Talk:Peak 2 Peak Gondola

Lift or tramway?

Re Pichpich's category change - a lift inherently goes up, a tramway goes along...though I can think of tramways that do go up...there isnt' a "gondola" subcat for "lifts" is there? Point is this is a high-altitude traverse, not a lift from base up; or do the categories overlap because otherwise they seem redundant, or subject to vague definition.Skookum1 (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia says 3S is aerial tramway, see 3S Aerial Tramway. (Wikipedia have some definitions at Aerial tramway#Overview and Aerial lift). The french version of Doppelmayr 3S product [1] Home » Produits » Transports par câble » Téléphériques 2S et 3S (which I guess is the correct product), uses the word "Téléphérique" which according to the lede of Aerial tramway is the french word of aerial tramway. But the English version of the same page [2] Home » Products » Ropeways » Bicable and Tricable Ropeways, uses the word "Ropeway" instead. One year ago Doppelmayr called it a "Gondola lift", see [3] page 4. Perhaps the difference between an aerial tramway/gondola lift now is: two big cars/many small cars, and haul rope of aerial tramway goes back and forth, but of gondola lift is endlessly circulating??? Najro (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Shipped via Vancouver WA?

The text says explicitly, and more than once, that the cables arrived via Vancouver, Washington, which really surprises me. Extra costs, customs conveyance, Vancouver BC traffic, the difficulties of the Howe Sound Highway etc....I'm not doubting that this is the way it was done, since someone's being so explicit here, but can anyone say why they were shipped via Vancouver WA and not via a closer port to Whistler. Namely, in fact, via Squamish, which is a deep-water port and also a location which wouldn't have involved trucking the cable through Vancouver BC's nightmarish traffic (or Seattle's, for that matter) and via the twisty and narrow Squamish Highway/Sea-to-Sky Highway. Just seems to have been a big waste of money, i.e. in extra shipping costs. Can someone here explain please? Or should it have been Vancouver BC all along?Skookum1 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"The Port of Vancouver USA owns the largest mobile harbour crane in North America. The port’s heavy-lift mobile harbour crane – a Liebherr LHM500 – is capable of lifting 140 metric tons, or the equivalent of two space shuttles."

Source: http://www.peak2peakgondola.com/news/?p=26 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.75 (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A gondola? Or a funitel?

This article says it's a gondola however perper perperper these images it is a funitel. However I still don't want to change it at the moment...help? K50 Dude ROCKS! 03:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it is not a funitel. Funitels have 4 cables, 2 sets which are spread out so that the cabins are supported on both sides. This is a gondola, with 2 sets of 3 cables that are very close together and above the center of each cabin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.132.207 (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did they cut down all the trees?

I rode the gondola yesterday. Two channels of trees were cleared on the mountain beneath the gondola under the path of travel. The channels are very wide. Can anyone say why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakehansen (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The trees were cut for the cable-stringing process. Straw lines (smaller wire rope used to pull the final tramway ropes) had to be laid on the ground and dragged across the ground initially. The trees were felled in such a way that they acted as a protective layer for the wire ropes. 8,000 trees down, 5 wire ropes up. The fallen trees have been winched out of the way, at least on the south-facing slope, and chipped in order to reduce fire potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttoesen (talk • contribs) 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Massive changes and name-change by SPA

I'm concerned about the huge amount of changes made in this series of edits, among which were the name-move from Peak 2 Peak Gondola to the all-caps version now in place. There's too much replaced/wiped to compare to the newly-rewritten material, but the user contributions for User:Crystalmountainskier, which are nearly all Doppelmayr-related, suggest to me that these edits are COI in nature ,as is the "re-branding" of the pagename - which may or may not abide by WP:NAME; I'll "kick this upstairs" for a verdict on that name change. A lot of what was replaced was uncited anyway; but all the new material is uncited, other than the general link to the gondola's official website and the existing reference-links. This rewrite appears to be part of a p.r. drive in coordination with the opening of the gondola, and so I added the advert switch as well.Skookum1 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I see Ckatz has already reverted the move. See WP:MOSTM for how Wikipedia deals with trademarks and company names. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to address your concerns in a constructive manner and ask that my changes be reinstated. 1.I am not a Doppelmayr nor Whistler Blackcomb employee, nor do I have any connection to them whatsoever. I am a college student, an avid ski lift enthusiast, and I followed the Peak 2 Peak construction very carefully over the past 2 years. If you actually read the article I wrote, you would notice that I added controversies about tree-cutting and naming rights to a new Controversy section in which I expanded on the ticket price controversy. I agree all of my contributions are ski lift related, but if you'll notice, I also recently expanded and rewrote the article on Doppelmayr's largest competitor, Leitner-Poma. 2. This article was, and now is again, a mess. Nearly every section except the pass prices section was copied verbatim from the PEAK 2PEAK construction blog which is no longer online. The second sentence, for example is simply untrue. I systematically rewrote the article with a coherent set of sections including History, Construction, Controversy, and Features. While you say I "wiped" information, I actually removed very little, I just did a lot of reorganization. The stuff that I did not include in the new version was either untrue or unnecessary in my opinion. 3. It is spelled PEAK 2 PEAK. That's how it is on the signs and everywhere Whistler Blackcomb spells it. I realize now that Wikipedia does not recognize such capitalization trademarks, and that's fine. Should it be spelled with a "to" instead of "2"? 4.I do have sources for all my information. I did add some sources already and I was planning on adding more in the coming days. I hope you and others will read the entire article and recognize that the version I wrote is a big improvement from the copy-and-paste from the Whistler website version that now is back in place.

Crystalmountainskier (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried again and attempted to address your concerns Skookum1 while still rewriting the article. The original article was almost all directly copied from http://www.peak2peakgondola.com/news/ I added back any information that had been left out in yesterday's edit while still trying to reword the sections that were copied. I added dozens of citations, from sources other than W-B where possible, even though it is clear many of the news articles about the gondola were copies of W-B press releases. I also changed all of the PEAK 2 PEAK's back to Peak 2 Peak. Please feel free to let me know of any concerns you may still have. Crystalmountainskier (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)