# Sugarloaf Bucksaw Chair....RIP



## skiMEbike (Jul 30, 2015)

Below statement released by Sugarloaf...It is kind of too bad, because on Wind hold, powder days it was a nice alternative from riding the T-bar and/or avoid the lines.


By now, hopefully you have all heard, or read about, our plans to update our lift system with industry-leading technology and safety features. In the dog days of summer, those projects continue full steam ahead, in preparation for the 2015/16 ski season. As condo owners in the Timbers development, we wanted to take a moment to connect with you first, in regards to the future of the Bucksaw chairlift. 

Our first priority, in all of our planned lift upgrades for this summer, is ensuring that all of our lifts are as safe as they can possibly be. That means retrofitting some of our older lifts with newer, automated braking systems and anti-rollback technology. While these upgrades are not required by the lift manufacturers or ANSI codes, they are necessary for us to live up to our commitment to lead the ski industry in lift maintenance and safety practices.

In the list of scheduled upgrades provided in our initial announcement a few weeks ago, you may have noticed that the Bucksaw chairlift was not included. The reason Bucksaw was left out was that our team needed more time to determine what would be required to bring this lift up to our new standards, and whether or not that work would be feasible.

Bucksaw is Sugarloaf’s oldest lift, having been installed in 1969, and while it has been a reliable workhorse throughout the years, we will not be able to upgrade it to our new standards, without essentially replacing the entire lift. And, as Bucksaw is also Sugarloaf’s least utilized chairlift, this would simply be cost prohibitive.

As a result, we have made the decision to take the Bucksaw lift out of service, and will be dismantling it later this summer.

The good news in all of this is that once the Bucksaw lift is removed we will be able to upgrade the snowmaking system on Windrow, allowing us to make more snow on that trail and open it earlier in the season than we ever have before. And, given its location on the mountain, limited operating schedule, and extremely low ridership, the volume of skiers transported by Bucksaw will easily be absorbed by the SuperQuad.

While it will be sad to see a piece of Sugarloaf’s history leave, it is a necessary step for us in raising our lift safety standards, and will ultimately be a positive step forward in our continued work to upgrade the physical assets of our resort. 

Please take a moment to checkout our new Lift Information website, if you haven't already, and feel free to contact us with any of your questions or concerns. 

Thank you for your continued support, and we hope to see you here soon. 

All the best,

Your Friends at Sugarloaf


----------



## drjeff (Jul 30, 2015)

It is quite well noted how many times in the press release the marketing folks at Sugarloaf mentioned lift safety!  A necessary thing for them now for a few years given what's gone on there in the recent past.  Usually lift changes are just described as for quicker riders, guest comfort, etc, etc with the safety side of things left out...


----------



## ss20 (Jul 30, 2015)

And how do beginners acces the only large pod of novice skiing on the mountain now?


----------



## Jully (Jul 30, 2015)

Dang it. I know they've been talking about replacing Bucksaw as part of 2020, but it's worrysome that they don't even talk about a replacement here.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 30, 2015)

I've always felt the whole Bucksaw area and to skiers left of the lift has outstanding potential for a low intermediate area if it had the right lift.  That could really take some pressure off the Superquad.   The only real main issue with developing that is the distance from the base lodge.

That in general is one of the Loafs greatest problems.  There's not a single chair that's gets you anywhere that's convenient to the Base Lodge.  Whifgletree kind of, but not compared to other areas.  Maybe they'll address that with the eventual replacement of double runner.


----------



## Jully (Jul 30, 2015)

ss20 said:


> And how do beginners acces the only large pod of novice skiing on the mountain now?



Wait in line at the SuperQuad of course!! Then traverse across crowded tote road and potentially get lost and end up somewhere weird!

It did have low ridership though I'll tell you that. It was an underutilized chair/ the whole area is an underdeveloped underutilized part of the mountain. Don't know how many beginners even know about it.


----------



## soposkier (Jul 30, 2015)

That's too bad, great lift for lower intermediates.  My wife who just started snowboarding a few years ago really enjoyed the pod over there as it's never crowded and didnt have to deal with the typically jammed unload area of the superquad. Maybe it will clear the way for a 2 stage gondola to the summit.....


----------



## Newpylong (Jul 31, 2015)

Safety is paramount, but do the work that is required to get it to pass inspections and don't remove it until you have something to replace it. Look what happened to South Ridge at K. What they really need is a new lift beginning near the Super Quad up to Bullwinkles. That would open up that terrain and take heat off the SQ. I think you could have it go up Haywire without much trail modification, might need to do an over/under of the SQ near the bottom though. Why spend money upgrading snowmaking on Windrow if no one can get to it.


----------



## machski (Jul 31, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Safety is paramount, but do the work that is required to get it to pass inspections and don't remove it until you have something to replace it. Look what happened to South Ridge at K. What they really need is a new lift beginning near the Super Quad up to Bullwinkles. That would open up that terrain and take heat off the SQ. I think you could have it go up Haywire without much trail modification, might need to do an over/under of the SQ near the bottom though. Why spend money upgrading snowmaking on Windrow if no one can get to it.



I don't think they will need to spend much.  But with the lift allignment, they could not use tower guns on windrow.  Without the chair in the way, they can if they so choose.


----------



## Conrad (Jul 31, 2015)

It's really too bad. At the annual meeting a year or two ago, when someone asked if Bucksaw was going to be replaced anytime soon, they said that Bucksaw was in excellent condition for its age.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 31, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Safety is paramount, but do the work that is required to get it to pass inspections and don't remove it until you have something to replace it. Look what happened to South Ridge at K. What they really need is a new lift beginning near the Super Quad up to Bullwinkles. That would open up that terrain and take heat off the SQ. I think you could have it go up Haywire without much trail modification, might need to do an over/under of the SQ near the bottom though. Why spend money upgrading snowmaking on Windrow if no one can get to it.



Agreed. Seems like a lot of terrain will be underserved.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Conrad (Jul 31, 2015)

Also of note, it is definitely not the least utilized lift. Bucksaw certainly sees less traffic. Also, Bucksaw sees more real skier traffic for the terrain as opposed to other lifts where the traffic is just to get out of the condos (i.e. Snubber, Sawduster).


This was the busiest I've ever seen Bucksaw, March 7, 2015.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jul 31, 2015)

Conrad said:


> Also, Bucksaw sees more real skier traffic for the terrain as opposed to other lifts where the traffic is just to get out of the condos (i.e. *Snubber*, Sawduster).



What's funny is that I don't think Snubber is even capable of rolling back. It's so flat, yet so long, that all the sheave trains, along with the bullwheels, would probably provide enough rolling resistance to prevent a rollback. In addition to that there's never more than like 20 odd people on it to weight down the uphill side. [/DIGRESS]


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 1, 2015)

Just put in a damn base to summit lift. Had one years ago. What's the problem?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 1, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Just put in a damn base to summit lift. Had one years ago. What's the problem?



There's a reason there's no damn trees on the summit....


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 1, 2015)

skiNEwhere said:


> There's a reason there's no damn trees on the summit....


Yeah a fire years ago is what I've heard. It's not the tallest peak around. Place has been lacking ever since they took it out. Yes I realize the top section wasn't always open but at least it was there to utilize when it was. Put a mid station in just like the old days.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 1, 2015)

Heard those heavy six pack chairs are pretty good in the wind. No bubble of course.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 1, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Yeah a fire years ago is what I've heard. It's not the tallest peak around. Place has been lacking ever since they took it out. Yes I realize the top section wasn't always open but at least it was there to utilize when it was. Put a mid station in just like the old days.



Heard that too. But the wind is what keeps them from growing back


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 1, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Heard those heavy six pack chairs are pretty good in the wind. No bubble of course.



I look at the panoramic express at winter park being a similar scenario to what you're suggesting. Even with the added weight, that lift still sees a significant amount of wind holds every year. 

Ski patrol told me something interesting though, they can run it in higher winds on the weekends vs weekdays, because they can fully load 6 to a chair, and the added weight keeps the chair from swinging as much. I guess with detachables, when the chair goes into the terminal at an angle it puts incredible strain on the grips (hence the reason lifties yell at you if your sitting all the way to one side of a chair)


----------



## Highway Star (Aug 1, 2015)

Sugarloaf has the most whack lift system of all the major resorts in the northeast.


----------



## ss20 (Aug 1, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> Sugarloaf has the most whack lift system of all the major resorts in the northeast.



Ditto.  Not like they have a hard mountain to work with either.  Pretty much a failed attempt at a Stratton-esque lift system.


----------



## Conrad (Aug 2, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> Sugarloaf has the most whack lift system of all the major resorts in the northeast.



It's a little crazy with a variety of old lifts and new, transport, and ski lifts. But the problem is that 90% of the people ski on 5 quad chairlifts (SuperQuad, Whiffletree, King Pine, Skyline, and Timberline). Half the time Timberline is closed so that leaves just four lifts. Some people find their way to #3 T-Bar and Bucksaw, but still, it's definitely discouraging and inconvenient on big Saturdays. If money was no object, a funitel to the top would be great. If they had Vail Resorts kind of money, maybe replace the SuperQuad with a six-pack and move the quad over to King Pine. However, in the reality of the situation, I could almost see them replacing King Pine with a fixed grip six pack (there are a few such devices in existence around the world). But I guess it's too late for that to happen.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 2, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> Sugarloaf has the most whack lift system of all the major resorts in the northeast.


Wow, I agree with a moron!


----------



## Jully (Aug 2, 2015)

Conrad said:


> It's a little crazy with a variety of old lifts and new, transport, and ski lifts. But the problem is that 90% of the people ski on 5 quad chairlifts (SuperQuad, Whiffletree, King Pine, Skyline, and Timberline). Half the time Timberline is closed so that leaves just four lifts. Some people find their way to #3 T-Bar and Bucksaw, but still, it's definitely discouraging and inconvenient on big Saturdays. If money was no object, a funitel to the top would be great. If they had Vail Resorts kind of money, maybe replace the SuperQuad with a six-pack and move the quad over to King Pine. However, in the reality of the situation, I could almost see them replacing King Pine with a fixed grip six pack (there are a few such devices in existence around the world). But I guess it's too late for that to happen.



They still might replace KP because they eventually wanted to move it to the Double Runner area. If it's a carpet loaded quad that's even better. Definitely might not happen now though which is lame.

They do have a whacked lift system though. It would work if they had the number of high speed lifts as Stratton does, but they don't.


----------



## soposkier (Aug 2, 2015)

I don't mind king pine as a fixed grip, as long as it is realiable


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 2, 2015)

I don't mind slow lifts. Actually prefer them some times.


----------



## The Sneak (Aug 2, 2015)

I love the Loaf. Going there will always feel like I'm going 'home' as it was a place I skied 150 or so times in college.

But heck, the lifts were sketchy there in 1996! Freshman year was the final season for the gondola. They also ran the SuperQuad on aux power and at half speed for virtually the entire season. Some strange issue with it.

I think I rode backsaw maybe 5 times ever.

It was all about spillway long side, king pine, and the super quad then. The Gondola ran sporadically. It's crazy and alarming to realize this was 20 yrs ago. Sigh.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 2, 2015)

Had a great a spring week there back in the day. Gondi was open top to bottom, no lift lines even though the cabins were spaced out 500 yards apart & the snowfields were prime all week. No King Pine back in those days so it was top to bottom skiing the backside. Those were the good old days.

