Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody maintains
anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...-Square-London

stuart noble wrote in
:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody
maintains anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...ING-Two-dead-a
nd-six-injured-as-balcony-collapses-in-Cadogan-Square-London



Would anyone realistically, check such decorative railing. How would you do
it without breaking them.
£3m is based on the location premium - not the quality of the fixtures.

All the people who criticise H&S will possibly be wondering why a risk
assessment wasn't done. Surely penny pinching on the removal method was the
problem. Proper lifting equipment should have been used.

On 21/11/2014 19:16, DerbyBorn wrote:
stuart noble wrote in
:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody
maintains anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...ING-Two-dead-a
nd-six-injured-as-balcony-collapses-in-Cadogan-Square-London



Would anyone realistically, check such decorative railing. How would you do
it without breaking them.

Old cast iron is notoriously unreliable. Its strength depends a lot upon
the quality of the casting. It can be checked for flaws, but that isn't
something the average removal man is going to be able to do.

£3m is based on the location premium - not the quality of the fixtures.

All the people who criticise H&S will possibly be wondering why a risk
assessment wasn't done. Surely penny pinching on the removal method was the
problem. Proper lifting equipment should have been used.

I do wonder how large and heavy the sofa was, if it could not be carried
up (or down) the stairs.

--
Colin Bignell

On Friday, November 21, 2014 7:39:18 PM UTC, Nightjar wrote:

Old cast iron is notoriously unreliable. Its strength depends a lot upon
the quality of the casting. It can be checked for flaws, but that isn't
something the average removal man is going to be able to do.

And it's crap for bending or tensile loads; see Tay Bridge.

It looks like they may have tied ropes to the railing to haul the couch up, putting bending stresses on the railing uprights which appear to have broken off near the floor.

On 21/11/14 19:39, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 21/11/2014 19:16, DerbyBorn wrote:
stuart noble wrote in
:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody
maintains anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...ING-Two-dead-a
nd-six-injured-as-balcony-collapses-in-Cadogan-Square-London



Would anyone realistically, check such decorative railing. How would
you do
it without breaking them.

Old cast iron is notoriously unreliable. Its strength depends a lot upon
the quality of the casting. It can be checked for flaws, but that isn't
something the average removal man is going to be able to do.

£3m is based on the location premium - not the quality of the fixtures.

All the people who criticise H&S will possibly be wondering why a risk
assessment wasn't done. Surely penny pinching on the removal method
was the
problem. Proper lifting equipment should have been used.

I do wonder how large and heavy the sofa was, if it could not be carried
up (or down) the stairs.


It looks to me like the railings fell off - rather than the balcony
collapsing. I suppose they must have been lifting the sofa over the
railings to lower it down by some means?

Very sad.

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:09:04 +0000, stuart noble
wrote:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody maintains
anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...-Square-London


I bet they were attempting to lower the sofa to the road, the railings
collapsed (not the balcony, the balcony is fine) and took them down
with them.
Bit ****ing stupid, really.

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 21/11/14 19:39, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 21/11/2014 19:16, DerbyBorn wrote:
stuart noble wrote in
:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody
maintains anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...ING-Two-dead-a
nd-six-injured-as-balcony-collapses-in-Cadogan-Square-London



Would anyone realistically, check such decorative railing. How would
you do
it without breaking them.

Old cast iron is notoriously unreliable. Its strength depends a lot upon
the quality of the casting. It can be checked for flaws, but that isn't
something the average removal man is going to be able to do.

£3m is based on the location premium - not the quality of the fixtures.

All the people who criticise H&S will possibly be wondering why a risk
assessment wasn't done. Surely penny pinching on the removal method
was the
problem. Proper lifting equipment should have been used.

I do wonder how large and heavy the sofa was, if it could not be carried
up (or down) the stairs.


It looks to me like the railings fell off - rather than the balcony
collapsing. I suppose they must have been lifting the sofa over the
railings to lower it down by some means?

the BBC pictures show stubs of railings sticking up from the balcony. The
must have snapped.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 21/11/14 20:18, Onetap wrote:
On Friday, November 21, 2014 7:39:18 PM UTC, Nightjar wrote:

Old cast iron is notoriously unreliable. Its strength depends a lot
upon the quality of the casting. It can be checked for flaws, but
that isn't something the average removal man is going to be able to
do.

