1. > “Modern lifts are so idiot-proof you could use them in your sleep,” says Mr. Pfaff. “In fact, they are disenfranchising. Paternosters make you free to hurt yourself if you don’t pay attention.”
For those thinking it is odd to want to have some potential pain in your life, keep in mind that Germany is the birthplace of the PainStation [1]. Wanting your elevator to be gunning for you then makes more sense.
2. In case it was not clear, the passenger carts do not flip over when they go over the top (or under the bottom). They are suspended in a way that keeps them upright. If you fail to get off at the top you just come around and have another shot at your floor on the down side.
(Although a version that did flip would probably be extra popular there. See #1).
3. In an earlier discussion of paternosters, a link to a video of a modern take on this, by Hitachi, was posted [2].
It's an interesting approach. It has many of the advantages, but with no more injury risk than a conventional elevator. The basic idea is that the circulating cars are divided into matched pairs on opposite sides, with each pair independently driven by a cable. The shaft is not completely filled with cars like in the paternoster. There are gaps. Those gaps allow a pair to stop for passengers while other pairs are still moving.
Transporting any cargo is usually strictly forbidden. Where I saw this type of elevator, there always was at least one traditional elevator in parallel (probably from the beginning, not only for the disabled, prams, or suitcases, you simply can't move furniture or dolly carts using this elevator).
So, if you are just a person running between departments, you can hop on. If you have luggage, kids, wheelchair, crutches or you are moving stuff between floors, you can use the traditional elevator as always.
Which is why these aren't built anymore, I guess. Especially the wheelchair example is a very good reason (I'd argue the other reasons can be largely considered irrelevant, depending on the building/use case).
So, they're neat, interesting, but probably irrelevant.
But removing them for safety? That's just stupid - just like the article.
Unbelievably, the only quote I could find even vaguely related to actual statistics was, "And yet, TÜV chief engineer Reimo Simon says he can’t recall a fatal incident in Germany in the past 15 years. Official statistics don’t differentiate between elevator and paternoster accidents."
I don't know how much truth there is to this, but my father once told me there had been very few fatalities on the original 7 mile bridge in the Florida keys. But since the new bridge opened in 1982, there have been fatal accidents every few years. The reason being the old bridge was so narrow (originally it was a railroad bridge), folks really paid attention driving it, but with the new wider bridge, drivers became complacent.
I guess no one would use a paternoster without exercising care.
Urban planners use this as a method to slow (or calm) traffic, specifically by narrowing lanes with protected bike lanes or diagonal parking on both sides of a street.
Both-side diagonal parking is an abomination. All it takes to block a road are two guys with long VW Sprinter vans and a regular dumpster truck can't maneuver through the hole.
Witnessed this once, the honking in front of my window went for ten minutes and I had to call the cops - total time needed over half an hour.
You say "calm", but that isn't how the drivers feel. They get full-on road rage.
BTW, you also get more pollution. Modern car gearing makes 60 MPH (100 KPH) pretty reasonable; cars from the previous century do better at about 2/3 that speed.
People will drive. Generally they will take their rage with them to home or to work. Commute length is related to risk of heart attacks and divorce. Your ideas have a huge quality-of-life impact that extends far beyond the road. I could do without the medical problems and violence induced by road rage.
The ideal for quality-of-life is what you likely despise: lots of wide lanes with minimal need to stop or slow down. This puts drivers at peace. No, it isn't ideal for hipsters who have a thing for silly sidewalk cafes, but those aren't most people.
Bike helmets are complex; there's a lot of factors driving risk including reduced cyclist volume/motorist experience with cyclists when you mandate helmet laws.
Risk homeostasis affects both the cyclist and motorist as well.
Clearly helmets protect people, but studies of helmet law implementation do not support the laws.
The article cites no statistics on actual injuries. Neither do the politicians wanting to ban them out of safety concerns. For something around for this long, you'd think they'd be able to at least give an example of someone getting hurt.
I've witnessed one of those in one remarkable constructivist building. It was closed down in some distant past because somebody actually got seriously hurt.
It also had round "slopecase" instead of staircases. This thing was surprisingly cool.
