# 2 loading galleries - physics and safety Q



## Allana (Nov 4, 2018)

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 (Nov 4, 2018)

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 (Nov 4, 2018)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2018)

Allana said:


> 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


----------



## Allana (Nov 4, 2018)

@RonHebbard 
Single purchase


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 4, 2018)

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?


----------



## theatricalmatt (Nov 4, 2018)

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 (Nov 5, 2018)

theatricalmatt said:


> 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 (Nov 5, 2018)

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.


----------



## Lextech (Nov 6, 2018)

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 (Nov 6, 2018)

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.


----------



## Smatticus (Nov 7, 2018)

We have two levels of loading gallery in a single purchase system. The middle gallery is a little more than 1/3 the way up the fly tower and we very rarely load weight from it. Occasionally if we are hauling something a bit out of balance we might position extra sets of hands on the middle gallery, but even that is relatively rare. We do the vast majority of our loading from the upper gallery and also from the stage floor. As stated by others, my reading of what the JR Clancy rep said is strictly about where stored counterweight is most likely to be used. If middle gallery loading is likely to be rare in your space maybe distribute more of the weight between the upper gallery and the stage floor with less on the middle gallery. The two-section rod-style arbor is interesting but I'm curious how much, if at all, that necessitates loading from the middle gallery vs the upper gallery? Can both sections be reached just fine at the upper gallery? Or, like Bill was wondering, do the sections align with the separate loading galleries? If that's the case what necessitates splitting the weight between the two sections? Is it bad if one of the arbor sections is empty?


----------



## Smatticus (Nov 7, 2018)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> 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.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 7, 2018)

Smatticus said:


> 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 (Nov 8, 2018)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> 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 (Nov 13, 2018)

I'll reply again tomorrow with space drawings. 
In short, baton "all the way in" gives you perfect access to both Upper and Lower Loading Galleries. You can load weights onto both without moving the baton. The Upper and Lower Galleries are approximately 10' apart (so ~60-70' above deck). If the arbor was max-loaded, the lower arbor would hold about half as many bricks as the upper (because upper-to-ceiling stop is taller than lower-to-upper stop). Loose stage weights were already distributed on both loading galleries before we were trained on the flyrail by Clancy. There is also a "Operating Gallery" that is about 35ft above the deck which is occasionally used for adding extra bricks (if something is half-flown out) as was mentioned by @Lextech . The lower shivs of the arbor are located below the stage deck (10-12' down), in the Arbor pit. All bricks are 18lbs.

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 (Nov 13, 2018)

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 (Nov 13, 2018)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> 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 (Nov 13, 2018)

I think so but i wish i could hear from Clancy.


----------



## Allana (Nov 15, 2018)

See image for CAD drawing from architect.


----------



## venuetech (Nov 15, 2018)

are all of your arbors the same length? I would just load from the level that gives me best access to the arbor. and think like theatricalmatt that the 2/3-1/3 split is for unused slip weights.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 15, 2018)

About as I imagined it, though it doesn't appear the drafts person really understood some bsaics. Probably installed correctly. Still see no good reason for the 1/3 2/3 practice. But each half is drawn equal or bottom longer, and based in your comments not built that way.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 15, 2018)

About as I imagined it, though it doesn't appear the drafts person really understood some bsaics. Probably installed correctly. Still see no good reason for the 1/3 2/3 practice. But each half is drawn equal or bottom longer, and based in your comments not built that way.


----------



## Smatticus (Nov 16, 2018)

Interesting. Is the reason for the dual level arbors in general to achieve greater maximum arbor capacity? Or does it have more to do with loading ease or efficiency? The counterweight pit answers my question about limiting the batten travel. You don't limit it really when the arbor can drop below the level of the stage floor. Does the "Operating Gallery" have rope locks? Seems odd to call it an "Operating Gallery" otherwise, unless it's meant for operating spot lines as I see a pin rail in the drawing.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 16, 2018)

Tall arbors are indeed for large loads, and usually when you need close spacing. With 4" weights, it's a 13' arbor for 2000 pounds - hard to load from one level.


----------



## Allana (Nov 26, 2018)

@Smatticus 
Yes, the Operating Gallery also has rope-locks. The Upper/Lower Loading Galleries do not.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 26, 2018)

Allana said:


> @Smatticus
> Yes, the Operating Gallery also has rope-locks. The Upper/Lower Loading Galleries do not.


I'm curious how you coordinate the use of two lock rails. I'll assume they are not connected. I have heard of that nut not seen it. Do you leave the gallery unlocked most of the time, or opposite?


----------



## techieman33 (Nov 27, 2018)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> I'm curious how you coordinate the use of two lock rails. I'll assume they are not connected. I have heard of that nut not seen it. Do you leave the gallery unlocked most of the time, or opposite?



A venue I work in occasionally has a very similar setup. The locks are not connected. They leave the locks on their mid-rail open all the time. I can't recall ever seeming them in use. Maybe if you didn't have much wing space that extra couple of feet on the deck could be valuable during a show run? It never made any sense to me. There better be a really good reason if I'm going to climb a couple flights of stairs to move a line instead of doing it on the ground.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 27, 2018)

Techie - I agree in all except maybe a 100% road house or, in a renovation where the wing space is very valuable, then mid-rail only and a lot of effort planning an easy and fast route to fly rail. Maybe once or twice in a hundred+ projects?

I guess there have been some instances where the amount of rail work uses the ability to have many sets close together all moving, but that style of production and the growth of automation seem to have minimized that need.


----------



## soundman (Nov 27, 2018)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> I'm curious how you coordinate the use of two lock rails. I'll assume they are not connected. I have heard of that nut not seen it. Do you leave the gallery unlocked most of the time, or opposite?



The way I've seen it is for load in and small shows the locks at stage level are used. The locks on the mid are left open and perhaps even locked open with a bar. Before the run they engage all the locks on the mid and then open all the locks on deck level. I worked an awards show where every inch of deck space was drawn out and claimed so relocating the 5 fly operators to the mid was very helpful.


----------



## RonHebbard (Nov 27, 2018)

soundman said:


> The way I've seen it is for load in and small shows the locks at stage level are used. The locks on the mid are left open and perhaps even locked open with a bar. Before the run they engage all the locks on the mid and then open all the locks on deck level. I worked an awards show where every inch of deck space was drawn out and claimed so relocating the 5 fly operators to the mid was very helpful.


 *@soundman @BillConnerFASTC @techieman33 * The inclusion of dual locking rails must impinge upon your use of "knuckles" or "Knuckle dusters" as some venues term them. 
Toodleoo! 
Ron Hebbard


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Nov 27, 2018)

Yes - even a single rail elevated much might make them problematic. Since their use seems rare these days, not sure it would be a primary concern and there are other ways to limit travel.


----------



## RonHebbard (Nov 27, 2018)

BillConnerFASTC said:


> Yes - even a single rail elevated much might make them problematic. Since their use seems rare these days, not sure it would be a primary concern and there are other ways to limit travel.


I'd always considered "knuckles" as quickly and easily adjusted and reset operating trims rather than for actual travel stops. Tape or thin ribbons of brightly colored cloth passed through your hemp offered the advantage of passing through locks but I preferred knuckles over tape as they left zero sticky residue behind to attract gummy dirt. 
*EDIT:* I always installed my knuckles with the locking rings above the knuckles so you could hear them coming if you kept your ears open. Also, installing the knuckle below the locking ring served as a warning that informed operators knuckles were in use if the locking ring wasn't in its normal location immediately above the lock.
Toodleoo! 
Ron Hebbard


----------