And it's crap for bending or tensile loads; see Tay Bridge.

It looks like they may have tied ropes to the railing to haul the
couch up, putting bending stresses on the railing uprights which
appear to have broken off near the floor.


Having worked in Kensington, removals are quite often made via a balcony.

However, the ones I've seen have used proper lifting platforms.

On 21/11/2014 20:36, charles wrote:
In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
On 21/11/14 19:39, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 21/11/2014 19:16, DerbyBorn wrote:
stuart noble wrote in
:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody
maintains anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...ING-Two-dead-a
nd-six-injured-as-balcony-collapses-in-Cadogan-Square-London



Would anyone realistically, check such decorative railing. How would
you do
it without breaking them.

Old cast iron is notoriously unreliable. Its strength depends a lot upon
the quality of the casting. It can be checked for flaws, but that isn't
something the average removal man is going to be able to do.

£3m is based on the location premium - not the quality of the fixtures.

All the people who criticise H&S will possibly be wondering why a risk
assessment wasn't done. Surely penny pinching on the removal method
was the
problem. Proper lifting equipment should have been used.

I do wonder how large and heavy the sofa was, if it could not be carried
up (or down) the stairs.


It looks to me like the railings fell off - rather than the balcony
collapsing. I suppose they must have been lifting the sofa over the
railings to lower it down by some means?

the BBC pictures show stubs of railings sticking up from the balcony. The
must have snapped.

The storey also mentions the FB "making safe" the bits of railing... so
they may have cut the remainder down before it fell.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon writes:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:09:04 +0000, stuart noble
wrote:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody maintains
anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...-Square-London


I bet they were attempting to lower the sofa to the road, the railings
collapsed (not the balcony, the balcony is fine) and took them down
with them.

News said they were on the ground underneath, when the sofa and railings
landed on top of them. If the railings were the anchor for the pulley,
they would have had twice the weight of the sofa on them.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:27:01 +0000 (UTC),
(Andrew Gabriel) wrote:

News said they were on the ground underneath, when the sofa and railings
landed on top of them. If the railings were the anchor for the pulley,
they would have had twice the weight of the sofa on them.

This is the penalty for not paying any attention to basic pulleys in
physics.

Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I do wonder how large and heavy the sofa was, if it could not be carried
up (or down) the stairs.

According to something I read, the deeds have prohibitions on going
through communal areas to avoid damage and that furniture flying in and
out of windows is the norm.


--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

On 21/11/2014 23:27, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon writes:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:09:04 +0000, stuart noble
wrote:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody maintains
anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...-Square-London


I bet they were attempting to lower the sofa to the road, the railings
collapsed (not the balcony, the balcony is fine) and took them down
with them.

News said they were on the ground underneath, when the sofa and railings
landed on top of them. If the railings were the anchor for the pulley,
they would have had twice the weight of the sofa on them.

Perhaps they were standing out of the way of the sofa but not the
railings (I guess these could have weighed more than the sofa).

In article ,
newshound scribeth thus
On 21/11/2014 23:27, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon writes:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:09:04 +0000, stuart noble
wrote:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody maintains
anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...-Two-dead-and-
six-injured-as-balcony-collapses-in-Cadogan-Square-London


I bet they were attempting to lower the sofa to the road, the railings
collapsed (not the balcony, the balcony is fine) and took them down
with them.

News said they were on the ground underneath, when the sofa and railings
landed on top of them. If the railings were the anchor for the pulley,
they would have had twice the weight of the sofa on them.

Perhaps they were standing out of the way of the sofa but not the
railings (I guess these could have weighed more than the sofa).


It said in one report that one of them was impaled on the railings
...Poor sod;(..

You'd think that someone would have done a risk assessment on this
somewhere?. Also if they don't let them take it thru the front door and
up the stairs, how do floors higher up get their furniture in?

Doesn't seem to make much sense...

--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:51:48 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

It said in one report that one of them was impaled on the railings

Yeh, I'd sort of assumed that, given that they were killed by one floor
of fall/drop.

