Snow Journal - Serious About Snowsports!

Home

Forums : NELSAP Discussion : NELSAP Discussion
Moderated by: Chris, nelsap, Betsy, the_hop

Anonymous posts are not allowed in this forum

Lifts for windy summits

Page: 1 2

Author

Post

tom white
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Sep 08, 2004
Posts: 714

Location:South Windsor, CT

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 12:56 AM GMT

During the discussion of lifts to Sugarloaf's summit, T-bars and a funitel were favored for their wind resistance. A 'close to the ground' chair lift may have possibilities. As I thought about low chairs (like K's Superstar or Cannon's quad) two photos came to mind. One was the cover of an old Laurel Mt. brochure with the caption "longest T-bar in Western Pa.". It was on Wildcat which was replaced by a double chair. In the photos skiers were riding up and there was a double chair on the cable going down. I presume, since this was an 'upside down' area with the lodge at the summit, the chair was for nonskiing lifties and injured skiers. The second photo is in that historic post cards site. It shows two double chairs at Mt. Snow. One is one of the cable and rail lifts. There was no foot rest and ski tips dangled 5-6' above the ground (and snow). My little brain set to work. I thought of three lifts.

1. I tried to conceive of an inexpensive double chair lift kind of like a T-bar. Chairs would be suspended from a cable but they would be close to the ground or there would be a ski like device with a shaft. The ski would run on the snow and the shaft would support the chair for skiers and riders to sit on the chair. I'm still thinking. I've not come up with how to adjust for different height skiers/riders. And how do I keep proper tension so the chairs slide on the snow but don't bounce over uneven terrain.

2. I never looked closely at nor do I remember the Mt. Snow rail/chain chair lifts in detail. If they rolled on a rail (like an I beam) and were pulled by the chain, that would increase their wind resistance. Does anyone recall that detail? Obviously being low helps.

3. My final idea (at least for tonight) is a gondola. It is a single haul rope like most. But near the windy summit the guide shaft on the underside would fit into a cable or a guide sleave like those currently in summit stations. This system would look ugly and prevent any skiing under the lift. However it would prevent cabin swaying. In the case of a guide cable system, a steel loop would be on the bottom of each cabins guide shaft. An alignment mechanism fits the loop into the cable. Pulleys like those on current lifts rest on/above the ground that the guide cable rests on. What I haven't thought of is how hold the two cable ends creating tension but permitting the cabin shaft loop to pass onto and off on the cable. Slack in this cable allows for raising/lowering of cabins as they travel along the haul rope.

The second system would have steel rails/guides identical to those currently used to align cabins into and out of terminals. It is a simple system. However I've not thought of how to allow for raising/lowering of cabins as they travel along the haul rope.

What are your thoughts?

watatic rox
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Feb 18, 2008
Posts: 1050

Location:Look behind you.

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 1:43 AM GMT

I always felt the conveyor lifts at Mt Snow would be good for windy areas. I myself have never ridden one but based on photos they would likely be very protected from wind.

If wind was still and issue a second rail could possible added for extra stability.

skierpilot
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Apr 01, 2006
Posts: 632

Location:

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 2:43 AM GMT

I agree that the old conveyor type lifts would do well in windy conditions. The fact that they were only 6 or 7 ft. off the ground is a big help. I also think that the chain/rail system that moves the chairs along would hold up well if the chairs sway a bit. Much more stable then a cable and sheave design. Probably no wind hold problems with that design. I can still remember sound of those lifts. Just imagine how it sounded at Mt. Snow with 5 or 6 of these lifts running during the earlier years. I have read that there was alot of noise around the mt.

Bill29
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Dec 19, 2002
Posts: 2414

Location:

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 1:13 PM GMT

Quote: "I never looked closely at nor do I remember the Mt. Snow rail/chain chair lifts in detail. If they rolled on a rail (like an I beam) and were pulled by the chain, that would increase their wind resistance. Does anyone recall that detail? Obviously being low helps."

They were low, and I don't remember that they were bothered by the wind at all. They also were slow, had metal roofs to keep grease from dripping from the chains onto the riders and ruining expensive parkas and Bogner pants, and were LOUD! You could hear the lifts before you could see the mountain.

loafasaur
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 699

Location:East of the Kennebec

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 1:13 PM GMT

As a homer, I prefer the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). If your nuts enough to go to the summit of Sugarloaf when it's 70 mph or so, a T-bar shouldn't be a big deal. Me, there's enough mountain below treeline on days like that.

