On 14/11/2015 13:26, 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.

Sounds horrendously complicated, it would have to have a self-contained
power source to drive the self-levelling mechanism. The stretcher
mehacnism doesn't have to cope with a support that is moving away from
it while the leg are being adjusted. If the pivoted leg tucks under the
base then it would only work on the uphill section.


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...

Is it? How much was the lift at Greenford?

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

On Saturday, 14 November 2015 13:25:58 UTC, Someone Somewhere wrote:

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.

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.

I am WITH you there. The lift at Hainault, all 61cm of it, shows that there is something wrong. I also saw one of these lifts in a Wetherspoon's pub in Streatham. It was the Holland Tringham. But there must be a simpler was of getting wheelchaired people up short distances.

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?


Some form of energy recovery on down cycle maybe?

Ken Ward 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?


Some form of energy recovery on down cycle maybe?

Yes, as mentioned upthread, there's a big yellow counterweight visible in
the video. If the lift is lightly loaded, it'll use more energy going down
than up.

On Sunday, 15 November 2015 02:01:27 UTC, Ken Ward 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?


Some form of energy recovery on down cycle maybe?

I see no reason why it shouldn't freewheel on the down journey, as long as there were strong enough buffers at the bottom. It is not FAR, is it?

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 01:34:26 -0800 (PST), Offramp
wrote:

On Sunday, 15 November 2015 02:01:27 UTC, Ken Ward 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?


Some form of energy recovery on down cycle maybe?

I see no reason why it shouldn't freewheel on the down journey, as long as there were strong enough buffers at the bottom. It is not FAR, is it?

What makes you think it *could* freewheel down? In most cases, the
lift+payload will be lighter than the counter-weight.

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 01:34:26 -0800 (PST), Offramp
wrote:

On Sunday, 15 November 2015 02:01:27 UTC, Ken Ward 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?


Some form of energy recovery on down cycle maybe?

I see no reason why it shouldn't freewheel on the down journey, as long
as there were strong enough buffers at the bottom. It is not FAR, is it?

What makes you think it *could* freewheel down? In most cases, the
lift+payload will be lighter than the counter-weight.

That's alright. Then it can freewheel up.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

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?

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 Saturday, 14 November 2015 09:43:09 UTC, Recliner wrote:
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.

Indoor funiculars are called testiculars.