Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elizabeth line testing ways of banishing its "ghosts in the walls"

ianvisits.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 155 posts

Re: Elizabeth line testing ways of banishing its "ghosts in the walls"

#41

Post by armaanbanerjee »

moffkalast wrote: post #36

> One would be to replace all the seats with new designs with backs to lean on, but that would be expensive Hmm indeed, how could a rail line that makes a mere £1 billion in yearly revenue afford such an egregious expense.

Whilst the Elizabeth line makes a lot of money, TFL doesn't and currently is missing around half its funding needed for maintenance, trying to justify new benches on a line that's only 2 years old would be hard to justify when other parts of the network need funding much more that the core stations on the Elizabeth line

Re: Elizabeth line testing ways of banishing its "ghosts in the walls"

#42

Post by some-human »

helboi4 wrote: post #37
some-human wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People without a home do not have access to the platforms that these seats are on. These seats are on the underground, past the ticket barriers, and they would quickly be removed for trespassing on private property, as all TFL stations are staffed. Typically in London, People without a home would be found outside the station, or occasionally in the concourse.

Bro you've clearly never ridden the tube. Homeless people are on it all the time begging. They slip in behind other people through the barriers at busy or unmanned stations.

Londoner for 24 years. I don't know what to tell you, 'Bro'.

Yes beggars walk down tube trains trying to get money, but they don't tend to set up shop on the platform which is what we're talking about here. I'm also pretty sure most of the people that have asked me for a quid on the tube were not homeless people, just chancers and drug users.

Besides which, once you were past the barrier, sleeping on the tube train itself is likely to be a much more viable and comfortable option than the platform.

as for "unmanned stations"? All London Underground stations are rostered to be staffed during operating hours. Stations located underground have specific staffing requirements and minimum staff numbers, which vary depending on the size of the station. This is a fire regulation requirement arising from the King's Cross fire in 1987.

Re: Elizabeth line testing ways of banishing its "ghosts in the walls"

#43

Post by deutschepost »

Havoc wrote: post #17

I noticed some other weird design choices in the new tube stations as well. Eg air vents that are very fine and visibly clog up. It’s like they designed it to look shiny for day one but ignored decades of practical experience

I heard that these small holes are supposed to be Helmholtz Resonators. If tuned to the right frequency, they can help with noise reduction.

https://hackaday.com/2023/12/24/absorbing-traffic-noise-with...

Re: Elizabeth line testing ways of banishing its "ghosts in the walls"

#44

Post by bluenose69 »

Havoc wrote: post #17

I noticed some other weird design choices in the new tube stations as well. Eg air vents that are very fine and visibly clog up. It’s like they designed it to look shiny for day one but ignored decades of practical experience

I've seen similar things where I work. In a new building, the architects called for small air vents that would look nice according to some aesthetic criterion. Unfortunately, the vents were so small that, to maintain air flow, the fans inside them had to spin so fast they screamed. This made for a very unpleasant environment.

This was where high-profile events tended to take place, to show off the bright new shiny things. But you couldn't hear yourself think there. The solution? They turned off the fans a short time before important visitors arrived.

I learned of this when I was chatting with a worker who deals with such things. Apparently, the people who were installing these vents knew that they would be a problem. But who were they going to complain to? The architects don't work here, and the local managers don't listen to their underlings.

There are lots of stories like this in many work environments. I think the common thread is that high mucky-mucks are not interested in talking with the people who are doing the labour.

Re: Elizabeth line testing ways of banishing its "ghosts in the walls"

#45

Post by Gare »

chilmers wrote: post #12
londons_explore wrote: post #2

Don't clean stuff... Just hide the dirt!

Unfortunately, the material they chose for the station walls is a sort of porous cement that is likely uncleanable.

Also hostile architecture - benches with no backrests.

Re: Elizabeth line testing ways of banishing its "ghosts in the walls"

#46

Post by helboi4 »

some-human wrote: post #42
helboi4 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bro you've clearly never ridden the tube. Homeless people are on it all the time begging. They slip in behind other people through the barriers at busy or unmanned stations.

Londoner for 24 years. I don't know what to tell you, 'Bro'. Yes beggars walk down tube trains trying to get money, but they don't tend to set up shop on the platform which is what we're talking about here. I'm also pretty sure most of the people that have asked me for a quid on the tube were not homeless people, just chancers and drug users. Besides which, once you were past the barrier, sleeping on the tube train i…

I mean i think the vast majority of them are homeless and/or drug users. Lots of homeless people are cos they're freezing their nuts off with no hope every day. It's honestly impossible to tell which of them are on drugs and which aren't. But I find it unlikely that most of those people aren't homeless.

And yes I know every station has to be staffed. I mean they look for moments of time when no staff are watching the barriers at lower staffed stations. I have had people slip in the barriers behind me it very obviously happens. Homeless people are perfectly able to get in. They don't sleep there because everything possible is done to stop them.

Re: Elizabeth line testing ways of banishing its "ghosts in the walls"

#48

Post by concordDance »

Wytwwww wrote: post #40
lhnz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very difficult to make thousands of up-front planning decisions perfectly. It'd be even more costly to try to perfect every aspect upfront within the planning stage and it'd be more reasonable to make best attempts but to provide for the ability (and budget) to retrofit bespoke alterations to fix problems that arise at a later date.

> difficult to make thousands of up-front planning decisions perfectly. So don't. Just use something well tried and tested and don't try to be innovative (in areas we you can't dedicated significant amounts of resources for up-front planning)

This seems a bit defeatist. Some hope for and striving for improvement is good for a society.

Re: Elizabeth line testing ways of banishing its "ghosts in the walls"

#49

Post by nuc1e0n »

deutschepost wrote: post #43
Havoc wrote: post #17

I noticed some other weird design choices in the new tube stations as well. Eg air vents that are very fine and visibly clog up. It’s like they designed it to look shiny for day one but ignored decades of practical experience

I heard that these small holes are supposed to be Helmholtz Resonators. If tuned to the right frequency, they can help with noise reduction. https://hackaday.com/2023/12/24/absorbing-traffic-noise-with...

With holes like that, birds, bees and rats will nest in those bricks.

Re: Elizabeth line testing ways of banishing its "ghosts in the walls"

#50

Post by lhnz »

bluenose69 wrote: post #44
Havoc wrote: post #17

I noticed some other weird design choices in the new tube stations as well. Eg air vents that are very fine and visibly clog up. It’s like they designed it to look shiny for day one but ignored decades of practical experience

I've seen similar things where I work. In a new building, the architects called for small air vents that would look nice according to some aesthetic criterion. Unfortunately, the vents were so small that, to maintain air flow, the fans inside them had to spin so fast they screamed. This made for a very unpleasant environment. This was where high-profile events tended to take place, to show off the bright new shiny th…

This is a negative outcome of the Town and Country Planning Act. We've mandated by law that all planning is done upfront and due to the possibility of construction fraud provide detailed designs to building contractors that disallow them from substituting any materials or design choices without it being explicitly requested by the employer. In theory, there can be conversation between individual subcontractors and the project managers or architects, but in practice these are not always on site at the same time and there are significant costs involved in changes as well as issues with trust. Therefore, we effectively have a very expensive waterfall process that everybody is legally obligated to follow.
Post reply on HN