On 23/05/2017 23:31, wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:57:57 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:



I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
instead of being vertical.



They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural flourish?
Aww, bless.
The architects design them that way not because they feel that the
operators want to see if Spiderman is climbing up the tower but for
more practical reasons.
The outward angle reduces reflections from instrumentation from
equipment inside the tower at night and also in the day you dont get
refections of what is visible from an all around set of windows
refecting back and forth like a hall of mirrors effect, an added bonus
is that rain will sometimes drip off quicker than it would on a
vertical window, many ships bridges have windows that slant out at the
top for the same reasons.
http://www.ship-technology.com/proje...dventure7.html
And back on land many an observation post like this former coastguard
one also has them.
https://calshot.files.wordpress.com/...nner.jpg?w=640


Or for Southampton Water:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2604/4046088858_a5b89a31f7_b.jpg


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:46 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/05/2017 17:01, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\23 16:57, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control
tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as
the
human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction
almost
instantly including vertically down?

You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg

I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
instead of being vertical.

Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me
with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg

You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to
disagree
with everything I say.

They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they
need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural
flourish?
Aww, bless.

This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him?

No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his
ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now.

Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach.

--
Spud


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 23 May 2017 19:16:24 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
Graeme Wall wrote:
Ah, yes. You don't believe in travel do you?

I guess people who afraid of flying begrudge others' right to travel.

Says Mr Fly across the world to watch choo-choos. Good to see you give a
**** about your carbon footprint but as I've said before, most of you lot
are in gods waiting room so it really doesn't matter to any of you. By the
time it bites you'll all be compost.

--
Spud

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 21:24:47 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Recliner
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message 8737bxrr3j.fsf@einstein, at 13:52:32 on Mon, 22 May 2017,
Graham Murray remarked:
The interesting sociological experiment will be whether HAL treat
the Elizabeth Line
like the tube, or like HC.

In what sense does it treat the Tube and HC differently now?

Oyster (at least PAYG) is not available on HC to the airport, only to
Hayes & Harlington.

That's a TfL decision, not the airport's.

With the fees for using the link being fixed (see my reply to Recliner)
it seems disingenuous for TfL

....when they take over the service...

to price gouge travellers between H&H and
LHR "because they can" when the costs to TfL are the same whether or not
the trains are full or empty.

Is it a TfL or GWR/DfT decision? I don't think TfL controls HC and its
Heathrow stations. But it will operate Crossrail, hence the dispute.

This document is worth a read:
http://www.orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/...harging-framew
ork-for-the-heathrow-spur-decision-may-2016.pdf

The dispute seems to revolve on whether HAL has, or could, recover the
construction costs from airline charges, as the cost of building it is
included in the RAB (regulated asset base). HAL is entitled to charge for
rail access if it can show that it wouldn't havd built the spur without the
prospect of such chatges.

So moving the goalposts.

Also, there's a dispute over whether the original
basis for the rail access charges applies to a service beyond Padd, such as
Crossrail, as it's a new service that wasn't part of the original business
plan.

It seems likely to me that the charges would apply to "all trains",
especially as there have been various expansion plans very seriously
suggested to be just-around-the-corner the whole time, such as this
diagram in the airport's 97/98 annual report:

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0...76637_19064136
35_n.jpg?oh=a44c4c5c976219a024306583d402eb3f&oe=59 ABD513

Para 78 also suggests that HAL has already fully recovered the spurs
original construction costs:

"In our proposed decision we also discussed that Schedule 11 of the Joint
Operating Agreement contained a financial model demonstrating how the HEX
service would provide a return on HAL’s investment in the Heathrow Spur.
This model showed that the fare revenue to be received between 1993 and
2016 was forecast to be sufficient to cover all BAA’s initial investment in
building the Heathrow Spur as well as covering operating costs for those
years."

The accountants can argue about that.
--
Roland Perry

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 1:35:58 PM UTC+5:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
17:16:43 on Mon, 22 May 2017, Ding Bat
remarked:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 3:03:07 PM UTC+5:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
11:37:52 on Sun, 21 May 2017, Ding Bat
remarked:
On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 11:07:19 PM UTC+5:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
09:22:54 on Sun, 21 May 2017, Ding Bat
remarked:
If, hypothetically, the judge finds that Heathrow has the right to levy
this charge, it would be possible to charge less per train by running
more trains by adding more destinations. Heathrow Connect to Paddington
is slated to be phased out in favor of Crossrail to Paddington.
Heathrow Connect could be continued as a service to Stratford rather
than Paddington; it would become the easiest way to get from Heathrow
to a number of northern suburbs by mass transit. In addition, trains
could be run from Heathrow to busy junctions - Reading


If construction is allowed in this pipe-dream, then the plan is to
extend the line through Terminal 5 towards Slough.

