#### Allana

##### Member
My theater has both an upper and lower loading gallery. On install, the JR Clancy rep told us to distribute 2/3 of the weights on the upper loading gallery and 1/3 on the lower. From a physics perspective, does this weight distribution actually effect whether the system is "in weight"?

This 2/3rds process is physically harder on 1 loader than the other and takes more time. I'm wondering if the project can be split 50/50, knowing that something Very heavy would require more weight up top since the lower would run out of room.

Secondly, how likely is it for someone on the lower loading gallery to be hit from a falling brick from the upper? Should they actually be loading one-at-a-time? That would slow this process down to an excruciating crawl.

#### BillConnerFASTC

##### Well-Known Member
Well, first question is the arbor a rod arbor with two sections - as in you can load top half and bottom half separately - or a brick house style arbor - with many sections? If the former, I'm guessing the empty pipe weight is already on the lower half, so 2/3 up and 1/3 down would average equal.

Yes, I'd say the lower person should not be loading at the same time as the upper person. Clearing the rail here would mean clearing the lower loading bridge - but stepping toonstage side should be sufficient.

Interesting- and not too common - issue. Very few theatres with double loading bridges.

#### Allana

##### Member
Well, first question is the arbor a rod arbor with two sections - as in you can load top half and bottom half separately - or a brick house style arbor - with many sections? If the former, I'm guessing the empty pipe weight is already on the lower half, so 2/3 up and 1/3 down would average equal.
The former - 2 sections. Pipe weight is distributed 2/3 - 1/3 as well.

The flyrail is only 5 years old.

#### RonHebbard

##### Well-Known Member
My theater has both an upper and lower loading gallery. On install, the JR Clancy rep told us to distribute 2/3 of the weights on the upper loading gallery and 1/3 on the lower. From a physics perspective, does this weight distribution actually effect whether the system is "in weight"?

This 2/3rds process is physically harder on 1 loader than the other and takes more time. I'm wondering if the project can be split 50/50, knowing that something Very heavy would require more weight up top since the lower would run out of room.

Secondly, how likely is it for someone on the lower loading gallery to be hit from a falling brick from the upper? Should they actually be loading one-at-a-time? That would slow this process down to an excruciating crawl.
@Allana Idle chit chat: Is your venue's rigging system single or double purchase? I only ask because most of the times I've encountered dual loading floors they've been provided due to the appreciably longer length of double purchase arbors.
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard

#### BillConnerFASTC

##### Well-Known Member
THis is interesting. Other than the possibility the rep was just BS'ing you I don't know why 1/3 bottom 2/3 top would be recommended. But I'll find out - from the J R Wenger people or from someone here. The first reply I got did not suspect the two section arbor - but rather a front loader (AKA Brickhouse) - so a slight delay.

PS - are the two sections equal length? Is there a middle guide in addition to top and bottom?

RonHebbard

#### theatricalmatt

##### Well-Known Member
I don't believe the Clancy rep was suggesting loading weight at the two different locations.

I believe they were suggesting distributing the counterweight for the rail between the two locations, with 2/3rd of it at the upper loading gallery -- where you would normally be loading weight from, as that would put the batten all the way at deck and the arbor all the way at grid height -- and 1/3rd of it at the lower loading gallery, where it might be used on odd occasion (which I won't go into here). I would suggest also keeping a small portion of weight (perhaps one full and one half brick per lineset) at stage level, as they also end up being incredibly useful for there, and, no, not as doorstops.

There is also a natural limit to how much weight the upper and lower loading gallery structures can take. They're usually pretty beefy, but it's worthwhile checking how much each floor can actually support and not overloading it.

#### chausman

##### Chase
Fight Leukemia
I believe they were suggesting distributing the counterweight for the rail between the two locations, with 2/3rd of it at the upper loading gallery -- where you would normally be loading weight from, as that would put the batten all the way at deck and the arbor all the way at grid height -- and 1/3rd of it at the lower loading gallery, where it might be used on odd occasion (which I won't go into here).
That was my immediate interpretation. Simply where the unused weight was being stored, based on where it's more likely to be used.

