# Stage/Theatre Renovation



## Windrider (Jan 30, 2012)

I go to a high school built in the 50s and I do most of the lighting and the other day the assistant principal went up to my tech teacher and asked him:"If we were to renovate the stage and you had an unlimited budget, what would you change/get?" So my teacher has asked me and some other techies to make a list of stuff to change/get. Most of our stuff is from the 50s so I've started to make a very long list. I was wondering about any advice/opinions on what we should do/get(specific brands/products if you can). Currently on my list:

-Get a new lighting board which has been on the schools list for a while, before this and the current model they are looking at is a Classic Palette II, which I think is a good choice, we currently have a Strand 300

-Replace the ancient counterweight fly system with maybe an etc prodigy system.

-Replacing our dimmers is a suggestion from our school, we currently have perfectly fine CD80 supervisor, but whatever im thinking a strand C21. 

-Replacing our lights. We currently have 2 strips of 200 watt incandescents and about 30 ancient fresnels more than half with asbestos cabling inside and/or out. About 15 Altman ellipsoidals that work fine but why not replace them in the unlimited budget? 3 strand SLs and 8 really old century lights, I dont know what theyre called but theyre kind of ellipsoidal i guess. We also have one altman 3.5q I have no idea what to get here, i was looking at strand cycs and lekos, and etc source 4 fresnels.

-Our 1940s Otis freight elevator  but i doubt thats happening.

-Renovating both our "Booths" Ones a projector booth in the back of the bleachers, the other one is stage right and we call it the cage, because its literally a cage.

-Maybe getting new followspots, we have 2 altman comets and a 1000Q, but theyre really old and have no punch, we might just have to clean them out, like alot of our stuff.

-Our nasty curtains that are soaked in baby oil.

-Our horrible lapels

Thanks for your suggestions ahead of time!


----------



## avkid (Jan 30, 2012)

Prodigy is overkill.
I work with a 1930 fly system on a regular basis, with regular maintenance and periodic overhauls counterweight fly systems last forever.


----------



## Windrider (Jan 30, 2012)

avkid said:


> Prodigy is overkill.
> I work with a 1930 fly system on a regular basis, with regular maintenance and periodic overhauls counterweight fly systems last forever.


The school suggested it, i though why not suggest it if there is a "unlimited budget"  our system works fine, although it would be nice to have a loading platform(they have been meaning to put one in for years). Our system is a tad beat up though, mainly from people not knowing how to use it, a couple wedged weights and such. It has most likely never had maintenance either.


----------



## DuckJordan (Jan 30, 2012)

In an ideal world yeah great but an automated system takes more maitnence. If your current system is in disrepair add repairs not a new system. Not to be a downer but that's how is look at it.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk


----------



## len (Jan 30, 2012)

Windrider said:


> -Our nasty curtains that are soaked in baby oil.



Not a theater person so can you explain how/why that happened?

Sounds like your stage is in the gym? If the budget were really unlimited, how about a brand new theater? But yeah, get your counterweight system overhauled. Probably could last another 50 years. Remove all the asbestos wiring, even though static asbestos isn't really a big deal if it's undisturbed. New lighting, update and enhance the circuits, maybe some house booms, etc., new control system, overhaul your followspots. Maybe new curtains all around. What about sound? Maybe rig a video projector or two?


----------



## rwhealey (Jan 30, 2012)

There are exactly two things I'd ask for: a theater consultant and an acoustical consultant to work with the architect on the project.

Making lists of cool things to buy is fun (and I've certianly been guilty of it in the past), but now that I've seen the work of professional consultants, they've created better spaces than I could even dream of while I was in high school.


----------



## JLNorthGA (Jan 30, 2012)

Windrider said:


> ... an unlimited budget, what would you change/get?" So my teacher has asked me and some other techies to make a list of stuff to change/get. Most of our stuff is from the 50s so I've started to make a very long list. I was wondering about any advice/opinions on what we should do/get(specific brands/products if you can). ..


 
First off, I agree - spend the money for a consultant. They can advise you on what you can renovate and what you should replace.

A properly maintained counterweight system can last for years. I know of one that has been in use since the 1920s. The ropes have been replaced as has the cabling, but the arbors, tracks and all are still original. Rather than replace, get a rigging inspector in there and have them do a tune-up on your system.

As far as lights, board or whatever - see the sales reps. If one can swing by your school, that would be a good thing. I've found some to be quite knowledgeable. They can advise you as to what you may need.


----------



## MPowers (Jan 30, 2012)

avkid said:


> Prodigy is overkill.
> I work with a 1930 fly system on a regular basis, with regular maintenance and periodic overhauls counterweight fly systems last forever.


