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.

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.

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 06:38:24 -0600, (Mark Brader) wrote:

Graeme Wall:
Technically the counterbalance [of a funicular] could be the
second vehicle in the description, it doesn't have to be passenger
carrying.

If it isn't carrying anything then it isn't truly a "vehicle" (Latin
vehere = carry).
snip

In message , at 18:50:56 on
Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Charles Ellson remarked:

Technically the counterbalance [of a funicular] could be the
second vehicle in the description, it doesn't have to be passenger
carrying.

If it isn't carrying anything then it isn't truly a "vehicle" (Latin
vehere = carry).

It's carrying the counterweight.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:50:56 on
Mon, 16 Nov 2015, Charles Ellson remarked:

Technically the counterbalance [of a funicular] could be the
second vehicle in the description, it doesn't have to be passenger
carrying.

If it isn't carrying anything then it isn't truly a "vehicle" (Latin
vehere = carry).

It's carrying the counterweight.

Which, in Greenford, is a set of yellow metal plates in a frame, which lets
them fine-tune the weight.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/recliner/22411308294

No-one has mentioned the fact that LU has turned Greenford from a
two-escalator station into a one-escalator station and dressed it up as
an enhancement that no-one can object to without being called a
cripple-kicker. I hope this practice doesn't spread to deep stations.

I would imagine lengthy staircases are inherently more dangerous than
lengthy escalators. How many people will become permanently disabled
through falling down the stairs, who would have been fine if the station
still had a down escalator?

A triptych platform which folds vertical when not needed and manoeuvres
itself up and down the central fixed staircase when needed is not hard
to imagine. Some sort of gates at the top and bottom would be needed to
stop people trying to walk down when the lift was coming up.

Incidentally, if this lift is as slow as people say, it would be a nice
trick if people could summon it up or down with a phone app while they
were on the train or in the street.

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

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

Basil Jet wrote:

No-one has mentioned the fact that LU has turned Greenford from a
two-escalator station into a one-escalator station and dressed it up as
an enhancement that no-one can object to without being called a
cripple-kicker. I hope this practice doesn't spread to deep stations.

I would imagine lengthy staircases are inherently more dangerous than
lengthy escalators. How many people will become permanently disabled
through falling down the stairs, who would have been fine if the station
still had a down escalator?

A triptych platform which folds vertical when not needed and manoeuvres
itself up and down the central fixed staircase when needed is not hard
to imagine. Some sort of gates at the top and bottom would be needed to
stop people trying to walk down when the lift was coming up.

Incidentally, if this lift is as slow as people say, it would be a nice
trick if people could summon it up or down with a phone app while they
were on the train or in the street.

When did Greenford last have two working escalators? It must have been
quite a while ago. For as long as I can remember, there has only been one.
It's now one of very few step-free stations on the western Central line.

The Greenford lift is slow, but not so slow that you need any special
technology to summon it. In fact, most LU station lifts are slow. What's
slightly annoying is that it crawls almost to a stop near the ends and
inches to the stop, then pauses for seconds before the doors open. Probably
most lifts do the same, but you're very aware of it with glass doors.

Most above-ground stations don't have any escalators or lifts. One that
did, Alperton, lost its single escalator many years ago, and it's now
bricked up. For another example, the busy six-platform Harrow-on-the-Hill
station has no lifts or escalators. You have to walk up the stairs outside
the station, and then walk down to the platforms.