Pics show the casualty tent on the pavement, and the sofa balanced
between wall and (intact/pavement-side) railings, so the sofa almost
certainly didn't land on them.

On 22/11/14 11:15, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 10:51:48 +0000, tony sayer wrote:

It said in one report that one of them was impaled on the railings

Yeh, I'd sort of assumed that, given that they were killed by one floor
of fall/drop.

Pics show the casualty tent on the pavement, and the sofa balanced
between wall and (intact/pavement-side) railings, so the sofa almost
certainly didn't land on them.


Nasty.

Without meaning any disrespect to the victims and the families, I'm
thinking this was a removal being done on the cheap - possibly only one
item, so someone didn't want to pay for lifting equipment hire.

The usual equipment I've seen for this job in Kensington is a motorised
platform that rides up a ramp (like a long ladder).

The "ladder" is driven up to the building, a few metres back and
extended/tilted until it meets the entrance point.

Then quite a sizeable horizontal platform (sofa sized plus some) is
driven up and down the "ladder" and it's all quite safe.

Once set up it is probably capable of heavier lifts compared to a cherry
picker - and does not need a skilled operator to make the same movements
over and over.

On 22/11/14 10:32, Scott M wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I do wonder how large and heavy the sofa was, if it could not be
carried up (or down) the stairs.

According to something I read, the deeds have prohibitions on going
through communal areas to avoid damage and that furniture flying in and
out of windows is the norm.



Perhaps in the light of this, a law needs to be passed voiding all such
lease terms.

Whilst it might actually be easier for a full removal to go in and out
of the window *with the correct lifting platform*, it is completely
stupid to prevent a simple delivery of a couple of large items from
going up the stairs.

Unless of course the stairs are so narrow and twisty that it's not possible.

In article , tony sayer
wrote:
In article , newshound
scribeth thus
On 21/11/2014 23:27, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 19:09:04 +0000, stuart noble
wrote:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody
maintains anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...-Two-dead-and-
six-injured-as-balcony-collapses-in-Cadogan-Square-London


I bet they were attempting to lower the sofa to the road, the
railings collapsed (not the balcony, the balcony is fine) and took
them down with them.

News said they were on the ground underneath, when the sofa and
railings landed on top of them. If the railings were the anchor for
the pulley, they would have had twice the weight of the sofa on them.

Perhaps they were standing out of the way of the sofa but not the
railings (I guess these could have weighed more than the sofa).


It said in one report that one of them was impaled on the railings ..Poor
sod;(..

You'd think that someone would have done a risk assessment on this
somewhere?. Also if they don't let them take it thru the front door and
up the stairs, how do floors higher up get their furniture in?

Doesn't seem to make much sense...


small crane - that 's the way pianos were lifted into upstairs rooms at
Cambridge in the 1950s/60s.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 21/11/2014 19:09, stuart noble wrote:
Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody maintains
anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...-Square-London




Its all assumptions and maybes yet. Wait until you know the facts before
assuming anything.

In message , at 10:32:58 on Sat, 22 Nov
2014, Scott M remarked:
I do wonder how large and heavy the sofa was, if it could not be
carried up (or down) the stairs.

According to something I read, the deeds have prohibitions on going
through communal areas to avoid damage and that furniture flying in and
out of windows is the norm.

In the Netherlands where the older housing is famously narrow and with
very steep staircases, they routinely use special lifts for delivering
furniture through the windows. Here's one from the UK:

http://davidsremovals.co.uk/wp/wp-co.../hoistlongsofa
to4thfloor.jpg

--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:33:22 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 22/11/14 10:32, Scott M wrote:
Nightjar "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote:

I do wonder how large and heavy the sofa was, if it could not be
carried up (or down) the stairs.

According to something I read, the deeds have prohibitions on going
through communal areas to avoid damage and that furniture flying in and
out of windows is the norm.



Perhaps in the light of this, a law needs to be passed voiding all such
lease terms.

Whilst it might actually be easier for a full removal to go in and out
of the window *with the correct lifting platform*, it is completely
stupid to prevent a simple delivery of a couple of large items from
going up the stairs.

