Didn't they run black with the chairs on it and the chairs slipped on the rope and a bunch piled up together? I think it was because of the tower 13 sheave issue from what I recall. A Magic regular had a pic of it on here somewhere.
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
The NEW Magic Mountain
- Thread starter mriceyman
- Start date
jimmywilson69
Well-known member
I recall reading/seeing that.
Newpylong
Well-known member
From my recollection Upper Little Dipper and Rabbit Run were cleared in 2020 and that was it. Snowmaking reactivated and the counterweights poured for the tow in 2021. Lots of ski area intend to start things but never do or they are delayed. I don't count a lift install as having started unless it actually has started, but that's just semantics.
Last edited:
Newpylong
Well-known member
That is THE issue and is a major one. It was only found when the chairs were hung and tension was added to the haul rope. Yes, someone f-ed up that profile bigtime, and it wasn't the first time.
As others have noted, these parts aren't off the shelf. Not only did the new sheave trains need to be fabricated, but the Tramway board has to sign off on them, after an aerial tramway engineer signs off on them first. Then there's getting them on the hill....
IceEidolon
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2017
- Messages
- 588
- Points
- 63
The handle tow move was announced in summer 2020 - see page 138 - and I believe it was physically installed except for the haul rope before last season. As a snowmaker, not a lift mechanic, I'd much rather make snow on a rope tow line without the rope in the way - is is practical to remove the haul rope for initial snowmaking? What state certifications are required for a handle tow?
I have a strong suspicion that between limited snowmaking capacity on the main mountain and staffing shortages, that lift got put on standby last year. Which is more important, LMC/Wand/Carumba/Hocus Pocus/Showoff/park, or a second beginner lift? It's the same portable guns running on all those trails.
I have a strong suspicion that between limited snowmaking capacity on the main mountain and staffing shortages, that lift got put on standby last year. Which is more important, LMC/Wand/Carumba/Hocus Pocus/Showoff/park, or a second beginner lift? It's the same portable guns running on all those trails.
chuckstah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2013
- Messages
- 1,643
- Points
- 83
Took this March, 2021
AdironRider
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,648
- Points
- 83
At some point it’s managements fault and not the contractor.
Hastur
Well-known member
To be fair, it's gotta be both at this point.
I'd actually not fault Pfister at all or not much since the engineer seems to have really set the project up for failure. And without knowing more of the communications/contract/ promises between Magic and Pfister it's all a guess. I don't think it's a money thing. or at least I hope not.
it's kind of a shame from my perspective since there is so much other positive stuff going on. But the lift is such a big visible thing. And the lift instalation history at Magic is spotty. ( Not this ownership group I Know) .
I will be there regardless this winter. Hope it snows a ton and I hope they get it figured out.
I'd actually not fault Pfister at all or not much since the engineer seems to have really set the project up for failure. And without knowing more of the communications/contract/ promises between Magic and Pfister it's all a guess. I don't think it's a money thing. or at least I hope not.
it's kind of a shame from my perspective since there is so much other positive stuff going on. But the lift is such a big visible thing. And the lift instalation history at Magic is spotty. ( Not this ownership group I Know) .
I will be there regardless this winter. Hope it snows a ton and I hope they get it figured out.
Last edited:
ss20
Well-known member
Yes two pictures I took. January 20, 2021. It had JUST happened as I remember asking a workman about it who was looking at it with a snowmobile and he kindly told me to f off essentially
Attachments
ss20
Well-known member
Yeah that's the category I fall into. 3 summers. 3 summers and it still looks like a nail-biter that it'll be done this winter.
An opening date never should've been announced, jmo. Should've worked on it and chipped away like they did with Green and quietly announce its opening when it was ready. If I was a passholder again (I was when the new ownership first started for a couple seasons) I wouldn't be at this point over the fact that the new lift was promised, billed, and advertised as providing reliable access to the summit as Red has always been a bit unreliable.
Reading about how they operated Red with a surging drive early last season also left a bad taste in my mouth. That is not something you play "f around and find out" with.
