Talk:Escalator/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Escalator. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Moving Sidewalk Merge?
I propose that Moving sidewalk be merged in: see talk:Moving sidewalk. Blotwell 05:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- See my (positive) comments there.
- Atlant 11:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Long article
This article is rather long. Are there any thoughts on splitting it? The Storm Surfer 20:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Here are some suggestions:
- Make "Moving walkways," "High speed walkways," and "Inclined Moving sidewalks" into a separate article. They did not develop at the same time, they are not the same thing as escalators, and they should be granted their own entry. Likewise, any text about moving walkways should be removed from this article and incorporated into the separate entry.
- As for the "longest" section, I fear that this will need constant updating, and is partially irrelevant except for trivia purposes. It has been a controversial section, as well. . . .
- Some of the newly-added information in the "designs" section can be moved elsewhere (there may be some overlap of information), and text from those other sections can be edited out, as necessary.
- The "standing and walking" section seems too long. . . . Does it really need to be addressed that specifically?
- The "science fiction" section seems to be more about moving walks than escalators. Could be incorporated into the big moving walks article. . . .
Just some thoughts. . . . BFDhD 16:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, I want to make sure it's clear that I'm not suggesting that the article should be made shorter merely because it is long (some of your phrasing seemed to suggest that might be your opinion), I'm suggesting that we might in fact have two articles that have been mistakenly written under one title. Now that that's out of the way...
- Splitting the moving walkways into their own article seems reasonable to me. The only reason I didn't initially suggest it is that the moving sidewalks article had in fact been created and then merged into this one! I don't know what the precedents are or how people would feel about an un-merge. The Storm Surfer 23:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't know why you would have got that idea from my "phrasing." Your headline read "long article," and some of the text is repetitive, so I thought I'd include my thoughts on that. Believe me, I've spent a lot of time researching escalators, and I know that the "longest escalators" section could be a seemingly endless task to keep updated and accurate. I, too, had seen that moving walkways was merged into this, but the two are not the same thing, and I believe the individual articles can both stand on their own. Enough about me-- what do you suggest be done to split this article? (This is not intended to be adversarial, merely friendly.)BFDhD 20:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Escalators and travelators
I think that this article should be split as i do not think escalators and travelators are the same thing. What do other people think? Simply south 17:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that there should be two different articles. This has come up before, and there is enough information on both so that they can stand alone as the "Escalators" and "Moving Walks/Trav-O-Lators/Travelators/Moving Sidewalks" entries. I think a disambiguation page would help, too. Thoughts? Anyone?
--BFDhD 23:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- There's an inherent difference between an escalator and a travelator which becomes obvious when they're stopped. A stopped travelator (moving walk etc) looks like a long piece of metal flooring. A stopped escalator looks remarkably similar to a metal staircase (albeit with varying step height at the very top and bottom). Split Escalators from Travelators, although I also agree a disambiguation page would be helpful. Perhaps also mention in both that an escalator can have longish flat sections as well, and that a travelator can still take people up/down if inclined.
--Peeky44 11:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I was actually going to suggest this myself. Though some of the technology involved is similar, the two are very different things. It should be a simple case of just copying the sections of this article that refer to 'moving walkways' to a separate article.--Jcvamp 19:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Undergone split. See Moving walkway. Simply south 22:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Longest esclator in Finland
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampin_metroasema
"Ne ovat 65 metriä pitkät, ja niissä on 334 askelmaa. Liukuportaiden nostokorkeus on 29,7 metriä." 65m lenght, 334 steps and vertical rise of 29,7m.
-- Let me guess, it's made by KONE? Finland's shining example of a escalator company. Hopefully this isn't article material. -- Josstuff.
Video clips
I have added some link to video clips of the Parisian high speed moving walkway and a self starting escalator in Essen, Germany. These are in mpg format and hosted on my own website, but to avoid bandwidth issues they feature very small image sizes. I would be happy to uplift versions with larger images sizes, but Wikipedia wants them in a file format which I do not know how to create. Citytransport.info 15:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)User:Citytransport.info
History
I have seen this comment but am not sure enough of the source to put it on the main page
"In 1898, Harrods installed the city's first escalator, complete with attendants waiting at the next floor with glasses of brandy for customers overcome by the experience. "
Harrods ids the famous UK store
- It was in a department store history book . . . I'll get back to you!
BFDhD 20:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- See reference - Lancaster, Bill. The Department Store: a Social History. London: Leicester University Press, 1995: 50. (#11, under "Early European manufacturers: Hallé, Hocquardt, and Piat") --BFDhD 19:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Factual Error in Page
The article titled "Escalator" contains a direct contradiction between two "facts."
