61 replies to this topic

[Duck]

@ Ryan, do you know any details on the mechanical construction of the acceleration/deceleration system?

-Iain

[liftmech]

Duck, on Mar 23 2005, 06:33 PM, said:

Now that sounds very difficult!  I wonder why on that particular system, it was unsafe to grip where the main rope was attached together.  How would you get around that on a conventional tire-driven detachable?

-Iain
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't. It is the job of the splicer to make the tucks as close to the original rope diameter as possible, so that a grip can close on them. Grips are designed to close on a 'nominal' rope diameter, but that means there are variations inherent and accepted. There is a window around nominal diameter in which grip force is unchanged.

[Duck]

...or I suposed, changed so slightly that it's within an acceptable tollerance?

I still wonder why that couldn't have been done on the system in discussion. Oh well. :)

-Iain

[Outback]

SkiBachelor, on Mar 22 2005, 06:06 PM, said:

It's also kind of interesting that the YAN gondola towers were also removed when they could have easily been reused.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Several of the structural framing components, monopods and quite a few towers were re-used in the Poma installation at Squaw.
Welded on both projects.

[coskibum]

they did use the same gondola buildings! i have always wondered that too. it seems wasteful to not reuse them. they must have really been dissatisfied with the gondola system.

there is some talk about relocating the current gondola at river run. does anyone know if they will scrap the von roll system and install a new one?

[poloxskier]

coskibum, on Mar 25 2005, 06:03 PM, said:

they did use the same gondola buildings!  i have always wondered that too.  it seems wasteful to not reuse them.  they must have really been dissatisfied with the gondola system.

there is some talk about relocating the current gondola at river run.  does anyone know if they will scrap the von roll system and install a new one?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you know where they would relocate it to?

[coskibum]

they would extend the base terminal closer to river run village

[SkiBachelor]

I have a feeling that they would just relocate the base terminal and I kind of doubt that the Von Roll system will be scrapped unless Vail Resorts wants to spend the extra money for that. It wouldn't be a cheap process either just because of the custom chair parking facility.

[crazyskier91]

I don't think they would really wan't to replace it after having Doppelmayr-CTEC do the renovations a few years ago.

[poloxskier]

crazyskier91, on Mar 26 2005, 07:12 PM, said:

I don't think they would really wan't to replace it after having Doppelmayr-CTEC do the renovations a few years ago.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What did they upgrade?

[SkiBachelor]

Drive controls and stuff.

[Kelly]

Back to the question Duck asked on 3/24 – mechanical details

As Bud mentioned on page 2 it had an active spacing and conveying system.
-Lift was under construction until it was removed
-Short conveying chains at turns coupled with tires at that transition - I believe were rope driven
-Groups of tire “banks” for spacing correction and acceleration/deceleration
-Still needed motors, shafts and couplings to drive system
-Active system used higher than “control voltage” electric motors, as one can imagine this created slight problems during power outages as the tires did not turn.
-All tires in banks were commonly connected by V-belts
-Belt tension was adjusted by sliding the tire assembly(s) down a common pipe rail for belt stretch.
-These pipe rails were parallel to the slope of the haul rope – an elegant and simple design for correct traction plate contact and belt alignment … in theory.
-No tension pulleys for V-belt slack - move one to tighten – move all - job security for maintenance for proper belt tension. To change or replace a belt one had to be creative.
As with most spacing systems the active system was pretty benign/ hard to tell at 100% rope speed.
As Bud implies - bit of a white elephant.

Ryan B

[Emax]

I see that this thread is viewed frequently - usually by "guests".
Why such interest in what has become ancient history?
I'd like it if these interested guests sign on as members so they can post an answer to this question. You know, as a non-member, you really miss a lot.

[Peter]

Yan is fascinating, they had suck unique designs but a lot of misfortune in the end. It really is too bad that none of the American companies survived.

[floridaskier]

Skier, on Nov 17 2006, 09:47 PM, said:

Yan is fascinating, they had such unique designs but a lot of misfortune in the end. It really is too bad that none of the American companies survived.

I'd say CTEC survived, even though they're part of Doppelmayr now, besides the line gear, they seem to be running the show at DoppelmayrCTEC

[Emax]

CTEC is an "also ran". The real technology comes from Austria, not Sacramento.

This post has been edited by Emax: 17 November 2006 - 07:39 PM

[Kicking Horse]

Emax, on Nov 17 2006, 07:58 AM, said:

I see that this thread is viewed frequently - usually by "guests".
Why such interest in what has become ancient history?
I'd like it if these interested guests sign on as members so they can post an answer to this question. You know, as a non-member, you really miss a lot.

They are bots for the most part... Ask Bill or Cameron about what I mean.

[Emax]

"Ask Bill or Cameron about what I mean."

Yes - I know what you mean. But why here?

[Kicking Horse]

They go though every topic.

[SkiBachelor]

I believe that many people were brought to this thread while doing a search about the Teller accident or Lift Engineering in general from a search engine.

However, we forgot to submit this domain to Google when we moved the forum to its very own site and therefore you can no longer find any threads from the forum on Google anymore. However, I did submit it today and hopefully the bots will be back scouring the site in the near future. It will take some time to though to get the #1 position that we once had.