Can't recall exactly how many years ago this was but the base lodge & village were there at the time. They must be getting a little dated like myself.


----------



## dlague (Aug 3, 2015)

Having been there for the first time last season, that particular part of SL including that lift was of no interest to me.  That will bring more beginner traffic to SL Super Quad which will suck and Tote Road will get more crowded than it already is at times - as a result. scrapped off faster.  Then again, not a trail I am that interested in either.

What will be worse in the added traffic on WT Super Quad.  That line always sucked last year.

The beginners can lap Skidway


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 3, 2015)

Highway Star said:


> Sugarloaf has the most whack lift system of all the major resorts in the northeast.





Puck it said:


> Wow, I agree with a moron!



What's funny is that I think he was trying to troll. Which fell apart when people agreed with him.


----------



## ceo (Aug 3, 2015)

Not as whack as it was in the late 60s with no chairlifts, 5 T-bars and a gondola. But the way the lifts are spread out all over the base area with only a short beginner double remotely close to the lodge has always been one of SL's biggest inconveniences.


----------



## Jully (Aug 3, 2015)

If they do end up replacing the Double Runners with something would they consider bringing them down closer to the lodge with a bit of regrading? Maybe even angle them slightly more towards the lodge instead of right next to the right side of the trail?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 3, 2015)

The problem is that sugarloaf is so carved out that there are essentially no trail pods that can be connected to each other. All lifts essentially run parallel to each other, and it's not easy to move across the mountain without traversing or cutting across half a dozen trails. 

If the mountain weren't so carved out, then lifts could be installed diagonally allowing for easier movement around the mountain, and bona fide trail pods as well.


----------



## dlague (Aug 3, 2015)

skiNEwhere said:


> The problem is that sugarloaf is so carved out that there are essentially no trail pods that can be connected to each other. All lifts essentially run parallel to each other, and it's not easy to move across the mountain without traversing or cutting across half a dozen trails.
> 
> If the mountain weren't so carved out, then lifts could be installed diagonally allowing for easier movement around the mountain, and bona fide trail pods as well.



But then the trail count would not be as high!  Gotta have the trail count high.  

Scotty not talking about the high you like!


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 4, 2015)

I'd be happy with a surface lift from the top of the Spillway chair.Wind would not be an issue and only advanced skiers could ride it.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 4, 2015)

SIKSKIER said:


> I'd be happy with a surface lift from the top of the Spillway chair.Wind would not be an issue and only advanced skiers could ride it.



If a chairlift can't run in the wind to the summit of the loaf....you probably don't want to be there to begin with.


----------



## Jully (Aug 4, 2015)

Didn't they have a T-bar that they were planning on installing to the summit up like, Cinder Hoe? I think they said they were going to install it in the summer of 2013 haha.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 4, 2015)

yep


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 4, 2015)

skiNEwhere said:


> If a chairlift can't run in the wind to the summit of the loaf....you probably don't want to be there to begin with.



I don't know about that.  Lots of days the Spillway be down and the Bateau is running next to it.

I think a summit tbar would be a great and inexpensive lift addition.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 4, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't know about that.  Lots of days the Spillway be down and the Bateau is running next to it.
> 
> I think a summit tbar would be a great and inexpensive lift addition.



Maybe. But I imagine the lack of trees would make visibility difficult as well.


----------



## Mapnut (Aug 4, 2015)

You guys didn't know there was a T-bar to the top of Sugarloaf in the 80s? It connected with the Bateau T-bar, and Cinder Hoe is its line. It may have been put in for the downhill race course, but I don't think it ever got much use. So I don't think a new one would work that well either.  https://skimap.org/data/448/74/1254321806.jpg


----------



## Jully (Aug 5, 2015)

Yeah there was. I'm so disappointed that they don't have it anymore. Plus timberline is annoying to get to. A T-bar would just make it much easier to get to the snowfields and I would definitely go to SL more if it was there and ran on a regular basis.

Did anyone hear why it didn't happen a few years ago with they announced it?


----------



## machski (Aug 5, 2015)

One issue is the new lift standards.  A surface lift installed now cannot cross any ski trail or glade.  SR is considering a poma on MM for racing but they would have to permanently close over easy to do so.  So where do you run a t-bar up to the Summit without crossing a trail at SL?  (Bateau is grandfathered in by the way since it was installed way before the standards changed)


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 5, 2015)

Wouldn't it easier to just configure the midstation on Locke for offloading vs install a new lift?


----------



## ss20 (Aug 5, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Wouldn't it easier to just configure the midstation on Locke for offloading vs install a new lift?



No, they should replace the Snowdon quad.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2015)

ss20 said:


> No, they should replace the Snowdon quad.



Huh? He was talking about Sunday River not Killington


----------



## DoublePlanker (Aug 5, 2015)

The old timberline t-bar alignment looks like it could still be used.  Just put a t-bar parallel to the timberline quad and block off any trail crossings.  There aren't any on the map.  Perhaps at the summit it would be difficult.  But even if its terminus is just short of the timberline quad, that would be better than what they have.  

IMHO, it sucks when you have to tuck on a novice trail over to the bottom of the timberline quad and then ride the slow, long quad just to get to the summit.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 5, 2015)

There are plenty of tree at the summit.The east and backside are the barren areas.


----------



## ss20 (Aug 5, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Huh? He was talking about Sunday River not Killington



In a thread about Sugarloaf without mention of SR.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2015)

Missed that. Haha


----------



## dlague (Aug 6, 2015)

ss20 said:


> In a thread about Sugarloaf without mention of SR.



I was thinking I missed something.


----------



## Riverskier (Aug 6, 2015)

ss20 said:


> In a thread about Sugarloaf without mention of SR.



Machski mentioned SR and the comment was related to the discussion, as it involved discussion of surface lift regulations. The Locke comment was in response to that.


----------



## machski (Aug 7, 2015)

Riverskier said:


> Machski mentioned SR and the comment was related to the discussion, as it involved discussion of surface lift regulations. The Locke comment was in response to that.



Correct.  Just trying to note that while it seems surface lifts might be the way to go, the new regs on trail crossings make it tough to place them into already developed sections of mountains now.


----------



## ceo (Aug 10, 2015)

The base of the Timberline T-bar was roughly where the crosscut from the top of Bateau to Binder and the Timberline trail crosses the Timberline Quad liftline. Putting a new T-bar there would only require closing the crosscut from the top of Skyline, and there's already plenty of ways to get over there. And closing Cinder Hoe, of course.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 10, 2015)

Forget a t-bar up Cinder Hoe, Magic Mountain wouldn't even stand for that. Back in the heyday, Sugarloaf didn't have any money but they scraped together what they had and built a gondola from a kit that ran "trouble free" for over 30 years. I want to see Ethan Austin out in front of Carrabassett Valley Academy with a squeegee planning a car wash. I want to see CNL executives selling girl scout cookies to buy steel and sheave trains. Then put on the hard hats, borrow a helicopter from someone and get to work. John Christie and Amos Winter didn't wait until someone handed them $10 million to get moving. To paraphrase a mild-mannered, presidential candidate, "Let's make Sugarloaf great again!"


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 10, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> Forget a t-bar up Cinder Hoe, Magic Mountain wouldn't even stand for that. Back in the heyday, Sugarloaf didn't have any money but they scraped together what they had and built a gondola from a kit that ran "trouble free" for over 30 years. I want to see Ethan Austin out in front of Carrabassett Valley Academy with a squeegee planning a car wash. I want to see CNL executives selling girl scout cookies to buy steel and sheave trains. Then put on the hard hats, borrow a helicopter from someone and get to work. John Christie and Amos Winter didn't wait until someone handed them $10 million to get moving. To paraphrase a mild-mannered, presidential candidate, "Let's make Sugarloaf great again!"


I'm with you. Place just isn't the same without a bottom to top lift.


----------



## skiMEbike (Aug 11, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> I'm with you. Place just isn't the same without a bottom to top lift.



Kind of agree.   Putting aside the whole IF/How often any kind of top to bottom lift would run @ Sugarloaf....From an advanced skier perspective, it's kind of a novelty (with potential marketing benefits) & only helps to disperse the lines at the base area lifts (SQuad & WTree).  For me, it doesn't provide much benefit other than I get to take my first run from the summit.   Beyond that who really cares, because a typical day at the loaf involves one run from the base area and then it's all Skyline/King Pine/Timberline....I don't think I would ski Sugarloaf as much if I were "forced" to ski down to the base on every run.   Any top to bottom lift NEEDS to have a mid-station of some sort, otherwise it would just be even more of a waste....I think the idea of a base to summit lift with a load/unload at Bullwinkles would be best...Until then, Skyline & Timberline do just fine.


----------



## Jully (Aug 11, 2015)

^^ This. Who knows, maybe the removal of Bucksaw will pave the way for a lift up that way! Maybe they will start plans for a lift like that in about fifteen years haha.

Bullwinkle's to me is so out of the way with the current lift set up right now. I feel like it would be used a lot more if there was an unload anywhere near it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2015)

The concept of a base to summit lift with a mid station at Bullwinkles is a cool idea.  The challenges I see with that is for one it would be a heckuva long ride if you took it the whole way and it's also a long slog from the base lodge.   The old gondola location was at least convenient to the lodge.

The reality is that a ttb lift a Sugarloaf would be massively expensive and you likely would never get the ROI.  The loaf has had record skier visit seasons recently and with its location I don't see the business increasing that much unless Cumberland County, ME grows in population considerably.   So, that investment would take away from other needed improvements and push them long off into the future.  If I'm running the place I'm not making that investment knowing it would only run to the summit what 50% of the time?  That's been my experience with Timberline skiing there and that chair is supposedly better aligned for the wind direction.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 11, 2015)

If/when the snowfields are open it's even a longer ride now to get back to them no matter how they'd decide to configure a base to summit lift. Personally I didn't mind having to ski all the way to the bottom when the gondi was running.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 11, 2015)

I am going to throw out an idea that sounds crazy but actually makes sense. Sugarloaf became a nationally recognized resort when it installed its base-to-summit lift in 1966. The gondola became a symbol of the Loaf's big mountain, aggressive, iconic nature. With lift accessible snowfields it was the closest thing to skiing out west in the 60's. Cut to the late 90's, Sugarloaf is out of money and mismanaged. It loses its iconic symbol and suffers a loss of brand identity under new management. So here's my idea. The mountain needs not one, but two gondolas to restore the Loaf's brand identity. It needs a super modern base-to-summit 8-person gondola with a mid-station so that it can run consistently. It needs a "nature center" bar / conference center / overnight guest rooms at the top that it can generate income year-round. Trim the scruff in the snowfields so that it can be ridden in December as easily as in April. A new 10-story hotel / spa and expanded base area with retail is needed. AND it needs another "retro" gondola that starts just to the right of the Super Quad and ends at Bullwinkle's with full lunch / dinner / bar service until 10 PM year-round. Mountain biking trails and zip lines should be constructed in the former Bucksaw area, accessible from this second gondola. Sugarloaf Regional Airport needs to be expanded to accommodate semi-regular and well-marketed winter flights from Portland, Boston, and New York. Heck, maybe even add a casino like Bangor/Oxford to bring in visitors and tourist dollars. I love Burton but give the kids back their arcade (and tubing center). Taos found its Louis Bacon to bring their dilapidated mountain back from 1990 and into the modern age. No more patch jobs, fixed grip lift replacements and fading into obscurity. Sugarloaf needs a visionary and deal-maker to bring in substantial new investment, tax breaks, transportation and modern resort amenities so that it lives up to its potential. CNL thanks for the new trail signage and snow guns, buh-bye.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2015)

I'll have what you're smoking


Sugarloaf is busier today than when it had it's "iconic" lift.   300-350K skier visits a year vs. 250-300 in the 80s.  


