In article ,
ARW wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARW wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , ARW
wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , ARW
wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...s-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design
stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is
it
much higher than it looks?

+1

Or will have to be a electric scissor lift that is only charged
from
green solar panels that is used?

How does anyone else think that the lights got there in the first
place? Bet it was a scissors platform or similar with an
electrician
and not the local circus high-wire team doing the wiring.

most likely the entire building was filled with scaffolding.



Is scaffolding illegal? Then just install more scaffolding.

a bit difficult when you've got thousands of customers wandering
around.

Driven northbound on the A100 to Tower Bridge recently?

No.


The LHS pavement of the A100 northbound up to the brigde is all covered
scaffold. And that bridge has thousands of tourists.

and they probably closed the area when they put up the scaffolding.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 3:58:05 AM UTC+13, charles wrote:

I have a proposal (based on working in ba=rand new buildings) that members
of that profession should be compelled to live or work, as appropriate,
for at least 6 months in any building they have designed.

I heard of one architect who was staying in an earthquake-proof hotel that he designed, when there was a huge earthquake. The hotel survived with no damage. Not surprising since it looked like an Egyptian pyramid.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:09:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Notice you've missed out ordinary cars. Over 400g per mile.

If 'ordinary' means 'gross pollutor'

A Porsche 911 or a Land Rover Discovery only put out just over 300g per mile

Try a Dacia Sandero 99g/km

--

On Monday, 25 November 2013 20:31:26 UTC, Bill wrote:
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"

writes

In article ,

Nightjar wrote:

On 25/11/2013 13:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,

Bill Wright wrote:

So all the people waiting to board the most environmentally damaging

form of transport known to man



Are you absolutely sure about that? Per passenger mile on a modern full

aircraft?



You do have to look only at first class passengers on a long haul flight

to justify the claim. According to DEFRA, those passengers are

responsible for 322.3 gms of CO2 equivalent pre passenger kilometre

(gCO2/pkm).



The averages for aircraft a

Short Haul flights 95.9 gCO2/pkm

Long Haul flights 110.4 gCO2/pkm.

Domestic flights 163.1 gCO2/pkm



For comparison, some other figures a

London Underground 73.6 gCO2/pkm

Local London bus 86.3 gCO2/pkm

Tyne & Wear Metro 103.6 gCO2/pkm

Hybrid cars average 139.0 gCO2/pkm

Local bus (outside London) 185.9 gCO2/pkm



Electric cars, charged from the mains:

France 12 gCO2/km

UK 75 gCO2/km

China 115 gCO2/km

Note this is per car km, not per passenger km



Notice you've missed out ordinary cars. Over 400g per mile.



You must be on a higher social plane than me. My diesel estate is listed

at about the same as the hybrid cars average in the list, and I bet it

will carry more junk with more legroom for the passengers than any of

the hybrids I've seen.


Don;t they usually 'fake' the stats by using cars without brakes or proper clutches so they get the best figures for mpg amonst other things, I've heard they even take out all the seats except the drivers to get the best result.
They certainly don't test using real driving conditions such as on road that aren't 100% straight woithout hills or dumps or stops at lights etc...

Wouldn;t suprise me if they drove them in a vacumm container in zero G simulation, I just hope I've not just given them a new idea ;-)

On Tuesday, 26 November 2013 13:15:42 UTC, The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:09:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"

wrote:



Notice you've missed out ordinary cars. Over 400g per mile.



If 'ordinary' means 'gross pollutor'



A Porsche 911 or a Land Rover Discovery only put out just over 300g per mile



Try a Dacia Sandero 99g/km

I wonder what a cyclists is, if they survive a whole mile through bow flyover that is.
A couple of weeks ago a cyclist was killed outside my building.

In article , The Other Mike
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:09:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Notice you've missed out ordinary cars. Over 400g per mile.

If 'ordinary' means 'gross pollutor'

A Porsche 911 or a Land Rover Discovery only put out just over 300g per
mile

Try a Dacia Sandero 99g/km

To get any meaningful comparison, you'd need to test cars and aircraft in
the same sort of way. The government figures for cars are merely for
taxation purposes.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 05:50:35 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

Don;t they usually 'fake' the stats by using cars without brakes or
proper clutches so they get the best figures for mpg amonst other
things

No.