 

I will take a slight exception here. Prodigy, or any other automated rigging system is not over kill when used for electrics, shells and other very heavy loads. I have investigated, and repaired, three runaways this year alone in counterweight systems, two at facilities with professional IA crews. Other rigging inspectors have listed accidents in this last year and the vast majority involve electrics or other heavily weighted items. For these things, a motor powered system is not overkill but rather a major safety device.

For other items, whether or not a motorized system is over kill depends on a lot of things. One thing the OP mentioned is that they do not have a loading rail. This makes a counterweight system much more difficult to operate and to operate safely. JR Clancy recommends not installing a counterweight system if there is no rail. This may sound strange but it is quite possible that the building structure, while capable of handling the weight and forces of a counterweight system, could not handle the additional structural forces of a loading rail. In an instance like that, then a motorized system is almost mandated if the stage is being upgraded to current safety standards. The added safety of a motorized system is most noticeable during load in/out when lots of weight is being moved, struck, added and this is usually when accidents and run-a-ways happen. 

In addition, at a high school, a motorized system allows any student, regardless of physical stature or strength, to run a show and it only takes a single person to run the entire show. It also takes the accident prone loading and unloading periods out of the picture. You can't take the weight off the batten too soon if there are no counterweights to unload. You don't have that awkward period of out of balance as you first began to stand up a heavy framed piece of scenery from lying on the floor or the reverse when strike time arrives. 

Prodigy is definitely not an over kill, it is one of the simplest forms of package hoist motorization, (the new variable speed version is a different story). Motorized systems do not require more maintenance than a counterweight system, in fact, far less. A counterweight system has purchase lines to keep in tension, weights to move and move and move. Rope locks to keep adjusted as the purchase line ages. Trim spikes to attach, trim spikes to remove after a show. etc. A properly designed and installed motorized system, should only require periodic maintenance, usually at the time of the annual inspection.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good manual rigging system. I was brought up in a Hemp house and I still love the way you can ride a drop in to a perfect stop with no bounce. The speed and precision a good professional flyman can work is phenomenal. But, safety and manpower are the things that will dictate the need or practicality of a motorized system.


----------



## SteveB (Jan 30, 2012)

Agree with Micheal on this.

A motorized winch system has very little maintenance required, certainly no more then a counterweight system. We installed 5 Clancy Power Assist winched counter weight systems, as well as 2 line shaft winches 3-4 years ago and other then routine yearly maintenance (a systems check essentially) they've been trouble free. As Michael suggested for the OP, ours are our electrics and ladders and the ease of use by not having to load and un-load made use a joy. Push a button. 

As well, for a high school, having the ability to lock out the system with keyed controllers, makes motorized a very safe system, no un-skilled students (or staff) touching and adjusting stuff they don't have any training at. 

They are certainly a lot more money to install, but the ease of use and safety factor make it a no-brainer in many applications.


----------



## museav (Jan 30, 2012)

A common perspective exhibited in your post is that it seems to focus on equipment and other physical aspects and does not seem to say much about functionality or why you would make those physical changes. Before you get into what specific things to do, much less specific brands or products, it usually makes sense to determine what you are trying to do and map out where you are trying to go. Basically, the things you do and products use should follow and support the use and functionality defined rather then their being selected and that then defining the functionality.

So what problems are you presently encountering that you are trying to address? What uses are envisioned that you currently have difficulty supporting or can't support? What functionality or capabilities have been identified as being desirable to add? What are you goals and what would be considered a successful result? This type of information will be critical not only for you to make any decisions, but also for others to offer relevant recommendations.

There is also a difference between referencing a specific product because you need that specific product and referencing a specific product and actually referencing needing the capabilities or functionality it provides. If a specific brand or product is noted because it needs to be compatible with other existing equipment or attic stock or anything like that then that is probably worth identifying.

Another common factor in renovations is understanding the practical implications. The implications of the existing structure and infrastructure (power, conduit, etc.), code and ordinance compliance, ADA compliance and so on need to be considered. And a reality that many do not plan for is that some changes or improvements may then necessitate others, it is common for people to head into what they think is a 'paint and equipment' project only to find themselves having to deal with asbestos and lead paint abatement and major changes for code compliance. I recommend not getting too far into specifics without getting someone involved who can address these potential factors even if just to confirm that they are not factors.

Finally, from experience, there is very rarely actually an unlimited budget, so it may benefit you to prioritize everything and identify any interdependencies. It's all too easy for others to take a 'wish list' without such information and make their own perhaps less informed decisions on which items to implement. When reality hits and budget does become an issue, as usually happens at some point, it may help to have done what you can to assist others in making wise decisions.


----------



## Nelson (Jan 30, 2012)

First of all, a disclaimer: I am not a theater consultant (nor do I play one on TV!  ). I also work in a space that was built new in 2003. My view in this post is based on my experience in maintaining older equipment in other parts of the district.