A section near the end, headed "Longest Escalators and Systems," includes the following three paragraphs (on which please see my comments below):
''' The longest escalator in the Western Hemisphere is at the Wheaton station of the Washington Metro subway system. It is 155 m (508ft) long, and takes almost 3 and a half minutes to ascend or descend without walking. It replaced what was formerly the longest escalator in the Western Hemisphere, which is also located on the Washington Metro system at the Bethesda station.
The longest escalator on earth is a four-section outdoor escalator at Ocean Park, Hong Kong, with an overall length of 224 m (745ft).
However, the metro systems in several cities in Eastern Europe (including St. Petersburg, Kyiv and Prague) have Soviet-era escalators up to approximately 100 m (330ft) long. Those at the Námìstí Míru station in Prague were rebuilt to the same length in 1998–9 by ThyssenKrupp. The longest in the world are at Park Pobedy station on the Moscow Metro. Opened in 2003, these escalators have 740 steps each, and are over 120 metres long, making them the longest single-section escalators on earth.'''
Please note that the Moscow Metro escalators, at "over 120 metres long" CAN'T BE "the longest single-section escalators on earth" if, in fact, the escalator at the Washington Metro's Wheaton station is "155 m (508 ft) long." (The Wheaton escalator, I should note, is also a single-section unit.)
Either one or both of the numbers, or the claim of "longest," must be wrong.
A smaller and pickier point: What's the reason for the "However" that opens the last graf? I see no "however" about that information; it should simply start, "The metro systems in several cities..."
Dannheisser 07:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Placed where it is, it sounds like some was weasel-wording the apparent conflict that you've detected.
- "The Wheaton station, a mile down the street, has 230-foot escalators, the longest outside of Leningrad." From the article "Wheaton, Forest Glen To Climb Aboard Metro", September 16, 1990, Washington Post. Other Washington Metro escalator lengths taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/07/31/DI2006073100845.html. Tjamro 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- There seems to be a lot of disagreement from many sources as to the length of the Wheaton escalator, with lengths ranging from 230 feet to 508 feet, all sounding fairly authoritative. What is the source of that discrepency? Is it a 508-foot span separated into multiple escalators, or what? It seems strange to have so many sources disagreeing about such an easily measured fact. samkass
When it comes to the longest escalator in Western Europe, this depends on the definition of this geographical entity. The article as of today states that the longest escalator in Western Europe is in Angel tube station in London. Is UK in Western Europe but not Stockholm? (There is a longer escalator in the Stockholm metro system, Västra skogen.) According to the reference to UN definitions in the wikipedia article on Western Europe, neither UK nor Sweden is located in Western Europe (or both according to an alternative definition). StefanKarlsson (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Washington Metro picture caption
The picture shown of the Washington Metro escalator is certainly not that of Rosslyn Station, which the caption formerly said (I updated it). It might be from Wheaton, but could be one of several other similar long escalators on the red line (e.g. Woodley Park, Cleveland Park, etc.) - difficult to tell as the designs are quite similar. However Rossyln's esclator shaft is notably different, having four units instead of three, and having a glass elevator shaft in between the two pairs. 202.172.106.195 06:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Image caption on Macy's cross-bank escalator
Thanks for adding the image. Question about caption choice: current caption reads, "On the upper floors of Macy's in New York City, some narrow wooden escalators are still in operation." Otis L-type escalators (the ones with wood treads) run on floors 1 through 9 (and to the "Cellar") of Macy's Herald Square store on 34th Street. These escalators date from 1927. Older (1922 - 1923) Otis escalators (including the one in the newly-posted image) run in the "cross-bank," to floors 1-9, as well. The steps are die-cast metal from a 1990s retrofit. (In fact, there are 40 escalators in the entire Macy's Herald Square store.) So, what do you mean by "upper floors" and why not include an image of them? Would you be OK with a change of the caption to reflect the material I have listed here? --BFDhD 18:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have made the changes, but would like the image author's feedback. The change is temporary, unless approved.BFDhD 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that revised caption is perfectly fine by me; mine was somewhat ad hoc. Thanks! --Xiaphias 06:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent! Nice working with you!--BFDhD 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that revised caption is perfectly fine by me; mine was somewhat ad hoc. Thanks! --Xiaphias 06:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have made the changes, but would like the image author's feedback. The change is temporary, unless approved.BFDhD 19:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Removed advertising links
I removed two links (one completely broken; it was missing ".com") to the top of the links list for "advertising on escalators" -- these were in fact advertising spam (AFAICT) for companies who sell that as a service. Todd Vierling 18:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Standing vs. walking on an escalator