Interestingly, they're mostly found in official buildings ( fiscal authorities etc.), not exactly environments that are usually known to be particularly risk-prone.
Anyway, though I've yet to use one of those lifts to me they look like a rather ingenious design (another aspect official buildings usually aren't exactly renowned for). Sure, they're not accessible but for most people they provide a more swift experience than common lifts.
This reminds me of the new (old) Routemaster bus models reintroduced recently that allow you to hop on and off while the bus is already / still driving (slowly, that is): Sure, it's a bit dangerous but to those willing to take that little risk and extra thrill they quite possibly provide a better user experience.
I saw one of these in brno, czech republic. It was a real treat. I also thought, in the u.s., this is lawsuit waiting to happen... and then I felt sad.
We have four paternosters in our office here in cologne and I'm using them every day. It's really cool, because you have mostly no wait time to get into it.
Two of them are out of order at the moment. I heard, that fixing one would cost about 900k €.
There are several in Bremen and most are accessible to the public. There is a set of them in the Finanzamt (tax office) so any tax abiding or non-abiding citizen can go ride it!
Previously in paternosters: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9642158 (includes link to the discussion before that - note that these aren't all referring to the same link, but the careful reader may spot a theme)
This is exactly my experience. I think the only existing ones are preserved for historic reasons.
This being said, according to German Wikipedia in May 2015 there were still 240 paternosters in operation. You can browse the list at: http://www.flemming-hamburg.de/patlist.htm
I think paternosters are really, really cool. I'd love to ride one.
However, I must wonder whether they can be used by the elderly or disabled. How do you board one with a wheelchair? Or do they just run alongside modern elevators in buildings where handicapped accessibility is a requirement?
It doesn't look like a substitute for an elevator. More like a substitute for an escalator. Those aren't accessible either.
Using it looks to require a skill set similar to that for riding an escalator. There's potential for mishap with either device. I wonder how safe the paternoster would be if it had modern safety devices, like a switch to shut it down if someone gets stuck in the parts? But one problem is that then everyone is stuck inside. You can just walk on an escalator when it's off.
> I wonder how safe the paternoster would be if it had modern safety devices, like a switch to shut it down if someone gets stuck in the parts? But one problem is that then everyone is stuck inside. You can just walk on an escalator when it's off.
Albeit somehow crude with no computers, infrared sensors or whatever, such safety devices are decades old.
For example, before the upward traveling cabin leaves the floor, there is a freely hanging wood panel -- if any part of you is sticking out, instead of being crushed in between the cabin and the next floor, you first hit the panel and lift it up, which trips a safety button shutting the whole elevator off. Or the last few inches of floorboards, both in the cabin and on the individual floors, are hinged.
As for being stuck inside when the safety trips -- having approximately one cabin per floor, each for two occupants at max, you are no worse than having a single cabin with multiple persons stuck in a traditional elevator. You can still walk on the adjacent staircase or use a traditional elevator. These elevators are also required to have a designated attendant (that does not mean a full time person sitting and doing nothing, for example a concierge can be in charge of that) and it is his or her role to immediately free (or call help) stuck people in case of safety cut out or power outage.
I made a special detour to ride one of these in Kobenhavn in the Axelborg building. If the statistics show them to be safe, I think they should be preserved.
For most human traffic, they are less tedious than elevators: less waiting, no stop and go, a constant sense of motion. I don't think their riders would feel trapped the way I sometimes do in slow, busy elevators.
I think of them like a compacted escalator. I wonder if they actually are more compact.
While that does look incredibly unsafe (and would get vandalised/abused a lot of left unattended) it also looks quite fun to use and I can see why people like them.
They are fun - so fun I went up and down a few times. (It was late, and the building was almost empty.)
They feel reliable. You hop on, you go up/down, you hop off.
You don't wait to see if the button you pushed actually did something, you don't try to find a place in a small herd of anxious people with decreased personal space, none of whom are talking, you don't get claustrophobia or any other phobia, and the jump on/off experience adds a frisson of excitement to your day.
And it's hard to get trapped in one. (Not impossible. But certainly hard.)
I suppose contact/proximity sensors at the limb/head-chopping edges would add to the cost, but conventional elevators are hardly 100% safe, so I don't really see the rationale for killing them off.
