The third LPA lift at Breck is on Peak 10 and replaced a much older Poma detachable.Looking up Peak 10.Loading area with EpicMix reader.View down to the lower terminal.Riding up the line.Grip, hanger and taco assembly.Empty!View down at T8.Arriving at the drive.Leitner-Poma terminal and operator house.Top station overview.Side view of the drive.View down from the summit.Upper section of the line.Middle lift line.Lower part.View up the line midway up.The bottom terminal seen from above.Another look at the line.Drive terminal.Looking up at the top underskin.View down the lower half.
Also it used the old 4 passenger fix grip terminal (Called the F chair till they upgraded it to a detachable). They just added the detachable parts to the chair. Now they finally replace the whole thing
With this lift, Breckenridge has the second-most LPA lifts of any resort in Colorado. In fact, I think Breckenridge and Vail are the only resorts in Colorado with multiple LPA lifts. Breckenridge has three, in their three newest high speed six packs. Vail has four: a gondola (Gondola One), a high speed six pack (the Northwoods Express lift), and two high speed quads (the High Noon Express and Sun Up Express lifts).
That lift was 31 years old and on its last legs (despite getting its chain contours replaced with tire ones around the end of the 1990s, and getting new chairs around 2003 or so).
Bringing a six pack in meant having a new reliable lift, one with slightly higher capacity (even though Peak 10 is a black trails only peak) and slightly better wind resistance (there can be pretty strong crosswinds on the ridge above tower 9).
This lift ensured that each peak on the mountain has one high speed six pack. The only parts of the mountain that cannot be reached from a six pack are upper Peak 9, and the Peak 8 bowl terrain.
One can see the benefits of evolving lift technology here, as the original quad had a couple of closely spaced towers and a depression tower for the start of the steep section, at tower 8 (which was where tower 7 is now), and now that’s a three compression tower section (towers 6, 7 and 8). The original lift had 20 towers (when the portal tower was counted), and the six pack has only 16 towers, a significant reduction.
Not trying to start a civil-war on liftblog, but does anyone else find the modern LPA terminals just look pretty cheap and undersized, especially with gondolas and 6 packs. Aside from a specific green paint scheme, the Dopp Uni G and D-lines almost always look more appealing with the high end, and almost sports car esk’ design, with floor to ceiling windows on ever side, glossy premium looking materials and beautiful angular underskins , where the LPA terminals look alright from the side , but awful from the front with the tiny half square windows, and the bottom with the vinyl siding looking underskin that looks almost tacked on after the fact. I know LPA builds quality lifts, but aesthetically, while I really liked the sleek early 2000s Omega terminals, Doppelmayr, as well as Leitner and Poma European terminals just look more expensive and high end. (side note, Brecks wooden LPA terminals do look really nice)
D-line looks very cool especialy with bubbles, but I agree that UNI-G and D-line look much better than the LPA terminals, but I must admit that this lift looks sleeker than other LPA’s I know of.
Sorry for the rant you’re about to read. It’s nothing personal, but more of a response to years of perhaps uninformed comments.
You’re not the first to slag on the ‘awful tiny half-square windows’. However, I can assure you that they’re just fine as actual windows; I can see out of them much better than the ones I had to scab into the old Flyer from leftover plexiglass in the shop. While there are aesthetic considerations in terminal design, the bulk of thought therein is of two realms; a) does it protect the equipment, and b) can the technicians actually work in it. While the first one dates from the dawn of lifts, the second is a relatively recent development after those of us in the field bitched and moaned enough. No-one working for any lift company is trying to compete with Frank Lloyd Wright, and rightly so. If the machine runs (and we can work on it) we’re happy. Design cues are a distant third.
Don’t take from this that I prefer any one terminal over another, by the way. Some of you have asked, and I’ve said ‘this one might be cooler or nicer’ but- I’ve mentioned this before and I’ll say it again: most of us in the field couldn’t care less what a lift looks like, as long as we can get to everything we need to maintain. As a skier, when I’m not on the clock, I also don’t care. If it gets me up the hill I’ll ride it.
