On 16/11/2015 01:38, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:33:16 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

In uk.transport.london message
om, Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:16:38, e27002 aurora posted:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:03:03 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

I'm a little surprised that they claim it uses less power than a
conventional lift. If you have to raise a given mass through a
given vertical distance, shouldn't the answer be the same?


It is a funicular railway, no?


According to the beginning of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular#Inclined_lift, a funicular must
have two cars - but other parts of the article ignore that.

"Funicular" relates to the haulage method (a rope) so once again
Wonkypaedia seems to have bolted a few bits on to a definition unlike
e.g. Wiktionary which simply states "Of, pertaining to, resembling, or
powered by a rope or cable" in agreement with various dictionary
websites. It would seem to be a false assumption that a funicular
railway is inevitably one that uses two vehicles rather than one and a
counterbalance as used on the currently out of use Broadstairs Cliff
Railway :-
http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/cl...roadstairs.htm
(NB 5' 3" gauge).
and the definitely-defunct Margate Cliff Railway
http://www.hows.org.uk/personal/rail/mar.htm

The only other two single-vehicle railways in the World listed in :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cular_railways
were both in the USA. Using two vehicles is probably optimal for
nearly all systems thus providing the seed for Wonky's incorrect
description.


Technically the counterbalance could be the second vehicle in the
description, it doesn't have to be passenger carrying.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

On 16/11/2015 01:38, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 22:33:16 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

In uk.transport.london message
om, Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:16:38, e27002 aurora posted:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:03:03 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

I'm a little surprised that they claim it uses less power than a
conventional lift. If you have to raise a given mass through a
given vertical distance, shouldn't the answer be the same?


It is a funicular railway, no?


According to the beginning of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular#Inclined_lift, a funicular must
have two cars - but other parts of the article ignore that.

"Funicular" relates to the haulage method (a rope) so once again
Wonkypaedia seems to have bolted a few bits on to a definition unlike
e.g. Wiktionary which simply states "Of, pertaining to, resembling, or
powered by a rope or cable" in agreement with various dictionary
websites. It would seem to be a false assumption that a funicular
railway is inevitably one that uses two vehicles rather than one and a
counterbalance as used on the currently out of use Broadstairs Cliff
Railway :-
http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/cl...roadstairs.htm
(NB 5' 3" gauge).
and the definitely-defunct Margate Cliff Railway
http://www.hows.org.uk/personal/rail/mar.htm

The only other two single-vehicle railways in the World listed in :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cular_railways
were both in the USA. Using two vehicles is probably optimal for
nearly all systems thus providing the seed for Wonky's incorrect
description.



--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

Charles Ellson wrote:


The only other two single-vehicle railways in the World listed in :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cular_railways
were both in the USA. Using two vehicles is probably optimal for
nearly all systems thus providing the seed for Wonky's incorrect
description.

There's one in Switzerland on that list, and a former one on IoM, which are
single car funiculars.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message , Charles Ellson
wrote:
It would seem to be a false assumption that a funicular
railway is inevitably one that uses two vehicles rather than one and a
counterbalance as used on the currently out of use Broadstairs Cliff
Railway :-
http://www.theheritagetrail.co.uk/cl...roadstairs.htm
(NB 5' 3" gauge).
and the definitely-defunct Margate Cliff Railway
http://www.hows.org.uk/personal/rail/mar.htm

The only other two single-vehicle railways in the World listed in :-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...cular_railways
were both in the USA.

Only?

The Southend Cliff Lift (though it's actually in Westcliff) is single
car.

So is the one at the reconstructed village near Ironbridge whose name I
forget. (I managed to persuade my youngest two daughters that it was a
house moving by magic.)

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In uk.transport.london message
, Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:16:38, e27002 aurora posted:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:03:03 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

I'm a little surprised that they claim it uses less power than a
conventional lift. If you have to raise a given mass through a
given vertical distance, shouldn't the answer be the same?


It is a funicular railway, no?


According to the beginning of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular#Inclined_lift, a funicular must
have two cars - but other parts of the article ignore that.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelmerbahn_funicular is definitely a
funicular, and has only one car.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:03:12 GMT, Anna Noyd-Dryver
wrote:

Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In uk.transport.london message
, Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:16:38, e27002 aurora posted:

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 09:03:03 +0000, Chris J Dixon
wrote:

Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

I'm a little surprised that they claim it uses less power than a
conventional lift. If you have to raise a given mass through a
given vertical distance, shouldn't the answer be the same?