There still is one in the Attenborough Tower at the University of Leicester! Great fun, but it has CCTV and they call you out via speaker if it becomes obvious that you're just messing about.
Glad to see someone posted this! I was a student at Sheffield and did ride this one a couple of times. I was always skeptical about the safety but have never heard of any accidents happening.
What I found most amusing is that you pass through a floor with full view of the people waiting, and so there's plenty of opportunity for awkward eye contact.
The first time I saw it in some old US silent-movie comedy as I was kid. I was scared just as I've seen it. You can imagine that those guys managed to make gags with that.
I can't find that movie (maybe somebody knows) (Edit: German Wikipedia mentions Charlie Chaplin?) the only thing I can find is something completely different I've also remembered:
I remember using something similar in US paper mills during the mid-late '80s. We called it a manlift. It was basically a vertical rubber conveyor belt with a small platform and a handhold located every 10' or so. It ran through holes in the floor. You just approached it, stepped onto the platform, and grabbed the handhold. There was a limit switch to stop the belt if you didn't get off at the highest floor, because it did just return down the other side.
There is something oddly satisfying about this design. Other concerns aside, it just operates so smoothly. Seems to take all the friction of an elevator ride away.
I have seen this type of lift in a parking garage in the US, for use by the garage employees. It was even more barebones than the pictures of paternoster lifts I've seen. It was more like a moving continuous ladder.
Thinking about them, can't they be made safish with a dectors for stuck limbs ? (Basically a big button the width of the elevator on top of the elevtor and on top of the ceiling.)
I don't know if it is typical or not, but at least some of them have that. I saw one in Prague, Czech Republic (there was an ACM contest hosted on Czech Technical University).
When you look at the frame, where you enter the elevator ("door", "door frame" or however it should be called):
- a part of the floor is on hinges, so if you had your foot stuck between an oncoming floor board and cabin floor while traveling up, it would "open" and trip the safety,
- upper part is actually a freely hanging piece of wood, so if you had your head or limbs sticking out while traveling up, you would lift the piece of wood and trip the safety.
No idea about the actual cabins -- for example if you kept hanging on the floor while the cabin travels down onto you -- but I suspect that the top of the cabin works similarly to the top of the "door frame". If my memory is correct, the cabins also had hinges near the edge of their floorboards (e.g., foot between the floor and the cabin traveling down), but no idea if these also stop the entire system.
Only the visible chain mechanism when overriding top or bottom looked unsafe to me, because I stick my hands everywhere :)
PS: These safety parts looked almost as old as the elevator, so if they weren't a part of the original design, I would guess they were added a long time ago...
EDIT: I actually found a mention of regulation from 1982 stating that the sliding upper parts are mandatory both on the cabin and on the "door frame" and moving them must stop the elevator. The hinged floorboards on cabins and floors are also mandatory, but there is no mention that they should also stop the elevator.
See [1] (in Czech) for pictures.
The one at the university of Leicester has trip lines that will trigger an emergency stop near the top of each "door". A foot or rom would certainly trigger that.
Parking garages use something similar, but to my eye more dangerous, to get the staff quickly to different floors. I have no idea what they are called.
Manlifts.[1] Those are more dangerous than a paternoster. They're essentially a powered ladder. The biggest hazard is failing to get off at the top, because the belt just goes over a pulley and back down, which would throw the rider down the shaft head first. OSHA: At the top floor an illuminated sign shall be displayed bearing the following wording: "TOP FLOOR - GET OFF" ... a red warning light of not less than 40-watt rating shall be provided immediately below the upper landing terminal and so located as to shine in the passenger's face. ... Two separate automatic stop devices shall be provided to cut off the power and apply the brake when a loaded step passes the upper terminal landing."
It seems like you could dramatically improve the standard elevator system now that microcontrollers make it easy to have what used to be sophisticated control systems and modern power semiconductors make it easy to control large amounts of electrical power at high speeds.
Here’s a braindump. The overlong sentences are probably a symptom of too much coffee.