Unless of course the stairs are so narrow and twisty that it's not possible.

One of my Grans used to clean a similar flat about 55 years ago for a
singer who had lived there since the thirties when she had been quite
well known, Full of Art deco stuff ISTR. What I do remember was that
communal access inside had a lift ,one of those with lattice gates
and the stairs went around the outside of the lift column so there
were lots of corners so not impossible but possibly akward though the
flat in in the incident wouldn't be far up. The singer had a Grand
Piano so that got up somehow. Maybe 50 years on with fashions
moving to larger bathrooms and designer Kitchens it is the internal
access to hall area that has become awkward.

G.Harman

In message , at 11:30:03 on Sat, 22
Nov 2014, Tim Watts remarked:

Without meaning any disrespect to the victims and the families, I'm
thinking this was a removal being done on the cheap - possibly only one
item, so someone didn't want to pay for lifting equipment hire.

Removal men do the strangest things. One lot I employed decided they
could save time by moving several four-drawer filing cabinets, complete
with contents, out of an upstairs window to be "caught" by a couple of
colleagues halfway up a ladder. I was expecting them at the very least
to remove the drawers and then take the various pieces down the stairs.
--
Roland Perry

You'd think that someone would have done a risk assessment on this
somewhere?. Also if they don't let them take it thru the front door and
up the stairs, how do floors higher up get their furniture in?

Doesn't seem to make much sense...


small crane - that 's the way pianos were lifted into upstairs rooms at
Cambridge in the 1950s/60s.


Can't say I've seen that happening, perhaps they use leccy ones...

Mind you seen the price of a crane hire these days?, we've got one of
the go next week an 80 ton jobbie, £1700 quid on contract hire;!..
--
Tony Sayer

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:24:58 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:


According to something I read, the deeds have prohibitions on going
through communal areas to avoid damage and that furniture flying in and
out of windows is the norm.

In the Netherlands where the older housing is famously narrow and with
very steep staircases, they routinely use special lifts for delivering
furniture through the windows.

And many Houses over there are fitted with beams in the gable with a
pulley. Don't know if any thing over here has been routinely built
like that. Then again with modern safety regulations could they be
used without being regulary tested . I wouldn't want to lift something
on a fixing that may not have been used for some years and been up
there for a hundred or more.

G.Harman

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:30:03 +0000, Tim Watts
wrote:



Nasty.

Without meaning any disrespect to the victims and the families, I'm
thinking this was a removal being done on the cheap - possibly only one
item, so someone didn't want to pay for lifting equipment hire.

OTOH hand looking at the ropes in some photos they are quite
substantial and good rope doesn't come cheap.
They weren't using some old blue stuff retrieved from a skip where
cable pullers had been working .

G.Harman

It is interesting that many comments in the press are saying things about
ht elack of Risk Assessments and other H&S processes. The same people are
probaly critial of H&S interference on other issues. Can't have it both
ways!

In message 2, at
13:54:26 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014, DerbyBorn
remarked:
It is interesting that many comments in the press are saying things about
ht elack of Risk Assessments and other H&S processes. The same people are
probaly critial of H&S interference on other issues. Can't have it both
ways!

Yes you can... both ways sells newspapers.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:54:26 +0000, DerbyBorn wrote:

It is interesting that many comments in the press are saying things
about ht elack of Risk Assessments and other H&S processes. The same
people are probaly critial of H&S interference on other issues. Can't
have it both ways!

It's very simple.

H&S is unnecessary interference whilst nobody gets hurt, but a criminally
forgotten essential if somebody has been.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:54:26 +0000, DerbyBorn wrote:

It is interesting that many comments in the press are saying things
about ht elack of Risk Assessments and other H&S processes. The same
people are probaly critial of H&S interference on other issues. Can't
have it both ways!

It's very simple.

H&S is unnecessary interference whilst nobody gets hurt, but a criminally
forgotten essential if somebody has been.


Awaiting Uncle Peters reply that he has loads of balconies fall on his head
without causing a problem and that risk assesments are for big girls
blouses.