#### BillConnerFASTC

##### Well-Known Member
I assume with batten at low trim, both the top and bottom sectons of the atbor are at a trim where you can load from either bridge. 16' arbor and the bridges are 8' apart? My limited experience was 14' arbors and bridges 7' floor to floor. The exact alignment of arbor and loading bridges could be a part of the answer. If the bottom started at 2 or 3' above the lower bridge and the top section started at the bridge elevation.

Hard one to answer without details of alignment and relationships.

RonHebbard

#### Lextech

##### Well-Known Member
In the touring world it is common that when assembling large pieces that come off a truck that you put part one on the pipe and add weight accordingly. To add the bottom section fly out the first, attach the second and load from the lower gallery. That way you are in weight at each step. Having some weight on the lower gallery allows you to do this. Note that I have worked in theaters that had four or five levels that could be used to add or remove weight as needed, most of them having locks at each level so you could operate at different levels as needed. I have two loading galleries here and a crossover under the lower gallery. I have used all three to get something in weight as well as the operating rail and the floor. Easier to stay safe by not reaching out, climbing or doing some other silly stunt.

#### BillConnerFASTC

##### Well-Known Member
Good points but on the hang top, raise, and hang botyom, why fill top half from top bridge first. Moving it part way and you couldn't reach bottom half.

RonHebbard

#### Smatticus

##### Active Member
I assume with batten at low trim, both the top and bottom sectons of the atbor are at a trim where you can load from either bridge. 16' arbor and the bridges are 8' apart? My limited experience was 14' arbors and bridges 7' floor to floor. The exact alignment of arbor and loading bridges could be a part of the answer. If the bottom started at 2 or 3' above the lower bridge and the top section started at the bridge elevation.
Bill, how would such a large separation between arbor sections work practically? I've never seen an arbor setup like this. Is it more common in double-purchase systems than single-purchase? It seems like it would severely limit the available travel distance.

RonHebbard

#### BillConnerFASTC

##### Well-Known Member
Bill, how would such a large separation between arbor sections work practically? I've never seen an arbor setup like this. Is it more common in double-purchase systems than single-purchase? It seems like it would severely limit the available travel distance.
Im basing two galleries as in 7-8' apart anan a 14 to 16' arbor with a middle stop. Quite different from uour situstion. Maybe Allanas galleries are like yours middle and high vs high and higher. But she has two part arbors so i suspect it high and higher.

#### TimMc

##### Well-Known Member
Im basing two galleries as in 7-8' apart anan a 14 to 16' arbor with a middle stop. Quite different from uour situstion. Maybe Allanas galleries are like yours middle and high vs high and higher. But she has two part arbors so i suspect it high and higher.
We need good pictures of Allana's counterweight system and galleries.

#### Allana

##### Member
I'll reply again tomorrow with space drawings.

So my question is, can I load the bricks 50/50? Can I load 100% of the bricks from the upper?
And what is the reason why I might not want to do either of those things?

#### BillConnerFASTC

##### Well-Known Member
I think the recommendation may have been based on the fact the lower section holds half as many. Simple equal distribution, proportional to capacity of each part.

#### Allana

##### Member
I think the recommendation may have been based on the fact the lower section holds half as many. Simple equal distribution, proportional to capacity of each part.
Ok, so if I hear you right @BillConnerFASTC , there is no need to distribute 2/3, 1/3 except when nearing capacity?
It's just that following the 2/3rds distribution, the loader on the upper does twice the work as the person on the lower. If they could split 50/50, it would be both faster and better from an ergonomics standpoint.

#### BillConnerFASTC

##### Well-Known Member
I think so but i wish i could hear from Clancy.

#### Allana

##### Member
See image for CAD drawing from architect.

#### Attachments

• 167.3 KB Views: 110