.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Liz Tuddenham@21:1/5 to me@privacy.invalid on Fri Sep 10 20:31:15 2021
    NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

    "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
    On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:

    If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down would >> be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However, might >> they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such as the >> main aerials)?

    Yes, but how ?

    Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes. You need an old car horn with a rubber bulb, which you belatedly sound *after* the mast has fallen, at which point you run like buggery, and then turn
    round to the camera and grin, saying "Did yer like that?".

    If the base is cut by an explosion, there will be no preferential
    direction of fall because the guys will be approximately equally
    stressed until it has dropped some distance. It will fall more-or-less vertically and wreck the remaining undamaged buildings. The remains
    could easily become hung up on each other in a heap so that they have a hazardous cutting-up job to do at some distance from the ground.

    If they cut the top guys only, the top section will start to fall and
    the reaction on the middle guys will be in the opposite direction. The
    middle guys may then fail, which would result in the bottom going the
    opposite way from the top.

    If they cut the middle guys only, the middle will move sideways and the
    top part will land somewhere near the base, potentially demolishing
    buildings.

    Cutting all the guys on one side simultaneously, so that it falls as a
    single piece in one direction (away from anything valuable) appears to
    be the most likely solution. Everything will end up in a predictable
    way at ground level , where it is easy to deal with.


    --
    ~ Liz Tuddenham ~
    (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
    www.poppyrecords.co.uk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to tony sayer on Fri Sep 10 22:47:18 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    "tony sayer" <tony@bancom.co.uk> wrote in message news:GkSyn$NKm5OhFwcq@bancom.co.uk...
    I wonder how old Fred would have bought this down?, don't think his
    chimney propping methods would have worked that well somehow;!...

    Angle-grind a rectangular hole in one side at the bottom, insert some
    pit-props (not necessary but just for the effect), build a bloody big fire
    with tar-soaked railway sleepers and light it with an oily rag. Then watch
    from an unsafe distance (well within the height of the mast), telling
    stories about how great Brunel was, punctuated with occasional cries of
    "she's going", and then get the horn out and prepare to run like buggery as
    the red-hot mast bulges and gently folds in on itself as it crashes to the ground.

    If he was feeling adventurous, he might have climbed to the top first (*) to get a look round at all the other masts that you can see from there, as well
    as what's left of Eggborough, Drax and Ferrybridge power stations (**).

    (*) Making sure that his climb involved a section where he had to climb outwards and backwards, which he would made look dead easy.

    (**) There is a section of the road from Castleton, via the Blakey Inn pub,
    to Hutton-le-Hole where you are in a very rural moorland setting but in the
    far distance you used to be able to see the steaming cooling towers of Eggborough, Drax and Ferrybridge power stations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From williamwright@21:1/5 to Liz Tuddenham on Sat Sep 11 00:45:51 2021
    On 10/09/2021 20:31, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

    Cutting all the guys on one side simultaneously, so that it falls as a
    single piece in one direction (away from anything valuable) appears to
    be the most likely solution. Everything will end up in a predictable
    way at ground level , where it is easy to deal with.



    No plan survives contact with the enemy.

    Bill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris J Dixon@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 11 08:34:26 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    NY wrote:

    (**) There is a section of the road from Castleton, via the Blakey Inn pub, >to Hutton-le-Hole where you are in a very rural moorland setting but in the >far distance you used to be able to see the steaming cooling towers of >Eggborough, Drax and Ferrybridge power stations.

    I've never been good with heights, but recall a spell (late 60s)
    working for AEI at Eggborough power station. This was a placement
    during my training, and we were, to some degree, able to head off
    exploring the site. We visited the boiler house where the floor
    at 135 ft was open mesh. If you looked down, as you moved, it
    blurred and disappeared and you felt as if you were floating. The
    only solution, to avoid tripping over stuff, was to look far
    enough away that it appeared solid.

    Once up on the roof, we had a good view across to Drax, then
    under construction, and Ferrybridge.

    Chris
    --
    Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK
    chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1

    Plant amazing Acers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From cmwb@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 11 08:21:38 2021
    "MB" wrote in message news:shg7t2$cfr$1@dont-email.me... At the time of >Eitshal, we were told that we had permission to use the items that were
    going to be scrapped, to restore service. Which suggests that there was
    some insurance.

    Used to be self insure up to circa £20k.


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MB@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Sat Sep 11 11:01:33 2021
    On 11/09/2021 10:17, Mark Carver wrote:
    I was asking how the aerials could be salvaged, considering no one in
    their right mind is ever going to climb the mast again.