--
Adam

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 21/11/14 19:39, "Nightjar \"cpb\""@ insert my surname here wrote:
On 21/11/2014 19:16, DerbyBorn wrote:
stuart noble wrote in
:

Just cos you flat's worth 3 million quid doesn't mean anybody
maintains anything
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/late...ING-Two-dead-a
nd-six-injured-as-balcony-collapses-in-Cadogan-Square-London



Would anyone realistically, check such decorative railing. How would
you do
it without breaking them.

Old cast iron is notoriously unreliable. Its strength depends a lot upon
the quality of the casting. It can be checked for flaws, but that isn't
something the average removal man is going to be able to do.

£3m is based on the location premium - not the quality of the fixtures.

All the people who criticise H&S will possibly be wondering why a risk
assessment wasn't done. Surely penny pinching on the removal method
was the
problem. Proper lifting equipment should have been used.

I do wonder how large and heavy the sofa was, if it could not be carried
up (or down) the stairs.


It looks to me like the railings fell off - rather than the balcony
collapsing. I suppose they must have been lifting the sofa over the
railings to lower it down by some means?

Very sad.


BBC says that they were lifting the sofa up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30148003

The Daily Express however says that it part of the cover up of Diana's death
and that Madeleine McCann's parents were in on the balcony collapse.



--
Adam

On 22/11/14 14:26, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:54:26 +0000, DerbyBorn wrote:

It is interesting that many comments in the press are saying things
about ht elack of Risk Assessments and other H&S processes. The same
people are probaly critial of H&S interference on other issues. Can't
have it both ways!

It's very simple.

H&S is unnecessary interference whilst nobody gets hurt, but a criminally
forgotten essential if somebody has been.


The thing that is often misunderstood is "risk assessment".

Most people seem to regard this as filling in a form for arse covering
purposes.

Whereas it really means:

Think about what you are about to do. What could go wrong? What
assumptions are we making? Should be test those assumptions.



It's not very nice to play the hindsight game on these 2 fellows' deaths
- but (with suitable hindsight and much conjecture):

"We are hauling something heavy with pulleys attached to these railings."

"Are the railings strong enough?" "And in the direction of the forces?"
"Can we test them?". "What will happen if the load and/or what it's
fixed to falls?" "Can we have that happen in the worst case without
hurting anyone?"


It's really quite hard to say how many of those questions could be asked
up front with common sense and taking 10 minutes just to walk and talk
about the risks.

On 22/11/2014 17:07, Tim Watts wrote:


Most people seem to regard this as filling in a form for arse covering
purposes.

In a lot of companies this is exactly what those who are in charge of
H&S have made it

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article , Roland Perry
writes
In message , at 11:30:03 on Sat, 22
Nov 2014, Tim Watts remarked:

Without meaning any disrespect to the victims and the families, I'm
thinking this was a removal being done on the cheap - possibly only one
item, so someone didn't want to pay for lifting equipment hire.

Removal men do the strangest things. One lot I employed decided they
could save time by moving several four-drawer filing cabinets, complete
with contents, out of an upstairs window to be "caught" by a couple of
colleagues halfway up a ladder. I was expecting them at the very least
to remove the drawers and then take the various pieces down the stairs.

As I'm sure you knew that this was an unsafe practice, I'm surprised you
let them continue, as once you knew it was unsafe and you permitted them
to continue, you shared the responsibility for their unsafe actions and
the injuries that could have resulted.

/ulm
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On 22/11/2014 16:05, ARW wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:54:26 +0000, DerbyBorn wrote:

It is interesting that many comments in the press are saying things
about ht elack of Risk Assessments and other H&S processes. The same
people are probaly critial of H&S interference on other issues. Can't
have it both ways!

It's very simple.

H&S is unnecessary interference whilst nobody gets hurt, but a criminally
forgotten essential if somebody has been.


Awaiting Uncle Peters reply that he has loads of balconies fall on his
head without causing a problem and that risk assesments are for big
girls blouses.

LOL - I was just about to post something similar ;-)

(still it could explain his apparent brain damage)


--
Cheers,

John.

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

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:05:22 -0000, ARW wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:54:26 +0000, DerbyBorn wrote:

It is interesting that many comments in the press are saying things
about ht elack of Risk Assessments and other H&S processes. The same
people are probaly critial of H&S interference on other issues. Can't
have it both ways!