No bank is going to finance your plan to turn Sugarloaf into a mini-Vail.   I mean it's cool to dream, we all do, but you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars in investment with that plan. You'd never make the money back.


----------



## ss20 (Aug 11, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> I am going to throw out an idea that sounds crazy but actually makes sense. Sugarloaf became a nationally recognized resort when it installed its base-to-summit lift in 1966. The gondola became a symbol of the Loaf's big mountain, aggressive, iconic nature. With lift accessible snowfields it was the closest thing to skiing out west in the 60's. Cut to the late 90's, Sugarloaf is out of money and mismanaged. It loses its iconic symbol and suffers a loss of brand identity under new management. So here's my idea. The mountain needs not one, but two gondolas to restore the Loaf's brand identity. It needs a super modern base-to-summit 8-person gondola with a mid-station so that it can run consistently. It needs a "nature center" bar / conference center / overnight guest rooms at the top that it can generate income year-round. Trim the scruff in the snowfields so that it can be ridden in December as easily as in April. A new 10-story hotel / spa and expanded base area with retail is needed. AND it needs another "retro" gondola that starts just to the right of the Super Quad and ends at Bullwinkle's with full lunch / dinner / bar service until 10 PM year-round. Mountain biking trails and zip lines should be constructed in the former Bucksaw area, accessible from this second gondola. Sugarloaf Regional Airport needs to be expanded to accommodate semi-regular and well-marketed winter flights from Portland, Boston, and New York. Heck, maybe even add a casino like Bangor/Oxford to bring in visitors and tourist dollars. I love Burton but give the kids back their arcade (and tubing center). Taos found its Louis Bacon to bring their dilapidated mountain back from 1990 and into the modern age. No more patch jobs, fixed grip lift replacements and fading into obscurity. Sugarloaf needs a visionary and deal-maker to bring in substantial new investment, tax breaks, transportation and modern resort amenities so that it lives up to its potential. CNL thanks for the new trail signage and snow guns, buh-bye.



Pops, I'm sorry to say this but the 60s ended a long time ago.  Loooooooong gone are the days where ski resort operators could just build build build.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 11, 2015)

Deadheadskiier- I wish we were riding up in the old gondola together right now and then you'd have what I'm smoking. But honestly they should be able to accomplish something similar. Let's say the Loaf's Total Revenue is $20 million per year and they achieve a 10% EBITDA margin, or roughly $2 million. Doesn't leave much for maintenance capital improvements or interest expense I realize.  

So let's say that Sugarloaf borrows $30 million for the cost of 2 gondolas and various facilities.  If the Loaf can borrow at 5% with 2% amortization per year (guaranteed by municipality), that's debt service of roughly $2 million per year. Then how to pay for it? 

Now you've got a resort that can operate 4 seasons versus 2 seasons. Let's say revenues increase 15% per year and margins increase 5% per year. Now you've got $3.5 million of EBITDA. Assume that a 3rd party hotel operator does a ground lease and revenue share and builds a new hotel complex. Let's say a new hotel operator contributes $250K per year in lease payments/revenue share. Let's say Sugarloaf is able to sell a few condos or lots each year and makes another $0.5 million of EBITDA on their real estate development. Also negotiate for tax credits and other development incentives.     

I'm not saying its a no-risk plan but if properly executed with a new financially savvy owner it should be do-able. Obviously I made up the numbers in this scenario but I'm not sure they are totally off-base.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2015)

Buy your powerball tickets  :lol:


I think if you're going to go down that road, it makes most sense to throw all the coin into one lift.   Throw a Funitel in.   That's really the best solution for how windy it is up there.  

I don't think the skier visits would increase enough to cover the debt though.  Not without significant increases in day ticket and season pass pricing.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 11, 2015)

Ya lost me at retro gondola...

I would remove the Double Runners and put in a top to bottom 8 person 2 stage gondola. I would end the first stage lower than it used to - down near Lombard Xcut so that the lower stage could effectively replace the double runners. Unless you think people wouldn't get off even though it was made apparent that there was no beginner services terrain off the top?

Might be able to remove Bateau if the upper stage ran enough to cut costs.

HSQ up to Bullwinkles eventually.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 11, 2015)

I can get you $30 million. There are ways, dude. The funitel is a pretty awesome solution if not slightly overkill. I *think* that a modern Doppelmayr detachable gondola should be able to run a lot more frequently than the old PHB kit. Other mountains in N. America are also pretty windy and rely on single cable designs. But if Sugarloaf could find the money, funitel all the way! You could skip the mid-station and save some dough and operational cost. I still like the idea of two gondolas because you can build revenue centers at the top and bottom of each (food and beverage, retail, lodging, recreation) and you have two different areas to which you can comfortably shuttle summertime visitors. Plus, you're probably not going to use the summit for heavy apres ski use due to several operational challenges, whereas you could do that at Bullwinkle's without too much trouble. But maybe you're right, the downside to my plan is let's say visitation stays roughly the same and now you have the added costs of running two new high-tech lifts with no corresponding increase in revenues. Bondholders get screwed, another bankruptcy. Still, I truly believe that if you build it they will come. I've skied all over the east, out west, Europe, and yet there's still something about the Loaf...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2015)

One thing is for certain.  No matter what type of "dream lift" they'd put in for the summit; I'd stop riding it after 10AM.   The trail capacity up there couldn't handle much.  All of the extensions tend to be windblown hard pack as is.  Throwing 2400+ people an hour up there is going to result in skied off conditions very fast.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 11, 2015)

By the way, I wonder if anyone has ever looked into a casino at Sugarloaf. That would solve the issue of how to get year-round visitors to a remote location in Maine. I've been doing regional casino site visits all summer for work. I think that a small facility at Sugarloaf would do nicely. I can't see Franklin County turning away the tax dollars if the state would allow it. I'm sure a lot of people would also be opposed.


----------



## ss20 (Aug 11, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> By the way, I wonder if anyone has ever looked into a casino at Sugarloaf....



And that's where I stopped reading.  The northeast could not support another casino.  Atlantic City and the Connecticut casino's are failing because they're overbuilt.  So why do you think this could work in Maine? lol


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 11, 2015)

You're absolutely right about the trail capacity as currently configured. You'd have to do something to terraform the drop in area and protect the snow somehow. More snowmaking, grooming and wind screens and/or strategically placed trees to block wind. Not sure about the environmental regulations though I have to believe that where there is a will there is a way.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 11, 2015)

AC and CT are failing because of increasing supply of casinos and relatively consistent demand. You wouldn't build a big facility but you could build a very modest property, perhaps 200 slots and 5 tables. Truthfully you wouldn't compete with AC or CT. I see it more like a differentiating resort amenity versus a major draw.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 11, 2015)

I don't think you could reach the top if you started the gondola at the Double Runners. I hear a lot of people talking about various ways to reach the summit in two stages (run up Bucksaw to Bullwinkle's to Summit, etc) but the line (gondola line) has already been cut, it's the quickest and most direct route between two points and it has worked in the past. When I said retro gondola up to Bullwinkles I just meant in terms of playing up heritage and style. The equipment would obviously be new and I envision the gondola cabins would be like over-sized modern versions of the old PHB cabins. Ride up in style to Bullwinkles for apres ski.


----------



## Jully (Aug 11, 2015)

I just don't think SL is going to get that many more people going there. It's just too far away to get an increase big enough to justify this. I doubt the number of people who would fly in on an airplane would be a big enough increase to pay for this and I doubt day visits will increase that much


----------



## ss20 (Aug 11, 2015)

Jully said:


> I just don't think SL is going to get that many more people going there. It's just too far away to get an increase big enough to justify this. I doubt the number of people who would fly in on an airplane would be a big enough increase to pay for this and I doubt day visits will increase that much



Exactly.  The resort has peaked it's skier visits because it's far from everything.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 11, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> I don't think you could reach the top if you started the gondola at the Double Runners. I hear a lot of people talking about various ways to reach the summit in two stages (run up Bucksaw to Bullwinkle's to Summit, etc) but the line (gondola line) has already been cut, it's the quickest and most direct route between two points and it has worked in the past. When I said retro gondola up to Bullwinkles I just meant in terms of playing up heritage and style. The equipment would obviously be new and I envision the gondola cabins would be like over-sized modern versions of the old PHB cabins. Ride up in style to Bullwinkles for apres ski.



If this was in reply to me my idea was to put the gondola exactly where it used to be with the exception of the mid station lower than it used to be to service the lower mountain better.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 11, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> If this was in reply to me my idea was to put the gondola exactly where it used to be with the exception of the mid station lower than it used to be to service the lower mountain better.



You put it lower than where it was and you wouldn't be able to get to King Pine from the mid-station.   I'm not sure how much better the lower mountain needs to be serviced than what the Whiffletree and Double Runners provide.  Admittedly, the Double Runners are darn slow.


----------



## Smellytele (Aug 11, 2015)

Chondola to Bullwinkles


----------



## machski (Aug 12, 2015)

Something base to bullies is a great idea.  Base to summit lift?  Not worth it unless its as wind proof as possible (meaning a 3S gondola or funnitel) which makes it far too costly for SL (ROI too weak).  As for a huge lodge at the summit, will never occur in this day and age.  SL while not on it is far too close to the AT to put something huge up there without outrage.  Plus, high winds will mean less use weakening ROI for it.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 12, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> You put it lower than where it was and you wouldn't be able to get to King Pine from the mid-station.   I'm not sure how much better the lower mountain needs to be serviced than what the Whiffletree and Double Runners provide.  Admittedly, the Double Runners are darn slow.




You people don't listen lol. I said remove the double runners.

Not being able to get to King Pine I don't think should be taken under consideration. Take Whiffletree or ski down to it from the top. The point is to utilize the gondola and cut costs by removing existing (old) lifts which would overlap with the service area of Gondola stage 1. 

But maybe all of this is overthinking. You replace the Double runners with another fixed grip quad and make the gondola a single stage, thinking a modern gondola with heavier cabins will run more. Add more wind breaks in bad spots.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 12, 2015)

Your all pretty much making my case for a t-bar to the summit.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 12, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> You people don't listen lol. I said remove the double runners.



Sorry.  I was only responding to the quoted statement.  I didn't read your earlier post where you discussed the DR chairs.