Tom, #3 sounds highly subject to drifts, rhyme ice, etc., and no less expensive than a funicular. Frankly, it sounds scary to me.

#2 "sounds" like a lot of mechanical parts to freeze/break/get jammed with rhyme ice. Let's see, getting ice off a cable is a huge pain, so getting ice of a chain would be....

My $.02.

__________
loafasaur

tom white
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Sep 08, 2004
Posts: 714

Location:South Windsor, CT

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 1:27 PM GMT

Quote:

Quote: They were low, and I don't remember that they were bothered by the wind at all. They also were slow, had metal roofs to keep grease from dripping from the chains onto the riders and ruining expensive parkas and Bogner pants, and were LOUD! You could hear the lifts before you could see the mountain.

I rode them when they had the roofs. Loafasaur mentions issues of chains freezing. That is certainly possible. Did anyone work at Mt. Snow in those days and know about these chairs' reliability?

tom white
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Sep 08, 2004
Posts: 714

Location:South Windsor, CT

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 1:32 PM GMT

Quote:

As a homer, I prefer the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). If your nuts enough to go to the summit of Sugarloaf when it's 70 mph or so, a T-bar shouldn't be a big deal. Me, there's enough mountain below treeline on days like that.

Tom, #3 sounds highly subject to drifts, rhyme ice, etc., and no less expensive than a funicular. Frankly, it sounds scary to me.

#2 "sounds" like a lot of mechanical parts to freeze/break/get jammed with rhyme ice. Let's see, getting ice off a cable is a huge pain, so getting ice of a chain would be....

My $.02.

I agree, T-bars aren't "sexy" but they get the job done cheaply. I enjoyed those at Cannon. However, I'm a skier, aren't they difficult for snowboarders?

Good criticism of the gondola with "ground support", anything on the ground is going to have issues.

loafasaur
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 699

Location:East of the Kennebec

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 2:57 PM GMT

Appreciate that, Tom. Why is it that August is when I always start daydreaming about snowdrifts?

Snowboarders who know what they're doing can handle #3 T all right. That beast is easier to ride solo like a poma anyway, 2 planks or one. I wouldn't want anybody who didn't know what they're doing going to the top of SL when it's gawdawful windy.

On the unofficial SL board, there's more chatter about a T at Brackett than to the summit. Makes sense for days like we're talking about.

__________
loafasaur

tom white
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Sep 08, 2004
Posts: 714

Location:South Windsor, CT

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 3:52 PM GMT

Quote:

On the unofficial SL board, there's more chatter about a T at Brackett than to the summit. Makes sense for days like we're talking about.

I grew-up riding pomas and ropes. Of course surface lifts are still widely used in Europe. I've not been to SL since Brackett was opened. I assume a T would get Forest Service and others' approval over a chair.

obienick
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Oct 21, 2005
Posts: 1168

Location:

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 5:22 PM GMT

Edited: Aug 02, 2012 - 5:22 PM GMT

I'm no mechanical engineering, but my limited knowledge of lifts makes me think that there is a major engineering impasse: chairlift ropes sag under weight, either the rope's own weight or by adding the weights of empty or loaded carriers.

So if you want a lower lift, you need more towers. Perfect example is the new Skyline quad (lower, more towers) vs the Spillway doubles (taller, fewer towers). At a point this becomes prohibitively expensive, especially as you get higher on the mountain, the trees get shorter.

This sagging would also prevent your idea of extending the enter-terminal-guide down the line. The only way this will work is if there is very little change in the rope height. This is seen where you enter terminals, but when you're 150' or 200' from the next tower, there is significant sag. To solve this you'd need running rails. At that point you might as just well instead invest in a 3S (tri-cable) gondola.

Also, if you build your lifts really low, you may run into issues of snowdrifts if the lift is on the leeward side of the mountain. T-Bars can deal with this easily as the skis/snoboards are always on the surface, but you can't count on skiers keeping tips up. I've seen several people fail to keep tips up on a slow-rising lift to the first tower only to have their tips stuck in the snow 10 feet from the load point.

obienick
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Oct 21, 2005
Posts: 1168

Location:

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 5:24 PM GMT

Quote:

I assume a T would get Forest Service and others' approval over a chair.