It's very simple.

H&S is unnecessary interference whilst nobody gets hurt, but a criminally
forgotten essential if somebody has been.


Awaiting Uncle Peters reply that he has loads of balconies fall on his head
without causing a problem and that risk assesments are for big girls
blouses.

[Opera saw your reference to my name]

Unlike modern H&S lovers, I have two eyes and look out for such things. Why do adults expect to be treated like little kids and looked after?

--
Very funny, Scotty... Now beam down my clothes!

Roland Perry wrote:

In the Netherlands where the older housing is famously narrow and with
very steep staircases, they routinely use special lifts for delivering
furniture through the windows. Here's one from the UK:

http://davidsremovals.co.uk/wp/wp-co.../hoistlongsofa
to4thfloor.jpg

Here's a similar one
http://www.vertikal.net/en/news/story/20343/

and from the UK
http://www.vertikal.net/en/news/story/20969/
(scroll down)

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On 22/11/14 20:22, Chris J Dixon wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:

In the Netherlands where the older housing is famously narrow and with
very steep staircases, they routinely use special lifts for delivering
furniture through the windows. Here's one from the UK:

http://davidsremovals.co.uk/wp/wp-co.../hoistlongsofa
to4thfloor.jpg

Here's a similar one
http://www.vertikal.net/en/news/story/20343/

and from the UK
http://www.vertikal.net/en/news/story/20969/
(scroll down)

Chris


The ones I've seen are a bit like this:

http://www.ignant.de/2013/09/20/the-...te-moving-out/

minus the Covent Garden style "illusion" of course!

In article ,
writes:
One of my Grans used to clean a similar flat about 55 years ago for a
singer who had lived there since the thirties when she had been quite
well known, Full of Art deco stuff ISTR. What I do remember was that
communal access inside had a lift ,one of those with lattice gates
and the stairs went around the outside of the lift column so there
were lots of corners so not impossible but possibly akward though the
flat in in the incident wouldn't be far up. The singer had a Grand
Piano so that got up somehow. Maybe 50 years on with fashions
moving to larger bathrooms and designer Kitchens it is the internal
access to hall area that has become awkward.

I have a friend in Paris who plays piano. He lives on a second floor
flat, and some years ago he bought a brand new full size Steinway
concert grand piano, but was rather worried about how they would
deliver it. Apparently, it came with a guy looking like Mr T, who
took the legs off, and walked up two floors with it on his back.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
writes:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 12:24:58 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:


According to something I read, the deeds have prohibitions on going
through communal areas to avoid damage and that furniture flying in and
out of windows is the norm.

In the Netherlands where the older housing is famously narrow and with
very steep staircases, they routinely use special lifts for delivering
furniture through the windows.

And many Houses over there are fitted with beams in the gable with a
pulley. Don't know if any thing over here has been routinely built
like that. Then again with modern safety regulations could they be
used without being regulary tested . I wouldn't want to lift something
on a fixing that may not have been used for some years and been up
there for a hundred or more.

I've been in Amsterdam quite a bit (was the head office for one
of my employers), and I see the built-in pulleys used quite often.
If they are inspected as often as Dutch electrical appliances in
hotels, that would be never ;-)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 22/11/2014 20:09, Uncle Peter wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:05:22 -0000, ARW
wrote:

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 13:54:26 +0000, DerbyBorn wrote:

It is interesting that many comments in the press are saying things
about ht elack of Risk Assessments and other H&S processes. The same
people are probaly critial of H&S interference on other issues. Can't
have it both ways!

It's very simple.

H&S is unnecessary interference whilst nobody gets hurt, but a
criminally
forgotten essential if somebody has been.


Awaiting Uncle Peters reply that he has loads of balconies fall on his
head
without causing a problem and that risk assesments are for big girls
blouses.

[Opera saw your reference to my name]

Unlike modern H&S lovers, I have two eyes and look out for such things.
Why do adults expect to be treated like little kids and looked after?

Let me guess, last time you had pointy railing through the head you
dabbed the wound with some Dettol, and it was fine... Just lucky it
missed all your major organs.


--
Cheers,

John.

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