If my brother won’t state a preference, I will. LP right now is better æsthetically. EJ chairs are boring, and more practically, rather uncomfortable for me. (If your femurs are the length of an early 80s Olds, then maybe you’re fine, but I can’t sit on them without squirming like a 4 year old, and I possess the American average 179 cms of tallness. It’s my least favourite part of skiing at Bogus, as we have 4 Uni-whatevers of different vintages.) As far as the terminals go, the late model LP–I don’t care which model–wood and structural curve is much more appealing and settles better into the background. Doppelmayr’s newest offerings that don’t have that stupid screen are not far behind, visually, but they are almost as boring as the chairs. Their design language is somewhat machine-first, so they stand out in all environments. And that stupid screen, which serves no practical purpose–emphasis on practical, please note; I’m sure they do all sorta bidness real good that I don’t care about–that a small white board and a stoned liftie cannot, is just egregious. Money spent simply to show the ability to spend money. There has long (like, seriously, since ever; I and the bros talked about this in the 80s when we trundled on off to Bachelor in the Bronco II with Highway 101 on the tape deck) been this theory amongst non-mechanic skiers that Doppelmayr is “superior” or more “luxury” than LP and its various iterations Stateside and in the Euro-land. As PBR points out, though, as long as something works and can be worked on, observational perception is just that. And, not for nothing, Rex at CM has outlasted every single one of the Doppelmayrs at Bachelor from the 80s. Rode it last winter. Still got me to the top of Green Valley. Lastly, given the admittedly absurd hypothetical choice of choosing from a variety of ski areas based solely on the comfort of their flying couches, I’m going with the joint that rocks the fewest modern Doppelmayrs. I don’t like Tamarack as much as most starry-eyed BoyCee folk here in the desert, but every time I sit down on either LP lift at that over-developed swatch of bouge, I smile a little. Is nice, yes. Alright. 100% subjective rant over. Now go take on the day.
Lift Blog 
I am unclear why they replaced the quad chair
LikeLike
Because it was old as fuck.
LikeLiked by 4 people
True
LikeLike
Also it used the old 4 passenger fix grip terminal (Called the F chair till they upgraded it to a detachable). They just added the detachable parts to the chair. Now they finally replace the whole thing
LikeLike
With this lift, Breckenridge has the second-most LPA lifts of any resort in Colorado. In fact, I think Breckenridge and Vail are the only resorts in Colorado with multiple LPA lifts. Breckenridge has three, in their three newest high speed six packs. Vail has four: a gondola (Gondola One), a high speed six pack (the Northwoods Express lift), and two high speed quads (the High Noon Express and Sun Up Express lifts).
LikeLike
Arapahoe Basin has 4, and Loveland has 3.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In terms of lifts with LPA detachable grips, that is.
LikeLike
Copper has 2 LPA lifts now as well
LikeLike
That lift was 31 years old and on its last legs (despite getting its chain contours replaced with tire ones around the end of the 1990s, and getting new chairs around 2003 or so).
Bringing a six pack in meant having a new reliable lift, one with slightly higher capacity (even though Peak 10 is a black trails only peak) and slightly better wind resistance (there can be pretty strong crosswinds on the ridge above tower 9).
LikeLike
This lift ensured that each peak on the mountain has one high speed six pack. The only parts of the mountain that cannot be reached from a six pack are upper Peak 9, and the Peak 8 bowl terrain.
LikeLike
One can see the benefits of evolving lift technology here, as the original quad had a couple of closely spaced towers and a depression tower for the start of the steep section, at tower 8 (which was where tower 7 is now), and now that’s a three compression tower section (towers 6, 7 and 8). The original lift had 20 towers (when the portal tower was counted), and the six pack has only 16 towers, a significant reduction.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
It’s amazing how things have changed in 20 years.
