# Rumor: Burke Mountain to announce new High Speed Quad to the top?



## troy (Oct 24, 2010)

I have heard from a reliable source who works at the mountain that Burke is to announce by the begininng or end of this ski season that they will purchase and instal a new High Speed Quad replacing the old one currently going to the top.  Can anyone confirm this?  

If true this would make me consider getting a pass for Burke rather than my usual Jay Peak.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 24, 2010)

TB is the authority here. But from my understanding, they would have had to come to a finalized plan for the mid-Burke area in terms of real estate development before putting in the lift, right? I know that was an unknown. Seems odd this rumor would begin so soon after a similar length HSQ came on the market used... any relation?


----------



## First Tracks (Oct 24, 2010)

If true that would be a welcome addition for Burke. That summit lift is painfully slow, especially on a cold and windy day.


----------



## cannonist (Oct 24, 2010)

It is strange that this rumor is going around right after security put their HSQ on the market. I don't know how I feel about this.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 24, 2010)

cannonist said:


> It is strange that this rumor is going around right after security put their HSQ on the market. I don't know how I feel about this.


If it replaced the Willoughby Quad with a HSQ, I am all for it. I am not normally a fan of high speed lifts but many have their place. There is nothing to like about the current Willoughby Quad. The only concern is whether Burke has the trail capacity to handle more skiers and riders on the mountain. But given that Burke hardly ever has lift lines, I can't imagine it will really be an issue unless Burke suddenly is "on the map" due to being in the High Speed big leagues. That did not save Ascutney but they didn't have anything going for them unlike Burke which has everything going for it except a good summit lift.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 24, 2010)

Welcome to the boards, Troy! Be sure to check out Burke and to be honest it is a great place to ski with or without a summit HSQ. 

The Willoughby has been in the crosshairs for a long time. It actually is a retrofitted double chair (Hall) completed in 1989 when if a ski area had the word "quad" it was a place to ski. Northern Star was going to put in a HSQ at some point, but we know what happened there. 

The rumor comes almost every season. The last real good chance of that happening was in 2005 when Ginn bought the mountain from BMA. Word had it that Ginn did actually put money down on one in 2005 but that Poma ran out of time to install it. Instead they did the Sherburne in part because it helped revive the lower mountain, it was easier, and because as Riv said they didn't know what was happening with MidBurke. The last plan has them running a new HSQ or HS something up from MidBurke, to the looker's left of the Poma, up over Doug's and to the summit. Poma? It will be cut in half. Willoughby? Cut down to Tower 17 or so (right where Fox's branches to either Ledges or Warren's). Well, the 2005-2006 season really left them in the red and add an economic melt down, Ginn being shown the door, and here we are. 

Now the one thing that has changed is that now that Ginn is gone, Crave is running the ski area while the original investors are regrouping. The one thing that might be at play that we don't know about is some EB-5 money. Sound familiar? That is the controversial immigration program for foreign investors that has brought capital to Jay Peak for their projects. Well, Burke's VP was seen on one of Gov. Douglas' trade missions last year and was trying to get EB-5 investors for the mountain. Maybe it has come through. 

At any rate, either they got the money or are ready to do something to improve the mountain and the quad is the next thing on the list. 

That and there are rumors that Burke was eying the Ascutney HSQ. I highly doubt that they would cannibalize that mountain though.  But if so, a smart resort operator like Crave would leap at the chance and it would really help Burke.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 24, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> That and there are rumors that Burke was eying the Ascutney HSQ.  I highly doubt that they would cannibalize that mountain though.


Who ever is currently in possession of Ascutney could easily dump the HSQ and retain the rest of the resort to sell as a single unit. Given that the current management hardly ran the HSQ, the only difference would be customers not having to look at an inactive HSQ and either scratch their heads or be upset they were stuck on a FGT instead of a HSQ. But I don't see a problem with selling Ascutney piece by piece. Who would actually buy the place as a whole? Especially in this economy. I am not sure if that mountain is fixable given its inherent challenges. Also, putting a used HSQ on the market guarantees at least something will sell. Who knows how long they will need to retain the ski area before they can find a buyer...


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 25, 2010)

Thank god - 

every time I am on that lift its the same conversation, how cold it is, how slow it is, how much better the skiing would be if I could get 15 more runs in, how much better burke mountain would be

faster, bigger, louder - not always better


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 25, 2010)

To be honest the Willoughby has components from the double that date to 1969.  This includes the pylons and some of the footings.  Like the Middlebury Snowbowl found out last year, the foundations will fail with time.  So it is possible that the lift needs to be replaced.  The drive probably needs to be replaced.  The quad also had some years of neglect and lack of maintenance, which really impacted the lift.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 25, 2010)

I've only skied Burke once.  This opinion is probably not popular, but I think an East Bowl lift should be higher priority.  I found getting back to the main lift to be one of the biggest pitas I've exeperienced in Easter Skiing.