It is a funicular railway, no?


According to the beginning of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funicular#Inclined_lift, a funicular must
have two cars - but other parts of the article ignore that.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelmerbahn_funicular is definitely a
funicular, and has only one car.

Not for anyone suffering from vertigo :-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_VlWIVUqzg

On 14/11/2015 09:03, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

I'm a little surprised that they claim it uses less power than a
conventional lift. If you have to raise a given mass through a
given vertical distance, shouldn't the answer be the same?


More efficient and I suspect the actual lift body weighs less than a
wooden escalator.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.

Graeme Wall wrote:
On 14/11/2015 09:03, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Basil Jet wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

I'm a little surprised that they claim it uses less power than a
conventional lift. If you have to raise a given mass through a
given vertical distance, shouldn't the answer be the same?


More efficient and I suspect the actual lift body weighs less than a
wooden escalator.

He was comparing it to a conventional lift, not an escalator. I think it
needs a less powerful motor than a vertical lift as the rate at which the
weight is lifted vertically is less.

In any case, the old escalator was wood-panelled, which wouldn't have
affected the weight of the moving parts. They could have fitted a second
escalator in the same space, but that wouldn't help people in wheel chairs.
As it is, the able-bodied will be able to ascend using the other escalator,
but are expected to walk down the stairs when arriving at the station.

These inclined lifts are apparently much cheaper than conventional lifts,
and are a cost-effective way of providing step-free access in stations that
have multiple staircases but no convenient place for a vertical lift shaft.

On 14/11/2015 10:26, Recliner wrote:


In any case, the old escalator was wood-panelled, which wouldn't have
affected the weight of the moving parts. They could have fitted a second
escalator in the same space, but that wouldn't help people in wheel chairs.
As it is, the able-bodied will be able to ascend using the other escalator,
but are expected to walk down the stairs when arriving at the station.

These inclined lifts are apparently much cheaper than conventional lifts,
and are a cost-effective way of providing step-free access in stations that
have multiple staircases but no convenient place for a vertical lift shaft.


I have to say that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to come up with
some kind of "carriage" that fits on an escalator that allows
wheelchairs to be conveyed up and down with minimal interruption to the
journeys of others.

You need a flat platform for the wheelchair to roll on to, some kind of
mechanism like they have on stretchers to go into ambulances but with a
graduated rather than step mechanism, some kind of braking and some self
levelling. The user and their wheelchair could be loaded on to the
carriage someway away from the top or bottom of the escalator and then
the thing could be maneuvered (or act like a roomba - a bit of vacuuming
of a lot of stations wouldn't go amiss either) onto the esclator.

I accept it may require a "helper" of some description but given the
closure of ticket offices, there are meant to be TfL employees out in
the wild who could help.

Even if such a thing cost £100k per station that's a shedload cheaper
than a new lift...

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 13:26:09 +0000, Someone Somewhere
wrote:

On 14/11/2015 10:26, Recliner wrote:


In any case, the old escalator was wood-panelled, which wouldn't have
affected the weight of the moving parts. They could have fitted a second
escalator in the same space, but that wouldn't help people in wheel chairs.
As it is, the able-bodied will be able to ascend using the other escalator,
but are expected to walk down the stairs when arriving at the station.

These inclined lifts are apparently much cheaper than conventional lifts,
and are a cost-effective way of providing step-free access in stations that
have multiple staircases but no convenient place for a vertical lift shaft.


I have to say that it cannot be beyond the wit of man to come up with
some kind of "carriage" that fits on an escalator that allows
wheelchairs to be conveyed up and down with minimal interruption to the
journeys of others.

You need a flat platform for the wheelchair to roll on to, some kind of
mechanism like they have on stretchers to go into ambulances but with a
graduated rather than step mechanism, some kind of braking and some self
levelling. The user and their wheelchair could be loaded on to the
carriage someway away from the top or bottom of the escalator and then
the thing could be maneuvered (or act like a roomba - a bit of vacuuming
of a lot of stations wouldn't go amiss either) onto the esclator.

I accept it may require a "helper" of some description but given the
closure of ticket offices, there are meant to be TfL employees out in
the wild who could help.

Even if such a thing cost £100k per station that's a shedload cheaper
than a new lift...

Somehow, I can't imagine the H&S people approving something like
that...