I've heard they even take out all the seats except the drivers to get
the best result.

You've heard wrong.

They certainly don't test using real driving conditions such as on road
that aren't 100% straight woithout hills or dumps or stops at lights
etc...

Well, no, because that wouldn't be in any way reproducible.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fu...ing-scheme.asp

"Dave Plowman (News)" :
In article , The Other Mike
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:09:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Notice you've missed out ordinary cars. Over 400g per mile.

If 'ordinary' means 'gross pollutor'

A Porsche 911 or a Land Rover Discovery only put out just over 300g per
mile

Try a Dacia Sandero 99g/km

To get any meaningful comparison, you'd need to test cars and aircraft in
the same sort of way. The government figures for cars are merely for
taxation purposes.

And for comparison *between* cars, presumably.

Can anyone answer me this? ISTM that the amount of carbon coming out of
an engine is exactly the same as the amount going in. If that were
precisely true there would be an exact reciprocal relationship between
measured fuel consumption and measured emissions for a given fuel. Yet
that doesn't seem to be the case. Is that to do with the form of carbon
emitted (elemental, monoxide, dioxide) or something else?

--
Mike Barnes

On 26/11/2013 16:20, Mike Barnes wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" :
In article , The Other Mike
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:09:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Notice you've missed out ordinary cars. Over 400g per mile.

If 'ordinary' means 'gross pollutor'

A Porsche 911 or a Land Rover Discovery only put out just over 300g per
mile

Try a Dacia Sandero 99g/km

To get any meaningful comparison, you'd need to test cars and aircraft in
the same sort of way. The government figures for cars are merely for
taxation purposes.

And for comparison *between* cars, presumably.

Can anyone answer me this? ISTM that the amount of carbon coming out of
an engine is exactly the same as the amount going in. If that were
precisely true there would be an exact reciprocal relationship between
measured fuel consumption and measured emissions for a given fuel. Yet
that doesn't seem to be the case. Is that to do with the form of carbon
emitted (elemental, monoxide, dioxide) or something else?


The figures for emissions are usually CO2 equivalent, which includes an
allowance for the effects of any methane or nitrous oxide present.
Methane is weighted at 21 times and nitrous oxide at 310 times, to give
the equivalent amount of CO2.

Colin Bignell

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARW wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
ARW wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , ARW
wrote:
"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , ARW
wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...s-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the
design
stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or
is
it
much higher than it looks?

+1

Or will have to be a electric scissor lift that is only charged
from
green solar panels that is used?

How does anyone else think that the lights got there in the
first
place? Bet it was a scissors platform or similar with an
electrician
and not the local circus high-wire team doing the wiring.

most likely the entire building was filled with scaffolding.



Is scaffolding illegal? Then just install more scaffolding.

a bit difficult when you've got thousands of customers wandering
around.

Driven northbound on the A100 to Tower Bridge recently?

No.


The LHS pavement of the A100 northbound up to the brigde is all covered
scaffold. And that bridge has thousands of tourists.

and they probably closed the area when they put up the scaffolding.

Indeed, an area not the whole bridge. So they could quite easily scoffold
out an area of the airport



--
Adam

Nightjar :
On 26/11/2013 16:20, Mike Barnes wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" :
In article , The Other Mike
wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:09:31 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Notice you've missed out ordinary cars. Over 400g per mile.

If 'ordinary' means 'gross pollutor'

A Porsche 911 or a Land Rover Discovery only put out just over 300g per
mile

Try a Dacia Sandero 99g/km

To get any meaningful comparison, you'd need to test cars and aircraft in
the same sort of way. The government figures for cars are merely for
taxation purposes.

And for comparison *between* cars, presumably.

Can anyone answer me this? ISTM that the amount of carbon coming out of
an engine is exactly the same as the amount going in. If that were
precisely true there would be an exact reciprocal relationship between
measured fuel consumption and measured emissions for a given fuel. Yet
that doesn't seem to be the case. Is that to do with the form of carbon
emitted (elemental, monoxide, dioxide) or something else?