And sikskier, I agree that a summit T probably makes the most sense.  I believe even Sugarloaf has made that comment.  However when goldenboy started the grandeur hypitheticals, I and others simply followed suit.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 12, 2015)

Quick question- why does management suggest that a fixed grip quad is the best replacement for the double runner area? It doesn't have significant wind issues and beginners would surely appreciate the slower loading and unloading speed that a detachable would enable. I think the double runners are pretty slow and a let-down compared to equivalent beginner lifts at any of the major resorts in the East. Between Snubber, Skidway, and Sawduster beginning skiers must think going skiing is all about getting whipped in the backside by a tiny chair and then spending forever in the air going 2 mph. I understand the issue of over-capacity in a crowded zone but can't you resolve that by sending fewer chairs up the line? I just don't understand the concept of spending millions on new lift equipment that is already outdated by 20 years on the day that you install it. Plus, in terms of weather, Sugarloaf is colder and windier than its competition in the East so it is even more important to have fast lifts so that skiers spend more time on the slopes and less time getting blasted by the cold. Stratton knows this which is why they built all those high speed six packs to attract more pansies from the big city and their tiny dog toting significant others. In order to attract more people you have to have competitive equipment.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 12, 2015)

At the same time, I don't know why I am advocating for more modern high capacity lifts to increase skier visits to Sugarloaf. Maybe us forum folk want to do everything to prevent modernization and expansion so that the slopes are uncrowded, i.e. more fresh tracks and corduroy for us. Eliminate all quads and replace with T-bars. Remove food prep and lounge at Bullwinkle's and replace with a department of motor vehicles waiting room. Eliminate the Bag Burger from the menu and replace with gruel.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 12, 2015)

Wind is still an issue there, hence the wind fencing that's in place.  In theory it would still run if the superquad went down due to wind and you could get to skyline or the T-bar.  

I don't think wind issues at Sugarloaf can be understated.  No other major resort in New England comes close to having as many windholds as they do.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 12, 2015)

just kidding anyway 

I would totally go for a t-bar, but I would like to see it on the front and not up Cinder Hoe. Up the side of Gondy line?


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 12, 2015)

From that standpoint I guess I do see the value of having an entirely fixed-grip option getting you from the base to the top of Spillway for those incredibly windy days. It just makes me sad is all... Still smarting from the fixed-grip terminal replacement of King Pine. Slow and cold.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 12, 2015)

Nice I like idea of T-bar up Gondi Line extension. Would literally be the most dangerous T-bar ride in the world. One fall and instant death.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 12, 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzDnQiVkWeQ


----------



## Jully (Aug 12, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> Quick question- why does management suggest that a fixed grip quad is the best replacement for the double runner area? It doesn't have significant wind issues and beginners would surely appreciate the slower loading and unloading speed that a detachable would enable. I think the double runners are pretty slow and a let-down compared to equivalent beginner lifts at any of the major resorts in the East. Between Snubber, Skidway, and Sawduster beginning skiers must think going skiing is all about getting whipped in the backside by a tiny chair and then spending forever in the air going 2 mph. I understand the issue of over-capacity in a crowded zone but can't you resolve that by sending fewer chairs up the line? I just don't understand the concept of spending millions on new lift equipment that is already outdated by 20 years on the day that you install it. Plus, in terms of weather, Sugarloaf is colder and windier than its competition in the East so it is even more important to have fast lifts so that skiers spend more time on the slopes and less time getting blasted by the cold. Stratton knows this which is why they built all those high speed six packs to attract more pansies from the big city and their tiny dog toting significant others. In order to attract more people you have to have competitive equipment.



I also think just cost prevents a high speed at the Double Runners. Wiffletree already provides high speed access and the DR are pretty short lifts. How many more skiers would come to SL if the Double Runners were a high speed? I doubt it would be anywhere near enough to be double the cost of a moved fixed grip lift. 

Wind holds are obviously a huge factor too.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 13, 2015)

The best t-bar route from a skiers standpoint would be way to lookers left from the Spillway x-cut so most of the terrain above the x-cut could be accessed.But it would be way too steep to be practicable.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Aug 13, 2015)

SIKSKIER said:


> The best t-bar route from a skiers standpoint would be way to lookers left from the Spillway x-cut so most of the terrain above the x-cut could be accessed.But it would be way too steep to be practicable.



Why can't a t-bar be steep?


----------



## Puck it (Aug 13, 2015)

DoublePlanker said:


> Why can't a t-bar be steep?


Breck is very steep.  And so are Roca's at Portillo.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Aug 13, 2015)

Cannon's old t-bars were steep.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 13, 2015)

DoublePlanker said:


> Why can't a t-bar be steep?



Because Sugarloaf already injures enough people with its chairlifts... Let's say even two people per day fall off the T-bar on one of the steepest iciest slopes on the east coast. Decent chance to get injured. Is it worth it to save a couple of clams? Or plan for the future and put in a detachable quad like a gentleman, which will run for 25 years and keep Sugarloaf competitive with Sunday River and its east coast rivals from the get-go.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 13, 2015)

Lookers left up Sugarloaf is probably the iciest place on the mountain & is the last to soften in the spring. The back snowfields soften way before that section being they get hit with early morning sun in the spring while the front side is still a sheet of ice. Not a good place for a T-bar if you ask me. As for steepness I don't think it's any steeper than the T-bar that used to be at Pico running lookers right of Giant Killer. Rode that lift plenty of times when it operated without issue.

As for what lift I think would be best to the summit I'd say the same lift as Spillway. Build it low to the ground to avoid as much wind as possible. Carpet loading would add a little speed. I just think a fixed grip would be better than a detachable seeing detachables have more issues with wind. Right up gondola line. Perhaps they could even use the old cement building that was the unloading station for the gondola for more protection, not sure if that's feasible for a chairlift. Only problem is the whole lift would need to be shut if it's to windy to run on top even with a mid station since the chairs don't detach.

I'd love to see a top to bottom lift where they'd be able to run the lift on the bottom section only on windy days. This would have to be a detachable where the chairs could run on the bottom section only then turn around. Don't think we'd see that being a lift like that would cost a lot of money. Can't just have a detach mid station where the chairs continue to the top like at Le Massif & Timberline. Would be the same problem as a fixed grip. They'd have to put in two bull wheels so the chairs could be turned around midway. Similar to stage I & II of the Skyeship gondola at Killington. It's actually two separate lifts in one that can be run independently.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 13, 2015)

I agree that a fixed grip like Skyline starting at old gondi mid-station or thereabouts and heading toward the summit is a decent idea. Then at least you could lap the backside snowfields and extensions in the Spring and make it back to the new summit lift fairly quickly. That's one of the downsides to the current Timberline is that its hard to get back there if you're doing anything besides skiing underneath that lift, which is sort of anticlimactic if you're looking for an aggressive snowfields experience.


----------



## ss20 (Aug 13, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> because sugarloaf already injures enough people with its chairlifts...



lmao!!!

Do you think ski resorts pay more for insurance with surface lifts because the risk for injury is greater than that of ariel lifts?  It's a good question to ask.


----------



## Smellytele (Aug 13, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> Because Sugarloaf already injures enough people with its chairlifts... Let's say even two people per day fall off the T-bar on one of the steepest iciest slopes on the east coast. Decent chance to get injured. Is it worth it to save a couple of clams? Or plan for the future and put in a detachable quad like a gentleman, which will run for 25 years and keep Sugarloaf competitive with Sunday River and its east coast rivals from the get-go.


With the same owners as SR why be competitive with them?


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 13, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> I agree that a fixed grip like Skyline starting at old gondi mid-station or thereabouts and heading toward the summit is a decent idea. Then at least you could lap the backside snowfields and extensions in the Spring and make it back to the new summit lift fairly quickly. That's one of the downsides to the current Timberline is that its hard to get back there if you're doing anything besides skiing underneath that lift, which is sort of anticlimactic if you're looking for an aggressive snowfields experience.



+1  didn't even think about another FGQ up the front. That's a good idea as well.  Timberline sucks.


----------



## WoodCore (Aug 13, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> ..............As for steepness I don't think it's any steeper than the T-bar that used to be at Pico running lookers right of Giant Killer. Rode that lift plenty of times when it operated without issue.



It was a poma lift not a t-bar that used to summit Pico next to Giant Killer, regardless, it is one steep mother!! The last section of the original Pico T-bar on Little Pico was also pretty steep.   



steamboat1 said:


> A
> 
> I'd love to see a top to bottom lift where they'd be able to run the lift on the bottom section only on windy days. This would have to be a detachable where the chairs could run on the bottom section only then turn around. Don't think we'd see that being a lift like that would cost a lot of money. Can't just have a detach mid station where the chairs continue to the top like at Le Massif & Timberline. Would be the same problem as a fixed grip. They'd have to put in two bull wheels so the chairs could be turned around midway. Similar to stage I & II of the Skyeship gondola at Killington. It's actually two separate lifts in one that can be run independently.



This is the way the original Sugarloaf Gondola was constructed. The 2 separate drive units were located in the mid-station and the lift could be run in 3 different configurations. In the final years of the lift only the summit section was operational.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 13, 2015)

Yes it was a poma. I stand corrected. Remember the little Pico T-bar too, even the beginner J bar to the left of it.

Yes I remember the final years of the gondi. If I got it right they had to cannibalize parts from the bottom section to keep the top running.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 13, 2015)

Smellytele said:


> With the same owners as SR why be competitive with them?



Because otherwise Sunday River ends up with all the goodies and Sugarloaf gets scrooged. I think SR has gotten like $40 million in capital investment since CNL/Boyne bought them. In that time Sugarloaf has received like three chain saws, a paint job, and a bubble bath.


----------



## dlague (Aug 13, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> Because otherwise Sunday River ends up with all the goodies and Sugarloaf gets scrooged. I think SR has gotten like $40 million in capital investment since CNL/Boyne bought them. In that time Sugarloaf has received like three chain saws, a paint job, and a bubble bath.



That is funny!


----------



## Jully (Aug 13, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> Because otherwise Sunday River ends up with all the goodies and Sugarloaf gets scrooged. I think SR has gotten like $40 million in capital investment since CNL/Boyne bought them. In that time Sugarloaf has received like three chain saws, a paint job, and a bubble bath.



And hundreds of snow guns and Skyline, but still not like SR you're right.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 13, 2015)

Jully said:


> And hundreds of snow guns and Skyline, but still not like SR you're right.



Yes, the snow guns are nice though ultimately a cost saving improvement to reduce electricity and water usage. I actually do not give CNL/Boyne credit for installing Skyline or the new King Pine terminal. They waited too long to upgrade, people got hurt, and then they were forced to replace, which they did at lowest possible cost with fixed grip. I don't mean to be too negative. I actually love Sugarloaf. I just want it to get better so that I can justify the longer drive from where I live now rather than heading to Killington or Stowe. I realize the economics of those two mountains are totally different.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 13, 2015)

The Skyline lift wasn't exactly low cost and is perfect for the terrain it services.   Much better choice than a HSQ.  Yes, their hand was forced, but they did a great job with it.

King Pine I will grant you is quite a disappointment.  That lift should have been completely replaced brand new and not retrofitted.  Even there, I'd be fine with a Fixed Grip with conveyor.  It's not that long of a lift and also gets windy as hell at the top terminal.  Really the major disappointment there though if you ask me, is that they are not extending the lift another 500 yards or so down the mountain.  That would open up a ton more of Bracket to be easily lapped off the chair than the current alignment.   I'm never inclined to travel very far out the ridge because you have to cut back so early to get back to the KP.  If you miss the cut back, it really SUCKS picking your way down to Whiffletree area.