Just because something is old, doesn't necessarily mean that it should be replaced. Age is not my first concern when assessing equipment or systems. Many older systems were "done right" when they were installed. They were designed by knowledgeable engineers, specified by reliable consultants, installed by competent installers, and manufactured by trustworthy companies. Hopefully they have been well maintained, but that's usually where I find the most trouble.

I just finished repairing the sound system in our gymnasium that was installed when the building was built in 1978. People were complaining of a bad hum, and they were convinced that was because the speakers were blown (Why is that always the conclusion that people jump to?!!!  ). I isolated the trouble to an XLR jack in the wall that has endured 34 years of abuse from sporting activities. It finally was damaged to the point that the wires shorted out inside. I installed a new $7 Switchcraft C3M connector in the old plate and all is well now. Old systems just need a little maintenance now and then! I'd much rather maintain the original systems than to replace them every time something newer comes along.

So, as museav said very well, consider what you want to be able to do that you can't currently do. What do you want your fly system to do that it doesn't currently do? What trouble are you having with the freight elevator? Have you been having serious issues with the dimmer? 

Its good (and fun!) to think of new things you'd like to have, but try to see what new functionality you need, then see if you really need new equipment to make that happen. Sure, some things make sense to replace (like asbestos wiring), but you might not need to buy all new systems to do what you want to do. At least that's my view.


----------



## MNicolai (Jan 30, 2012)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but another advantage to a motorized system is that you can hang more scenery before you crack the roof.

On a counterweight system you put 2-3x the load on the roof for every pound you hang above the stage. Motorized winches only have the weight of the mechanisms plus the weight of the scenery.


----------



## museav (Jan 30, 2012)

Windrider said:


> The school suggested it, i though why not suggest it if there is a "unlimited budget"  our system works fine, although it would be nice to have a loading platform(they have been meaning to put one in for years). Our system is a tad beat up though, mainly from people not knowing how to use it, a couple wedged weights and such. It has most likely never had maintenance either.


That along with their suggesting replacing the dimming system seems a bit like it may be consideration of energy and safety issues that started this process. It may be worth trying to find out what generated their request and comments so that you can a) consider their goals in what you recommend (which they may then recognize and appreciate) and b) perhaps use that information when developing what you present.

Another thought, it's easy to get caught up in all the cool stuff and forget the basics. So don't neglect simple things like heating and cooling, having utility power where you need it, stage access, back-of-house space, work lights and so on. The audience might not care about your cool new motorized rigging if they're too busy sweating or shivering or appreciate the new microphones if they can't hear them over the noise from the air conditioning.


----------



## Morte615 (Jan 30, 2012)

Yeah I feel it's usually best to consider infrastructure before anything else. You want to make sure the building is safe and up to code. Then make sure you have access where needed. Then make sure you have enough power, and it's in places that it needs to be. Then start thinking about things like upgrades to rigging and equipment. (And none of those are always in that order, depends on your situation.)

I kinda figure they said no budget because they don't have one yet and are gathering information before creating one to submit. So I would recommend shooting for the moon, but make it realistic. Yeah an entire new theater with 100 moving heads and all LED lights would be great, but probably not so realistic. Where as infrastructure upgrades, new electrical, and then a few new fixtures would probably have more chance of happening down the road.


----------



## bdkdesigns (Jan 30, 2012)

Isn't that a part of renovating a space though, that it has to be up to code? I'm not sure if education is somehow exempt from that or if this was a local issue however I know that one theatre I work at severely renovated their lobby. In order to get the proper permits, the entire building had to be brought up to code. This meant that the HVAC and Emergency Lighting in the theatre itself had to be changed out as well in order to match current standards. Although, I know that the building was ever so slightly expanded in the lobby area so that might explain the HVAC requirements.


----------



## Les (Jan 30, 2012)

Morte615 said:


> I kinda figure they said no budget because they don't have one yet and are gathering information before creating one to submit.



I find that this is usually the case when a renovation first gets underway. Believe me, they will take that unlimited wishlist and trim off a lot of what they deem as "excess". 

To quote that scene from The Mask where Stanley is signing the invoice to get his car repaired:
Stanley: "But there's no price.." 
Mechanic: "There will be."

Also, another note on the functionality note. When you're making a gear wishlist, keep in mind that you won't necessarily get the make/models of what you ask for. If the project goes out to bid, you usually can't specify what brand of equipment gets installed.
So, instead of saying "I want ETC Source Four's", say "We request ellipsoidal reflector spotlights utilizing the latest technology in dichroic reflectors. The fixtures must be capable of accepting interchangeable lens tubes, and use an HPL lamp." Of course, you may get a stock of Altman Phoenix's, but that's generally the way it works. Nothing against the Phoenix -- I'd be very happy with them (judging by the video demo).

