Upper lift line view.Middle part of the line.Lower lift line.Garaventa CTEC re-used Doppelmayr tower tubes from the previous Doppelmayr triple chair called Stump Park.Stealth return station.Bottom terminal and lift line.The tower tubes were reused from a previous Doppelmayr fixed-grip.Arriving at the drive.Unloading ramp.View down the upper part of the line.Middle section.Top terminal with maintenance rail.
This was the first Birds of Prey Express lift, using the name from 1996 to 2003 before the Doppelmayr high speed quad that replaced Westfall took up the name.
Do you know why Vail and Beaver Creek went for the Garaventa carriers for their Garaventa CTEC High-speed chairs instead of CTEC carriers? CTEC carriers are in most of the Garaventa CTEC High-speed quads. Cinch Express, Mardi Gras Express in Holiday Valley NY, National Express at Craigleith Ski club ON, Sunnyside at Alta and most of the Garaventa CTEC Stealth III terminals are the only chairs in that manufactuer that went for the Garaventa carriers.
These are called Garaventa carriers. They were co-developed with CTEC, and are supposed to be the next generation after CTEC’s mid 80s carrier design. When Doppelmayr USA and Garaventa CTEC merged into Doppelmayr CTEC, these became the standard model. They have since been discontinued in favor of the EJ, which is too bad as I think these are more comfortable.
Why didn’t this lift use the terminals specific to Vail and Beaver Creek (the ones on Strawberry Park, among others)? I always thought these terminals were strange, sticking out like a sore thumb at this resort, being the only lift with this terminal style. This seems especially strange, as this lift was built in the middle of installation of lifts with the other, BC/Vail specific terminal style.
Only a ski lift nerd would even notice the difference in terminals. So it really isn’t a big deal to the resort. Consistency doesn’t seem to be important to many in this day and age.
This comment is pretty hilarious, when you consider resorts like Breckenridge, Aspen, Winter Park, and Vail, who somehow went with Poma and LPA lifts despite being premium resorts , have nearly a dozen different terminal variants due to Poma and LPA making constant unnecessary changes to their detachable lift terminals between 1984-2015. Feel bad for the lift maintenance crews of those resorts, compared to Beaver Creek, that has a large majority of their detachable lifts sharing the same Uni-G terminal
So, doppelmayr (with or without CTEC) from 1984-2015 then:
“CLD-260” and the huge quebec style ones
UNI (original)
UNI-M (spacejet)
UNI-G (vision)
A few more Stealths post merger
UNI-GS
UNI-G
D-Line, soon after + some custom designs along the way
I mean… id say that’s comparable to Poma/Leitner-Poma. I don’t know what’s not premium about Poma either. Resorts of all shapes and sizes bought and are buying from both. My understanding is you could get as many extra bells and whistles as you paid for with either firm.
Whistler Blackcomb alone operates… 7 different kinds of doppelmayr detachable chair terminal model. Im sure the mechanics are more concerned with what type of grip or “the innards” anyway which didn’t change as fast at either company.
James, thanks for the support. We are indeed not really concerned with what it looks like on the outside but how it operates on the inside. I’ll replace windows on whatever terminal I’m assigned to but I’m definitely more focused on keeping the lift running for the public. I’m not too fussed about whether it’s a Poma TB-41, a Doppelmayr DS-104, or whatever.
@pbropetech, out of curiosity, are there any brands or models of lift that need more often or more costly naintenance than usual? Basically, what lifts are maintenance hogs?
Sorry for the late reply, Bob. I don’t think there’s any particular brand or model that sticks out as a ‘don’t buy this, it’s a maintenance hog’. Older, higher-hour lifts of any sort are going to take more time and money, but that’s the only commonality.