The figures for emissions are usually CO2 equivalent, which includes an
allowance for the effects of any methane or nitrous oxide present.
Methane is weighted at 21 times and nitrous oxide at 310 times, to give
the equivalent amount of CO2.

Excellent, thanks. They're presumably "equivalent" in the greenhouse
effect sense.

--
Mike Barnes

chris French wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html
Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!


"The current lighting on the Terminal 5 concourse is being replaced
with environmentally friendly LED bulbs"
So all the people waiting to board the most environmentally damaging
form of transport known to man will be happy in the knowledge that the
airport's light bulbs that shine down on them are 'environmentally
friendly'. What a load of arse. Anyone genuinely bothered about CO2
etc wouldn't fly.


But given that the airport is going to be there I'd rather the building
used energy as efficiently as possible.

The point is though that people go on these flights just because they
can. Often there's no sensible reason. The CO2 per mile thing is
misleading because most aeroplane journeys are very long, and needn't
be. I think aeroplane travel should be heavily taxed, and the money
given to those who live under the flightpath.

Bill

charles wrote:

I have a proposal (based on working in ba=rand new buildings) that members
of that profession should be compelled to live or work, as appropriate,
for at least 6 months in any building they have designed.


I found the TV/sat socket in one corner of each largish room; the
nearest power point in the opposite corner.

There's a hospital where the room layout was planned with no regard for
the internal steel columns. Result: some rooms can't be used because the
boxed-in column almost fills the space behind the door.

At another place the room layout ignores the positions of the windows.

Bill

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...

The CO2 per mile thing is misleading because most aeroplane journeys are
very long, and needn't be.

??

--
Adam

On 25/11/2013 19:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Notice you've missed out ordinary cars. Over 400g per mile.

Really?

My wife's car runs at 45MPG, which is a nice easy 10 miles per litre. Or
80g per mile. I'm sure the manufacturing, oil and tyres don't add
_that_ much.

Andy

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending ladder.

--
What's the best part of sex with a transvestite? Reaching around and pretending it went all the way through.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:36:38 -0000, ARW wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2013 20:14, ARW wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2013 19:37, ARW wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...


+1

Or will have to be a electric scissor lift that is only charged from
green solar panels that is used?

How does anyone else think that the lights got there in the first
place?
Bet it was a scissors platform or similar with an electrician and not
the local circus high-wire team doing the wiring.


I suspect that the concourse was probably empty at the time. As Chris
French says, it gets rather more complicated when it is full of people
and has to continue to operate normally.

And the high wire experts will not need the area below them corndoned
off?

I would expect them to sling netting close under where they are working to
protect people below, so probably not.

And the story is a wind up.-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ightbulbs.html

What makes you think it's a wind up?

--
A Jesus of mass J travelling at a speed of 27 meters/second collides with a stationary Moses of mass M.
Assuming any elastic deformation is lossless and perfectly reversible, calculate how long it will be until the next Passover.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:50:46 -0000, ARW wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2013 20:14, ARW wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2013 19:37, ARW wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...


+1

Or will have to be a electric scissor lift that is only charged from
green solar panels that is used?

How does anyone else think that the lights got there in the first
place?
Bet it was a scissors platform or similar with an electrician and not
the local circus high-wire team doing the wiring.


I suspect that the concourse was probably empty at the time. As Chris
French says, it gets rather more complicated when it is full of people
and has to continue to operate normally.

And the high wire experts will not need the area below them corndoned
off?

I would expect them to sling netting close under where they are working to
protect people below, so probably not.

Wasting more time and money.

Yip, no wonder air fares are stupidly high. Why didn't they just hire a local tradesman to do it?

--
A Jesus of mass J travelling at a speed of 27 meters/second collides with a stationary Moses of mass M.
Assuming any elastic deformation is lossless and perfectly reversible, calculate how long it will be until the next Passover.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:58:26 -0000, Bill Wright wrote:

Tim Watts wrote:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...s-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!