----------



## Masskier (Oct 25, 2010)

There are lots of improvements that have been made and are in the process at Burke. This has been kept  under the radar the past several months.  First, they designed, permitted and built some of the best lift accessed downhill mt biking trails in the Country.   This compliments Kingdom trails and will be a major amenity next summer.  Then after 5 years of the permitting process they have the majority of the Findings from the state on their Act 250 Master Plan approval.  They have also permitted and hope to install on the summit a community wind tower this fall.  Then they have acquired 5 new Fan guns to add to snowmaking, This is in addition to the 150-170 tower guns they added in 2005 and 2006. So I am not surprised by the summit HSQ rumour at all.  This seems to be the most needed improvement and will put Burke on the map.  I had heard that Burke was one of a few Mountains that was in talks with Ascutney on their HSQ.  I think Ascutney wanted to much $ and at that price it is probably better to go new.  The infrastructure plans at mid Burke are pretty much completed, so they are in the position to install one, when they want to.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 25, 2010)

no doubt TB, the lift is fairly beat and is in need of help, but the yank to get high speed capacity comes with its issues - not everyone needs to be like the Joneses - its a sleepy mountain with a bunch of surprises - more lifts, faster access, the rush to compete on paper with the other McSki resorts just isn't a positive in my mind, once people stop bitching about the slow, cold lift ride and how awful the traverse back from east bowl is they turn their neverending supply of negatives to something else

like anything else - some people like it or don't, but it is nice to have options for different ski experiences at different places


----------



## billski (Oct 25, 2010)

kingdom-tele said:


> no doubt TB, the lift is fairly beat and is in need of help, but the yank to get high speed capacity comes with its issues - not everyone needs to be like the Joneses - its a sleepy mountain with a bunch of surprises - more lifts, faster access, the rush to compete on paper with the other McSki resorts just isn't a positive in my mind, once people stop bitching about the slow, cold lift ride and how awful the traverse back from east bowl is they turn their neverending supply of negatives to something else
> 
> like anything else - some people like it or don't, but it is nice to have options for different ski experiences at different places



+1.  Limited lift capacity does have it's advantages, most especially by not putting too many people on the mountain at once.


----------



## Edd (Oct 25, 2010)

I've only been there once (loved it) but there were no lines that day.  I'm under the impression that that's the norm.  With no lines I don't see the point in an HSQ.  I spent the majority of my time on ungroomed and in glades.  Throw in the aforementioned traverse from the East Bowl and being cold isn't much of a problem.


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 25, 2010)

Burke is on the list of places to go. Maybe this year.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 25, 2010)

just to clarify, even if it was a transfer lift out of the East Bowl basin, I think it would be a good thing.  

I can tolerate some traverses, but that's a bit extreme.  I'm sure it does help preserve the conditions over there.


----------



## WJenness (Oct 25, 2010)

wa-loaf said:


> Burke is on the list of places to go. Maybe this year.



It's on my list as well...

Maybe we can put something together?

Mini AZ day @ Burke and we'll make From_The_NEK show us around all day?

-w


----------



## Edd (Oct 25, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I can tolerate some traverses, but that's a bit extreme.  I'm sure it does help preserve the conditions over there.



Must badly suck for snowboarders.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 25, 2010)

I love Burke and its feel but yes if the did replace the FGQ with a HSQ there would be other things to get on. Also if they replace the quad I hope they can put the bottom down lower. I am lazy and traversing from Mid-Burke over to where the quad is now can be a slight work out. If coming from the east bowl with kids it was more painful.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 25, 2010)

rumor has it they will also be installing a magic carpet from the bear den to the bathrooms so you don't have to walk to take a piss


----------



## marcski (Oct 25, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> If it replaced the Willoughby Quad with a HSQ, I am all for it. I am not normally a fan of high speed lifts but many have their place. There is nothing to like about the current Willoughby Quad. The only concern is whether Burke has the trail capacity to handle more skiers and riders on the mountain. But given that Burke hardly ever has lift lines, I can't imagine it will really be an issue unless Burke suddenly is "on the map" due to being in the High Speed big leagues. That did not save Ascutney but they didn't have anything going for them unlike Burke which has everything going for it except a good summit lift.



I've never been to Burke...but as you know, we have done the math many times over in various threads through the years, Riv....if you're changing a FGQ to a HSQ you are not really adding any uphill capacity.....


----------



## umby (Oct 25, 2010)

Edd said:


> Must badly suck for snowboarders.



My buddy that snowboards there says that waxing his board before each day is vital due to the run out. haha


----------



## WJenness (Oct 25, 2010)

marcski said:


> I've never been to Burke...but as you know, we have done the math many times over in various threads through the years, Riv....if you're changing a FGQ to a HSQ you are not really adding any uphill capacity.....



But since you don't (usually) have lines at Burke, you are adding to the number of runs 1 skier can do in a given amount of time (day), which does increase the overall number of skier-runs.... so in a way, it is increasing traffic.

