Talk:Crystal Palace transmitting station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


There should be an article about the nearby Croydon Transmitter, which is a similar height and design, but stands on a slightly lower elevation. Lee M 01:34, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


According to some maps and Microsoft AutoRoute 2006 the Crystal Palace Transmitter is in the London Borough of Bromley. [1]

   LONDON UK   00:49 (UTC) • 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now researched this, and the tower is definitely located in the borough of Bromley. This map from the Croydon Council website clearly shows Croydon borough ending at the junction of Church Road and Westow Hill. The tower is approximately 500 m to the north east of the junction, on the south side of Crystal Palace Road, which forms the boundary between Bromley to the south and Southwark to the north. Chillysnow 22:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And for confirmation there is a Bromley Council sign outside of the transmitter. The boundary here runs along the Crystal Palace Parade main road. Regan123 15:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article name[edit]

Back in the mists of time we had a big discussion about what to call all dozens of UK 'transmitter' articles, which were variously called transmitters, TV towers, TV masts, television towers, broadcasting stations etc., and we settled on 'transmitting station' as being the best, all things considered. That is why I am reverting the page move to that 'status quo' version. If anyone wants to change the name of this article, it needs to be done consistently many similar articles, so please discuss it at Category_talk:Transmitter_sites_in_the_United_Kingdom first.--Harumphy (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion has opened on the more appropriate naming of articles in Category:Transmitter sites in the United Kingdom. The discussion has been moved to Category talk:Transmitter sites in the United Kingdom. The essence of the discussion, is that:

The relevant wording of the advice from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions is:

Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle:

The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists.

Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.

Reliable sources use both transmitter and transmitting station. Though transmitter is used more often and more commonly than transmitting station or transmitting site.

Input to the discussion is sought. SilkTork *YES! 18:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been asserted that 'Foo transmitter' is used more commonly than 'Foo transmitting station' but this assertion has not been backed up by credible evidence from reliable sources.
It has been asserted that 'transmitting station' is a technical term which should therefore not be used, but we have been offered no explanation why 'transmitting station' is so much more technical a term than 'transmitter'.
The proposed move fails the 'reasonable minimum of ambiguity' test, because it uses the term 'transmitter', which is an electronic device, to describe a facility consisting of land and buildings in which one or more transmitters is installed.
If the page is moved, then logically all similarly-named articles in Category:Transmitter sites in the United Kingdom will have to be moved too. That is why I asked that discussion should take place in the talk page for that category. I note that having already lost the argument there, SilkTork now seeks a second bite of the cherry here. I resent this wasting of editors' time. --Harumphy (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree entirely with User:Harumphy, no change should be made. The use of the term "transmitter" to describe such installations is more than ambiguous, it is misleading and by copying the error on Wikipedia we will be compounding the fallacy. This is the polar opposite of what an encyclopaedia is all about.
The Google count and most of the sources cited by User:SilkTork are either not applicable or cannot be considered reliable in a specialised subject such as this, since media journalists and the uninformed general public are prone to frequently use the wrong term. Many of the seemingly more reliable sources cited by SilkTork are referring to a service from the transmitting station, and not the station as a whole, such as [2], [3]. These citations and their associated Google count should therefore be discounted from this discussion. By contrast there are copious quantities of genuinely reliable sources, such as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] [10], [11], [12], [13]
In relation to the policy WP:Names, this subject is specialised by its nature, and I contend that no user who is unenlightened as to the difference between a transmitter and a transmitting station would find an article that used "transmitting station" in its title to be any less easily recognisable than one using "transmitter". In other words, to those who don't know, "transmitter" or "transmitting station" are equally recognisable terms for the same article. It makes no sense therefore to opt for a common misconception and compound ignorance. It is implicit in WP:Names that any two names up for consideration should at the very least both be correct. However, as Harumphy has already mentioned, the use of the name "transmitter" to describe these installations is factually incorrect. For both of these reasons therefore, this move should be rejected, which is entirely consistent with the spirit of WP:Names. Chillysnow (talk) 15:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that no change should be made. It is absolutely apposite that a "transmitter" is not the same as a "transmitter site" (is the category to be renamed as well?), and it's an obvious extension of this logic that a "transmitting station" is also a distinct definition. Moreover, I get very concerned when Google hits are cited. This is nonsense as evidence. So many sites are references to each other, or even copies of each other, and often prepared by a small number of individuals, that they cannot reasonably be used as evidence of "common usage". – Kieran T (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Early Problems[edit]

