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

Basil Jet wrote:

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


Thanks, I had already planned to go and have a look at it next week. It's
been ages in construction.

Only a very few years ago, Greenford was a station with semaphore signals
and a wooden panelled escalator. Now they've both gone, but it's still one
of the very few stations with cross-platform interchange between DMUs and
automatic Tube trains.

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?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

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?

Yes, I agree about the *energy* consumption. But perhaps it gets away with
a less powerful motor, as it's slower than a normal lift. I assume it has
a counterbalance like a normal lift? I'll see if I can tell when I go to
see it on Monday. Of course, the balance weight may be hidden, as it is
with many normal lifts.

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?

On Saturday, 14 November 2015 01:39:32 UTC, Basil Jet wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

Why is it not called a funicular?

In message
-sept
ember.org, Recliner wrote:
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?

That assumes 100% efficiency in the mechanism. Not a safe assumption.

Yes, I agree about the *energy* consumption. But perhaps it gets away with
a less powerful motor, as it's slower than a normal lift.

In addition, the fact it's sliding down rails rather than hanging in
free space may alter the efficiency of the mechanism.

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

Offramp wrote:
On Saturday, 14 November 2015 01:39:32 UTC, Basil Jet wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxScXvX1Dv4

Why is it not called a funicular?

Good question. Maybe because it's indoors? I assume it also doesn't run on
railway-style tracks.

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.

Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, Recliner wrote:
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?

That assumes 100% efficiency in the mechanism. Not a safe assumption.

Yes, I agree about the *energy* consumption. But perhaps it gets away with
a less powerful motor, as it's slower than a normal lift.

In addition, the fact it's sliding down rails rather than hanging in
free space may alter the efficiency of the mechanism.

I assume it runs on rollers or guide wheels, rather than sliding. It's at
quite a shallow angle.
See http://democracy.walthamforest.gov.u...pendix%20B.pdf