Skilifts.org / SORT Forum

do they really need that tower in the first place??its not that long of a span.ive seen plenty of lifts with longer spans than that.
This post has been edited by vonrollskyway1: 18 December 2008 - 06:07 PM

vonrollskyway1, on Dec 18 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

More then likely it's needed to keep clearance over the river. Snowmass had to add a tower the Village Express due to clearance issues. And line sag.

ive allways liked lifts with line sag.would the difference between hydraulic tension and counterweight tension be a factor about why they put in a tower ?

vonrollskyway1, on Dec 18 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

Serious, are you saying that buy a casual observation you now can start deleting towers?

I believe there's a main road in between those two towers. I think the engineers know what their doing :) Unless their making huge profits on those towers.
This post has been edited by bwilky: 18 December 2008 - 10:10 PM

Considering that one cabin came to rest on the roof of a bus shelter and another only a few feet above the creek, I think the tower is necessary.

Skier, on Dec 18 2008, 10:44 PM, said:

I believe that was because the tower was sitting on the cable, which brought the cabins a lot lower.
This post has been edited by bwilky: 18 December 2008 - 11:29 PM

but what if you added more tension to the cable? then would it stay high enough?

That span is probably a lot longer than it looks in the picture. I'm sure if they had a tower there, it was there for a reason

The fact that someone is suggesting that a tower is uneeded that engineers took months to study is actually kind of funny... My thought is if a tower is placed on a lift, it is probably needed!

gbcomp, on Dec 19 2008, 05:40 AM, said:

but what if you added more tension to the cable? then would it stay high enough?

Adding more tension would reduce sag, but at what cost? At some point you will excees the safety factor of the haul rope and have to increase the diameter/composition of the rope....$$$$$$.
Towers are relatively cheap as compare to terminals and haul ropes.
$0.02 BILLION

Dino

That extra tower is needed, If you look at the line from the side, the gap is a lot bigger. It would also cause a great amount of stress on the two towers eitherside of the fallen one. Also, if that tower was removed, there would need to be a greater tension on the rope :

More tension = stronger rope = more $$$

I have two question/concerns about how the BC Safety Authority and W-B have publicly stated they are ensuring this will never happen again.

The first is that they seem to be focusing on two-part towers with flanges. Although the two incidents of this so far have been this type of tower, couldn't the same thing happen on a single section tower and force off the crossarm instead? It seems like it just so happened that as the ice crept up the tower, this is the first weak point that was encountered.

Secondly they seem to be focusing on Doppelmayr and specifically saying that Poma gondolas do not have the same design. Since the Silver Mountain incident was on a Hall and Hall is now owned by Doppelmayr they seem to be saying this is a Doppelmayr problem. It seems to me that all towers are hollow steel structures with the potential for water to get in and freeze. From the public statements by Doug Forseth and the BC Safety Inspector at the press conference, it sounds like the Whistler Village Gondola and Creekside Gondolas were not even looked at. Furthermore, it sounds as if only two part Doppelmayr towers will be ordered inspected elsewhere in BC.

I am hoping that maybe the statements by the BC Safety Inspector and Doug Forseth of W-B to the media were dumbed down statements meant for the media and the public and not an actual representation of what they are doing about the problem. To say that they only need to check one type and brand of tower when they still don't even know how the water got into the Excalibur tower seems careless to me. I think the fact that the BC safety authority revoked the operating certification for Excalibur Lower and Upper sections but no other lifts says a lot about their strategy. Excelerator is also a 1994 Doppelmayr lift with numerous two section towers. The only explanation for why they revoked the operating permit of the unaffected portion of Excalibur but not other lifts of the exact same design is that they are trying to please the public.

2milehi, on Dec 18 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

no.sorry if you took my comment the wrong way.as alot of you know,im a vr 101 mechanic/fan.on all the vr 101 lifts i have ever had the chance to work on,towers are set pretty far apart.some up to 925 feet apart.dont know how many feet tower 3 to 5 is,but it dont look no 900 feet.i could be wrong..

brad82, on Dec 19 2008, 08:10 AM, said:

would a longer sheave train help in the factor of a longer span...like a 16 sheave roller batterys??

This is off topic whether a tower is necessary or not.

Skier, you asked my exact question. It seems to me that this could happen to any type of tubular tower no matter the manufacturer. In my opinion, it's a half-assed solution to inspect any double-segment towers built by Doppelmayr.

Perosnally,

Every tower should be hammered once a week or every 2 weeks... :)

Skier, on Dec 19 2008, 10:41 AM, said:

I never ever post here but here goes...

I really hope so too. The issue of using sealed closed-section members as structural members is an issue on any structure (aerial ropeway, sign post, shelter support, numerous other examples).

W-B's press releases have referenced Doppelmayr's safety alert bulletin "Tower failure due to water intrusion". For anyone interested, the link is below:

http://www.tssa.org/CorpLibrary/SearchArti...ter%20intrusion

As W-B has stated, the bulletin doesn't treat concrete filled towers specifically.

On a side note, I have been told by someone that new Leitner-Poma towers come predrilled with a drain hole, but come with a bolted on cover.

Jeff

Kicking Horse, on Dec 19 2008, 06:50 PM, said:

Why????? Are you thinking that a tower can be filled with water in 2 weeks time ?????? Think about it . How fast can an open cylinder fill with water from precipitation ??? how fast can a sealed tower fill with water with a pin hole leak in it ???? I know you mean well but an annual thorough inspection of a tower is enough for me and the manufacturers .

Once a year for tests is lots. Here is a link to the BCSA which requires ALL towers in the province to be checked.

http://www.safetyauthority.ca/files/Inspec...20Intrusion.pdf