Sugarloaf is not on USFS land, and obviously not NPS land. They do not have a USFS shield on their maps, like most if not all ski areas on USFS land.

newman
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Aug 21, 2008
Posts: 2124

Location:The mighty SKI WARD Shrewsbury MA

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 6:10 PM GMT

The low t bar type chairs would also be subject to snow depth, just like drifts. The first single at Sun Valley had this issue. Some areas have been using the fences like the summit of Flatton. A t bar is so much more sane at the summit of the Loaf. The one downturn of a t bar is the tracks need snow. With no snowmaking or natural, you have a what if on your hands.

DrJeff
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Apr 29, 2002
Posts: 907

Location:

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 6:48 PM GMT

I think that one thing that some folks might be forgetting is that there IS a certain point past where you could very well have a lift operating SAFELY in winds that are just too strong for the customers to SAFELY then descend once off the lift. You can engineer a lift to operate SAFELY in gusts at any wind angle on the lift of say 70mph, but there then becomes a real chance that when that 70 mph gust hits a skier/boarder who is in motion sliding down the hill that they themselves may be knocked over, and that's a safety issue for sure.

Let alone if its an "open" summit terminal and the wind angle on the unloading lift is somewhere near straight on those trying to unload, then there's also a real risk that those unloading may not be able to get off the lift or need assistance from folks stationed at the summit terminal, and that's a safety issue too. I've experienced this scenario 1st hand at Mount Snow on the Grand Summit Express where the wind gust have been well over 40mph, BUT at an angle that SAFELY allowed the chairs to enter/leave the summit terminal where they had to station ambassadors on either side of the unloading chair to literally help pull some guests off the lift since they themselves were basically being "pinned" to the lift by the wind.

As much as we all LOVE this sport deeply, there are just some weather condtions where it's MUCH better to be in the base area bar hoisting a beer or 2 rather than sliding down the hill, since it's not just about our own personal safety, but also the personal safety of those that work at the mountain and help us enjoy ourselves too

DrJeff
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Apr 29, 2002
Posts: 907

Location:

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 8:45 PM GMT

I think that one thing that some folks might be forgetting is that there IS a certain point past where you could very well have a lift operating SAFELY in winds that are just too strong for the customers to SAFELY then descend once off the lift. You can engineer a lift to operate SAFELY in gusts at any wind angle on the lift of say 70mph, but there then becomes a real chance that when that 70 mph gust hits a skier/boarder who is in motion sliding down the hill that they themselves may be knocked over, and that's a safety issue for sure.

Let alone if its an "open" summit terminal and the wind angle on the unloading lift is somewhere near straight on those trying to unload, then there's also a real risk that those unloading may not be able to get off the lift or need assistance from folks stationed at the summit terminal, and that's a safety issue too. I've experienced this scenario 1st hand at Mount Snow on the Grand Summit Express where the wind gust have been well over 40mph, BUT at an angle that SAFELY allowed the chairs to enter/leave the summit terminal where they had to station ambassadors on either side of the unloading chair to literally help pull some guests off the lift since they themselves were basically being "pinned" to the lift by the wind.

As much as we all LOVE this sport deeply, there are just some weather condtions where it's MUCH better to be in the base area bar hoisting a beer or 2 rather than sliding down the hill, since it's not just about our own personal safety, but also the personal safety of those that work at the mountain and help us enjoy ourselves too

tom white
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Sep 08, 2004
Posts: 714

Location:South Windsor, CT

Posted: Aug 02, 2012 - 11:54 PM GMT

You all gave excellent critiques of my designs. A good old T-bar will work for inexpensive summit access. If SL wants to spend big bucks on a base to summit lift, a funitel or 3S gondola is a good bet. But as Jeff suggests even skiing in high winds is dangerous. A midstation like the old gondi may be needed. But that would be very expensive. Actually that may be technically impossible. If they want a gondi, one with a track and haul (ala. old Lion’s Head, Vail) might work (see below).

