Live data from Hacker News

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

ianvisits.co.uk

111–120 of 155 posts

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

#111
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The stations are indoors and clean. Homeless people could sleep on the floor if they wanted to, but that doesn't happen.

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

#112
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There is improve and there is trying something new. Rails have been around for nearly two centuries - they are a solve problem. We don't need to innovate on many parts as there is nothing wrong with the old technology with some minor updated. We already know what works well for a standard train system. Innovation generally tries things that look good to politicians who don't understand trains, but in reality people who understood trains 100 years ago had the idea and rejected it as a bad idea - and the reasons they are bad ideas didn't change!

there is a lot of room to improve trains. However it all starts with standard gauge steel track, with standard sizes tunnels, standard switches, standard control algorithms (with computers this had recently had a revolution, while there is room to improve this is again in the mostly solve area), standard "rolling stock" and so on. Let me bring out here two standards that are a bit new: platform doors - now that someone invested them and proved they work everyone should retrofit to them; and elevators - it is criminal that many stations around the world still haven't been retrofitted (criminal as in I think someone should be in prison anywhere you find they have not been retrofitted) Once you have all the standard stuff laid out you can make a few tweaks to see what works, but only a few as we know the standard stuff works.

Make sure when you look at standards above you look at what others have done. If you have an idea odds are someone else has already tried it: find them and figure out how it works - sometimes you can tweak to be better sometimes you realize it is a bad idea.

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

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hostile architecture? This is on the underground. Nobody is going to be sleeping on these seats.

The hostile architecture in this instance is the choice to use benches instead of seats with back support.

To what hostile purpose? Just out of spite?

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

#114
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 have seen stations refurbished less than 10 years where the new benches had to be replaced because they were already falling apart after that time outdoors... On my commute they are fitting new cladding to hide a brick wall on an outdoor, not covered, platform. All the studwork is standard timber screwed into the wall. Any water ingress and this will rot quickly. Oh well.

All buildings - including stations should have maintenance schedules. There are things to do hourly (or when open), every 2 hours, 4 hours, daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly. In addition you have 5, 10, and 30 year remodel cycles.

Of course you always have someone do urgent maintenance - if a pipe breaks you fix it now. However replacing that pipe might leave a poorly patched wall until the next 10 year cycle when the fix is made invisible.

You have to empty trash, clean the floors, and other similar things several times per day.

Every year you replace filters and do a deep cleaning. (check the documentation for equipment - sometimes this might be a 1 month cycle not 1 year!) You also do a full inspection of everything, touch up paint, and patch anything else. This should be very routine, and thus always cost the same (inflation adjusted).

Every 5 years you repaint. You also replace carpet where overly stained. That is touch up the cosmetics in a more in depth way. However this is a small cost.

Every 10 years you have to do significant work in the bathrooms (While toilets can last for centuries they start to look bad when you try in a commercial setting). If there is a kitchen it also needs significant work. Avoid moving major things, but this is a higher cost. You should probably be replacing benches on this schedule.

Every 30 years you do a major remodel. Here is where you update everything at sometimes high cost. Add elevators if you don't have them. Expand the station footprint if it is too small (you need more stains). Move where the doors are. Change the station approaches. Add more bathrooms. This will be expensive.

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

#115

A 21st century antimacassar! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimacassar

You’d think they’d consider using a clear oleophobic overlaminate instead of flashy graphics that attract attention to the issue. Good design is more than visual.

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

#116

These are Eduardo Paolozzi’s ghosts taking their revenge for the destruction of the beautiful mosaic at old Tottenham Court Road Station, obviously. Seriously, though the Lizzie Line is an example of really grand design but poorly executed. Here are some of my observations: a. The quality of material is poor and hinders easy maintenance. b. The high-res information displays show train arrivals in incorrect order, e.g…

How much energy is "wasted" to print all those paper posters, ship them to all stations, have people periodically replace them, discard the old ones etc?

Probably a lot less than it costs to build, ship, and actively power the displays.

It's easy to estimate: if the displays + lifetime power costs more than all the posters, then chances are they use a lot more power. The cost of electricity isn't one of those externalities a business can hoist on society - it has to pay for each kilowatt-hour and that cost is easily quantifiable.

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

#117

These are Eduardo Paolozzi’s ghosts taking their revenge for the destruction of the beautiful mosaic at old Tottenham Court Road Station, obviously. Seriously, though the Lizzie Line is an example of really grand design but poorly executed. Here are some of my observations: a. The quality of material is poor and hinders easy maintenance. b. The high-res information displays show train arrivals in incorrect order, e.g…

Eh, poor material and execution is the subscription model of construction..

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

#118
post #96
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rats also

Probably clean up discarded biological matter pretty well. Rats have decent cognitive capabilities. I wonder if trained cleaning rats would displace the naughty variety. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/01/swedish-...

Wild rats aren't naughty. They're just animals trying to make their way in the world the same as the rest of us. But they do make a mess and carry diseases, again maybe the same as the rest of us lol.

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

#119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I feel the point is a bit subtler. We should strive for improvement. We should also understand that that takes more than the normal amount of resources to do something different and better & either commit to spending what's required or, if we can't afford to, use something already proven instead. The half-done or broken improvements still get called "innovations" and give innovation overall a worse reputation.

> I feel the point is a bit subtler. We should strive for improvement. We should also understand that that takes more than the normal amount of resources to do something different and better & either commit to spending what's required or, if we can't afford to, use something already proven instead.

Indeed. I wish this point were articulated that way more often.

> The half-done or broken improvements still get called "innovations" and give innovation overall a worse reputation.

We fetishise innovation as an abstract concept, for good reasons because you cannot have progress without innovation. What we tend to miss is that while innovation is good, some specific innovations are terrible. This is particularly infuriating when they are re-surfacing old, solved problems. Looking at wall tiling for example (or the cladding that can be found in much of the Underground): this was a good solution to a common problem. Bare concrete walls have obvious downsides, which is why we don’t tend to use them in building anymore. Doing away with tiling or cladding sounds like an architect being innovative, but if the replacement does not solve the problem, it’s a regression. It will look modern and clean as long as it will be properly maintained, which is to say for about a year, and then it will decay the way concrete does. It will eventually be clad, or reviled as a post-modern monstrosity the way some bad brutalist buildings are today.

Innovation for innovation’s sake is cargo culting progress. This is giving innovation a bad name.

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

#120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's your project, you can order the builders to reconfigure the ventilation ducts pretty much however you like. Building control require that an architect sign off on things like the size of the beam holding the roof up. If you change that, the architect will have to sign off on the building as constructed before building control will approve it. Planning permission is given on the basis of external appearance, s…

In a small house you can move outlets. In a large building the space for every wire and pipe is accounted for. Moving the outlet means that the wires to it have to move and in turn that means a plumber later can't come in and put the pipe where it must go. In a house they solve this by having the plumber come in before the electrician (the order is much more complex), but in a large building you need them working at…

Sometimes - but some large buildings have loads of space above suspended ceilings and in cable trays and suchlike. Office buildings know every new tenant might want to move internal walls, rearrange sockets, reconfigure the kitchen and so on, and they're built with that in mind.

You're right that making arbitrary ad-hoc changes during construction can be expensive, of course. Especially if it's wrong and has to be torn out and redone.

But it's not illegal - if you're in charge of a project and an installer tells you the specified vents are going to be a problem and they recommend a bigger one, nothing in law prevents you from telling them to go ahead and make the change, right there on the spot.

Of course, how often the person with in charge of a large project will be talking to the vent installers while they're working is a different matter...

Post reply on HN