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 13, 2015)

Below the current KP load station is really flat. Not sure extending the lift down helps the gladed terrain and just increases the run out.  As it is the KP pod the best continuous vert on the mtn.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 13, 2015)

I found some flat, but fun trees over that way.  Maybe not 500 yards, but a couple hundred I'd like.  There's some lines way over Burnt that are good, but drop you below KP


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 13, 2015)

Jully said:


> And hundreds of snow guns and Skyline, but still not like SR you're right.





deadheadskier said:


> The Skyline lift wasn't exactly low cost and is perfect for the terrain it services.   Much better choice than a HSQ.  Yes, their hand was forced, but they did a great job with it.



Skyline went in because the old lift practically killed a few folks ...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 13, 2015)

Right, hence why I said "their hand was forced." They did a good job with the chair, but it wasn't a proactive improvement.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 13, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> I don't mean to be too negative. I actually love Sugarloaf. I just want it to get better so that I can justify the longer drive from where I live now rather than heading to Killington or Stowe.


I agree with Stowe but what the hell has Killington done as far as new lifts lately?

SPE was 8 years ago. Lost another lift with no replacement yet.

Gotta admit coctails at the Peak are cool though.

See I can be negative about K....


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 14, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> I agree with Stowe but what the hell has Killington done as far as new lifts lately?


Killington has always had fast lifts that rarely shut down or malfunction. That mountain doesn't need much improvement though Loaf has quite a bit of deferred maintenance and improvements that would have been done if there was $.


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 14, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> Killington has always had fast lifts that rarely shut down or malfunction.


I guess you don't ski there to often. Delayed openings, mid day shut downs & malfunctions are common occurrences.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 14, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> I guess you don't ski there to often. Delayed openings, mid day shut downs & malfunctions are common occurrences.



Not super often, maybe 5-10 ski days each year over the last ten years. I don't think I've ever seen a lift out of service while I've been at Killington, for wind hold or mechanical issues. That may just be my good luck though, sounds like it based on your observations.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 14, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> The Skyline lift wasn't exactly low cost and is perfect for the terrain it services.   Much better choice than a HSQ.  Yes, their hand was forced, but they did a great job with it.
> 
> King Pine I will grant you is quite a disappointment.  That lift should have been completely replaced brand new and not retrofitted.  Even there, I'd be fine with a Fixed Grip with conveyor.  It's not that long of a lift and also gets windy as hell at the top terminal.  *Really the major disappointment there though if you ask me, is that they are not extending the lift another 500 yards or so down the mountain.*That would open up a ton more of Bracket to be easily lapped off the chair than the current alignment.   I'm never inclined to travel very far out the ridge because you have to cut back so early to get back to the KP.  If you miss the cut back, it really SUCKS picking your way down to Whiffletree area.



Not sure if they could've done what you suggested without forest service approval, which we know is a very slow, prolonged process.


----------



## mahmoudrodgarian (Aug 14, 2015)

سلام


----------



## Cat in January (Aug 14, 2015)

Why would they need forest service approval on private land?


----------



## xlr8r (Aug 14, 2015)

Ok, I have never been to Sugarloaf, and don't plan to anytime soon, but all this talk about its poor lift layout got me thinking about how I would fix it.  This might look crazy to some Sugarloaf regulars but I tried to think out of the box.






Red are existing lifts to remain as is, blue are new chairlifts, yellow is new T bar.

1. Remove Superquad.  Lift has proven to be unreliable for being the primary lift on the mountain.
2. Remove King Pine, and relocate refurbished Superquad to King Pine area on same alignment with the base lowered into Bracket Basin.  Brackett Basin looks to be underutilized because of its runout.  Longer lift would improve Bracket Basin lapping.
3. New Bucksaw Bubble Sixpack on new alignment up Haywire/Tote Road.  Serves Bucksaw area better with base located closer to Base Lodge.  Replaces Superquad capacity.  Bubbles provide protection on cold days.  Serves as new primary Base lift to get towards Summit.
4. Replace Timberline Quad with new Sixpack (no bubbles) on same alignment but with base lowered enough to be able to traverse over from Bullwinkles/top of new Bucksaw.  Heavy sixpack chairs are best for wind, chairs could be stored when not in use.  Bucksaw to Timberline becomes new primary base to summit route.  A two stage gondola would not work because it is more prone to wind issues.  And the alignment going straight from Bullwinkles does not work as it would be located exposed on the ridge crossing over almost all upper mountain trails.  It would be easier to just extend the Timberline Alignment down to be reached from Bullwinkles by a traverse.
5. New T bar up Binder Ext. able to be reached from top of Skyline. Backup summit lift used when Timberline is closed due to wind or other issues.  Also used by those that just want to lap upper mountain trails without going down to base of Timberline.  Skyline-T bar could be used to lap upper half of mountain.
6. Replace Double Runners with fixed grip Quad.  Double Runners are old and need to be replaced soon.  similar lift to SKyline seems to make sense here.
7. Remove Sawduster as it seems redundant.
8. Remove Bateau as it is very old.

Now I know everyone is going to say how can you remove the Superquad without a replacement.  My thinking is that the new Bucksaw chair replaces most of the need for the Superquad.  The new Bucksaw and Timberline layouts make for two high capacity intermediate pods.  And Skyline already seems to serve the upper mountain advanced pod well.  This creates 3 distinct pods all served by high capacity lifts.  Therefore the Superquad only overlaps onto these pods and would create overcrowding with the 2 new sixpacks going in.  Again I tried to think outside the box on this one, how crazy am I Sugarloaf regulars?


----------



## ss20 (Aug 14, 2015)

Add a traverse in Brackett all the way across to the main base.  Than add a 30-person tram that runs to the summit of Brunt.  Methinks that would run the cost of a HSQ.  Only 5-8 towers, a small cabin, trams don't require a lot of horsepower.  Very few moving parts, comparative to a detachable lift.


----------



## Jully (Aug 15, 2015)

The problem with the extended KP is it makes that pod on the mountain have a pretty long flat section at the end of the pod, basically the entire length of the extension. However, more people are doing Burnt than KP then it's a fine move


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 15, 2015)

Maybe some sort of surface lift below KP as a transfer back would be best of both worlds.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 15, 2015)

xlr8r said:


> Ok, I have never been to Sugarloaf, and don't plan to anytime soon, but all this talk about its poor lift layout got me thinking about how I would fix it.  This might look crazy to some Sugarloaf regulars but I tried to think out of the box.


I think it's an interesting idea that is also creative. If I had to pick a deficiency in the plan is that it doesn't contemplate a high speed option from the base to service advanced terrain. I think there should be some easy to access lift from the bottom that just delivers every time. When Wescott proposed a signature lift in 2009 after the recession, it still received a lot of support. There were some productive discussions around interesting ways to finance it. Now the economy is a little more stable and by next year Sugarloaf may very well have a new owner (potentially with deeper pockets). Currently the Super Quad is our signature lift from the base. I'm not sure removing and replacing with a hot Bucksaw chair would qualify as our KT-22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUjTr_l2BdQ


----------



## Jully (Aug 15, 2015)

I love the idea of a hot Bucksaw lift, however, the SuperQuad has a great mix of some advanced options. Bucksaw is too low to reach some of the trails to the lookers right. I could work with no SuperQuad versus a carpet loaded double runner and high speed KP.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 16, 2015)

I think not having a single chair to serve the race trails ie Narrow Gauge would be an issue. I really like the plan but would leave the Super Quad as is and simply install another HSQ to replace Bucksaw.

The problem they have is the current layout is just so bad and many lifts needing replacement where do they begin?

Their lift replacement pace has been glacial and reactionary.


----------



## machski (Aug 17, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Their lift replacement pace has been glacial and reactionary.



True and in hindsight it seems reactionary, but they (Boyne) have dropped enough money on snowmaking improvements to have replaced two lifts with HS lifts to this point.  And in my opinion, they needed to do all the snowmaking work ahead of lifts.  SL's system was ancient and vastly inadequate prior to Boyne stepping in.  New, fast lifts are nice but do nothing for you if you don't have the snow to deliver skiers and riders onto.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 17, 2015)

Roger that.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 17, 2015)

machski said:


> New, fast lifts are nice but do nothing for you if you don't have the snow to deliver skiers and riders onto.


I would never look a "gift" HKD SV10 Impulse snow gun in the nozzle, but to assume the devil's advocate perspective, and I understand this is hyperbolic, new snow guns do nothing for you when your ski lifts are literally trying to murder you. My perspective is this-- I grew up in Maine until I was 18 then moved out of state for job opportunities. When I am trying to convince my New England friends to drive a bunch of hours to Maine to enjoy my favorite home mountain with me, you'd rather have them say, isn't that the place that just put in a bunch of new lifts versus isn't that the place where a bunch of people got dropped from lifts. I know they're doing a good job retrofitting repairs and safety features but a major investment in new cool lifts would resolve the perception problem. If you're seeking uncrowded slopes maybe you don't mind the perception problem because you know its actually safe following the anti-rollback and lift removal initiatives. I'm just looking at it from a business perspective cause my head kind of works like that.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 17, 2015)

Even with the lift problems, business at Sugarloaf has been better than ever the past five years.    I'm not saying it can't improve, but those who thought their business would suffer after the Spillway accident were wrong.  I'm guessing they'll do just fine next year to despite the King Pine accident this year.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 17, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm guessing they'll do just fine next year to despite the King Pine accident this year.


Yes, in the past they seem to have bounced back nicely. Sugarloaf skiers are incredibly loyal. The core faithful will always be there. I think where you run into problems is in the area of growth... the marginal NH family or Montreal spring breakers that have options and may be on the fence about booking. Then there is the issue of what could have been... maybe visitors were up 3% last year and could have been up 5% (illustrative) without the accidents and with timely and sensible upgrades.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 17, 2015)

Maybe.  Just pointing out that your perception that their business isn't keeping up with the competition is false.   They're holding their own just fine despite not having "cool new lifts."  

It's a testament to the terrain they have.  People are willing to put up with the cold, wind holds and the long ass drive to ski the awesome terrain they have.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 17, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Maybe.  Just pointing out that your perception that their business isn't keeping up with the competition is false.


I would say that separating out visitation from business competitiveness, as it is currently configured, the lift system at Sugarloaf is unsustainable. I went on New England Ski History to do a quick tally of average lift age for each resort. Here is the average lift age of several of Sugarloaf's competitors (includes old T-bars and Poma Lifts): Sugarloaf (31.5 yrs including Bucksaw, 30.3 without it), Killington (27.0 years), Sunday River (22.3 years), Loon Mountain (23.4 years), Stowe (17.1 years), Jay Peak (22.7 years), Stratton (23.6 years), Sugarbush (23.0 years). So the good news is that Killington is in the same camp as Sugarloaf in terms of an aging lift system that needs to be addressed. The bad news is that the rest of Sugarloaf's competition is almost a decade ahead of them in terms of lift capacity. It's not just that Sugarloaf can hang on by a thread now. It's the fact that over the next ten years, Sugarloaf will have "catch up" deferred capital expenditures, perhaps $10 million, that needs to be spent just to tread water relative to its competition (from the standpoint of safety if nothing else). Whatever the amount of catch-up capital expenditures happens to be is money that can't be spent on other important projects such as base lodge improvements, hospitality, infrastructure, etc. So from a competitiveness standpoint, being behind the eight ball on lifts is not ideal as it affects the entire resort. It's also somewhat of an albatross from the standpoint of potential buyers. Stowe and Stratton are smart because they have huge capacity but do it with relatively few lifts (11 each).