Does anyone know details of the Mt. Snow rail and chain chairs?
I went on CardCow.com to view the Mt. Snow chairs. I didn’t find the better photo but there is another. Go to Sports then Skiing to p.9, click the Mt. Snow photo, 4th row right side. That has 20 more Mt. Snow photos. It’s in there. I don’t know how to cut and paste photos.

Oh, here’s another chair lift idea. It’s on p.7 of skiing post cards. It’s an old Sante Fe double chair. It has a track rope above and a haul rope below. Chair carriers are attached to each rope. There was another western ski area that used this design from the mining industry. It’s like the old Lion’s Head gondola at Vail. The 3’ spacing of the cables with the carrier attached would give added wind stability. Vertical ropes aren’t as good as the horizontal ropes of a funitel but it’s a fairly inexpensive design. And it’s a chair lift rather than a T-bar. We on this blog don’t care, anyway to a summit is fine. But it’s a possible alternative with perhaps a broader appeal. Is anyone old enough to have ridden (and remembers) one of these lifts?

skierpilot
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Apr 01, 2006
Posts: 632

Location:

Posted: Aug 03, 2012 - 2:46 AM GMT

From what I remember at Mt. Snow, the chairs rolled along on an I beam that was about 12 ft. off the ground. Incorporated in this design was a heavy chain that was bascially like a modern day chair lift cable that was connected to the chairs and pulled them along. The chairs were also spaced closely together. As far as rime ice, ect. making problems, I feel that this design would break off the ice in about 2 seconds. I've been told that Walt built this type of lift from old ore mine carriers that were around in the local mines. Just look at all the names of trails at Corinthia that have a mining theme name!

ceo
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Dec 28, 2007
Posts: 87

Location:

Posted: Aug 03, 2012 - 6:18 PM GMT

I was once at Sugarloaf when they had to put the #3 T-bar on wind hold because you couldn't stand up at the top of it.

Bill29
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Dec 19, 2002
Posts: 2414

Location:

Posted: Aug 07, 2012 - 1:13 PM GMT

Quote: "I've been told that Walt built this type of lift from old ore mine carriers that were around in the local mines. Just look at all the names of trails at Corinthia that have a mining theme name! "

That's one story. Another is that the lifts idea came from slaughterhouses where they hooked up sides of beef to move them. I've heard both stories. As I recall (and that's kind of chancy nowadays) Corinthia came long after Walt built Mt. Snow and was a separate area.

newman
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Aug 21, 2008
Posts: 2124

Location:The mighty SKI WARD Shrewsbury MA

Posted: Aug 07, 2012 - 2:59 PM GMT

Edited: Aug 07, 2012 - 3:00 PM GMT

Carinthia was built by a German guy who did the area mostly by himself. It had the short Baba chair, and the t-bar. No snowmaking. In his last years he installed the double to the summit and added three major runs off the top. Also added snowmaking. Soon after Mt Snow (Ski LTD Corp, also owners of K-Mart at the time) took over and connected the area to MS. The trail names were changed later to the mining theme, after the takeover.

jimk
Profile | Galleries

Rank:

Member Since:
Aug 27, 2004
Posts: 1066

Location:Wash DC area

Posted: Aug 07, 2012 - 5:57 PM GMT

Quote:

...It has a track rope above and a haul rope below. Chair carriers are attached to each rope. There was another western ski area that used this design from the mining industry. It’s like the old Lion’s Head gondola at Vail. The 3’ spacing of the cables with the carrier attached would give added wind stability. Vertical ropes aren’t as good as the horizontal ropes of a funitel but it’s a fairly inexpensive design. And it’s a chair lift rather than a T-bar. We on this blog don’t care, anyway to a summit is fine. But it’s a possible alternative with perhaps a broader appeal. Is anyone old enough to have ridden (and remembers) one of these lifts?

Don't know anything about lift design, just glad there are smart people out there that make 'em. I rode the Lionshead Gondola in mid-March 1976 for two days on my college spring break. On March 26th of that year that gondola had a bad accident. Two cabins derailed off the high towers, killing four and injuring eight. The gondola was closed the remainder of the season until the Von Roll Lift Company installed a state-of-the-art monitoring system.
I think this is that gondola:

__________
Attachments:

Page: 1 2