This is probably never going to be mentioned in the article, but it's interesting how many people are happy just to stand still on an escalator while it transports them from A to B. However, if you were instead to walk up or down and then stand still for about 30 seconds once you reached the next floor up/down, you would basically be behaving no differently, though I'm sure you would get some strange looks. Why do people do this? Are they so uncoordinated that they can't walk normally, or do they feel they don't need to walk since the escalator is doing the work for them? Is standing still just a meme that has spread through the escalator using population? It really makes no sense... Richard001 08:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting that you mention it Richard001, but the Elevator Escalator Safety Foundation actually recommends that people never (!) walk up an escalator, and that if it is stopped, it should be avoided altogether, never treated as a staircase. The risers and treads are not the standard size of normal steps on a staircase, and it is technically unsafe for passengers to use the escalator steps as stair steps. I can't speak for all people, but some may be paying attention to the safety instructions posted on the escalator newels, some may be tired, and some may find it difficult to physically negotiate climbing "stairs" that are not the same height and depth as "regular" steps. Hope this clears things up, or at least helps.--BFDhD 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It is a standard convention on the London Underground that people wishing to stand still should do so on the right, those wishing to walk pass by on the left. Not all tourists understand this, and the system is often explained to them rather bluntly. There are some signs asking people to stand on the right. Strangely on other London escalators, e.g. in department stores, this convention does not seem to apply. On the extremely long escalators of the Pyongyang (North Korea) metro I noticed that some locals sat down in groups on the steps and settled down for a chat on the long ride. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkidley (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
"Single Truss Escalator?"
This new addition of information is very confusing. I have never heard of such a device, and fear the contributor may be confusing it with the escalator type that contains the motor within the truss. Could someone please provide the following: 1. manufacturer of the escalator in question, 2. approximate date of escalator installation in question, 3. definition of "single truss escalator" (from a reputable source, with citation noted)? Thanks! --BFDhD (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
"Industrial" escalators?
Several "anonymous" IP addresses keep trying to enter this text and a link to a certain author's "article," which appears to be self-promotion for someone named Jonathan Haeber and his blog. Let's discuss it in terms of location/relevance/repetition in entry (his blog contains several factual inaccuracies, and repeats some information already here without proper citation), as well as in terms of Wiki policies involving neutral POV. Moreover, the text in question could use some cleanup, did not fit in the section in which it was inserted, and discusses a so-called type ("industrial") that does not exist by that name (if at all) in vertical transportation/escalator terminology or application. Here's the text, please comment by signing with four tildes (~). Also, as in the previous discussion post, if anyone could please provide 1. manufacturer of the escalator "type" in question, and 2. definition of "industrial escalator" (from a reputable source, with citation noted), that would be great and very helpful to our discussion!
- Escalators are best suited for commercial and civic use. The King's Cross Incident[1] is a perfect illustration as to why escalators aren't particularly well-suited for industrial applications. Any build-up of flammable fuels, cloth, dust, or scraps could easily lead to a devastating fire. This means costly maintenance and up-keep, which is not necessarily cost-effective in a factory environment. There are exceptions. In San Francisco, an escalator at Hunter's Point was used to convey personnel and equipment between the first and third floors. At the time of its construction in 1948, the Hunter's Point industrial escalator was touted to be "the world's tallest."[2].
Thanks! BFDhD (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
To even suggest that industrial escalators deserve no place in history is tantamount to historical ignorance. If you would like me to go to the largest library west of the Mississippi and dig up some crusty old, rotting books with verifiable information, I'm happy to do so. But in the meantime, I'd suggest that you don't try to re-write history with your own myopic view of escalators. If you want to be ambitious, please follow the below links. If not, then please keep your holier-than-thou attitude in-check before it causes you to eat crow.
New sources
Crusty old books with references to industrial/factory escalators: http://books.google.com/books?id=jqBJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA200&dq=escalators+and+factories&as_brr=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=yNVMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA127&dq=escalators+and+factories&as_brr=1
Other Salient Sources: http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:yEEn6mmnMcwJ:www.officestationary.in/AcmeElevators.htm+%22industrial+escalators&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us
http://www.uss-hornet.org/site_graphics/tour_map/HD19Escalator.jpg
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haeber (talk • contribs) 03:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/german_to_english/manufacturing/1122006-dispositiv.html
http://www.standardelevatorco.com/?src=tp0
http://randompottins.blogspot.com/2007/11/kings-cross.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoLpkNKQ9_E&NR=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haeber (talk • contribs) 08:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you were so offended by the questions. Remember to keep your comments polite and avoid personal attacks, as noted in the banner at the top of this page. Thanks.--BFDhD (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)