Surely the simple solution would be to use P110/11 LED versions and the like?

There are some older Phosco post tops but side roads seem to be getting these, no wonder the locals are complaining   . It's one thing going contemporary/modern but they have gone for "common" modern. Cambridge on the other hand went for "designer" contemporary to replace the Candles.

Main roads are also being converted - mostly replacing SON Iridiums.

Anyway back on topic, I had previously posted that the payback period - capital expenditure vs energy saved, was a considerable period of time which further makes the whole thing badly thought out.

How about this? Or these? Whilst the first link shows a rather crude looking solution combining wind and solar, the second link illustrates a slightly more elegant set of installations. The question is, are such installations only good for remote locations (preferably where there is a lot of sun) or is there a place for them in the built up areas with electricity services?

Found via Twitter (@UKASTLE)

We have some of these down a street in York: http://www.hei-solarlight.com/ (Mira 190 lanterns)
The column shaft houses solar panels, and if you flip through the site you can read how they work and how it's programmed to conserve its charge.

_________________

How about these self-sufficient installations? (@PhilipsLighting, retweeted by @UKASTLE)

Where is the cut off point? Too much eye sore, clutter ect...

From what I’ve seen in recent years there seems to be a bit of conflict between energy efficiency and environmental consideration.
Speaking generally, SON installations have replaced and continue to replace SOX across the country. The benefits of this of course is a whiter light which I suppose is safer in terms of colour distinction. I’m assuming theres some sort of legislation governing lighting levels too?

Perhaps in some cases energy saving too.

Yet due to the design and specification of these lanterns there are plenty of drawbacks.  The cut-off nature of many modern SON lanterns means they have to be mounted at a greater height and often greater wattage to get the same spread of light as a bowled SOX lantern. Because the spread of light is narrower from the SON lanterns this means that each individual installation has to be closer spaced. So we end up with column overdose. Also  MASSIVE glare and drivers not turning lights on.

I’m not particularly against SON as a lamp type but it depends on the lantern. Although it doesn’t look great I’m starting to quite like the WRTL 2600. It is of course an older design now but where I’ve seen it installed it gives very good distribution without the need for huge columns of high wattages, due of course to its deeper bowl.  Same with the MRL6.


Its with these lanterns that part night switching makes sense to me. Scarborough have recently introduced a part night scheme that affects installations old and new.
On Valley Rd the scheme sees every other lantern turn off after about 11pm. The lanterns are MRL6/GEC version which I believe run 150w SON.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Valley ... 29,,1,-5.8

Even with half the lanterns out this provides a adequate lighting level, with smoother transition between lit areas.
In other areas of the town the same part night switching has been applied to newer lanterns. A road near me has QSS’s running CFL that again see every other lantern off after 11 and because of the cutoff design of the lanterns  the roads become like chessboards. It’s not nice to drive or walk through because your eyes never get chance to adapt to the light or dark. I don’t think its particularly safe.
So although this is undoubtedly saving them money I don’t think it’s suitable considering the lanterns installed.

I would rather see intelligent installations of light sources rather than switching off... several streets in York were previously lit by 90W SOX or 150W SON - but got replaced by 57W CFL Thorn Jets on the same columns (most with brackets), the light output is uniform and energy consumption has been halved without the need for part-night switching. But in North Yorkshire (including Scarborough), they are still installing SON - so 35W SOX gets replaced by 70W SON, 90W SOX by 150W SON, and then their electricity bills go up which leads to part night switching.

Where I used to live, at the private end of a street which was otherwise on a council estate, it got relit by SON-burning QSMs - and entering the road going uphill was very intimidating as the house fronts were all dark whilst the light on the road itself was quite intense and so led to very stark shadows... whereas if the road had been relit by 42W CFL Thorn Jets there would have been some limited back spill onto house fronts, and the smoother nature of CFL light output would have led to more gradual fade-out from light to shadow.

_________________

The most energy efficient way of lighting a street is NOT the way Newcastle and North Tyneside are lit thanks to their PFI.

As I recall from the old WRTL website, they said something along the lines of "150W SON-T Comfort lamps being used in Arcs". As noted elsewhere on the forums, Comfort lamps are not as efficient as standard SON lamps. I thought it was odd to make a sweeping statement about 150W SON, but when I visited Newcastle back in 2012 I noticed all of the Arcs mounted to 6m columns had large-envelope SON lamps, i.e. 100W and above. This includes side streets and footpaths. So, I believe up there in the wild north east they are using 150W lamps for group B installations.