You’d have an “up” lane on the left and a “down” lane on the right, as in a paternoster or in Hitachi’s system mentioned in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9786871, but the cars wouldn’t stop in them; instead, you’d have a “station” at each floor in between the two lanes for the car to stop in without blocking traffic. (Popular floors, like typically the ground floor, would have several stations.) The cars would be small and light, holding two friends or a parent with some small children comfortably, with seatbelts and a maximum gross weight of maybe 300 kg; you could have a door to keep you from accidentally falling out of the car while it was moving, but it wouldn’t need to be automatic, since if you didn’t manage to get it closed, it would inconvenience only you (and whoever else is waiting to reach your floor, if you’re on a single-station floor.)
Once you are in motion, you continue to your destination floor without stopping; because you are sharing the elevator shaft with other cars, you don’t need to share the elevator car with other people. Your trajectory through spacetime to the destination station is reserved by the control computer before you leave the station, so that other cars will only crash into yours if there is a malfunction, such as a rail jam or a cable break. Much of the time, cars will travel through the shaft in convoys with their bumpers in contact with one another, limited by the speed of the frontmost car, which will greatly limit potential collision damage if a malfunction should happen.
(Probably the optimal number of stations on most floors is two, not one, because with two stations, there will almost always be one unoccupied station that your arrival can be scheduled into.)
Power and non-emergency braking are applied to the cars using the same cable-traction system all current elevators use (except for those shitty Otis hydraulic elevators, and those few rack-and-pinion elevators), but the energy is not applied to or removed from the cable by a motor; it is delivered to your car entirely from counterweights connected to your car’s cable through a system of CVTs and clutches. Low-power electric motors lift spare counterweights continuously to replace energy either lost to friction or stairway descents or currently stored in people or objects that haven’t returned back down to street level.
This system removes electric-power constraints to maximum acceleration, so that a continuous-jerk spline trajectory should allow comfortable ascents and descents with accelerations as large as ±⅓g. For a Burj-Khalifa-scale tower of 900 meters, ⅓g means you can comfortably travel from the bottom to the top, in any of the 100 or so cars, in about 20 or 30 seconds, reaching about 70 MPH in the middle of the trip, ten times normal elevator speed.
(Accelerating 300kg at ⅓g at 70MPH is about 43 horsepower, which is within the range of normal elevator power capacities, so it wouldn’t be impractical to build such a high-speed elevator system without the complicated CVT/clutch system, just inefficient.)
As with public-transit cable-car systems or cable tramways, your car can grasp and release cables dynamically, but it can grasp any of several different cables, allowing us to have more cars running at different velocities than we have cable loops and preventing cable breaks from being an emergency under normal circumstances.
And you would do all of this while taking up only the floor footprint of three small elevator cars on most levels, unlike the Burj Khalifa’s 57 large shafts, which run at one-third the peak speed described here and have to stop frequently because you share the car with a dozen other people.
(If you build a subway along these principles, you could use a 48-volt DC third rail; lightweight four-seat vehicles running on bicycle wheels powered by independent motors in the vehicle, rather than cableways; dirt-floored tunnels, unless you’re below the water table; and stations and lines spaced some 50 meters apart instead of 500.)
Holy crap! This thing exists? Just reading about it, and it overcame my fear of heights... and by that I mean it's more scary than what I'm most scared of.
For those thinking it is odd to want to have some potential pain in your life, keep in mind that Germany is the birthplace of the PainStation [1]. Wanting your elevator to be gunning for you then makes more sense.
2. In case it was not clear, the passenger carts do not flip over when they go over the top (or under the bottom). They are suspended in a way that keeps them upright. If you fail to get off at the top you just come around and have another shot at your floor on the down side.
(Although a version that did flip would probably be extra popular there. See #1).
3. In an earlier discussion of paternosters, a link to a video of a modern take on this, by Hitachi, was posted [2].
It's an interesting approach. It has many of the advantages, but with no more injury risk than a conventional elevator. The basic idea is that the circulating cars are divided into matched pairs on opposite sides, with each pair independently driven by a cable. The shaft is not completely filled with cars like in the paternoster. There are gaps. Those gaps allow a pair to stop for passengers while other pairs are still moving.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PainStation
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnX5WZhvzZY