-w


----------



## marcski (Oct 25, 2010)

WJenness said:


> But since you don't (usually) have lines at Burke, you are adding to the number of runs 1 skier can do in a given amount of time (day), which does increase the overall number of skier-runs.... so in a way, it is increasing traffic.
> 
> -w



Agreed.  But also since HSQ's, but their nature, keep more people on the lift line and less people in chairs on the haul rope, they tend to increase the liftlines over a FGQ.


----------



## WJenness (Oct 25, 2010)

marcski said:


> Agreed.  But also since HSQ's, but their nature, keep more people on the lift line and less people in chairs on the haul rope, they tend to increase the liftlines over a FGQ.



Agreed...

But from everything I've heard, the skier density at Burke isn't high enough to create lines with a detach either...

Disclaimer: I've never been, I'm just going with what I've read here.

-w


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 25, 2010)

WJenness said:


> It's on my list as well...
> 
> Maybe we can put something together?
> 
> ...



Been a while since we've had one of those...

On less than capacity days, a HSQ would result in an increase of skier traffic on the trails since there would be less people confined to the chair for 13-14 minutes per run. Cut that ride time in half and I could easily increase my number of runs in a day from 21 to 30-33 (assuming 7 hours of non-stop skiing and my quads/hamstrings don't explode). That = more tracks down the mountain by the same number of people.

BTW Ascutney's Quad ~5,020' long
Burke's Willoughby Quad  ~ 4,760' long
"Proposed New Quad that starts just below the current Mid-Burke parking lot" would be ~5,600' long

Ascutney's quad could replace the Willoughby but a whole new haul rope would probably be in order to fit the length of the "New" quad which means $$$ (Unless splicing in 1200 additional feet is allowed?).

Note - Measurements made in Google Earth


----------



## Masskier (Oct 25, 2010)

from_the_NEK said:


> Been a while since we've had one of those...
> 
> On less than capacity days, a HSQ would result in an increase of skier traffic on the trails since there would be less people confined to the chair for 13-14 minutes per run. Cut that ride time in half and I could easily increase my number of runs in a day from 21 to 30-33 (assuming 7 hours of non-stop skiing and my quads/hamstrings don't explode). That = more tracks down the mountain by the same number of people.
> 
> ...



My understanding is that a new HSQ, would be from the lower level of the parking lot at mid Burke.  This would make the mountain a lot easier to get around, especially from the east side.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 25, 2010)

Masskier said:


> My understanding is that a new HSQ, would be from the lower level of the parking lot at mid Burke.  This would make the mountain a lot easier to get around, especially from the east side.



That would be much better!!!


----------



## x10003q (Oct 25, 2010)

from_the_NEK said:


> Been a while since we've had one of those...
> 
> On less than capacity days, a HSQ would result in an increase of skier traffic on the trails since there would be less people confined to the chair for 13-14 minutes per run. Cut that ride time in half and I could easily increase my number of runs in a day from 21 to 30-33 (assuming 7 hours of non-stop skiing and my quads/hamstrings don't explode). That = more tracks down the mountain by the same number of people.


The increase in runs might be less than you think. I agree that for skiers on this board the HSQ would serve to increase the number of runs. But for the vast majority of skiers, the number of runs will stay the same. Most casual skiers do not have the desire or need to ski to the final bell. People who ski only a couple of days per year never get into "ski shape" even if they work out. Unless there are absolute primo conditions on the hill, the places I ski on weekends are usually empty after 2-3PM. 
A HSQ would be a good move for Burke because it would mean more runs for you and me.


----------



## Zand (Oct 25, 2010)

Hopefully this happens before I leave LSC... that damn quad is brutally slow. Thank god for the poma.


----------



## billski (Oct 25, 2010)

x10003q said:


> The increase in runs might be less than you think. I agree that for skiers on this board the HSQ would serve to increase the number of runs. But for the vast majority of skiers, the number of runs will stay the same. Most casual skiers do not have the desire or need to ski to the final bell. People who ski only a couple of days per year never get into "ski shape" even if they work out. Unless there are absolute primo conditions on the hill, the places I ski on weekends are usually empty after 2-3PM.
> A HSQ would be a good move for Burke because it would mean more runs for you and me.


I have no clue about Burke, but I've seen places where high speed lifts put too many people on the hill at once, causing trail congestion if they cannot spread out.


----------



## The Sneak (Oct 25, 2010)

zand 
Can you take the poma to get to the glades on that side of the hill? I hated that quad. Went there in january and every ride up it seemed to stop multiple times, usually at that point 3/4 of the way up where you are like 100 ft off the ground...and it was zero degrees or colder out.

the poma would be ideal if goes high enough to hit up the glades on that side...


----------



## Zand (Oct 25, 2010)

I don't think there's a way over to the East Bowl glades from it, but you can traverse over to Birches from there as well as hit some unmarked stuff between trails from there.


----------



## x10003q (Oct 25, 2010)

billski said:


> I have no clue about Burke, but I've seen places where high speed lifts put too many people on the hill at once, causing trail congestion if they cannot spread out.