I lived near the transmitter when it started transmissions. Everyone from Anerley to Bromley lost their TV signal with the change over from Ally Palais to Crystal Palace. It turned out that the TVs of the day were overloaded by the strength of the signal. (It might have been designed with coverage of 60miles in mind but the signal was easily accessible in Holland and beyond). The problem was initially solved with "attenuators" which appeared on the market overnight. The ultimate solution was described on BBC news as beaming the signal over the nearby suburbs and providing a low power transmission for the immediate neighbourhood. If this has been documented, it deserves a mention. If it has not been documented, watch for my recollections appearing in the News Shopper, New Scientist or other primary source.

The early strength of the transmission was confirmed when reports of the Lewisham Rail Crash (December 1957) broadcast from the Crystal Palace transmitter were received in Alice Springs, Australia. This early example of Earth – Moon – Earth (EME) propagation (Moonbounce) does not appear in the Wikipedia section on DX TV. I saw it on BBC TV News (of course), so it must be true.


So who owns and runs the transmitter facilities - the article mentions BBC & Five programming broadcast but that does not confirm my guess that it is owned and operated by the BBC itself ? David Ruben Talk 15:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BBC station-names[edit]

There needs to be a style on whether these are written as e.g. BBC1 or BBC One. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

analogue switchoff[edit]

There can be amendments in the coming days because of analogue switchoff of BBC2 tomorrow and of BBC1, ITV and C4 on the 18th of this month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Construction Film[edit]

Does anybody know where a copy of the 16mm film made by BICC which was available from BICC Film Library can be located? Tonysidcup (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's on this DVD: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Surely the base area is 120 feet square, not 120 square feet? re/greg/ex;{mbox|history} 14:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Citation added. re/greg/ex;{mbox|history} 17:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British Insulated Callender's Construction Co Ltd[edit]

Is that the same as British Insulated Callender's Cables? Harfarhs (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crystal Palace transmitting station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2018 frequency changes[edit]

On 21 March 2018 Com7 and Com8 moved to UHF channels 55 and 56 respectively and the local London multiplex moved to UHF channel 35, vacated by Com8, as part of the national strategy to clear the 700 MHz band for re-use by mobile phone companies. Don't know if any ERPs changed. It seems counter-intuitive to move two muxes both out of the A group and into the band that is supposed to be being cleared but the, at least interim, goal is to convert them to national single frequency networks on channels 55 and 56 respectively. Who knows what will happen to them when UHF channels 55 and 56 have to be cleared in 2020? Will they be moved back in group, or will they be closed permanently? How many households in the Crystal Palace reception area will waste money on a wideband aerials? (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11 million people could waste money on a new aerial, but who knows how many will know the reason that Cbeebies HD / BBC News HD etc. disappeared? COM7 / COM8 used to fit in Group A before last week, so presumably could be "put back", but maybe the playing field will have changed by 2020 (change MUXs to DVB-T2, assume some natural churn in the channel assignments?) WikiWikiPhil (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The coverage checker page is showing an event dated 18 April 2018 in connection with the local London mux provided by Crystal Palace: "COM power-up" though there's no explanation as to what it means. I can't find any other reference to it. (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The article says "Although DTT requires far less power to achieve the same coverage as analogue TV, this 17 dB difference is too large to ensure comparable coverage." 17 dB suggests a power ratio of 1017/10, or approximately 50. The original analogue ERP was 1 MW and the post-switchover ERP is 200 kW (both given but uncited earlier in the paragraph), which is a ratio of 5 or 10 × log10 5 ≈ 7 dB. So much for the mathematics, what then of the uncited assertion that "The station therefore has a range of about 30 miles (50 km) for DTT, compared with about 60 miles (90 km) for analogue."? Was this based on the false value of 17 dB or the actual value of 7 dB? Perhaps someone who understands UHF propagation better than me could comment. Maybe, as a first approximation, it's sufficient to say that it follows the inverse square law and since √5 is very approximately equal to 2 the range is approximately halved. If that is the case the correction would simply be to replace 17 dB with 7 dB and find a citation.

The manual conversions from miles to kilometres were inaccurate so I've replaced them with Template:Convert. (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]