Overall, I agree with defining your goals and functionality before specifying your mixer, etc.


----------



## museav (Jan 30, 2012)

bdkdesigns said:


> Isn't that a part of renovating a space though, that it has to be up to code? I'm not sure if education is somehow exempt from that or if this was a local issue however I know that one theatre I work at severely renovated their lobby. In order to get the proper permits, the entire building had to be brought up to code. This meant that the HVAC and Emergency Lighting in the theatre itself had to be changed out as well in order to match current standards. Although, I know that the building was ever so slightly expanded in the lobby area so that might explain the HVAC requirements.


That can depend on what work is being performed and what the local codes and AHJ require, but there are typically certain aspects that may start a domino effect. And that can sometimes be a significant factor getting into areas such as not just sprinklers and building system but also exiting, ADA compliance, having sufficient bathroom stalls and so on as required to meet current code. I have been involved in several renovations that abandoned some balcony spaces as both the occupancy they add to the space and serving them under current code made addressing them cost prohibitive.

It is also common to find existing conditions such as asbestos that may require limited special attention if simply left undisturbed or covered but may require significant abatement efforts if it may be disturbed (or if the school's policies call for removing it when found). If you are tearing up finishes, drilling through floor or walls, replacing piping, etc. it is very common to have to test spaces for asbestos and lead before being able to get any work approved for construction. It is also common in some types of construction to have to scan floor slabs or walls for existing rebar, tensioning rods, conduit, etc. before coring, accidentally cutting a hidden tensioning rod can become a major problem that may make everything else seem trivial in comparison.

If you are only addressing tech spaces and systems then many of the potential issues related to the public spaces may not apply, however you may still encounter some things that can quickly snowball. For example, adding a few circuits to the existing electrical system may be a relatively small effort if the current system supports them, but it can potentially become a major issue if the current electrical distribution system would not support them or turns out to already be overloaded.


----------



## bdkdesigns (Jan 30, 2012)

Ok, that is what I was thinking, specifically if the ETC Prodigy system were to go in. I could see potential of snowballing because of things like the added power, and potential fire issues like a sprinkler system should a motor spark and start a fire 20 years from now. Just trying to think outside of the box of what things that they "might" require should such a system go in place.


----------



## teqniqal (Feb 10, 2012)

MPowers said:


> . . . In addition, at a high school, a motorized system allows any student, regardless of physical stature or strength, to run a show and it only takes a single person to run the entire show. . . . But, safety and manpower are the things that will dictate the need or practicality of a motorized system.


 
I find this generalization to be both a dangerous seed to plant and somewhat short-sighted as to the safety procedures required to operate even the most simple of motorized hoists, let alone an automated system.

The operation of any fly system, manual or motorized should be done from an operators perspective that provides a clear line of sight to everything that the moving batten (and it's payload) might come in contact with. If the operator is located downstage, as many of the package hoist control stations are, then the operator may only see the very end of the batten, if any part of it at all. Even if the control station is located on an elevated locking gallery and directly aligned with the batten, scenery and other objects may still interfere with seeing the far end of the batten. In those cases the system must also be equipped with a dead-man's switch (usually on an extension cable so the safety spotter can align themselves with the batten of interest).

For automated systems where multiple line sets can move simultaneously on cue, this becomes a more complex issue and requires even more spotters.

As to what dictates the needs of practicality of an automated system, there are many other concerns as well:

Affordability is a key consideration. When a motorized line set costs 3X to 5X the price of a counterweight set, it may not be affordable or appropriate to install everything as a motorized system.

There is also a teaching requirement if it is an educational space. Although motorized systems are cool, wonderful, safer, etc., they do not teach a student how to safely run a counter-weighted line set. Having at least one single-purchase and one double-purchase line set in a system is a valuable teaching tool. How else will the students learn to operate the equipment that they will likely encounter in a huge percentage of the theatres in the world?

There are also useability aspects. A seasoned fly crew can hoist a line set at very high speeds and yet stop on a dime. High-speed motorized sets can do this, too, but are even more expensive due to the complex motor control hardware involved.

There is also a maintenance consideration. A snagged loft block is fairly easy to fix at five minutes to curtain, but a snafu'd motor winch is not. The annual inspection of a motorized system takes more time and a higher level of expertise to perform than an inspection of a counterweight type system. If a school won't budget for the counterweight system inspection, what make anyone think that the motorized system will be any better take care of?