1999: Quad Falcon SuperChair, Quicksilver Quad runs up Eldorado, no Ten Mile Station, no Frontier
Present day: Six pack Falcon SuperChair, Silverthorne is widened and has Quicksilver Super6 running up it, Ten Mile Station, Frontier cut in 2007
LikeLike
Not trying to start a civil-war on liftblog, but does anyone else find the modern LPA terminals just look pretty cheap and undersized, especially with gondolas and 6 packs. Aside from a specific green paint scheme, the Dopp Uni G and D-lines almost always look more appealing with the high end, and almost sports car esk’ design, with floor to ceiling windows on ever side, glossy premium looking materials and beautiful angular underskins , where the LPA terminals look alright from the side , but awful from the front with the tiny half square windows, and the bottom with the vinyl siding looking underskin that looks almost tacked on after the fact. I know LPA builds quality lifts, but aesthetically, while I really liked the sleek early 2000s Omega terminals, Doppelmayr, as well as Leitner and Poma European terminals just look more expensive and high end. (side note, Brecks wooden LPA terminals do look really nice)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed, I especially like Doppelmayr’s Uni-G Viper (not vision) skin and both D-Line skins.
LikeLike
D-line looks very cool especialy with bubbles, but I agree that UNI-G and D-line look much better than the LPA terminals, but I must admit that this lift looks sleeker than other LPA’s I know of.
LikeLike
Sorry for the rant you’re about to read. It’s nothing personal, but more of a response to years of perhaps uninformed comments.
You’re not the first to slag on the ‘awful tiny half-square windows’. However, I can assure you that they’re just fine as actual windows; I can see out of them much better than the ones I had to scab into the old Flyer from leftover plexiglass in the shop. While there are aesthetic considerations in terminal design, the bulk of thought therein is of two realms; a) does it protect the equipment, and b) can the technicians actually work in it. While the first one dates from the dawn of lifts, the second is a relatively recent development after those of us in the field bitched and moaned enough. No-one working for any lift company is trying to compete with Frank Lloyd Wright, and rightly so. If the machine runs (and we can work on it) we’re happy. Design cues are a distant third.
Don’t take from this that I prefer any one terminal over another, by the way. Some of you have asked, and I’ve said ‘this one might be cooler or nicer’ but- I’ve mentioned this before and I’ll say it again: most of us in the field couldn’t care less what a lift looks like, as long as we can get to everything we need to maintain. As a skier, when I’m not on the clock, I also don’t care. If it gets me up the hill I’ll ride it.
LikeLike
If my brother won’t state a preference, I will. LP right now is better æsthetically. EJ chairs are boring, and more practically, rather uncomfortable for me. (If your femurs are the length of an early 80s Olds, then maybe you’re fine, but I can’t sit on them without squirming like a 4 year old, and I possess the American average 179 cms of tallness. It’s my least favourite part of skiing at Bogus, as we have 4 Uni-whatevers of different vintages.) As far as the terminals go, the late model LP–I don’t care which model–wood and structural curve is much more appealing and settles better into the background. Doppelmayr’s newest offerings that don’t have that stupid screen are not far behind, visually, but they are almost as boring as the chairs. Their design language is somewhat machine-first, so they stand out in all environments. And that stupid screen, which serves no practical purpose–emphasis on practical, please note; I’m sure they do all sorta bidness real good that I don’t care about–that a small white board and a stoned liftie cannot, is just egregious. Money spent simply to show the ability to spend money. There has long (like, seriously, since ever; I and the bros talked about this in the 80s when we trundled on off to Bachelor in the Bronco II with Highway 101 on the tape deck) been this theory amongst non-mechanic skiers that Doppelmayr is “superior” or more “luxury” than LP and its various iterations Stateside and in the Euro-land. As PBR points out, though, as long as something works and can be worked on, observational perception is just that. And, not for nothing, Rex at CM has outlasted every single one of the Doppelmayrs at Bachelor from the 80s. Rode it last winter. Still got me to the top of Green Valley. Lastly, given the admittedly absurd hypothetical choice of choosing from a variety of ski areas based solely on the comfort of their flying couches, I’m going with the joint that rocks the fewest modern Doppelmayrs. I don’t like Tamarack as much as most starry-eyed BoyCee folk here in the desert, but every time I sit down on either LP lift at that over-developed swatch of bouge, I smile a little. Is nice, yes. Alright. 100% subjective rant over. Now go take on the day.
LikeLike
Video:
LikeLike