    They might got through the motions of "salvaging" them just so the PR
    people can say how green they are but in practice just like any other scrap.

    Or they could pay someone a ridiculous amount of money to make the scrap
    into an artwork.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 11 10:17:35 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 10/09/2021 18:00, NY wrote:
    "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
    On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:

    If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
    would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
    However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable
    undamaged bits (such as the main aerials)?

    Yes, but how ?

    Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load
    becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed
    guy ropes.

    I was asking how the aerials could be salvaged, considering no one in
    their right mind is ever going to climb the mast again.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 11 11:03:02 2021
    On 11/09/2021 11:01, MB wrote:

    Or they could pay someone a ridiculous amount of money to make the
    scrap into an artwork.

    Ron Smith was ahead of the game on that one

    https://ronsmithaerials.com/catalogue/G17.php

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From williamwright@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Sat Sep 11 17:00:29 2021
    On 11/09/2021 11:03, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 11/09/2021 11:01, MB wrote:

    Or they could pay someone a ridiculous amount of money to make the
    scrap into an artwork.

    Ron Smith was ahead of the game on that one

    https://ronsmithaerials.com/catalogue/G17.php

    Ha! You saw through it! So many didn't.

    Bill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From NY@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Sat Sep 11 17:33:51 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:iq3ahgFhegmU1@mid.individual.net...
    On 10/09/2021 18:00, NY wrote:
    "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
    On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:

    If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
    would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
    However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged
    bits (such as the main aerials)?

    Yes, but how ?

    Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes
    unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes.

    I was asking how the aerials could be salvaged, considering no one in
    their right mind is ever going to climb the mast again.

    Fred would have gone up it - and then done a risk-assessment after it was
    all over, but only because he was told he had to.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tony sayer@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 12 21:07:33 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    In article <iq3ahgFhegmU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
    On 10/09/2021 18:00, NY wrote:
    "Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
    news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
    On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:

    If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
    would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
    However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable
    undamaged bits (such as the main aerials)?

    Yes, but how ?

    Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load
    becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed
    guy ropes.

    I was asking how the aerials could be salvaged, considering no one in
    their right mind is ever going to climb the mast again.

    Very much doubt they could Mark as we understand it now ones going up
    there they would take a hell of a risk using a helicopter so ..

    New set of UHF panels and a VHF Band 2 and 3 set anyone ?...

    --
    Tony Sayer


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

    Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tony sayer@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 12 21:15:03 2021
    In article <iq424tFls0aU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> scribeth thus
    On 11/09/2021 11:03, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 11/09/2021 11:01, MB wrote:

    Or they could pay someone a ridiculous amount of money to make the
    scrap into an artwork.

    Ron Smith was ahead of the game on that one

    https://ronsmithaerials.com/catalogue/G17.php

    Ha! You saw through it! So many didn't.

    Bill

    Mad or what!?..


    Https://www.ronsmithaerials.com/zenphoto/general-interest/page0074.jpeg

    https://www.ronsmithaerials.com/zenphoto/general-interest/page0121.jpeg

    I had one of their Galaxies many years ago to replace the FUBA UK 8 that
    came to grief in a storm, don't done think is was as good despite the
    extra metal and windload!...
    --
    Tony Sayer


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

    Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Kellerman@21:1/5 to williamwright on Wed Oct 13 17:13:29 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 09/09/2021 03:08, williamwright wrote:
    On 08/09/2021 20:18, John Williamson wrote:
    Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
    mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap
    decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their
    circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that
    are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription
    services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all
    you need is a card to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the
    dish, unless things have changed lately. My not very smart and cheap
    decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.

    Oh I just can't be bothered.

    Bill
    "out of touch" is the phrase you're looking for Bill.

    Dave

    --
    Ask how to email me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From williamwright@21:1/5 to Kellerman on Wed Oct 13 17:38:53 2021
    XPost: uk.tech.digital-tv

    On 13/10/2021 17:13, Kellerman wrote:
    On 09/09/2021 03:08, williamwright wrote:
    On 08/09/2021 20:18, John Williamson wrote:
    Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
    mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap
    decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their
    circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that
    are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription
    services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway)
    all you need is a card to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect
    the dish, unless things have changed lately. My not very smart and
    cheap decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.

    Oh I just can't be bothered.

    Bill
    "out of touch" is the phrase you're looking for Bill.

    Dave

    For the avoidance of doubt, I meant that I couldn't be bothered to
    correct all the errors.

    Bill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)