415 replies to this topic

[skier691]

 PICT2421carpetredtow.jpg (129.14K)
Number of downloads: 38  PICT2420magiccarpetcomplete.jpg (117.67K)
Number of downloads: 52pg]OK, finally,...... about ready. Not a HS six or a 12 pass Gondi, but hey.... our new carpet. Notice our current beginner area, snow paper thin, equip. with a rope tow with a depress tower in the middle and a vertical bottom tension drive system. Them 'der in-house engineers ought to make a million off that one..

[Allan]

 liftmech, on Dec 27 2006, 07:05 AM, said:

What law? You're correct that gondola parking can screw up the cabin number sequence, but I don't recall anything in the code that either requires number order for carriers or exempts gondolas from a required sequence.

This is all we have for numerical order:

3.32.1.10
Open carriers shall be numbered with figures at least 50 mm high. Carriers shall be installed in
numerical order except where these detach in a station.

[SkiBachelor]

Here are some pictures of the new Pine Marten Express at Mt. Bachelor.

[Lift Kid]

Nice pictures Cameron!

[floridaskier]

Looks like they reused the chairs. I thought the plan was for Pine Marten to be a six pack?

[SkiBachelor]

In 2003, there were plans to replace the Pine Marten Express with a six-pack, but Mt. Bachelor decided to stick with a HSQ because of the amount of novices that ride this lift to access other parts of the mountain.

Pine Marten's hourly capacity is 2,800 pph and the proposed six-pack would have probably only been 3,000, so it wasn't really worth it when a lot of the same equipment could have been reused. Plus, lift ops had a very difficult time getting small kids up to the loading zone in that 3 second time period for the next chair.

I guess Mt. Bachelor could have done what Mammoth did, install a HSQ with six-pack terminals so that it could easily be upgraded in the future.

[Peter]

I can't believe they kept that ugly lift shack at the top. The lift looks nice, though I'm not sure I like the bright blue.

[SkiBachelor]

It would be nice if Mt. Bachelor would replace it with something that looks like the Pine Marten Lodge. However, it will be kind of hard to do since Pine Marten opperates in the summer too.

[liftmech]

Isn't the second story of that shack a leftover patrol hut from before the lodge was built?

[SkiBachelor]

Patrol still uses that shack so that's another reason why it's still there.

[boardski]

 SkiBachelor, on Jan 27 2007, 10:36 PM, said:

In 2003, there were plans to replace the Pine Marten Express with a six-pack, but Mt. Bachelor decided to stick with a HSQ because of the amount of novices that ride this lift to access other parts of the mountain.

Pine Marten's hourly capacity is 2,800 pph and the proposed six-pack would have probably only been 3,000, so it wasn't really worth it when a lot of the same equipment could have been reused. Plus, lift ops had a very difficult time getting small kids up to the loading zone in that 3 second time period for the next chair.

I guess Mt. Bachelor could have done what Mammoth did, install a HSQ with six-pack terminals so that it could easily be upgraded in the future.

They were smart to keep that lift a HSQ. I wish Mary Jane did that with the Super gauge/ Summit Express. The HSS has nothing but misloads, misloads, misloads. I hate HSS lifts!! especially those with 90 degree loading!

[Peter]

The 2 six packs at Crystal Mountain, both of which serve beginner and intermediate terrain have incredibly few misloads. Maybe its just the Colorado beginners.

[lastchair_44]

any detachable chairlift bigger than a quad is just marketing

[Peter]

Not really, At Crystal the Forest Queen Express has a 3600 hourly capacity. And with so many trails off of it it is definately justified.

[mikest2]

 lastchair_44, on Jan 31 2007, 06:42 PM, said:

any detachable chairlift bigger than a quad is just marketing

I beg to disagree, they are great in the wind, had 60k/mh (40 mph) the other day, you would not have known it was blowing from the attitude of the carriers.

[lastchair_44]

I apologize, just my ignorant opinion

[mikest2]

 lastchair_44, on Jan 31 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

I apologize, just my ignorant opinion

Don't apologize, a person is nothing without an opinion. Frankly I thought we were insane until I watched it in action.
BUT!!! there is no way you could load it efficiently without load gates.

[andyh1962]

 mikest2, on Jan 31 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

Don't apologize, a person is nothing without an opinion. Frankly I thought we were insane until I watched it in action.
BUT!!! there is no way you could load it efficiently without load gates.

its worth the comment that six pack chairs are very heavy. Triples are significantly heavier than doubles. Quad chairs are significantly more heavy than triple chairs. Six person chairs are tons heavier than quad chairs. Don't ever get hit by a six pack chair, it will knock you flat (and out) .

[Callao]

So if wind problems are reduced with a heavier chair, can we strap concrete slabs to the bottom of our doubles and triples? Could we run the lift in higher wind speeds?

[mikest2]

 Callao, on Jan 31 2007, 09:03 PM, said:

So if wind problems are reduced with a heavier chair, can we strap concrete slabs to the bottom of our doubles and triples? Could we run the lift in higher wind speeds?

As long as you don't put passengers on them with the extra load they'd most likely run just fine. All you need is one single on the outside, windsurfing with his snowboard, and life as we know it is over.