"The current lighting on the Terminal 5 concourse is being replaced with
environmentally friendly LED bulbs"
So all the people waiting to board the most environmentally damaging
form of transport known to man will be happy in the knowledge that the
airport's light bulbs that shine down on them are 'environmentally
friendly'. What a load of arse. Anyone genuinely bothered about CO2 etc
wouldn't fly.

The LED bulbs will last longer (alledgedly), although most of the one's Iive bought fail prematurely (in under a year). They're 50W equivalent GU10 spots though, probably run too hot.

--
In the UK, 17% of employees are health and safety officers.
Say NO! to health and safety in the workplace, before there are no real workers left!
Look out for yourself and stop blaming each other like 6 year olds!

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 16:14:12 -0000, harryagain wrote:


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2013 13:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
So all the people waiting to board the most environmentally damaging
form of transport known to man

Are you absolutely sure about that? Per passenger mile on a modern full
aircraft?

You do have to look only at first class passengers on a long haul flight
to justify the claim. According to DEFRA, those passengers are responsible
for 322.3 gms of CO2 equivalent pre passenger kilometre (gCO2/pkm).

The averages for aircraft a
Short Haul flights 95.9 gCO2/pkm
Long Haul flights 110.4 gCO2/pkm.
Domestic flights 163.1 gCO2/pkm

For comparison, some other figures a
London Underground 73.6 gCO2/pkm
Local London bus 86.3 gCO2/pkm
Tyne & Wear Metro 103.6 gCO2/pkm
Hybrid cars average 139.0 gCO2/pkm
Local bus (outside London) 185.9 gCO2/pkm

Electric cars, charged from the mains:
France 12 gCO2/km
UK 75 gCO2/km
China 115 gCO2/km
Note this is per car km, not per passenger km


Electric car charged from solar panels, 0g CO2/km

Like CO2 is important....

--
The female gangbang world record is owned by a woman named Houston who had intercourse with 620 men in one day! A video was made of this historic event. As it took about 10 hours (with a few very brief breaks) to do it, the average time of intercourse was less than 58 seconds.

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:38:14 -0000, Tricky Dicky wrote:

Somebody must have put the light bulbs there in the first place why can't they do it the same way?

Health and softy loonies have increased. The day will come when everybody is scared to do everything, and civilisation will crumble.

--
Hello, you have reached technical support.
Please dial 1 to report an issue, 2 to report a challenge, 3 to report a problem, or 4 to report a cockup.

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 25/11/2013 19:09, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Notice you've missed out ordinary cars. Over 400g per mile.

Really?

My wife's car runs at 45MPG, which is a nice easy 10 miles per litre. Or
80g per mile. I'm sure the manufacturing, oil and tyres don't add
_that_ much.

I'm willing to bet it doesn't do 45 mpg or better at all times.

--
*Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 26/11/2013 19:34, Bill Wright wrote:
chris French wrote:
In message , Bill Wright
writes
Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html
Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!


"The current lighting on the Terminal 5 concourse is being replaced
with environmentally friendly LED bulbs"
So all the people waiting to board the most environmentally damaging
form of transport known to man will be happy in the knowledge that
the airport's light bulbs that shine down on them are
'environmentally friendly'. What a load of arse. Anyone genuinely
bothered about CO2 etc wouldn't fly.


But given that the airport is going to be there I'd rather the
building used energy as efficiently as possible.

The point is though that people go on these flights just because they
can. Often there's no sensible reason.

There is always a sensible reason, even if it is not one you would
choose yourself.

The CO2 per mile thing is
misleading because most aeroplane journeys are very long, and needn't
be.

They are just as long as they need to be to get from one airport to
another. Passenger kilometres are about the only way to make a
meaningful comparison between different modes of passenger transport.

As the figures I posted show if I use my bus pass, I am generating far
more CO2 than if I take a flight and it is quite difficult to get to
somewhere like Madeira by bus.

I think aeroplane travel should be heavily taxed, and the money
given to those who live under the flightpath.

I doubt there are many people who have been living in places that are
under flight paths longer than the flight paths have been there. Why
should they get preferential treatment over any other people who take
advantage of the lower cost of housing that is blighted in some way?

