36 replies to this topic

[Limelight]

Looking at pics of the top terminal of the Green Valley HSQ at Crystal Mt WA, I noticed that the terminal looks much shorter then most other HSQ terminals. I'm sure space was a concern during design of the lift because its sits on a ridge line, but how does this affect the design of the detach and reattach system of the terminal? It would appear that the design would not leave much room for a chair to slow after it has detached, or accelerate before reattaching.


Standard HSQ Terminal



Green Valley Terminal

[Peter]

When I ride it, it seems like it accelerates and decelerates quicker than most lifts. Also, the chair spacing is huge, I don't know if that is related or not.

I looked at the video I have of it, and it seems like it is pretty normal. Here is a pic of the bottom terminal, and pics of the installation of the terminal it that helps.

Attached File(s)

•  Crystal_November_05_036.jpg (1.27MB)
  Number of downloads: 33
•  Construction_at_Crystal5.jpg (197.03K)
  Number of downloads: 50
•  Construction_at_Crystal2.jpg (67.8K)
  Number of downloads: 46

[SkiBachelor]

As technology improves, size always decreases. That's what we are seeing with lift and they will continue to shrink.

[floridaskier]

SkiBachelor, on Jul 21 2006, 02:57 AM, said:

As technology improves, size always decreases. That's what we are seeing with lift and they will continue to shrink.

That idea was true on Doppelmayr CTEC lifts for a while: look at the Vail blue terminals, which went down to the UNI-M, and onthe CTEC side, the early Stealth I down to the tiny Stealth 3. And now the monstrous UNI-GS replaces everything. The only place to see a UNI-GS next to a Stealth 3 is at Deer Valley, and it's amazing how much bigger the UNI-GS is

[chasl]

One reason for a shorter terminal would be in the amount of area you have to place the terminal, the other driving factor is cost, less equipment and less steel = less cost.
But a shorter terminal comes with other costs.
Your maintenance labor costs go up and parts costs will go up.

With the shorter terminal the acceleration and deceleration naturally happen in a much shorter distance.
this causes greater forces on the equipment (belts or gears, bearings, tires, and friction plates), one would naturally think that the replacement of these parts to increase. Also visual inspections will have to increase.

Another drawback to the shorter terminal is that the manufacturer will run a higher speed at the unload or loading points of a short terminal to help with higher forces.
My personal feeling is that with this you will see a slightly higher rate in missloads and unloads, which causes more stops and now we must ask why we bought the high speed lift in the first place.

With having to get the chair up to speed in this short distance we also have to detach and reattach the grip and test the grip for proper detachment and attachment and forces. While the detachmnet and attachment distance can be shortened you are limited to how much you can shorten it, regardless this shorter distance to detach and reattach will increase the forces on the grip, which will also increase parts replacement on the grip.

There is another drawback to a shorter terminal and that is the maximum speed of the system will be somewhat slower than that with a long terminal, for all of the above reasons

In this day and age of faster systems (BELIEVE ME THE OWNERS ARE LOOKING FOR MORE SPEED) with more robust chairs and with looking for increased reliability, if I have the run out area, I am going to ask for a long terminal every time.

[vons]

The uni G and gs line are offered in multiple lengths thought the short GS is still bigger than the old stealth 3 it was designed as a response to maintenance departments need for more space inside the terminal. You can land a big terminal on a narrow ridge line but it requires using a very tall front mast, raising the profile and using often very tall break over towers to bend the line into the terminal, often not practical if you are trying to keep the line out of the wind you encounter in such locations.

[Peter]

Luckily Green Valley serves no beginner terrain, and the chair soacing is huge, so there are actually very few missloads and stops.

[Peter]

Collins at Alta has a very tall mast and large breakover towers, even though it is a Stealth 3. The ridge is really small.

Attached File(s)

•  IMG_0845.JPG (1.46MB)
  Number of downloads: 37
•  IMG_1071.JPG (1.93MB)
  Number of downloads: 29

[lastchair_44]

Actually I found that the first generation of stealth is very compact and hard to work in due to space limitations, the next generation (Carpenter, Wasatch) has more room in between the skin and the tire banks/guide rail. The stealth 3 has even more room, and then it goes up to the new Doppelmayr Uni-gs terminal which is a dream to work in! Like someone said before, I think that resorts may buy the smaller terminal to save money. The canyons has one (Sun Peak Express or whatever they call it now)

[cookiepuss]

Snow Canyon/Sun Peak Express @ the Canyons is the best example of Doppelmyer's worst design !!!!!