----------



## steamboat1 (Aug 17, 2015)

Not defending Killington since they haven't installed a new lift in 6 years but I'm sure their average is skewed. They have 1 operational lift dating back to 1958 (Snowdon poma) & two others from the early 60's (Snowshed I & II). If you take them out of the equation I'm sure their average is much more in line with other areas. Snowshed I & II are rarely used & even the poma has seen much less use the past two seasons.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 17, 2015)

As a cautionary tale, this is what happens when your favorite mountain lets its competition install high speed quads without responding... you end up hanging out on a porch in your shorts drinking tequila off of an old Rossignal. Is this what you want? JK, these are friends.


----------



## benski (Aug 17, 2015)

I am very doubtful the general public can compare ski areas based on age of lifts.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 17, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> If you take them out of the equation I'm sure their average is much more in line with other areas.


Yup, I hear you regarding Killington. Most of these resorts have 1 or 2 clunkers (though not necessarily unsafe if they are surface lifts). Loon, Jay Peak, and Sugarbush all have a clunker or two from the 1960's. I left them all in for the sake of consistency. You could say even Sugarloaf looks worse than it is since Snubber, Sawduster, Skidway, and Double Runners are not as dangerous since they are baby lifts but anything can happen.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 17, 2015)

benski said:


> I am very doubtful the general public can compare ski areas based on age of lifts.



Yeah, people aren't going to websites and figuring out how old the lifts are at a given area. 

I'm sure people would like a new lift to help relieve base congestion.  It is stated that the Double Runners are in line for replacement.  That should help a lot.  Hopefully when they are built, the base of the lifts are more convenient to the Base Lodge.  That's their biggest problem.  I'm sure many people with young kids opt for Sunday River because the lifts all go right close to the lodge/parking.  

You can spin things however you want Goldenboy, but it doesn't change that Sugarloaf is doing the best business they ever have in terms of skier visits and revenue.  If that starts to change, I'm sure they will react appropriately if the resources are available.  They have so far under Boyne.  Slow and steady wins the race.  Too fast, and you're the next ASC.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 17, 2015)

benski said:


> I am very doubtful the general public can compare ski areas based on age of lifts.


You are absolutely 100% correct. It's cause and effect, symptom and affliction. You don't know the average age of the lifts but you see news articles in the paper and people talking about the accidents. We wouldn't even be talking about this issue at all if we we didn't see the symptoms.


----------



## cdskier (Aug 17, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Not defending Killington since they haven't installed a new lift in 6 years but I'm sure their average is skewed. They have 1 operational lift dating back to 1958 (Snowdon poma) & two others from the early 60's (Snowshed I & II). If you take them out of the equation I'm sure their average is much more in line with other areas. Snowshed I & II are rarely used & even the poma has seen much less use the past two seasons.



Agreed. Sugarbush is skewed by 2 remaining lifts from the 60s which are not really key lifts as well. The Village Double serves a bunny hill. The Sunshine double is another short lift that just serves the terrain park at ME. Take those out of the equation and SB's average lift age drops to 18-19 years. And then what about older lifts that have been completely overhauled? At Sugarbush for example, just last season a number of key lifts were significantly rebuilt (complete replacement of electronics and/or drive train in some cases, etc). Replacing key lift components really make the lifts "act" much younger than they are.

Overall I agree with the theme of most people in the last few comments that the lift infrastructure age is not something your average person considers when deciding where to go skiing. Sure a new lift can potentially generate some buzz and maybe attract more people, but I know I've never based a decision on this.


----------



## Jully (Aug 17, 2015)

Unless it's a key lift, like the Double Runners at SL as a primary path out of the base lodge, I don't really agree with looking at lift age as a degree of competitiveness for a resort.

As long as the old lift is safe and runs at a halfway decent speed, assuming it's not a main lift up the mountain, who cares how old it is? 

Not that Waterville fits into the discussion of SL, Killington, etc, but the age of the lifts fit in my opinion. You have the Northside Double and Sunnyside Triple both 35 years old or so, but they work fine for their purpose. I don't see a need to replace those lifts at all.


----------



## dlague (Aug 18, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Yeah, people aren't going to websites and figuring out how old the lifts are at a given area.
> 
> I'm sure people would like a new lift to help relieve base congestion.  It is stated that the Double Runners are in line for replacement.  That should help a lot.  Hopefully when they are built, the base of the lifts are more convenient to the Base Lodge.  That's their biggest problem.  I'm sure many people with young kids opt for Sunday River because the lifts all go right close to the lodge/parking.
> 
> You can spin things however you want Goldenboy, but it doesn't change that Sugarloaf is doing the best business they ever have in terms of skier visits and revenue.  If that starts to change, I'm sure they will react appropriately if the resources are available.  They have so far under Boyne.  Slow and steady wins the race.  Too fast, and you're the next ASC.



I am sure that the average skier or snowboarder pays little attention to average lift age.  Only on forums like this is it brought up.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 18, 2015)

Speaking of lift age how old would one consider Cannons Tuckerbrook,Brookside and Eagle Cliff?They all came from Sunnapee's used summit lift.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 18, 2015)

SIKSKIER said:


> Speaking of lift age how old would one consider Cannons Tuckerbrook,Brookside and Eagle Cliff?They all came from Sunnapee's used summit lift.



I think you might be wrong.  Tuckerbrook was new in 2003.   Eaglecliff and Brookside were the old Sunapee Triple chair installed in 1998.


----------



## machski (Aug 18, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> I would never look a "gift" HKD SV10 Impulse snow gun in the nozzle, but to assume the devil's advocate perspective, and I understand this is hyperbolic, new snow guns do nothing for you when your ski lifts are literally trying to murder you. My perspective is this-- I grew up in Maine until I was 18 then moved out of state for job opportunities. When I am trying to convince my New England friends to drive a bunch of hours to Maine to enjoy my favorite home mountain with me, you'd rather have them say, isn't that the place that just put in a bunch of new lifts versus isn't that the place where a bunch of people got dropped from lifts. I know they're doing a good job retrofitting repairs and safety features but a major investment in new cool lifts would resolve the perception problem. If you're seeking uncrowded slopes maybe you don't mind the perception problem because you know its actually safe following the anti-rollback and lift removal initiatives. I'm just looking at it from a business perspective cause my head kind of works like that.



See, and you're also wrong on snowmaking equipment.  I was not talking a few new low e guns, SL has overhauled the entire system.  Rebuilt pumps, new pumps, new valve Assemblies, new piping, everything you don't really see in the system.  That was a lot of $$.  So sure, you can't see most of that, but you can surely see what it puts on the hill.  Now, go with your "business" instinct and put in shinny new HS lifts without the snowmaking system investment.  When those shinny lifts are sitting idle due to lack of snow, it won't look like the best business decision.  Both lift accidents were unfortunate, but I think Boyne's plan is sound.


----------



## Whitey (Aug 19, 2015)

machski said:


> See, and you're also wrong on snowmaking equipment.  I was not talking a few new low e guns, SL has overhauled the entire system.  Rebuilt pumps, new pumps, new valve Assemblies, new piping, everything you don't really see in the system.  That was a lot of $$.  So sure, you can't see most of that, but you can surely see what it puts on the hill.  Now, go with your "business" instinct and put in shinny new HS lifts without the snowmaking system investment.  When those shinny lifts are sitting idle due to lack of snow, it won't look like the best business decision.  Both lift accidents were unfortunate, but I think Boyne's plan is sound.



Good points Machski.  SL was behind the times on snowmaking because they always figured that their location/elevation/latitude made it less necessary for them.   It was time to address that.   

I know a lot of this thread is about the safety concerns and there is probably a lot of validity to that.   But on the capacity side - I skied SL on a weekend in March, with prime conditions, the alpine nationals there, and the KP lift down.    I really didn't have any issues with long lift lines and even getting over to Brackett wasn't bad off of the Skyline lift.


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 19, 2015)

If KP is down lapping Brackett is very annoying. You have a long run out back to Whiffletree basically and then you repeat the process.
We did that a few times during the yr the Summit had all the wind holds---rode Bateau #3 up and did the single track cat walk traverse all the way over to Brackett.
It was nice because no one was over there but it was a long process for the amt of skiing we got in.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 19, 2015)

Puck it said:


> I think you might be wrong.  Tuckerbrook was new in 2003.   Eaglecliff and Brookside were the old Sunapee Triple chair installed in 1998.



Exactly right Puck.Easy to confirm as the first 2 are triples and the Tuck is a quad!


----------



## Puck it (Aug 19, 2015)

SIKSKIER said:


> Exactly right Puck.Easy to confirm as the first 2 are triples and the Tuck is a quad!


  I think the old Sunapee triple is the same vintage as the Zoomer.  Very similar chair design.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 19, 2015)

machski said:


> See, and you're also wrong on snowmaking equipment.


How am I wrong on snowmaking equipment? I love snowmaking equipment, plus it saves you money. Also, I am not implying that the average skier does the math that I did proving Sugarloaf has the oldest lifts of the major resorts on the east coast. I am just saying that the math and the accidents appear to be correlated. Spillway East was 35 years old when the deropement occurred in 2010. King Pine was 27 years old in 2015 when the rollback occurred. Now everyone is attacking me because I suggested that Sugarloaf has failed to stay competitive with its lift system (which it has). Put in a new gondola and revitalize the marketing campaign and boost visitors. Replace some of the super old feeder lifts with high speed lifts and sell some condos. Its not rocket science. Borrowing costs are about as low as they will ever be. It's about planning for the future, but you do need a stable owner with some vision. Somebody should send Louis Bacon (bought Taos) a care package of Maine lobsters and blueberry pies.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 19, 2015)

machski said:


> Both lift accidents were unfortunate, but I think Boyne's plan is sound.


Boyne is a very good operator, no doubt. They are doing the best they can with what they have been given. My issue is with the owner, CNL Lifestyle Properties, which is a failed REIT. They didn't give Boyne the resources to keep plant, property and equipment at a reasonable level. CNL hired Jefferies LLC, where I used to work, to sell them. Hopefully their team can get resolution to buyer problem so that more meaningful future improvements are not in limbo.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 19, 2015)

Borrowing costs maybe low, but good luck finding a bank to finance ski area growth in a flat industry.

If you haven't noticed, resorts are having to go with EB-5 or proceeds from their own real estate developments or operating profits to fund all this very expensive equipment you're wishing for.

The days of easy financing for ski areas ended decades ago.  My father helped finance numerous projects for ski areas in the 80s and 90s while working for Bank of Boston.  The easy money dried up LONG ago.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 19, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> The easy money dried up LONG ago.


Sounds like we're going to need a lot of blueberry pies...