I have seen this also, but there are a some other variables(including  HSQs) that factor into the crowding. It has been mentioned that the HSQ may replace a lift with similar capacity. I think this type of crowding would not be an issue at Burke.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 25, 2010)

billski said:


> I have no clue about Burke, but I've seen places where high speed lifts put too many people on the hill at once, causing trail congestion if they cannot spread out.



The speed of the lift has nothing to do with how many people are put on the mountain at once.  You can only load 4 people every so often (5 seconds or so?), the same whether it's fixed grip or high speed.  On the top the same applies; 4 people get off at the same interval on a HS as they do on a FG (unless the FG has really far spacing).  The only difference is they spend less time on chair.  Without crowds it's a win since you spend more time skiing and less riding the lift.  With crowds you have the potential to spend the extra time standing in a lift line instead.  Personally I'd rather sit on a slow chair then stand in a lift line.  It sounds like Burke doesn't have a crowd problem (yet??) so a HS might be winner all around.

The increased uphill capacity comes when a HSQ replaces a FG triple or double.  Or a six or eight pack replaces pretty much anything.

Of course the spacing of the chairs and thus the load interval can be altered by changing the number of chairs on the line to set the uphill capacity where you want.  But you can only set the load interval just so fast to efficiently and safely get people on the chairs.  I believe the load interval is regulated by the body governing tramway operations.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 25, 2010)

Zand said:


> Hopefully this happens before I leave LSC...



Hopefully you are on the six year plan :razz:



Zand said:


> that damn quad is brutally slow.


Especially if you ride the Sherburne HSQ first. It almost seems like you are sitting still when you get on the Willoughby after the Sherburne HSQ ride.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 25, 2010)

bvibert said:


> The speed of the lift has nothing to do with how many people are put on the mountain at once.  You can only load 4 people every so often (5 seconds or so?), the same whether it's fixed grip or high speed.  On the top the same applies; 4 people get off at the same interval on a HS as they do on a FG (unless the FG has really far spacing).  The only difference is they spend less time on chair.  Without crowds it's a win since you spend more time skiing and less riding the lift.  With crowds you have the potential to spend the extra time standing in a lift line instead.  Personally I'd rather sit on a slow chair then stand in a lift line.  It sounds like Burke doesn't have a crowd problem (yet??) so a HS might be winner all around.
> 
> The increased uphill capacity comes when a HSQ replaces a FG triple or double.  Or a six or eight pack replaces pretty much anything.
> 
> Of course the spacing of the chairs and thus the load interval can be altered by changing the number of chairs on the line to set the uphill capacity where you want.  But you can only set the load interval just so fast to efficiently and safely get people on the chairs.  I believe the load interval is regulated by the body governing tramway operations.


So you are saying the time spent on the lift is the same on a HSQ as it is on a FGQ. If so then you would have the same amount of uphill capacity. If the HSQ is faster then more people can get up the hill. The only way there would be the same amount is if the overall time for equal spaced chairs to travel around is the same for both.


----------



## Edd (Oct 25, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> So you are saying the time spent on the lift is the same on a HSQ as it is on a FGQ. If so then you would have the same amount of uphill capacity. If the HSQ is faster then more people can get up the hill. The only way there would be the same amount is if the overall time for equal spaced chairs to travel around is the same for both.



I think he's saying the time on the lift is less for the rider but the amount of people delivered to the hill is the same.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 25, 2010)

Edd said:


> I think he's saying the time on the lift is less for the rider but the amount of people delivered to the hill is the same.



So either less chairs or same time per chair round trip and not same time ass-in-seat to skis on snow


----------



## bvibert (Oct 25, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> So you are saying the time spent on the lift is the same on a HSQ as it is on a FGQ. If so then you would have the same amount of uphill capacity. If the HSQ is faster then more people can get up the hill. The only way there would be the same amount is if the overall time for equal spaced chairs to travel around is the same for both.



No, you spend less time on a HSQ.  But, given equal load intervals (assuming the FGQ was optimized for the highest capacity then you can't load people any faster onto a HSQ), you can still only send so many people up at once.  The difference on the HS is that there's larger spacing on the chairs.  If you took the same spacing of chairs on a FGQ and spun it as fast as a HSQ you'd never be able to get anyone on it, that's why they're detachable and go around the loading and unloading terminals much slower to pick people up and drop them off at the same interval as a fixed grip.

If you can load people every, lets just say 5 seconds, then you can only unload them every 5 seconds.  Assuming there's a enough people on the hill to fill the chairs then every minute roughly 48 people will get off the chair at the top regardless of a HS or FG.  They'll spend less time on the chair on a HS, and given low crowds that will mean more runs in a given amount of time.  However once you add crowds to the mix (enough to create a lift line at a FGQ) then the extra time saved on the quick lift ride could be spent waiting in the lift line instead.  Since there's less chairs on the line at any given time (increased spacing = less chairs) then there's less people on the lift at any time.  Which means that (assuming they ski the same speed whether it's a FG or HS) if they're not on the chair or on the slope they must be waiting in line, right?

