Hydraulic vs traction lifts: the honest comparison

How they work — in one paragraph each

A hydraulic lift uses an electric pump to push oil into a cylinder, which extends a ram to push the cabin upward. To descend, oil is released back to the tank under gravity. Most hydraulic lifts have no machine room above the shaft — the powerpack sits at the bottom in a small adjacent cupboard.

A traction lift uses a motor at the top of the shaft to turn a sheave, with steel ropes running over the sheave from the cabin on one side to a counterweight on the other. The counterweight balances most of the cabin's mass, which is why traction lifts are dramatically more energy-efficient.

Where each one wins

• Travel height — hydraulics are practical up to ~18m / 6 floors. Above that, traction is the only sensible answer.
• Speed — hydraulics top out around 0.6 m/s; traction handles 1.0–6.0 m/s comfortably.
• Energy — traction wins decisively, especially with regenerative drives. Hydraulic energy use scales linearly with weight lifted.
• Capital cost — hydraulics are typically cheaper to install in low-rise buildings without an existing shaft.
• Maintenance — hydraulic seals and hoses age; traction ropes and brakes wear. Both need a planned regime.
• Environmental — modern bio-degradable hydraulic fluids exist, but a regen-drive traction lift remains the lowest-impact option for medium-rise buildings.

Practical recommendation

For a low-rise building with light usage, hydraulic remains a sensible, cost-effective choice. For anything mid-rise or heavily used, modern MRL traction lifts deliver better speed, lower lifetime energy, smoother ride and a longer service life with the right modernisation plan. The right answer is rarely loyalty to one technology — it is fitting the technology to the building.