Colin Bignell

On 26/11/2013 17:38, Mike Barnes wrote:
Nightjar :
....
The figures for emissions are usually CO2 equivalent, which includes an
allowance for the effects of any methane or nitrous oxide present.
Methane is weighted at 21 times and nitrous oxide at 310 times, to give
the equivalent amount of CO2.

Excellent, thanks. They're presumably "equivalent" in the greenhouse
effect sense.


Indeed. The ratios come from the IPCC, who believe in these things.

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending
ladder.

I doubt if you'd find an extending ladder long enough. Have you been to T5?

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 26/11/2013 21:38, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending ladder.

How long is your extending ladder?

(and you do realise there are 120,000 lamps to replace?)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Tue, 26 Nov 2013 23:45:38 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Notice you've missed out ordinary cars. Over 400g per mile.

Really?

My wife's car runs at 45MPG, which is a nice easy 10 miles per litre.
Or 80g per mile. I'm sure the manufacturing, oil and tyres don't add
_that_ much.

I'm willing to bet it doesn't do 45 mpg or better at all times.

checks fuel log
45mpg average here, since February over 10,000 mixed-use miles, from
motorway cruise to back lanes to mile-from-cold local bimbling.

Petrol, not diesel. Not even high tech - carburettor, manual choke, 4spd
box - and not even a cat to convert CO to CO2.

That's the 205, not the 2cv. That managed a little lower, about 42mpg.

Better not to ask about the v6 Shogun. 15 to the gallon from the last
tank...

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
I'm willing to bet it doesn't do 45 mpg or better at all times.

checks fuel log
45mpg average here, since February over 10,000 mixed-use miles, from
motorway cruise to back lanes to mile-from-cold local bimbling.

Which just shows there is no such thing as a true average (other than as a
guide).

If you lived in London, you'd have very different results. And of course
the majority of the population live in urban environments.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , Adrian
writes

45mpg average here, since February over 10,000 mixed-use miles, from
motorway cruise to back lanes to mile-from-cold local bimbling.

Petrol, not diesel. Not even high tech - carburettor, manual choke, 4spd
box - and not even a cat to convert CO to CO2.

That's the 205, not the 2cv. That managed a little lower, about 42mpg.

Better not to ask about the v6 Shogun. 15 to the gallon from the last
tank...

Might be an idea to ask for some trainers for Christmas, it's not doing
you any favours driving around on those lead divers' boots.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

In article , John
Rumm writes
On 26/11/2013 21:38, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending ladder.

How long is your extending ladder?

(and you do realise there are 120,000 lamps to replace?)

Don't feed the trolls luv ;-) (or Adam)
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:45:08 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...s-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!

Yep; bless'em, architects are such clueless ****s sometimes.
I installed high-up lighting in a barn conversion and suggested it
would be a good idea to arrange things in such a way as to enable lamp
replacement. The owners insisted on talking to the architect, who said
to just go ahead and stick to the drawings... What a ******. He didn't
like a humble artisan type highlighting his ****-up.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:05:49 -0000, charles wrote:

In article ,
Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending
ladder.

I doubt if you'd find an extending ladder long enough. Have you been to T5?

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?

--
Illegal is a big sick bird.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:25:25 -0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 26/11/2013 21:38, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending ladder.

How long is your extending ladder?

(and you do realise there are 120,000 lamps to replace?)

Just how long do you take to change a lightbulb?

--
What comes after 69?
Mouthwash.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:25:25 -0000, John Rumm wrote:

On 26/11/2013 21:38, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending ladder.

How long is your extending ladder?

(and you do realise there are 120,000 lamps to replace?)

Why hasn't anyone thought of extendable magician's tongs?

--
An ostrichs eye is bigger than its brain.

On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 13:04:43 -0000, fred wrote:

In article , John
Rumm writes
On 26/11/2013 21:38, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending ladder.

How long is your extending ladder?

(and you do realise there are 120,000 lamps to replace?)

Don't feed the trolls luv ;-) (or Adam)

Oh **** off you silly child.

--
An ostrichs eye is bigger than its brain.