[floridaskier]

cookiepuss, on Jul 24 2006, 02:11 PM, said:

Snow Canyon/Sun Peak Express @ the Canyons is the best example of Doppelmyer's worst design !!!!!

There's nothing wrong with that design, it's just that The Canyons doesn't seem to care about that one lift. The rest of their lifts look fine, it's just Snow Canyon, which has the same short terminal as Green Valley. I don't know how it is mechanically, but everything the public can see on that lift is falling apart

[cookiepuss]

I don't know how you know anything about that design. Do you work on one in Florida ? How do you know that the Canyons "doesn't care about that one lift" ? And what is falling apart on it ? That lift actually has two types of terminals, does Green Valley ? Perhaps you should buy yourself a plane ticket to Utah and some wrenches and then spend some time inside Snow Canyon's terminals changing belts and then let me know if the design is a good one.

[Peter]

I think the bottom terminal of Green Valley is a bit longer than the top, but I am not completely sure. Cookiepuss, what exactly is wrong with Snow Canyon's design?

[floridaskier]

Cookiepuss: Sorry, I didn't know you were talking about working on it. I don't know anything about working on lifts, I was just talking about how it looks to skiers, cosmetically only. I shouldn't have said they don't care about it

[SkiBachelor]

When I was there, the bottom terminal of the Snow Canyon/Sun Peaks Express terminal sounded miss aligned but that was 4 years ago and could have been fixed by now.

[cookiepuss]

The biggest problem with Snow Canyons is the fact that it was the cheapest lift that a bunch of guys from back east could buy in 1997. Less steel does equal less $, but in a HSQ less steel means everything happens much faster and in much less space. The design is good for Mtn Managers who want fat end of season bonus', but not good for people who are responsible for keeping it running.
Four years ago the bottom terminal might have sounded mis-aligned and very well might have been, but it was also installed with the incorrect trumpet springs on the entry side. The Ultra compact terminal along with the DT104 grip makes tons of noise (there's a lot of energy being released in a short distance at a high speed) even a well aligned terminal sounds like something that nobody cares about.

[Peter]

What is funny is that at Crystal, the Forest Queen and Chinook Express lifts with extra long terminals break down all the time, while Green Valley with the ultra compact terminals has never had a problem when I've been there and seems to run very smoothly.

[Limelight]

Skier, on Jul 25 2006, 10:27 PM, said:

What is funny is that at Crystal, the Forest Queen and Chinook Express lifts with extra long terminals break down all the time, while Green Valley with the ultra compact terminals has never had a problem when I've been there and seems to run very smoothly.

Is it just me, or do they seem to use the AUX Generator on the Rainier Express a lot? I know for a few years in a row there, every time I loaded on that lift, you could hear that loud diesel engine running, and the lift was just a little slower then normal. Haven't heard it for awhile though.

This post has been edited by Limelight: 27 July 2006 - 07:04 PM

[Peter]

They loose power a lot and have all the lifts many days when it snows a lot. Rexx is really loud no matter what, but I havn't heard the Diesel too often.

[Lavalamp]

Chinook seems pretty reliable these days. Forest Queen does seem to break down a lot though. I've never seen or heard of Green Valley breaking down. I suspect it has at least a little to do with Green Valley not stopping for beginners a lot, like Chinook and especially Forest Queen do.


They don't really lose power that much these days. Puget Sound Energy has spent a bunch of money in recent years trying to clear out anything that can fall on their lines and substations, with varying degrees of success. Nowadays, most outages happen either when somebody on 410 nails a pole, or they have a tree go onto the line between 410 and Crystal's substation. The latter is a nastier problem, as access is difficult in the winter (the line goes up the old trail on the other side of the creek and not up the Boulevard), but they have their own cat, and response time is generally good.

When the power is out, you know it because you can hear Rexx on half the mountain. I was actually standing in line for Rexx several years ago when the power went out, and, man, when they light that thing off, it is loud.