We are planning to go to Timberline in late Feb over the last weekend and was wondering if anyone has any recent experience there with the crowds and waits in lift lines over a weekend.   Last time we were there a number of years ago the lifts were really slow and as far as I know have not been upgraded (have no idea why they won't invent in at least one high speed quad or better yet a six-pack).   The lift lines could get pretty long on a busy weekend.   It's a great local mountain for skiing and doesn't have to have all the fancy amenities in the lodge area, but desperately needs more uphill lift capacity.  

mdr227 wrote:

...have no idea why they won't invent in at least one high speed quad or better yet a six-pack).  

 

Because they have NO money.

yellowsnow wrote:

mdr227 wrote:

...have no idea why they won't invent in at least one high speed quad or better yet a six-pack).  

 

Because they have NO money.

And NO business skills.

JohnL wrote:

yellowsnow wrote:

mdr227 wrote:

...have no idea why they won't invent in at least one high speed quad or better yet a six-pack).  

 

Because they have NO money.

And NO business skills.

And NO knowledge of skiing or snowboarding.

mdr227 wrote:

We are planning to go to Timberline in late Feb over the last weekend and was wondering if anyone has any recent experience there with the crowds and waits in lift lines over a weekend.   Last time we were there a number of years ago the lifts were really slow and as far as I know have not been upgraded (have no idea why they won't invent in at least one high speed quad or better yet a six-pack).   The lift lines could get pretty long on a busy weekend.   It's a great local mountain for skiing and doesn't have to have all the fancy amenities in the lodge area, but desperately needs more uphill lift capacity.  

Are you thinking about the weekend after Pres. Day?

A high speed quad doesn't get more skiers up the mountain faster than a traditional quad does when there are lines.  High speed quad cable runs faster with chairs spaced farther apart, Regular quad runs slower with more chairs closer together on the cable.  Both load and unload at rougly the same skiers per minute... but you wait longer at the bottom for a full high speed quad.  You spend more time sitting on the chair of the old, slower one.

Now, replacing a double with a quad, or either with a 6-er would increase uphill capacity.... or lifts that WORK without breaking down also helps..

crgildart wrote:

A high speed quad doesn't get more skiers up the mountain faster than a traditional quad does when there are lines.  High speed quad cable runs faster with chairs spaced farther apart, Regular quad runs slower with more chairs closer together on the cable.  Both load and unload at rougly the same skiers per minute... but you wait longer at the bottom for a full high speed quad.  You spend more time sitting on the chair of the old, slower one.

 

Now, replacing a double with a quad, or either with a 6-er would increase uphill capacity.... or lifts that WORK without breaking down also helps..

Sort of.  This is true theoretically, but in real world conditions (ESPECIALLY at Mid-Atlantic resorts), the HSQ is going to have an actual hourly capacity that is greater than a fixed quad. 

Why?  Missed loads.  The higher moving speed of a fixed quad at load/unload leads to more people missing the chair, more falls, and more stoppages.  Stopping the chair, even for 15 seconds, can have a significant effect on capacity. 

Let's say (for argument's sake) that a given HSQ operates at 90% efficiency (based off of maximum theoretical skier throughput per hour).  If a fixed quad has 50% more downtime / missed seats, the actual difference in real world capacity will be 10% of the (identical) theoretical capacity. 

Of course, there are a lot of other factors that impact missed loads (probably mainly the difficulty of the slopes the lift services; I don't think I've ever seen the Western Territory quad stop at Snowshoe, where as many of the basin lifts seem to stop at least once a ride).  But fixed/detachable is a factor.

Reisen wrote:

crgildart wrote:

A high speed quad doesn't get more skiers up the mountain faster than a traditional quad does when there are lines.  High speed quad cable runs faster with chairs spaced farther apart, Regular quad runs slower with more chairs closer together on the cable.  Both load and unload at rougly the same skiers per minute... but you wait longer at the bottom for a full high speed quad.  You spend more time sitting on the chair of the old, slower one.

 

Now, replacing a double with a quad, or either with a 6-er would increase uphill capacity.... or lifts that WORK without breaking down also helps..

Sort of.  This is true theoretically, but in real world conditions (ESPECIALLY at Mid-Atlantic resorts), the HSQ is going to have an actual hourly capacity that is greater than a fixed quad. 

Why?  Missed loads.  The higher moving speed of a fixed quad at load/unload leads to more people missing the chair, more falls, and more stoppages.  Stopping the chair, even for 15 seconds, can have a significant effect on capacity. 

Let's say (for argument's sake) that a given HSQ operates at 90% efficiency (based off of maximum theoretical skier throughput per hour).  If a fixed quad has 50% more downtime / missed seats, the actual difference in real world capacity will be 10% of the (identical) theoretical capacity. 

Of course, there are a lot of other factors that impact missed loads (probably mainly the difficulty of the slopes the lift services; I don't think I've ever seen the Western Territory quad stop at Snowshoe, where as many of the basin lifts seem to stop at least once a ride).  But fixed/detachable is a factor.

Nope, you stil have 4 person chairs crossing the loading ramp and unloading ramp at the same rate, same amount of time to get from the corral to the "stand here" line for both.  What makes the HSQ faster is that when there isn't a line you ski right up to it, load, and zip up the hill faster.  When there is a line they are equal capacity and equal time to get from the wait line to the load location, equal errors in judgment, equal stoppages..

Chairs on the HSQ are farther apart, but the cable moves faster.  Chairs in FG are closer together, but the cable moves slower... same rate across the load and unload zones..

I am very critical of Timberline when deserved, but I don't know if a detachable HSQ would work given the possible wind conditions they can get. I'll settle for a faster fixed grip, with better lift loading/unloading management / loading area terrain grading.

crgildart wrote:

 

Equal errors in judgment, equal stoppages..

Chairs on the HSQ are farther apart, but the cable moves faster.  Chairs in FG are closer together, but the cable moves slower... same rate across the load and unload zones..

Unfortunately, while I get where you're coming from, your conclusion is wrong.  A chair on a typical fixed grip lift moves at approximately 450 feet per minute at all times (when the lift is running at speed, obviously).  A chair on a high speed quad moves at 1200 feet per minute while in transit between stations, but can slow all the way down to 150 feet per minute at loading and unloading (ie 1/8th of full speed). 

While you are correct that they both load / unload every 6 seconds or so, the 3x speed of a fixed grip at each end makes for a more challenging load/unload, which means more empty seats, more falls, more stoppages, and the need to frequently slow the lift down for people having difficulty.  A detachable chair spends more time in the actual loading and unloading zone, allowing for greater margin for error for the less skilled / attentive.  This is well documented.  It's also why an interim solution for mountains not willing to upgrade to a detachable lift is a conveyor belt system.  You still have the same theoretical capacity and ride time, but gain efficiency through less stoppages (you're reducing the speed differential between the chair and the skier).  Of course, it only works on the loading end.