Back to the original question posed: 
Hiring a design team (Architect, Engineers, Theatre Consultant, Acoustician, etc.) is vital to the planning of a renovation. Relying upon vendors to plan a facility wide capital improvement is a recipe for disaster and in many locals actually _illegal_ due to the conflict of interest.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Feb 12, 2012)

teqniqal said:


> I find this generalization to be both a dangerous seed to plant and somewhat short-sighted as to the safety procedures required to operate even the most simple of motorized hoists, let alone an automated system. <snip>
> 
> There is also a teaching requirement if it is an educational space. Although motorized systems are cool, wonderful, safer, etc., they do not teach a student how to safely run a counter-weighted line set. Having at least one single-purchase and one double-purchase line set in a system is a valuable teaching tool. How else will the students learn to operate the equipment that they will likely encounter in a huge percentage of the theatres in the world?
> 
> There are also useability aspects. A seasoned fly crew can hoist a line set at very high speeds and yet stop on a dime. High-speed motorized sets can do this, too, but are even more expensive due to the complex motor control hardware involved.


 
I'm a little confused here. First you are speaking of safety requirements, which I whole heartedly support. Then you speak of the educational component of having manual linesets which require a higher level of training, with your point of seasoned fly crews. The majority of secondary schools do not have teachers who are qualified riggers or are even well seasoned fly crews, yet you advocate them using a system that arguably takes more skill?

So, while I agree that having a school where the tech staff has the ability to learn counterweight systems is good, there has been more than one thread on these forums talking about the dangers of improper use. Since the type of school in question is probably not a performing arts school that has the highly skilled staff, I would assume that having the safest solution would be ideal.

I can only hope that more school districts will come to see that maintenance on theatrical systems is a life safety requirement and not optional.


----------



## MPowers (Feb 13, 2012)

teqniqal said:


> Originally Posted by MPowers. ". . In addition,Quote Originally Posted by MPowers
> "". . . In addition, at a high school, a motorized system allows any student, regardless of physical stature or strength, to run a show and it only takes a single person to run the entire show. . . . But, safety and manpower are the things that will dictate the need or practicality of a motorized system.. . . ""
> 
> I find this generalization to be both a dangerous seed to plant and somewhat short-sighted as to the safety procedures required to operate even the most simple of motorized hoists, let alone an automated system.



I respectfully disagree that this is a generalization of any kind. I should have made it more general and said "...at [any stage], a motorized system allows any [stage hand], regardless of physical stature or strength, to run a show and it only takes a single person to run the entire show. . . . But, safety and manpower are the things that will dictate the need or practicality of a motorized system." You also have bundled scenarios that refer to high-schools and colleges and professional stages. All are different and have different needs. What is safe for a professional stage and union hands is not necessarily safe for a college or high school stage. What is safe for a professional road house is not necessarily safe for a high school that does one musical a year.

As to the 

> "....safety procedures required to operate even the most simple of motorized hoists, let alone an automated system."


Note that the first thing I listed as a deciding factor for choosing or not choosing a motorized system is SAFETY. 'Simple' motorized hoist systems, by design, only allow a single hoist to be operated at a time. In addition, these systems are not intended for use during a production, only during work calls. Thus the operator can easily place them-self in a position to see the entire operation and follow the line of sight rules of operation. The "Simple systems" are by definition, just that, motorized electrics and dead hung and/or counterweight for the remaining line sets. 


> The operation of any fly system, manual or motorized should be done from an operators perspective that provides a clear line of sight to everything that the moving batten (and it's payload) might come in contact with. If the operator is located downstage, as many of the package hoist control stations are, then the operator may only see the very end of the batten, if any part of it at all. Even if the control station is located on an elevated locking gallery and directly aligned with the batten, scenery and other objects may still interfere with seeing the far end of the batten. In those cases the system must also be equipped with a dead-man's switch (usually on an extension cable so the safety spotter can align themselves with the batten of interest).
> 
> For automated systems where multiple line sets can move simultaneously on cue, this becomes a more complex issue and requires even more spotters.



I agree 100% with this in principal. I will point out, however, that in many show situations, manual operators of counterweight systems, whether on an elevated fly rail or a deck level lock rail, cannot see the batten or scenery they are running due to tab curtain masking, stored scenic units, cast entering and exiting, blinding cross side lights, etc. With manual systems, a spotter can only yell stop on the headset, no E-stop button anywhere in the system. This potentially makes a manual system far more dangerous than an automated system. This does not mean I think because it is done now it is all OK, it just means both systems have potential danger points that need to be addressed on a show by show basis.


> As to what dictates the needs of practicality of an automated system, there are many other concerns as well:Affordability is a key consideration. When a motorized line set costs 3X to 5X the price of a counterweight set, it may not be affordable or appropriate to install everything as a motorized system.