I'm sure I just did a horrible job of explaining that, but trust me the math works out given the same load interval time.  If the FGQ to be replaced wasn't loading as frequently as it could (didn't have enough chairs to optimize load intervals) and a HSQ was installed that had the shortest load interval possible then yes the HSQ would put more people on the hill.  It really comes down to how often you can load a set amount of people onto a chair.


----------



## bvibert (Oct 25, 2010)

Edd said:


> I think he's saying the time on the lift is less for the rider but the amount of people delivered to the hill is the same.



Yes


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 25, 2010)

Smellytele said:


> So either less chairs or same time per chair round trip and not same time ass-in-seat to skis on snow



Again all of this only applies if the chair is running at full capacity. If there are no people standing in line for the slow quad but there are 552 (138 chairs x4) people sitting on the lift, the amount of time it takes to ski onto the lift and get off is the same as a HSQ that has 69 chairs but moves twice as fast. 
In the HSQ senario, you have the same 552 people that are not skiing down the hill. Person #552, standing at the end of the liftline, loads the lift, and gets of the lift in the same amount of time it took person #552 to ski onto the lift and get off of the FGQ. So there is potential to make the lift lines longer at Burke even though the amount of time spent actually skiing is the same.
The real benefits come to those who aren't skiing on full capacity days. 8)


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 25, 2010)

kingdom-tele said:


> no doubt TB, the lift is fairly beat and is in need of help, but the yank to get high speed capacity comes with its issues - not everyone needs to be like the Joneses - its a sleepy mountain with a bunch of surprises - more lifts, faster access, the rush to compete on paper with the other McSki resorts just isn't a positive in my mind, once people stop bitching about the slow, cold lift ride and how awful the traverse back from east bowl is they turn their neverending supply of negatives to something else
> 
> like anything else - some people like it or don't, but it is nice to have options for different ski experiences at different places


It is nice to have options. Without a HSQ to replace the Willoughby.... will Burke continue to be an option? Is the mountain viable long term without one? Given its history, I think we all know the answer to that one. Will a HSQ be the answer? I bet it will get more visits. Will it be enough? Ascutney has now proven that HSQ may not be the ultimate answer. Then again, Ascutney had a lot not going for it whereas Burke has a TON going for it (sorry if that capitalization sounded emotional, just adding emphasis...).

Personally, I enjoy fixed grip lifts but I think a HSQ replacement for WIlloughby Chair at Burke makes a lot of sense and I am not opposed to it. Both for the area's longevity and for my own personal increased enjoyment of the mountain.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 25, 2010)

marcski said:


> I've never been to Burke...but as you know, we have done the math many times over in various threads through the years, Riv....if you're changing a FGQ to a HSQ you are not really adding any uphill capacity.....


Only assuming all lifts go up filled to capacity, there are always lines, and the FG never stops for loading/unloading issues (or mechanical). There are things that don't happen at Burke for the most part so it will cycle more skiers on to the trails a lot faster. Faster on the up means they are back in line faster at the bottom. It is possible that a HSQ could actually create lines as folks spend less time waiting on the lift and more time waiting in an actual line. And once there are lines, that means that the capacity has in fact increased whereas there were no lines before. Any ways...

The fact is that Burke does not need a high speed lift for capacity purposes. They do need to replace the Willoughby Quad though and a HSQ will put them on the map. They could just go with a high speed double a la Castlerock. But I think the HSQ is in the best interest of the resort. Especially if the Burke developers are counting on real estate eventually...


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 26, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> They could just go with a high speed double a la Castlerock. But I think the HSQ is in the best interest of the resort. Especially if the Burke developers are counting on real estate eventually...



The Castlerock double is fixed grip, not high-speed.  It's chairs are double spaced like a detatch though, but that's purely to keep capacity down on an isolated pod.


----------



## kingdom-tele (Oct 26, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> It is nice to have options. Without a HSQ to replace the Willoughby.... will Burke continue to be an option? Is the mountain viable long term without one? Given its history, I think we all know the answer to that one. Will a HSQ be the answer? I bet it will get more visits. Will it be enough? Ascutney has now proven that HSQ may not be the ultimate answer. Then again, Ascutney had a lot not going for it whereas Burke has a TON going for it (sorry if that capitalization sounded emotional, just adding emphasis...).
> 
> Personally, I enjoy fixed grip lifts but I think a HSQ replacement for WIlloughby Chair at Burke makes a lot of sense and I am not opposed to it. Both for the area's longevity and for my own personal increased enjoyment of the mountain.



All true Riv - and I'm sure it will be better overall - its sad to think though people are deciding to go ski a mountain based on the function of their lifts - but I am amittedly slow,  a 12 min lift ride is still a hell of lot faster than I can skin it


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 26, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> The Castlerock double is fixed grip, not high-speed.  It's chairs are double spaced like a detatch though, but that's purely to keep capacity down on an isolated pod.


