On 03/09/2011 07:15, harry wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:07 pm, Steve -
family.me.uk wrote:
On 02/09/2011 16:47, Part Timer wrote:

Anyone else see this kludge?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-14762456

If they originally wanted lifts that only stopped at every other floor,
they should have had two lifts capable of stopping at every floor, but
electronically arranged to only do every other one - thus allowing one
to be switched to cover every floor whenever the other was out of action.

SteveW

Pointless. The saving is that there are not even doors on "unused"
landings.

But it's not a saving if when work is required it needs 14 stairlifts
put in!

I did wonder whether it was a cost thing, but also wondered whether it
was a lift speed/size thing - you can use smaller lifts and run them
faster if they are not going to be stopping at as many floors and
picking up so many people.

Lifts go wrong - that's a simple fact - so having two lifts, but not
having redundancy is ridiculous.

SteveW