I would completely agree here. Motorized systems are more expensive and that is more often than not a deciding factor in whether or not to include them in a project. However, Some simple systems can approach manual systems in cost. In addition, some factors that can even out the costs in new construction, are building structure. Any system that can use a "backbone" (Powerlift, Vortek, Prodigy, line shaft, Pilewind, et al) reduces the need for building steel, the ability to support a headblock beam and loading, the need to support a loading rail with 30,000 pounds of brick weight. While these items will not completely offset the differences in system cost, they can be a deciding factor when weighing the cost, safety, longevity equation. 


> There is also a teaching requirement if it is an educational space. Although motorized systems are cool, wonderful, safer, etc., they do not teach a student how to safely run a counter-weighted line set. Having at least one single-purchase and one double-purchase line set in a system is a valuable teaching tool. How else will the students learn to operate the equipment that they will likely encounter in a huge percentage of the theatres in the world?



Again I fully agree. Having taught at the graduate and undergraduate level for over 17 years, I would concur that any good educational institution should include some motorized and/or computerized linesets and some single and double purchase line sets for the same educational goals. For educational training, I would also include at least one, true rigged, hemp line set. There are still many rigging principles and practices that can be best taught with a one-on-one manual rigging. 

I do not agree, though, that this diversity is necessary at the secondary school level unless it is a performing arts school or a school with a high production program. In most middle and high schools, the person responsible for technical training, if such a person exists, is a custodian, voice teacher, English teacher, et al. The result is that having manual rigging of any kind can be a seriously dangerous situation. 


> There are also useability aspects. A seasoned fly crew can hoist a line set at very high speeds and yet stop on a dime. High-speed motorized sets can do this, too, but are even more expensive due to the complex motor control hardware involved.



Again I agree with the statement, however, when was the last time you saw a "seasoned fly crew" at a high school. or even at many universities? I was trained in a IA hemp house in 1963-65, and and I know full well what an experienced, skilled crew can do. Indeed, there are many things that can be rigged easier in a hemp house than any counterweight system, and difficult to impossible to rig with most parallel batten motorized/computerized systems today. That said, I will point out that the "easier" is only with a skilled, experienced crew. Even the best of graduate student trained and experienced crews cannot manage a full stage triple box set change over to a wing and drop ballet without a LOT of grief and instruction and do it again tasks. 

If you limit the condition to a Counterweight house, it evens it out a bit, but not entirely, even seasoned crews can blow it. Counterweight sets are not necessarily safe, even in the hands of an IA crew. I have been called in to investigate (and later repair) three run-a-way line set accidents this past year, two in IA houses. All were due to human error even though the crew was professional, trained and capable. So, by this evidence, a motorized set would have been safer.9+


> There is also a maintenance consideration. A snagged loft block is fairly easy to fix at five minutes to curtain, but a snafu'd motor winch is not.



First of all, a snagged loft block is a result of several serious rigging errors and should not ever happen on a professionally installed line set - manual or motorized. A snagged loft block would require:
1.A frayed line, everyday system maintenance should find this. 
2. a kink in a line usually caused by a slack loop followed by a shock load
3. misaligned or loose loft block.
All things that will show up long before half hour. 

"A snagged loft block is fairly easy to fix at five minutes to curtain..." That by your average high school technician or English teacher or custodian who is at home watching TV? A snafu'd motor is synonymous with a fouled head block, not so easy to fix. A fouled loft block is the same in a Prodigy, Powerlift, Vortek, Pile Wind, Clew Winch or counter weight system. A Loft Block is a Loft Block. Electronic bug???? Well that is something only a motorized system can experience. When Computer controlled light consoles first came out, that was a major concern, "what if the computer crashes???" Now, there are very few light systems still extant without a computer somewhere in the system. Europe has made counterweight systems non compliant, at some point the US will follow.


> The annual inspection of a motorized system takes more time and a higher level of expertise to perform than an inspection of a counterweight type system. If a school won't budget for the counterweight system inspection, what make anyone think that the motorized system will be any better take care of?



As inspections are part of my job, I will have to disagree here. 

Higher level of expertise, no, just different, but the same level, yes. An inspector specializing in CW systems does not need to understand or know anything electronic. An inspector specializing in motorized systems does not need to know about uplift on locking rails, rope locks, tension blocks, head blocks, guide rails, guide shoes, rope/operating line maintenance/condition ...... not more expertise, just different.


> Back to the original question posed: Hiring a design team (Architect, Engineers, Theatre Consultant, Acoustician, etc.) is vital to the planning of a renovation.



Completely agree.


> Relying upon vendors to plan a facility wide capital improvement is a recipe for disaster and in many locals actually _illegal_ due to the conflict of interest.



Relying on, vendors, in general, is a bad idea, although there are some I would trust to give advice on a par with consultants and prefer the customer go to another vendor rather than buy a product that is second rate or more expensive than necessary and I think I can speak for them when I say, none of us would ever compromise safety, real or potential to make a sale. To name a few, Sapsis Rigging, Barny Simon of Joseph C Hansen Company, Inc, and I hope to include myself and the company I work for. I Know there are others.


