On 18/10/2012 20:36, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
Yes, some idiot phoned someone up to say that they could see some power
cables arcing into the trees across the road from us.

So, a contractor was sent to hack the trees.

At ten to five in the evening.

For three hours. No power to the whole street.

As if the trees are going to grow more than another centimetre
overnight, or as if they had suddenly done so the night before?

I had to feed the boys by candlelight, and luckily we only need the gas
hob.


Well, well...I've just been speaking to our county councillor -
primarily because I suspected the trees were the council's and that they
would have to collect all the debris.

They were indeed. And what's more, the county had given permission *some
time ago* for the trees to be pruned because (the councillor suspects,
from what the county officers were able to tell him) that EDF (or
whoever it is) was aware of a growing hazard earlier in the year.

However, if what the workmen said last night was true, they did the
pruning in response to an emergency status triggered by a report of
arcing earlier in the day.

So, they knew about the imminent problem and had asked permission to
hack the county's tress, but didn't do anything about it *until* arcing
occurred.

That's not very impressive, is it?


Michael

That's not very impressive, is it?


Congratulations! You are demonstrating very nicely your suitability to
be a Lib Dem councillor. You started by criticising the supplier before
you had the facts. You continue to criticise the supplier now you have
some facts: ie that the supplier was aware of the trees and had planned
to tackle the trees. Of course some of us might have also wanted to
know how much other such work was identified in your area; how much of
that was of greater priority (eg more people at risk, hospitals etc at
risk); how much emergency work of even greater priority arose from
severe weather conitions; and what else the supplier might have to say
by way of explanation.

May I also ask how much more you would pay for electricity to reduce
such disconnections by - say - 50%? Or do you expect urban dwellers
like me to pay even more by way of cross-subidy to those who live in
rural locations?
--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

On 19/10/2012 11:42, Robin wrote:
That's not very impressive, is it?


Congratulations! You are demonstrating very nicely your suitability to
be a Lib Dem councillor. You started by criticising the supplier before
you had the facts. You continue to criticise the supplier now you have
some facts: ie that the supplier was aware of the trees and had planned
to tackle the trees. Of course some of us might have also wanted to
know how much other such work was identified in your area; how much of
that was of greater priority (eg more people at risk, hospitals etc at
risk); how much emergency work of even greater priority arose from
severe weather conitions; and what else the supplier might have to say
by way of explanation.

No doubt they'll tell me that when they respond to my complaint about
the alleged foreknowledge of the problem. In which case, I'll let you
know. There's no point in whingeing on a newsgroup without actually
contacting the people concerned and asking them what's going on, which
is what I did.


May I also ask how much more you would pay for electricity to reduce
such disconnections by - say - 50%? Or do you expect urban dwellers
like me to pay even more by way of cross-subidy to those who live in
rural locations?

Plenty of urban dwellers have tree-lined roads and verges all over the
place, alongside which run telegraph poles.

Michael

On Oct 19, 11:53*am, Michael Kilpatrick
wrote:
On 19/10/2012 11:42, Robin wrote:

That's not very impressive, is it?

Congratulations! You are demonstrating very nicely your suitability to
be a Lib Dem councillor. *You started by criticising the supplier before
you had the facts. *You continue to criticise the supplier now you have
some facts: ie that the supplier was aware of the trees and had planned
to tackle the trees. *Of course some of us might have also wanted to
know how much other such work was identified in your area; how much of
that was of greater priority (eg more people at risk, hospitals etc at
risk); how much emergency work of even greater priority arose from
severe weather conitions; and what else the supplier might have to say
by way of explanation.

No doubt they'll tell me that when they respond to my complaint about
the alleged foreknowledge of the problem. In which case, I'll let you
know. There's no point in whingeing on a newsgroup without actually
contacting the people concerned and asking them what's going on, which
is what I did.



May I also ask how much more you would pay for electricity to reduce
such disconnections by - say - 50%? *Or do you expect urban dwellers
like me to pay even more by way of cross-subidy to those who live in
rural locations?

Plenty of urban dwellers have tree-lined roads and verges all over the
place, alongside which run telegraph poles.

Michael

Telegraph poles don't carry electrical power.

TELEGRAPH Do you get it?

It's very unusual to find overhead power lines in urban situations.

On Friday, October 19, 2012 5:11:20 PM UTC+1, harry wrote:


Telegraph poles don't carry electrical power.
TELEGRAPH Do you get it?
If you want to be picky they probably haven't been carrying telegraphs for 50 years - and the telephone cables do carry power at -48V or so, though the operators will be very unhappy if you try to use it for anything but your telephone...
It's very unusual to find overhead power lines in urban situations.
Unusual, but far from unknown - e.g. http://goo.gl/maps/mUHJR
(when I lived there they were the old style with four separate conductors, so clearly they have had work done on them relatively recently)

In article ,
scribeth thus
On Friday, October 19, 2012 5:11:20 PM UTC+1, harry wrote:


Telegraph poles don't carry electrical power.
TELEGRAPH Do you get it?
If you want to be picky they probably haven't been carrying telegraphs for 50
years - and the telephone cables do carry power at -48V or so, though the
operators will be very unhappy if you try to use it for anything but your
telephone...
It's very unusual to find overhead power lines in urban situations.
Unusual, but far from unknown - e.g. http://goo.gl/maps/mUHJR
(when I lived there they were the old style with four separate conductors, so
clearly they have had work done on them relatively recently)



Nah!, This is an urban power pole;!...

Anyone any idea which came frost the estate or the power line?.

I runs quite some way right thru a rather densely populated urban
area....


http://goo.gl/maps/U9q00
--
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:


Anyone any idea which came frost

Is that from 'Eskimo Nell'?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 19/10/2012 11:42, Robin wrote:
May I also ask how much more you would pay for electricity to reduce
such disconnections by - say - 50%? Or do you expect urban dwellers
like me to pay even more by way of cross-subidy to those who live in
rural locations?


I expect everyone to get a universal service (rather like the Royal Mail
service, whether you live on top of an isolated hill or in the middle of
London). So, if for whatever reason there are far fewer pylons in urban
areas, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be "subsidising" this rather
expensive nuisance of tree-cutting to protect overhead rural power
lines. Whether it's possible to subsidise a reduction in the number of
power disconnections (whether caused by emergencies or by routine
preventative pruning etc), I really don't know. If it *is* possible,
then I suppose the answer to your question has to be that I would expect
you to subsidise the reduction only if that reduction is creating a
level playing field such that urban dwellers and rural dwellers have an
approximately equal risk of the odd disconnection. That's a reasonably
fair way of looking at it. And if it is in fact more costly to maintain
urban power grids, rural dwellers should subsidise that in return. Isn't
that the only fair answer?



Michael

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:28:11 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:


If you want to be picky they probably haven't been carrying telegraphs for 50 years - and the telephone cables do carry power at -48V or so, though the operators will be very unhappy if you try to use it for anything but your telephone...
It's very unusual to find overhead power lines in urban situations.
Unusual, but far from unknown - e.g. http://goo.gl/maps/mUHJR
(when I lived there they were the old style with four separate conductors, so clearly they have had work done on them relatively recently)

Shiver, the very view to work for many years.

I was somewhere else recently that still had overhead lines along a
street, Barnstaple possibly, but like the link above they were
innocuous wooden poles. Some places had fairly hefty steel ones not
unlike those that once supported tram or trolley bus wires.
Littlehampton was one such a place, I visited there recently for the
first time in about 25 years and couldn't immediatly work out what was
missing till I came across a postcard with a scene depicting a street
with the old green painted steel poles festooned with cables.

G.Harman