I mean high speed for a fixed grip. i.e. not a detach but higher speed than most with long spaced chairs. I think that could work at Burke.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 26, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> It is nice to have options. Without a HSQ to replace the Willoughby.... will Burke continue to be an option? Is the mountain viable long term without one? Given its history, I think we all know the answer to that one.


 
Unfortunately, a lot of people won't visit a mountain unless there is a high speed something there....it is just the way the market is.  It would be interesting to compare skier days before and after the Sherburne was installed in 2005.  I will say that I noticed a change in the clientele and an influx of newcomers.  Surprisingly most stayed down on the HSQ without going any further.  



> Will a HSQ be the answer? I bet it will get more visits. Will it be enough? Ascutney has now proven that HSQ may not be the ultimate answer. Then again, Ascutney had a lot not going for it whereas Burke has a TON going for it (sorry if that capitalization sounded emotional, just adding emphasis...).


 
I don't think there really is a comparison.  Ascutney was in a longterm decline anyways.  As we have discussed, a lot of people did not have good experiences there and they just could not get the place going.  They also have less vert, less snow, and not as much terrain.  Burke really has a lot of gladed terrain--on and off the map--that other places don't. For some it is a closer and cheaper alternative to Jay or even MRG.  You can't beat the access from I-91.   



> Personally, I enjoy fixed grip lifts but I think a HSQ replacement for WIlloughby Chair at Burke makes a lot of sense and I am not opposed to it. Both for the area's longevity and for my own personal increased enjoyment of the mountain.


 
You mentioned a "fast double chair" and Burke had a double there, so it would not make sense to make your main lift to the summit be a double and to rewind the clock.  Folks aren't going to buy condos for that.  You or I might not care, but a "high speed XX" is what they want.  Also, considering that the lift takes about 10-12 minutes, you need a high speed lift to cut the ride time to something that people come to expect (under 10 minutes or so).  

Now having a double, say, in the Dipper area running where the old Dipper Poma was does make sense or developing an expert area on the west side with a double makes sense.  

And I say, "high speed XX" because as I understand it for a while they were contemplating a six pack.  Probably not now.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 26, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> I mean high speed for a fixed grip. i.e. not a detach but higher speed than most with long spaced chairs. I think that could work at Burke.



Oh - got it.  

FWIW, I don't think it makes all that much difference.  A fast FG chair may be moving at like 550 ft/min as compared to 450-500 for your typical FG, right?  This compares to 950-1100 ft/min for a detatchable.  I just don't see the speed differential as a drawing card - that's only a savings of a minute or so on a lift like Willoughby and doesn't have near the marketing sexy that a detatch has.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 26, 2010)

It would be a substantial speed difference compared to the Willoughby Quad.  I suspect a double operating at top speed allowable would likely decrease lift time by at least 2 minutes at Burke.

You and Boss are correct though about the sex factor. Even though a FG double operating at top speed would essentially remove the "slow" stigma from Burke, it definitely does not have the sex or the marketing appeal that a high speeder has.


----------



## WJenness (Oct 26, 2010)

For the sake of argument: skilifts.org claims a speed of 455 ft/min for Willoughby.

Source: http://www.skilifts.org/old/images/resort_images/vt-burke/willoughby/willoughby.html

-w


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 26, 2010)

WJenness said:


> For the sake of argument: skilifts.org claims a speed of 455 ft/min for Willoughby.
> 
> Source: http://www.skilifts.org/old/images/resort_images/vt-burke/willoughby/willoughby.html
> 
> -w


Which would be essentially a two second difference at 550 vs 455. Again, not enough to make a significant impression but would be at least enough to get people to stop saying "I love Burke but that summit lift is slow and cold". Still, 550 and two less seconds has no sex.


----------



## WJenness (Oct 26, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Which would be essentially a two second difference at 550 vs 455. Again, not enough to make a significant impression but would be at least enough to get people to stop saying "I love Burke but that summit lift is slow and cold". Still, 550 and two less seconds has no sex.



I got two minutes (11.3 min v. 9.3 min based on a 5,160' inclined length specified on that page)...

I still think it lacks the 'sex' factor... but just for the sake of argument...

at a 1000' / min, it would only take 5.1min to reach the top... Now THAT'S sexy.

even if they only ran the lift at 800' / min, that would still be less than 6.5 min to the top... and I think that would make most everyone happy.

-w


----------



## Masskier (Oct 27, 2010)

I think one of the options that Burke is exploring is to shorten the length of the Willoughby and installing the HSQ in a better,  more centralize location (lower parking lot at mid Burke).  This would make it much easier to get around, especially from the east side.  Speaking of a FG double,  I would like to see one installed in the East Bowl area some day.


----------



## x10003q (Oct 27, 2010)

One more factor that makes the HSQ the choice is the loading factor. As we all know, it is easier and less intimidating for less experienced skiers to load on a HS lift. There is way less starting and stopping of the lift. This HSQ would be servicing all skiers, not just the experts.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 27, 2010)

x10003q said:


> One more factor that makes the HSQ the choice is the loading factor. As we all know, it is easier and less intimidating for less experienced skiers to load on a HS lift. There is way less starting and stopping of the lift. This HSQ would be servicing all skiers, not just the experts.