Ah, so there's such a thing already in the works! Thanks for the information.
The underground portion of that line will be from T5 to Langley, according
to this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35803950

In message , at
05:59:21 on Wed, 24 May 2017, Ding Bat
remarked:
If construction is allowed in this pipe-dream, then the plan is to
extend the line through Terminal 5 towards Slough.

Ah, so there's such a thing already in the works! Thanks for the information.
The underground portion of that line will be from T5 to Langley, according
to this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-berkshire-35803950

Projects like that are a minimum of five years late, so if it was
suggested they might start tunnelling soon, don't hold your breath until
2016 + 5 years work + 5 years standard delay for an actual service.

Has it even been approved yet (genuine question).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:37:18 on
Tue, 23 May 2017, Recliner remarked:
"Lots of people fly into Heathrow wanting to visit ExCel? Really??"
During major exhibitions - yes - absolutely. For example, World Travel
Mart (held at Excel) is a "must attend" event in the travel business -
there are loads of people who fly in specifically to attend it. City
airport is much handier for Excel, but there are loads of places
(especially long haul) which don't have flights into City.

I'm aware of that show, and even have friends in that business (from
overseas) who exhibit. They fly in and out of Luton, incidentally.

It is, however, a tiny number of people compared to the million a day
who are predicted to use Crossrail, or the 80,000 a day who use
Heathrow.

Like other shows at Excel, it attracts about 15-20,000 a day, of whom
3,000 a day are actual travel buyers.

Out of that lot if more than 1,000 each of the three days have flown in
through Heathrow, rather than being based in the UK or using other
airports, E* etc to arrive from abroad, I'll eat my hat.

Of course, 1,000 top quality buyers is plenty if you have a selling
booth at WTM, but it's not a number to build a railway timetable around.

No, but we were discussing the attractions of Crossrail vs HEx. Any of
those visitors who currently use Heathrow and HEx will certainly
switch to Crossrail. And some who previously flew to Luton may switch
to LHR and Crossrail, too. Or they can change at Farringdon to
Crossrail.

It's just one example of the many flows that will use Crossrail rather
than HEx.

Yes, lots of "only quite a few" passengers.
--
Roland Perry

wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:46 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/05/2017 17:01, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\23 16:57, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control
tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as
the
human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction
almost
instantly including vertically down?

You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg

I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
instead of being vertical.

Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me
with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg

You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to
disagree
with everything I say.

They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they
need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural
flourish?
Aww, bless.

This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him?

No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his
ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now.

Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach.


I visited a friend who works in Stansted Tower. Their desks are several
metres from the windows - there are steps down from the control floor to a
walkway next to the windows, which also allows maintenance access to the
back of the desk equipment cabinets. To look downward out of the windows
the controllers would have to 'unplug' and walk from their desk several
metres to get to the window. It wasn't mentioned as something they ever
did, though I didn't specifically ask.


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Wed, 24 May 2017 13:54:06 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
wrote:
Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what
is
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach.



I visited a friend who works in Stansted Tower. Their desks are several
metres from the windows - there are steps down from the control floor to a
walkway next to the windows, which also allows maintenance access to the
back of the desk equipment cabinets. To look downward out of the windows
the controllers would have to 'unplug' and walk from their desk several
metres to get to the window. It wasn't mentioned as something they ever
did, though I didn't specifically ask.

Its an as and when apparently, presumably when they're worried about ground
vehicle movements conflicting with planes or something like that.

--
Spud

On 24/05/2017 09:29, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 17:10:46 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 23/05/2017 17:01, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2017\05\23 16:57, d wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:48:12 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 23 May 2017 14:59:39 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Right, because you couldn't possibly do any of that in the control
tower.
And since when did security cameras have the same viewing field as
the
human
eye thats carried around in a skull and can look in any direction
almost
instantly including vertically down?

You're assuming the tower has a glass floor?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pqIGEo88RXA/maxresdefault.jpg

I guess ir never occured to you to wonder why the windows are angled
outwards
instead of being vertical.

Oh dear! I realise I should know better, but you keep amazing me
with your
ignorance.
Think again.
[Hint: they don't sit with their faces pressed against the windows.]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7139/7...8d4de58c_b.jpg

You really are such a bell-end sometimes in your desperate quest to
disagree
with everything I say.

They don't sit with their faces pressed to the windows? No ****! But the
angled windows give them potentially a greater field of view if they
need to
check out stuff down below. Or did you think it was an architectural
flourish?
Aww, bless.

This is the best spud-ism ever! Shall we tell him?

No, watching him get more and more annoyed while he displays his
ignorance is such fun. I predict a stream of bad language any time now.

Why? You see a friends brother happens to be an ATC at city airport which is
why I already knew about that plan to lay them off, sorry , "transfer". And
guess what? They use the angled windows to look out and keeps tabs on what is
going on right beneath them when appropriate. So all you so called aviation
experts can shoev your google answers where the angled windows don't reach.


Another of your famous "friends"?

My sister is an ATC and she reckons the windows are angled to stop
reflections.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.