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 21:36:38 -0000, ARW
wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2013 20:14, ARW wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 25/11/2013 19:37, ARW wrote:
"GB" wrote in message
...


+1

Or will have to be a electric scissor lift that is only charged from
green solar panels that is used?

How does anyone else think that the lights got there in the first
place?
Bet it was a scissors platform or similar with an electrician and not
the local circus high-wire team doing the wiring.


I suspect that the concourse was probably empty at the time. As Chris
French says, it gets rather more complicated when it is full of people
and has to continue to operate normally.

And the high wire experts will not need the area below them corndoned
off?

I would expect them to sling netting close under where they are working
to
protect people below, so probably not.

And the story is a wind up.-)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ightbulbs.html

What makes you think it's a wind up?

This quote

A spokeswoman for British Airways said: 'We are working with the owners of
Heathrow Airport to improve the lighting levels inside Terminal 5 due to
concerns over the brightness of the terminal in the winter months.
'Work has already started on the lighting improvements and we are confident
that it will be resolved to our satisfaction very soon.'
She added that she could not confirm whether the email by Vicki O'Brien was
genuine

--
Adam

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending
ladder.




And you need your medication.

--
Adam

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:05:49 -0000, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design
stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed,
the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got
to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending
ladder.

I doubt if you'd find an extending ladder long enough. Have you been to
T5?

I looked at the photo. Have you got a measurement?


125 feet

--
Adam

"Gefreiter Krueger" wrote in message
news On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 09:25:25 -0000, John Rumm
wrote:

On 26/11/2013 21:38, Gefreiter Krueger wrote:
On Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:37:55 -0000, chris French
wrote:

In message , GB
writes
On 25/11/2013 12:45, Tim Watts wrote:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...wire-team-to-c
hange-tens-of-thousands-of-out-of-reach-light-bulbs-8961562.html

Oops - someone did not really think that through at the design stage!



That's odd. A scissors platform sounds perfect for the job, or is it
much higher than it looks?



As ever these stories seem incomplete, AIUI it's not that they can't
change them, but H&S conserns.

I assume there are issues with the building being used 24/7, lots of
staff/public around, the height of the lamps, the machinery needed, the
amount of space you might need to cordon off etc. Dunno, but it's got to
be somethign to do with that sort of thing.

The usual bull****, I would have done it in a day with an extending
ladder.

How long is your extending ladder?

(and you do realise there are 120,000 lamps to replace?)

Why hasn't anyone thought of extendable magician's tongs?

Because you just made them up.



--
Adam

On 26/11/2013 19:40, Bill Wright wrote:
charles wrote:

I have a proposal (based on working in ba=rand new buildings) that
members
of that profession should be compelled to live or work, as
appropriate, for at least 6 months in any building they have designed.


I found the TV/sat socket in one corner of each largish room; the
nearest power point in the opposite corner.

There's a hospital where the room layout was planned with no regard for
the internal steel columns. Result: some rooms can't be used because the
boxed-in column almost fills the space behind the door.

Similar to the car parks where 2 out of 3 spaces have a column in them
or some spaces have a bollard or trolley park right on the line, yet
these spaces are no wider than the rest, so no-one can position vehicles
in the spaces and be able to open doors both sides.

At the local shopping centre, the car park had an entrance/exit that was
too narrow and too sharp, so a vehicle exiting (sharp left) could not do
so without crossing over the centre line of the road. If a vehicle was
waiting to come out, another could not come in at the same time, but the
queue of vehicles waiting to come in made it impossible for vehicles to
come out! For years everyone complained about it. Eventually they
changed the car park layout, moved the entrance a few feet ... and built
the same problem in all over again!

At another place the room layout ignores the positions of the windows.

Pillars in front of the windows?

Where I am working now, the entrances to the toilets on each floor have
two doors one after the other - so close together that they've had to
put warning signs on to avoid accidents. The inner door also hits anyone
that is using the hand-dryer and due to the washbasins and the unit they
are intalled into, the person drying their hands cannot stand to one
side. Anyone using the washbasins prevents access to the toilet cubicles.

SteveW