E-On could do with a lesson from you Sotonsteve. They are responsible for Blackpool's PFI and in some areas have replaced 70w SON at 5m with 90w CPO at 8m. That would be all well and good if the lighting needed that kind of upgrade but in many cases this 90w CPO is used in quite, narrow streets, even in cul-de-sacs! I can see Blackpool's electric bill rising somewhat in the next few years, when the idea of these PFIs is partly supposed to be about making lighting more energy-efficient! :roll:I wish I had known about this site since its inception! Only through researching some pre-war lighting in Cleveleys have I discovered its existence.
Whilst I realise that the post above is now three years old, I think it is worth making a comment, and excusing the pun, shedding some light on matters!
The Blackpool PFI is riddled with anomalies!
When the works commenced there was a certain amount of logicality about the designs - however in autumn 2010, six months in, and for no apparent reason, instead of renewing existing 5/6 metre 50/70w SON installations generally with 6 metre columns and 60w CPO lamps, whole areas, including indeed cul-de-sacs, acquired 8 metre columns and 90w lamps, (occasionally 60w). In fact Woodland Grove even has 140w lamps at 8 metres on a road not 20 ft wide! illogically, the adjacent Cumberland Avenue, at least 50% wider, with more traffic, and a wider column spacing, has 90w lanterns.
All of a sudden, in the early summer of 2011, the practice stopped and 6 metres became the norm again, and roads that did warrant 8 metre columns did not get them. We even had roads previously (and correctly) lit at 8 metres reduced to 6 metres!
To this day a large numbers of columns have not been fitted with the lanterns intended, as shown on the published designs.
I could go on!
The success or otherwise of any PFI depends on the authority having capable competent officers to oversee the project.
In Blackpool, an authority bereft of ability at both elected and appointed levels, it is hardly surprising that so many mistakes were made - the whole concept was 'sold' to weak ineffective councillors on a false premise.
Having said that, thank goodness the end result has not been the woefully inadequate side road lighting now being rolled out under the Lancashire CC regime, along with their crass 20 mph speed limit.