Ty, the guts of many of the lifts you’re referring to are the same. It’s just the enclosures that differed. Our Eagle and Flyer shared the bulk of their parts despite looking vastly different on the outside. Same with Breck’s original Colorado and Beaver Run. I’m not as familiar with the Challenger/Competitions but they seem to have many commonalities with both the Performant before and the Omega after. The Performant, challenger, and Competition all used the TB grips so in many cases the insides are nearly identical. I know the brakes are, even up through the Omegas.
Somehow, the recent additions of Red Buffalo and McCoy Park don’t seem to have relieved congestion at Cinch. Still the only chair that regularly backs up. Beaver Creek has an opportunity here to improve skier flow and distribution – just not sure how!
From my, albeit limited, experience, Cinch only gets backed up during the rush periods of everyone trying to get up the mountain in the morning or after lunch. The issue is that you have 3400 pph unloading from Centennial, and while some are lapping or heading towards Talons, most people, including all beginners, go right to Cinch, which has a capacity of only 2800 pph. I always thought they should have made Centennial 2.0 a two-stage lift, with the second leg effectively replacing Cinch and going all the way to the summit, for this very reason, but I guess it is too late for that now.
– A two-stage telemix would sync capacity and reduce misloads.
– It would allow ski school kids to download from the summit, so they don’t have to ski below red buffalo which gets congested
– it would give BC a true “base to summit” signature lift
On the other hand:
– if the mid-station is placed right above spruce saddle, it creates an uphill climb for folks coming from Red Buffalo Park or Rose Bowl.
– currently, in Cinch is on a wind hold, centennial can possibly still run (I think I only saw this scenario play out once this year tho)
– that money is probably better spent elsewhere on the mountain (bachelor 6, strawberry telemix, highlands HSQ, new arrowbahn).
Lift Blog 
This was the first Birds of Prey Express lift, using the name from 1996 to 2003 before the Doppelmayr high speed quad that replaced Westfall took up the name.
LikeLike
Do you know why Vail and Beaver Creek went for the Garaventa carriers for their Garaventa CTEC High-speed chairs instead of CTEC carriers? CTEC carriers are in most of the Garaventa CTEC High-speed quads. Cinch Express, Mardi Gras Express in Holiday Valley NY, National Express at Craigleith Ski club ON, Sunnyside at Alta and most of the Garaventa CTEC Stealth III terminals are the only chairs in that manufactuer that went for the Garaventa carriers.
LikeLike
It’s interesting you mention that since the CTEC chair design is used on Cascade Village at Vail.
LikeLike
Cascade Village was built before the ‘Garaventa’ chairs were avaliable.
LikeLike
Only towers 1 and 24 are not from the original Stump Park triple.
LikeLike
These aren’t ej chairs right? So what is the model name?
LikeLike
These are called Garaventa carriers. They were co-developed with CTEC, and are supposed to be the next generation after CTEC’s mid 80s carrier design. When Doppelmayr USA and Garaventa CTEC merged into Doppelmayr CTEC, these became the standard model. They have since been discontinued in favor of the EJ, which is too bad as I think these are more comfortable.
LikeLike
Pretty sure this model was Garaventa’s proprietary model before it was used on GaraventaCTEC lifts here in the states, but I could be wrong.
LikeLike
D-CTEC actually mostly used the CTEC carriers. You are right about it being too bad though, that they discontinued those.
LikeLike
They should make this a 6pack and re locate it to crested butte to be used for gold link or painter boy
LikeLike
That isn’t going to happen anytime soon, especially with Red Buffalo’s installation siphoning a substantial portion of Cinch’s traffic.
LikeLike
Why didn’t this lift use the terminals specific to Vail and Beaver Creek (the ones on Strawberry Park, among others)? I always thought these terminals were strange, sticking out like a sore thumb at this resort, being the only lift with this terminal style. This seems especially strange, as this lift was built in the middle of installation of lifts with the other, BC/Vail specific terminal style.
LikeLike
Only a ski lift nerd would even notice the difference in terminals. So it really isn’t a big deal to the resort. Consistency doesn’t seem to be important to many in this day and age.