----------



## Jully (Aug 20, 2015)

Let me rephrase what I said then. I don't think Sugarloaf should be spending their money on a high speed quad for any feeder lift, as in West Mountain, Snubber, or Double Runners. It won't help with anything. 

Double Runners will hopefully be replaced soon, but dropping an extra few million dollars on an HSQ for a lift with what, 700 feet of vertical flanked by two HSQs already, seems pointless to me. I'd love to see a skyline equivalent there. It offers a fixed grip option up the mountain at half the cost of an HSQ. 

I think mountains that maintain older fixed grip lifts in non essential areas of the mountain are making great business decisions by doing that. Replacing everything with HSQs isn't the answer.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 20, 2015)

Jully said:


> Let me rephrase what I said then. I don't think Sugarloaf should be spending their money on a high speed quad for any feeder lift, as in West Mountain, Snubber, or Double Runners. It won't help with anything.
> 
> Double Runners will hopefully be replaced soon, but dropping an extra few million dollars on an HSQ for a lift with what, 700 feet of vertical flanked by two HSQs already, seems pointless to me. I'd love to see a skyline equivalent there. It offers a fixed grip option up the mountain at half the cost of an HSQ.
> 
> I think mountains that maintain older fixed grip lifts in non essential areas of the mountain are making great business decisions by doing that. Replacing everything with HSQs isn't the answer.



They will never put a HSQ in to replace Double Runners nor should they for the reasons you mentioned. Did someone say they should?

West Mountain is 1 trail, so also not an option. Snubber is well, Snubber, also not an option.

HSQ replacing Bucksaw I think is a reasonable option, there is a good amount of terrain in that pod.  It has the length and downhill capacity, and soon, no lift.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 21, 2015)

I'll go on record saying I support the fixed grip quad to replace the Double Runner. Too much skier traffic on the bunny slopes isn't good for anyone. Nice to be able to take fixed-grip (DR to SL) most of the way to the top on a windy day. For the Snubber, I don't know... It probably needs to be replaced sooner rather than later as it's 30 years old. Can't risk dropping any more skiers (plus its really high where it rises above Sawduster). I'd probably replace the Snubber with a HSQ. It services a lot of houses, condos, and hotel rooms -- putting in a HSQ would raise the property values of every single piece of property alongside it. Lifts aren't going to get any cheaper in the future. In the year 2040, I doubt Sugarloaf would look back and regret a $3-4 million investment in 2016 that would support some of its most valuable real estate for the next 25 years. I think Bucksaw will get redone next summer. If I had purchased a townhouse in the Timbers development I'd be upset if it didn't get done soon.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 21, 2015)

Keep in mind that running a ski resort is primarily a real estate business. Lift tickets, etc. typically only covers the cost of utilities. Need to do whatever you can to increase property values and desirability of purchasing lots, spec houses, and hotel rooms. Otherwise the Maine doctors and lawyers that acquire these sorts of things will look elsewhere and often out-of-state.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 21, 2015)

You will never in your lifetime see a HSQ for Snubber.  I don't care if Mark Cuban buys the place.  The capacity is not needed.  The ROI would never be realized.  I've stayed in those condos many times and the lift is more than adequate.


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 21, 2015)

My $.02 as someone who has skied SL nearly as much as any other mtn in his life (100+days)

A HSQ for KP makes more sense than any of the low angle condo lifts.
The Bucksaw area should be better utilized so perhaps a HSQ over there would serve to open up that terrain and also alleviate some pressure on the SQ.

Sell Timberline quad to raise capital to fund other improvements. That chair may not bring much back in sale though.
I'd rather see them put a surface lift up to the top or even a surface lift to top of Burnt Mtn.
The Timberline chair is very under utilized because the terrain up there is not worth skiing for the amt of time you are on the lift (unless the ice fields are good or access to back side)


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 21, 2015)

I plan to live at least 50 more years so as long as global warming hasn't eradicated all snow by then, I will definitely take that bet. I may have to knock on your door, perhaps in the year 2065, to collect my $10 but I will be there and will be wearing a Mavericks hat.


----------



## Jully (Aug 21, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> They will never put a HSQ in to replace Double Runners nor should they for the reasons you mentioned. Did someone say they should?
> 
> West Mountain is 1 trail, so also not an option. Snubber is well, Snubber, also not an option.
> 
> HSQ replacing Bucksaw I think is a reasonable option, there is a good amount of terrain in that pod.  It has the length and downhill capacity, and soon, no lift.



I agree there. A Bucksaw HSQ would be excellent, KP too. If I were a mostly lower intermediate family with one or two advanced members, SL becomes vastly superior to SR with a high speed bucksaw. With no bucksaw I think I'd go with SR right now.


----------



## Jully (Aug 21, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> I plan to live at least 50 more years so as long as global warming hasn't eradicated all snow by then, I will definitely take that bet. I may have to knock on your door, perhaps in the year 2065, to collect my $10 but I will be there and will be wearing a Mavericks hat.



I mean... You're right about the real estate values I think. However, I don't believe any other resort in the east has an HSQ serving condos like that. Look at even okemo, they've left the A and B quads as mandatory transfer lifts for not just condo owners, but the entire skiing public. The money doesn't appear to be there.

However, if they do end up doing that, they would have  very unique condo offerings. 

I think a Snubber HSQ would be more on the line of 5 million based off what I've seen other lifts go for recently as opposed to 3 to 4. Could be completely wrong though.


----------



## ss20 (Aug 21, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> You will never in your lifetime see a HSQ for Snubber.  I don't care if Mark Cuban buys the place.  The capacity is not needed.  The ROI would never be realized.  I've stayed in those condos many times and the lift is more than adequate.



Ditto.  This thread was kinda cool when everyone was joking about dream lift setups.  Then when I realized some people were actually serious I tuned out.  Guess it hasn't changed in a few days.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 21, 2015)

If I were a condo owner I'd actually be pissed if they bothered even replacing it with a fixed grip in the next 20 years.  A lift like that should last 50 years or more if properly maintained.  There are so many other areas I'd rather money be spent on.  As mentioned, KP, DR, TL and BS lifts.  Summit surface lift, Bracket surface lift, more snowmaking improvements, expanded Bullwinkles, new summer attractions,  improved restaurants.   The last thing I'd want to see is $5M wasted on a fast transfer lift that I ride once a day.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 21, 2015)

Yes, I'm just guessing on Snubber replacement cost as I don't really know. I think long overall length (5,460') is somewhat offset by ease of installation on a flat easy-to-access slope. If they actually went ahead and did this it would not only be a unique opportunity for developers but also a pretty unbelievable place for beginners and very young children to score a ton of laps on a long trail. It is bold but sometimes an aggressive move can lead to good things down the road. If you installed a Snubber HSQ in the coming years, you might not see the real estate benefits for 5-10+ years, perhaps on the back of a statewide economic boom,  but eventually you'd see the impact. With a Bucksaw high-speed lift installation you'd see the impact more quickly and that's why I think it will be the next replacement (along with DR fixed-grip).


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 21, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> The last thing I'd want to see is $5M wasted on a fast transfer lift that I ride once a day.


I hear you. I definitely would personally be more enthused about replacement of any of the lifts you mentioned- all I really care about is getting in as many runs on steeps and glades as possible. I'm just thinking about base development opportunities to grow the resort to pay for continued expansion onto new expert terrain. For instance, you could line the Birches / Snowbrook trail with a whole host of new businesses if there was a speedy way to get back to the base from the bottom of Snowbrook that didn't take forever. It would also nicely service some of the lower parking lots. Just an idea, may be impractical. Interesting to think about how things could change and evolve depending on which areas you emphasize as a resort.


----------



## soposkier (Aug 21, 2015)

xwhaler said:


> My $.02 as someone who has skied SL nearly as much as any other mtn in his life (100+days)
> 
> A HSQ for KP makes more sense than any of the low angle condo lifts.
> The Bucksaw area should be better utilized so perhaps a HSQ over there would serve to open up that terrain and also alleviate some pressure on the SQ.
> ...



A good amount of bengineers and intermediates utilize the timberline chair.  Timberline ( the trail) is a good cruiser and has more character than your typical beginner trail.  I know a few people who are new to the sport who much prefer just lapping timberline or bucksaw than skiing off whiffletree, DR,  or the superquad.


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 21, 2015)

soposkier said:


> A good amount of bengineers and intermediates utilize the timberline chair.  Timberline ( the trail) is a good cruiser and has more character than your typical beginner trail.  I know a few people who are new to the sport who much prefer just lapping timberline or bucksaw than skiing off whiffletree, DR,  or the superquad.



That's interesting.  In all my yrs of skiing SL Timberline has been a 1 and done for me on the day. I use it to do the ice fields but wouldn't think to lap it.     
Surprised to hear intermediates would find enough value in that terrain to put up with the long, cold lift.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 21, 2015)

xwhaler said:


> That's interesting.  In all my yrs of skiing SL Timberline has been a 1 and done for me on the day. I use it to do the ice fields but wouldn't think to lap it.
> Surprised to hear intermediates would find enough value in that terrain to put up with the long, cold lift.


I found some cannon-Esque trees up there.


----------



## xwhaler (Aug 21, 2015)

Perhaps. And I'm sure pretty sweet when snow is good given they won't get utilized much.  I will say the views out to the Bigelows and west to the Mahoosucs make riding that lift worth it.


----------



## dlague (Aug 22, 2015)

xwhaler said:


> That's interesting.  In all my yrs of skiing SL Timberline has been a 1 and done for me on the day. I use it to do the ice fields but wouldn't think to lap it.
> Surprised to hear intermediates would find enough value in that terrain to put up with the long, cold lift.



+1


----------



## machski (Aug 23, 2015)

I dought as well a Snubber replacement is even in SL's thought process.  But if it were, and if it was going to be something detach, I would think they would replace both Snubber and Sawduster and put a midstation near sawduster base and then run the new lift right up sawduster's line to its unload.  Would provide for better distribution to all the main lower mountain lifts this way, not just whiffletree.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 23, 2015)

Are we really having a conversation about Snubber and high Speed quads?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 23, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Are we really having a conversation about Snubber and high Speed quads?



I was thinking the same. A snubber HSQ makes absolutely no sense considering the volume of skier traffic (or lack thereof), terrain served, and the fact that the HSQ's at the base are overloaded as it is. Not sure how this even got brought in the first place.


----------



## ss20 (Aug 24, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> Are we really having a conversation about Snubber and high Speed quads?



It's so stupid I haven't commented on it's stupidity.  Some of these posts are things a troll would post but they're being serious... and people have been replying to them!?!?


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 24, 2015)

ss20 said:


> It's so stupid I haven't commented on it's stupidity.