 
Very true.  It was a disaster at the Willoughby after the Sherburne HSQ was installed because some folks forgot how to load a fixed grip :lol:


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Oct 27, 2010)

Masskier said:


> I think one of the options that Burke is exploring is to shorten the length of the Willoughby and installing the HSQ in a better,  more centralize location (lower parking lot at mid Burke).  This would make it much easier to get around, especially from the east side.  Speaking of a FG double,  I would like to see one installed in the East Bowl area some day.



I've skied Burke only a few times over the last couple seasons, but each time there I spent most of the day lapping East Bowl.  Im surprised skiers find the runout such a PITA. Snowboarders, sure.  But I never felt like I was pole-pushing too much to get out of there, even from the most peripheral glade/tree runs Ive ever done.  

That whole area has a secluded feel to it that I think would be changed for the worse if they put a chair directly in EB.  Im sure it would help market the resort, but I'd still hate to see it happen.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 27, 2010)

skifastr said:


> I've skied Burke only a few times over the last couple seasons, but each time there I spent most of the day lapping East Bowl.  Im surprised skiers find the runout such a PITA. Snowboarders, sure.  But I never felt like I was pole-pushing too much to get out of there, even from the most peripheral glade/tree runs Ive ever done.
> 
> That whole area has a secluded feel to it that I think would be changed for the worse if they put a chair directly in EB.  Im sure it would help market the resort, but I'd still hate to see it happen.


You must have been there on a hard pack day and not a powder day.  On powder days, I spread my east bowl runs throughout the day and definitely work my way backward from shortest to longest. First person down East Bowl on a powder day? Have fun!


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Oct 27, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> You must have been there on a hard pack day and not a powder day.  On powder days, I spread my east bowl runs throughout the day and definitely work my way backward from shortest to longest. First person down East Bowl on a powder day? Have fun!



The best day I had there was at the start of a storm cycle, so while it was fresh, it wasn't deep.  I take your points, but I'll still have to experience that schlep-out firsthand before I can wish for a chair in there. 

[Edit: Do they not groom the runout?]


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 27, 2010)

skifastr said:


> The best day I had there was at the start of a storm cycle, so while it was fresh, it wasn't deep.  I take your points, but I'll still have to experience that schlep-out firsthand before I can wish for a chair in there.


I jest too much on that last post. I concur with your sentiment that the traverse out of East Bowl is not as bad as many folks make it out to be. Sucks for boarders, though. 

That said, I still wouldn't mind a lift up East Bowl if the glades are mostly kept in tact and perhaps a few added. That would be a sensational pod to lap, especially with a few more glades cut and a lift line trail.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Oct 27, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> That said, I still wouldn't mind a lift up East Bowl if the glades are mostly kept in tact and perhaps a few added. That would be a sensational pod to lap, especially with a few more glades cut and a lift line trail.



Just looking at the Burke map now.  Where would you put the base of the lift?  If it ran from somewhere below Throbulator up to the summit it would cut through a few regular runs also (Powderhorn & Dipper).  Actually, Google sat view would be a better reference.

[Edit: Big surprise, it looks different on satellite view!  OK, I think a liftline could exist discretely in there.  And Burke would surely be above cutting a 200-ft wide liftline trail along with it!]


----------



## Masskier (Oct 28, 2010)

skifastr said:


> Just looking at the Burke map now.  Where would you put the base of the lift?  If it ran from somewhere below Throbulator up to the summit it would cut through a few regular runs also (Powderhorn & Dipper).  Actually, Google sat view would be a better reference.
> 
> [Edit: Big surprise, it looks different on satellite view!  OK, I think a liftline could exist discretely in there.  And Burke would surely be above cutting a 200-ft wide liftline trail along with it!]



This lift is on the master plan and is located further below the bottom of the East Bowl trail, (below the cutback).  So it will add additional vertical to the East side.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Oct 28, 2010)

Masskier said:


> This lift is on the master plan and is located further below the bottom of the East Bowl trail, (below the cutback).  So it will add additional vertical to the East side.



This is true. I worked up a few views of what the general layout should look like according to the masterplan filed for Act250.
Here is an overview of the whole mtn with the proposed new lifts in hot pink. The East Bowl lift is the farthest to the left:






Here is a shot looking straight up the lift line. The bottom of the lift is around 1,8015 ft, the top around 3,180' resulting in a 1,365' vert pod. It will have to go down this low to allow access to skiers to coming off of the propsed Cutter lift that is at the bottom of the first pic. The length of the lift would be a little over 5000'.





There is about 285 feet of vert below the existing East Bowl runout (the white trail in the first picture). There are going to be a few rather low angle spots in there. 
The upper part of the lift line will cut through the middle of Caveman and the upper section of the Dixieland glades (dark green trails). Throbulator looks to be spared. Hopefully, if this is a double chair installation, the lift line cut wouldn't need to be very wide.