----------



## jglodeklights (Feb 13, 2012)

Before I make my comments...a reiteration of my background regarding the subject at hand. I have worked extensively in two hemp houses, two counterweight single/double purchase mix houses and two winch houses. Additionally, I have worked extensively with one high school, and a little bit with another. 

Observations:
1. Yes, it is good to train high school students on proper counterweight system operation, as it and dead hung/pipe grids will be what most of them see most often in working in theater (those that choose to go into this career path). 

2. Often you can not babysit the high school building, and it is multi purpose for band and community events.

3. Even trained professionals will run a line set by forgetting to unload weight before scenery/lights.

Conclusion: what will work in the building and be most safe?


----------



## RickR (Feb 13, 2012)

Well said Brad!

I would suggest a list that reads something like:

Motorized rigging because it's safer for students to use 
New lighting fixtures that will cost less to use 
LED fixtures for ease of color changing and to learn this exciting technology 
Replace all curtains for looks and to update the fire retardant 
New controls on the elevator so it actually goes when needed 
Side lighting positions for new artistic opportunities 

This conversation is part of what happens when consultants are involved. Think about what problems you work around constantly and what you would like to do, but can't.

If the budget were truely unlimited, then I would demo the building and start over.

---
RickR


----------



## teqniqal (Feb 13, 2012)

jglodeklights said:


> . . .
> 
> 2. Often you can not babysit the high school building, and it is multi purpose for band and community events.
> 
> . . .



*And this is the crux of the problem.* Schools / Theatre owners that don't understand that "you can't let inmates run the asylum." This exposes the students (and others) to enormous risks - and those that may enter the facility after them to 'discover' the potential booby-traps they may have left behind. If you can't man the venue with qualified personnel, then the venue shouldn't be used. I know this may sound unreasonable, however, there are many accidents / incidents / injuries that occur every year due to unsupervised (or supervised by unqualified personnel) workers (students, staff, guests, artists).

How to get properly trained staff can be a complex question. It involves the existing staff recognizing the need for more training and seeking it out (both the funding and time to do it); it involves discipline on the part of the staff present to corral and contain the students / crew that are under their watch; and it involves educating the venue management about the real and present dangers of the facility. This can be uncomfortable for some as they may have had a hand in the creation of the hazards present. *Recognize the hazards.* The hazards are there whether you admit it or not. They can injure and kill people whether you admit it or not. Just like any good 12-step program - you have to admit you have a problem before you can deal with it.


----------



## teqniqal (Feb 13, 2012)

ruinexplorer said:


> I'm a little confused here. First you are speaking of safety requirements, which I whole heartedly support. Then you speak of the educational component of having manual linesets which require a higher level of training, with your point of seasoned fly crews. The majority of secondary schools do not have teachers who are qualified riggers or are even well seasoned fly crews, yet you advocate them using a system that arguably takes more skill?
> 
> So, while I agree that having a school where the tech staff has the ability to learn counterweight systems is good, there has been more than one thread on these forums talking about the dangers of improper use. Since the type of school in question is probably not a performing arts school that has the highly skilled staff, I would assume that having the safest solution would be ideal.
> 
> I can only hope that more school districts will come to see that maintenance on theatrical systems is a life safety requirement and not optional.



They make rope locks with padlock fittings, they make rope locks with out-of-balance lock-outs, they make counterweight arbors that are less prone to dropped weights or forgetting to tighten the weight locks down, so many of the safety issues can be addressed with modern design tools. What I am concerned about is the construction of teaching theatres that don't provide sufficient tools to teach with. Counter-weighted fly systems, like them or not, are a reality that must be addressed. If the students (and staff) are taught how to use them, shown the dangers and hazards they present, they they will be prepared to see the hazard when they encounter it in other venues. I have seen people that were not familiar with counter-weighted fly systems learn enough about them in just a few minutes to potentially prevent innumerable disasters. However, had they received no instruction at all, they may well have gone on to wreck havoc.

Schools do this every day in the chemistry lab, auto shop, welding shop, cooking class, ceramics shop, driving school, and even sports. In the theatre we do this with tool safety, fire safety, ladder safety, PPE, and many other aspects of mounting a production. Show people the right way and the wrong way, and make sure they understand the consequences of doing it wrong (don't use the 'because I said so' excuse - always give them the real reason). Teaching counter-weighted rigging is not difficult, or time consuming. You will spend more time on CPR, fire extinguishers, and electrical safety (hopefully). Take a moment to learn about it and do it correctly.