LikeLike
This comment is pretty hilarious, when you consider resorts like Breckenridge, Aspen, Winter Park, and Vail, who somehow went with Poma and LPA lifts despite being premium resorts , have nearly a dozen different terminal variants due to Poma and LPA making constant unnecessary changes to their detachable lift terminals between 1984-2015. Feel bad for the lift maintenance crews of those resorts, compared to Beaver Creek, that has a large majority of their detachable lifts sharing the same Uni-G terminal
LikeLike
So, doppelmayr (with or without CTEC) from 1984-2015 then:
“CLD-260” and the huge quebec style ones
UNI (original)
UNI-M (spacejet)
UNI-G (vision)
A few more Stealths post merger
UNI-GS
UNI-G
D-Line, soon after + some custom designs along the way
I mean… id say that’s comparable to Poma/Leitner-Poma. I don’t know what’s not premium about Poma either. Resorts of all shapes and sizes bought and are buying from both. My understanding is you could get as many extra bells and whistles as you paid for with either firm.
Whistler Blackcomb alone operates… 7 different kinds of doppelmayr detachable chair terminal model. Im sure the mechanics are more concerned with what type of grip or “the innards” anyway which didn’t change as fast at either company.
LikeLiked by 2 people
James, thanks for the support. We are indeed not really concerned with what it looks like on the outside but how it operates on the inside. I’ll replace windows on whatever terminal I’m assigned to but I’m definitely more focused on keeping the lift running for the public. I’m not too fussed about whether it’s a Poma TB-41, a Doppelmayr DS-104, or whatever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@pbropetech, out of curiosity, are there any brands or models of lift that need more often or more costly naintenance than usual? Basically, what lifts are maintenance hogs?
LikeLike
Sorry for the late reply, Bob. I don’t think there’s any particular brand or model that sticks out as a ‘don’t buy this, it’s a maintenance hog’. Older, higher-hour lifts of any sort are going to take more time and money, but that’s the only commonality.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ty, the guts of many of the lifts you’re referring to are the same. It’s just the enclosures that differed. Our Eagle and Flyer shared the bulk of their parts despite looking vastly different on the outside. Same with Breck’s original Colorado and Beaver Run. I’m not as familiar with the Challenger/Competitions but they seem to have many commonalities with both the Performant before and the Omega after. The Performant, challenger, and Competition all used the TB grips so in many cases the insides are nearly identical. I know the brakes are, even up through the Omegas.
LikeLike
Somehow, the recent additions of Red Buffalo and McCoy Park don’t seem to have relieved congestion at Cinch. Still the only chair that regularly backs up. Beaver Creek has an opportunity here to improve skier flow and distribution – just not sure how!
LikeLike
From my, albeit limited, experience, Cinch only gets backed up during the rush periods of everyone trying to get up the mountain in the morning or after lunch. The issue is that you have 3400 pph unloading from Centennial, and while some are lapping or heading towards Talons, most people, including all beginners, go right to Cinch, which has a capacity of only 2800 pph. I always thought they should have made Centennial 2.0 a two-stage lift, with the second leg effectively replacing Cinch and going all the way to the summit, for this very reason, but I guess it is too late for that now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think misloads on Cinch are a bigger issue than pure capacity.
LikeLike
I can see pros/cons to a two-stage Centennial …
– A two-stage telemix would sync capacity and reduce misloads.
– It would allow ski school kids to download from the summit, so they don’t have to ski below red buffalo which gets congested
– it would give BC a true “base to summit” signature lift
On the other hand:
– if the mid-station is placed right above spruce saddle, it creates an uphill climb for folks coming from Red Buffalo Park or Rose Bowl.
– currently, in Cinch is on a wind hold, centennial can possibly still run (I think I only saw this scenario play out once this year tho)
– that money is probably better spent elsewhere on the mountain (bachelor 6, strawberry telemix, highlands HSQ, new arrowbahn).
LikeLike