Finally, here is what it would look like from Umpire Mtn:


----------



## Masskier (Oct 29, 2010)

"This is true. I worked up a few views of what the general layout should look like according to the masterplan filed for Act250.
Here is an overview of the whole mtn with the proposed new lifts in hot pink. The East Bowl lift is the farthest to the left:" ftnek

Thanks for posting this.  I beleive  they have eliminated the beginner lift in the field below mid Burke.


----------



## Masskier (Oct 31, 2010)

I also heard that a new mid Burke Lodge may be in the cards for next year.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 31, 2010)

interesting maps.  So the Willoughby Quad would remain with a shorter configuration?


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 31, 2010)

Masskier said:


> I also heard that a new mid Burke Lodge may be in the cards for next year.


 
My understanding is that the last plan was to raze MidBurke and replace it with a temporary Sprung Structure.  I would not be excited by that.  The goal was to pre-sell units for the "hotel/condo complex" that will sit at MidBurke.  Of course plans change and I don't have the same sources that I used to.  

Regardless, I would hope that if the plan is implemented that they would put in something decent for a midmountain lodge.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 31, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> interesting maps. So the Willoughby Quad would remain with a shorter configuration?


 
Yes.  With both the Poma and Quad shortened.  The former is not a good idea in my mind since it is a good backup on a windy day.  The Willoughby would terminate at Tower 17, or near there, which is near where Fox's Folly cuts into Warren's Way.


----------



## Masskier (Nov 1, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> My understanding is that the last plan was to raze MidBurke and replace it with a temporary Sprung Structure.  I would not be excited by that.  The goal was to pre-sell units for the "hotel/condo complex" that will sit at MidBurke.  Of course plans change and I don't have the same sources that I used to.
> 
> Regardless, I would hope that if the plan is implemented that they would put in something decent for a midmountain lodge.



I agree,  It is really a great location and from what I heard, they have something really special planned for it,  skipping the temp Sprung Structure and going with a new permanent Lodge.


----------



## stomachdoc (Nov 1, 2010)

Masskier said:


> I agree,  It is really a great location and from what I heard, they have something really special planned for it,  skipping the temp Sprung Structure and going with a new permanent Lodge.



Now that Ginn is out of the picture, who owns Burke now?  Where is the money for these planned capital projects coming from?


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 1, 2010)

stomachdoc said:


> Now that Ginn is out of the picture, who owns Burke now? Where is the money for these planned capital projects coming from?


 
The investors who were behind Ginn on this project still own it. Ginn was a minority owner and he was shown the door. The investors brought Crave in to run the place. 

Now, if Crave has reviewed the plans and has decided that the Willoughby Quad has to be replaced before trying to market the mountain for condos, then I applaud them because Ginn was not adopting this route (or could not because of the economy). Having a Burke with a HS lift to the summit will make it marketable rather than trying to presell the mountain as it is with the "promise" that such improvements will come. People have heard lots of promises that have not come true. 

As to where the money will come from, my guess is that it will either be the next "phase" of development funded by the investors, or Burke has been able to find some EB-5 Investors (like Jay). I say the latter because reliable sources say that Burke's Development VP was on a trade mission with Gov. Douglas last year where EB-5 investors were sought for many projects in Vermont. 

So to recap if Burke was to rebuild MidBurke and install a new HS lift next year I think we would see some good feedback and some good market response.


----------



## EPB (Nov 1, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> The investors who were behind Ginn on this project still own it.  Ginn was a minority owner and he was shown the door.  The investors brought Crave into run the place.
> 
> Now, if Crave has reviewed the plans and has decided that the Willoughby Quad has to be replaced before trying to market the mountain for condos, then I applaud them because Ginn was not adopting this route (or could not because of the economy).  Having a Burke with a HS lift to the summit will make it marketable rather than trying to presell the mountain as it is with the "promise" that such improvements will come.  People have heard lots of promises that have not come true.
> 
> ...



Absolutely. Not that this is a perfect example, but Haystack owners were promised a chondola that never came to be in the last five years.


----------



## Masskier (Nov 1, 2010)

stomachdoc said:


> Now that Ginn is out of the picture, who owns Burke now?  Where is the money for these planned capital projects coming from?



Burke is owned by Lubert Adler, a private equity firm out of the Philadelphia area.


----------



## Masskier (Nov 1, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> The investors who were behind Ginn on this project still own it. Ginn was a minority owner and he was shown the door. The investors brought Crave in to run the place.
> 
> Now, if Crave has reviewed the plans and has decided that the Willoughby Quad has to be replaced before trying to market the mountain for condos, then I applaud them because Ginn was not adopting this route (or could not because of the economy). Having a Burke with a HS lift to the summit will make it marketable rather than trying to presell the mountain as it is with the "promise" that such improvements will come. People have heard lots of promises that have not come true.
> 
> ...



They did explore the EB-5 option,  However all of the planned improvements will most likely be funded by the Owner.  Burke is really in a great position to be able to fund their improvements with cash rather than debt.


----------