----------



## ruinexplorer (Feb 20, 2012)

teqniqal said:


> They make rope locks with padlock fittings, they make rope locks with out-of-balance lock-outs, they make counterweight arbors that are less prone to dropped weights or forgetting to tighten the weight locks down, so many of the safety issues can be addressed with modern design tools. What I am concerned about is the construction of teaching theatres that don't provide sufficient tools to teach with. Counter-weighted fly systems, like them or not, are a reality that must be addressed. If the students (and staff) are taught how to use them, shown the dangers and hazards they present, they they will be prepared to see the hazard when they encounter it in other venues. I have seen people that were not familiar with counter-weighted fly systems learn enough about them in just a few minutes to potentially prevent innumerable disasters. However, had they received no instruction at all, they may well have gone on to wreck havoc.
> 
> Schools do this every day in the chemistry lab, auto shop, welding shop, cooking class, ceramics shop, driving school, and even sports. In the theatre we do this with tool safety, fire safety, ladder safety, PPE, and many other aspects of mounting a production. Show people the right way and the wrong way, and make sure they understand the consequences of doing it wrong (don't use the 'because I said so' excuse - always give them the real reason). Teaching counter-weighted rigging is not difficult, or time consuming. You will spend more time on CPR, fire extinguishers, and electrical safety (hopefully). Take a moment to learn about it and do it correctly.



While I do not disagree with all that you are saying, I think that this is the exception in the majority of high schools throughout the nation, and perhaps the world. The reality is, theater is low on the budget list in many school districts. Beyond getting qualified persons to maintain the equipment, they rarely have competent persons to teach. As previously stated, it is common to have a teacher from another field be the person in charge of the theater program. While that person may be able to come up with the artistic vision to put on a production, certain skills cannot just be learned out of a book. They take experience and training. The person who is in charge while the installation occurs may receive the proper training and possibly be able to have some of the students trained at the same time, but what happens in five to ten years? Most likely someone else takes over and again they may be coming out of a different discipline and you are back in the same situation. This is where I think we are comparing apples to oranges, most of the other courses that you speak of have teachers who were trained for that skill or have the needed resources. Definitely what we need is better training. Though having potentially dangerous equipment without that training may not be the answer. I know about all of the locking mechanisms for counterweight systems to prevent unauthorized use along with systems to prevent motorized systems. I have also seen some facilities that will go so far as to have their fly system behind a cage or, as with a double purchase system, literally behind locked doors (separate floor).

So, how do we make sure that schools have staff that is properly trained, so that they can properly train their students?


----------



## museav (Feb 20, 2012)

ruinexplorer said:


> While I do not disagree with all that you are saying, I think that this is the exception in the majority of high schools throughout the nation, and perhaps the world. The reality is, theater is low on the budget list in many school districts. Beyond getting qualified persons to maintain the equipment, they rarely have competent persons to teach. As previously stated, it is common to have a teacher from another field be the person in charge of the theater program. While that person may be able to come up with the artistic vision to put on a production, certain skills cannot just be learned out of a book. They take experience and training. The person who is in charge while the installation occurs may receive the proper training and possibly be able to have some of the students trained at the same time, but what happens in five to ten years? Most likely someone else takes over and again they may be coming out of a different discipline and you are back in the same situation. This is where I think we are comparing apples to oranges, most of the other courses that you speak of have teachers who were trained for that skill or have the needed resources. Definitely what we need is better training. Though having potentially dangerous equipment without that training may not be the answer. I know about all of the locking mechanisms for counterweight systems to prevent unauthorized use along with systems to prevent motorized systems. I have also seen some facilities that will go so far as to have their fly system behind a cage or, as with a double purchase system, literally behind locked doors (separate floor).
> 
> So, how do we make sure that schools have staff that is properly trained, so that they can properly train their students?


Totally agree on this. Many schools seem to not understand the risks involved in the operation of some theatre tech systems and the importance of proper training and oversight until something goes wrong. And many instructors are asked to take roles related to theatre technology for which they have limited directly relevant training and experience. I routinely encounter schools that are provided physical facilities or systems but not the training or resources to properly utilize and support them. That is why I believe that understanding the users, and in the case of schools the instructors, is a critical component in determining what technologies may be most appropriate. And I have seen not just fly systems, but even AV equipment racks have to be in cages or behind locked doors.

It seems that for some schools the theatre tech instruction is actually handled by the students, being handed down from one 'generation' to the next. Even if that starts with good information and maintains the best intentions, one has to wonder what happens after several iterations of the information being transmitted.


----------



## Windrider (Mar 30, 2012)

Hey sorry i haven't replied, my school's musical is coming up and I head lighting, so it's been pretty busy around here.. there's been no new developments on the reno except its most likely happening before 2014.. (the year i graduate  ) There has been more recognization of our crappy tech lately though which seems promising, for example we rented a couple grand worth of moving lights and speakers... hopefully some of our own equipment soon!


----------