I agree that announcing a date was a bit of a mistake...but that happens an awful lot in real life, because, well, "shit happens." We've had numerous go-live dates for IT projects announced where I work that were subsequently delayed or pushed back when unforeseen issues popped up (and I work at a rather large global company). I've seen it happen with construction projects at work too (literally just today a move to a new site we're moving into in MA was just pushed back a month because the site isn't ready). From a more general perspective you see it all the time in many major projects. How many YEARS was the opening of American Dream in the Meadowlands in NJ delayed?
I know some people don't like hearing this excuse for some reason...but let's also not forget that there was a global pandemic during this time. An engineering consulting firm not too long ago released a study showing that delays of construction projects more than doubled since the start of the pandemic and that 85% of large-scale construction projects were delivered late (with 13% being over a year late).
If people want to blame management, it would also be nice to hear what their ideas are for what could have been done better/differently other than not communicating such an optimistic date. It has already been discussed over and over in this thread that there are very few options to choose from as far as companies that do this particular type of work. No one ever gives any actual sound explanation of what could have been done differently (with the exception of the communication point).
Newpylong
Well-known member
Blame can ultimately be placed with whomever folks want, but unfortunately that's not going to get the lift done. It's like crying over spilled milk. That's the crux of it...
So what you're saying is Magic paid for a fixed grip and got a detachable?Yes two pictures I took. January 20, 2021. It had JUST happened as I remember asking a workman about it who was looking at it with a snowmobile and he kindly told me to f off essentially
In all seriousness, that sucks.
urungus
Well-known member
Did they get a peer review of the engineering plans before starting on the project ?
ss20
Well-known member
That seems to be the main issue... good question.
Also, @Newpylong you might have an answer to this... the sheave trains for the mis-engineered towers had to be re-built from scratch iirc. I'd of thought early 90s Poma sheaves would be a dime a dozen?
jimmywilson69
Well-known member
This is all Monday Morning QBing at this point. I am certain Magic would've preferred to have the lift 3 years ago. Shit happens and unfortunately this isn't like calling a different drywall contractor to finish the work.
jimmywilson69
Well-known member
totally agree but how many engineers actually have lift design experience? I work with structural engineers and I know they wouldn't review this because they design bridges not ski lifts.
The engineer on the drawings is Stevens Engineering which is a lift specialist. I notice they don't list the Black Chair as a project. I'm sure there is some dissatisfaction between the parties. I think the sheave design problem would be routine. Could be an engineering error or towers not placed or built to spec.
Newpylong
Well-known member
I am making a huge ASSumption that what likely happened is that all parties involved tried to make the profile work with the number of tower combinations that were on hand from Stratton as-is. Sometimes you can get away with this if the profile is close enough, sometimes you can't. Most of the time minor changes are needed at minimum.
The same thing happened to us but on a smaller scale and it was a surface lift. We had 5 towers, they tried to make it work with 5 towers, it didn't work. It was deroping constantly. We needed to add compression trains in places where there were simple depression trains. When another vendor took a lift at the lift a year later they thought it was obvious that it should have been a 6 tower install. Obviously when you scale up to a lift as expansive as the Black Chair, it's not longer a case of "oops". It's a big F-up.
SS20 to your question, the peer review process consists of the Tramway Board and associated inspectors reviewing the application. This is not a true peer review in that it is not a deep dive into the actual load numbers. They are simply looking for any obvious engineering issues with the application. The Tramway Board trusts that if a profile has a seal of the certified engineer on it, it is correct.
The same thing happened to us but on a smaller scale and it was a surface lift. We had 5 towers, they tried to make it work with 5 towers, it didn't work. It was deroping constantly. We needed to add compression trains in places where there were simple depression trains. When another vendor took a lift at the lift a year later they thought it was obvious that it should have been a 6 tower install. Obviously when you scale up to a lift as expansive as the Black Chair, it's not longer a case of "oops". It's a big F-up.
SS20 to your question, the peer review process consists of the Tramway Board and associated inspectors reviewing the application. This is not a true peer review in that it is not a deep dive into the actual load numbers. They are simply looking for any obvious engineering issues with the application. The Tramway Board trusts that if a profile has a seal of the certified engineer on it, it is correct.
So I am not an engineer, but was it the pressure from the sheave train that was pulling the chairs off the rope?
Similar threads