It got brought up because we're on page 18 of a thread about Bucksaw. When you've talked about everything else you start spit-balling ideas that may not be fun to think about but are responsible- the context is the age of the lift system. Currently, the five oldest lifts besides the T-bar are Bucksaw Double (1969), Sawduster Double (1970), Double Runner (1973-1974), West Mountain Double (1984), and Snubber Triple (1985). That puts each of these lifts at between 30-46 years old. These lifts are slow and replacement parts can be hard to find. So within the context of replacing these lifts, which would be most conducive to selling more condos? If I had to rank them I'd say 1) Bucksaw, 2) Snubber, 3) West Mountain, 4) Double Runner, 5) Sawduster. In terms of being critical to operations, I would say Double Runner ranks first. Whether or not any of these lifts are high-speed is somewhat irrelevant as the most important thing is safety. I know some resorts run their fixed-grip chairs for 40+ years but why risk it. For $86 lift tickets, I'd like to see some of the older lifts replaced is all.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 24, 2015)

By the way, apparently two guys on Sugarloaf Today forum with insider information on lift replacement corroborated one another saying that a high-speed chair to replace the Double Runner is scheduled for installation in Summer 2016. Looking forward to a very crowded Boardwalk and a somewhat less crowded Super Quad if that is the case.


----------



## Jully (Aug 25, 2015)

That's whack. Hope that doesn't happen. It'll make skyline more crowded too. I'd be shocked if they installed a HSQ next year anyways.


----------



## machski (Aug 25, 2015)

High speed quad, fixed grip carpet load quad, what's the difference in terms of skier traffic?  They both typically move the same amount of skiers an hour (sure a HSQ is faster, but wider chair spacing on them causes similar hourly capacities)


----------



## machski (Aug 25, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> By the way, apparently two guys on Sugarloaf Today forum with insider information on lift replacement corroborated one another saying that a high-speed chair to replace the Double Runner is scheduled for installation in Summer 2016. Looking forward to a very crowded Boardwalk and a somewhat less crowded Super Quad if that is the case.



They were joking.  In fact, SL has removed planned future lift upgrades from its 2020 vision pages.


----------



## soposkier (Aug 25, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> By the way, apparently two guys on Sugarloaf Today forum with insider information on lift replacement corroborated one another saying that a high-speed chair to replace the Double Runner is scheduled for installation in Summer 2016. Looking forward to a very crowded Boardwalk and a somewhat less crowded Super Quad if that is the case.



Don't think that's real Intel.....


----------



## Jully (Aug 25, 2015)

machski said:


> High speed quad, fixed grip carpet load quad, what's the difference in terms of skier traffic?  They both typically move the same amount of skiers an hour (sure a HSQ is faster, but wider chair spacing on them causes similar hourly capacities)



I'm just referring to the cost of it. Capacity is the same, yeah.


----------



## Jully (Aug 25, 2015)

machski said:


> They were joking.  In fact, SL has removed planned future lift upgrades from its 2020 vision pages.



What on earth. Guess we're done with lift upgrades now then! That's tough


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Aug 25, 2015)

So basically SL only upgrades lifts when an old one fails (near-)catastrophically? Nice.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Aug 25, 2015)

Based on what I've read about the borescope gearbox diagnostics and rebuilds happening this summer, I don't think we'll see another accident for a long time. That being said, a policy of proactive lift replacement seems like the best way to ensure you've got access to the latest safety tech, wind resistant design, and replacement parts availability. Important when you've got little kids riding these things. I'm expendable.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Aug 25, 2015)

Proactive lift replacement is one thing, proactive maintenance is another. If they want earn the publics trust again they need to address lift safety from every angle.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 11, 2015)

Well, if the information provided here is true, in the next five years the Loaf will be replacing Bucksaw with a HSQ, replacing Timberline with a HSQ and extending it down to Bullwinkles AND adding a T-Bar in Brackett Basin.  
http://www.sugarloaftoday.com/chat/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7340&sid=c2adbbc4807f4418fa13df4b702c3242


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 11, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Well, if the information provided here is true, in the next five years the Loaf will be replacing Bucksaw with a HSQ, replacing Timberline with a HSQ and extending it down to Bullwinkles AND adding a T-Bar in Brackett Basin.
> http://www.sugarloaftoday.com/chat/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7340&sid=c2adbbc4807f4418fa13df4b702c3242



I think timberline with a detachable is a bad idea. Too windy up there. I think a skyline situation would be better, no?

Not sure how I feel about bracket t-bar. That area gets skied off pretty quickly already.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 11, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Well, if the information provided here is true, in the next five years the Loaf will be replacing Bucksaw with a HSQ, replacing Timberline with a HSQ and extending it down to Bullwinkles AND adding a T-Bar in Brackett Basin.
> http://www.sugarloaftoday.com/chat/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7340&sid=c2adbbc4807f4418fa13df4b702c3242



Nice


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 11, 2015)

wa-loaf said:


> I think timberline with a detachable is a bad idea. Too windy up there. I think a skyline situation would be better, no?
> 
> Not sure how I feel about bracket t-bar. That area gets skied off pretty quickly already.



Agreed on Timberline.  

As for the Bracket lift, it will obviously bring more traffic to the area, but it's hard to gauge how much.  I'd like to see a drawing of where it's planned for.   I've never ventured much more than maybe 500 yards beyond Ripsaw.  That's not a lot when the developed terrain has to extend well over a mile.  It's always seemed like diminishing returns to traverse out that far for short vertical.   Maybe this lift helps disperse (lazy like me) people further out into the basin and reduces a bit of traffic in the terrain closer to King Pine.  

Also in that thread is talk of another F&B facility at the top of Whiffletree.  I think that's a great idea.


----------



## bigbog (Oct 11, 2015)

You're on top of things DHS..so I guess they either have started or will put in a lift in Brackett.
Management would never listen to anything I have(LOL) but the area around Bullwinkles would be golden thru the trees....the cafe should be leveled and brought down to the base area and rocks/dirt/sod should be moved into the area.  You want to disperse crowds you need to provide more variety, as in some possible drops, not just one flavor in several trails, but tell that to management. 
Too bad, in management's hunt for riches, that they don't realize that if they were to lower their Pass pricing schema they'd get more skiers...(duh).  It's the conveniences at the area or mgmnts' other resorts(ie SR) that mgmnts try to match with other resorts...that are meaningless to the skiing, and mgmnt gets so focused on those that it saps $$$ out of really needed lift maintenance/upgrades(nothing new..).


----------



## Jully (Oct 11, 2015)

New restaurant would be huge. Though if they extend timberline down to Bullwinkle's that would increase traffic there too. 

Definitely think it's too windy at the summit for a detach. Also, it's not exactly a straight line from Bullwinkle's to the summit is it? 

Also in that discussion they apparently talked about increasing snowmaking pumping capacity to 10,000 gpm. What!?


----------



## machski (Oct 11, 2015)

New restaurant might ensure WT runs more often.  Sounds like a big wish list but here's a thought of caution.  If they were going to do a conveyer load on KP, why wait?  This sounds like a dream list to me.  Good to see new management with hopes and goals, but given SL's track record, that's all it is at this point.


----------



## Jully (Oct 11, 2015)

Oh by FAR a wish list. Huge stuff on this list. They're waiting on the KP conveyor because they're adding that when they lower the location of the terminal. Guess they don't really see a need for a conveyor with the currently alignment right now.


----------



## skiMEbike (Oct 12, 2015)

Let's just say this is a "vision" versus a plan...It's nice to see the excitement, however I am amazed they are announcing such radical capital improvements given the state of CNL.   Anyways, I'll "play along" pretend this will ALL happen & provide my all important "customer" feedback that I know the Loaf values so much:
- Extending KPine is a waste, especially considering they "WILL" add a T-Bar to access Brackett....Why ruin the trail pod at king pine by adding an unnecessary useless flat run out (btw this is not intended to get us into a discussion of what is or is not a "pod").
-I like the idea of replacing Bucksaw especially if there's consideration/method to get to the summit....I can't tell if they are "proposing" a base to summit lift with an load/unload or two lifts.....HOWEVER,  I believe having the bucksaw lift base in the same area as the old one kind of defeats the purpose & will not draw the skier traffic there, because it is too far from the masses (base area).   I don't have the solution, but somehow getting the masses closer to the lift or getting the lift closer to the masses needs to happen to in order draw the skiers to use a new lift there.
-Restaurant at top of WTree seems overkill, except on the busiest of weekends....Running that place in the dead of winter seems like a waste of money to build up all that infrastructure when you have it over on the West Side of the Mtn at Bullwinkles....To me it would make better since to expand on what you have at Bullwinkles...Expand it.  Make it better & see if you can bring in some summer revenue....This would only help in bullet 2 above, by having a "draw" to a new lift with "access" to the summit having to go  through Bullwinkles.
-A detach to the summit seems silly & an extra headache.

To me the best news in all of this is:   More than doubling the water flow 4500 gpm to 10000 gpm !!!   

The most disappointing news:   Bobs Clam Hut is GONE !!

The reality & most exciting news:  I will be skiing within a MONTH !!!!


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 12, 2015)

All seems good to me - though that's a big wish list.


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 12, 2015)

Bullwinkles is too small and needs to be expanded. Don't know if the food is any good there because I have never found a table after walking through all the skis left on the ground in front of the place. Just take a leak and leave


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 12, 2015)

Agreed.  Very difficult to get a seat on the weekends at Bullwinkles. 

I'd rather an new venue at the top of Whiffletree over an expanded Bullwinkles though.  It probably doesn't make as much business sense as you wouldn't capitalize on summer revenue, but I typically prefer skiing over on that side of the mountain.  Would be nice to be able to grab lunch while skiing of King Pine chair without going down to the base.


----------



## skiMEbike (Oct 12, 2015)

Smellytele said:


> Bullwinkles is too small and needs to be expanded. Don't know if the food is any good there because I have never found a table after walking through all the skis left on the ground in front of the place. Just take a leak and leave



I typically don't even bother to go in....I usually just piss on the skis laying on the ground.


----------



## Jully (Oct 12, 2015)

skiMEbike said:


> Let's just say this is a "vision" versus a plan...It's nice to see the excitement, however I am amazed they are announcing such radical capital improvements given the state of CNL.   Anyways, I'll "play along" pretend this will ALL happen & provide my all important "customer" feedback that I know the Loaf values so much:
> - Extending KPine is a waste, especially considering they "WILL" add a T-Bar to access Brackett....Why ruin the trail pod at king pine by adding an unnecessary useless flat run out (btw this is not intended to get us into a discussion of what is or is not a "pod").
> -I like the idea of replacing Bucksaw especially if there's consideration/method to get to the summit....I can't tell if they are "proposing" a base to summit lift with an load/unload or two lifts.....HOWEVER,  I believe having the bucksaw lift base in the same area as the old one kind of defeats the purpose & will not draw the skier traffic there, because it is too far from the masses (base area).   I don't have the solution, but somehow getting the masses closer to the lift or getting the lift closer to the masses needs to happen to in order draw the skiers to use a new lift there.
> -Restaurant at top of WTree seems overkill, except on the busiest of weekends....Running that place in the dead of winter seems like a waste of money to build up all that infrastructure when you have it over on the West Side of the Mtn at Bullwinkles....To me it would make better since to expand on what you have at Bullwinkles...Expand it.  Make it better & see if you can bring in some summer revenue....This would only help in bullet 2 above, by having a "draw" to a new lift with "access" to the summit having to go  through Bullwinkles.
> ...



From the power point proposed, the bucksaw replacement is not going to have a base where the old one did. It's going to be a pulse gondola with two chains of 15 cabins each installed in 2024 I think. It's going to have a base at the superquad and then turn at the old bucksaw base, then continue up to Bullwinkle's.


----------



## skiMEbike (Oct 12, 2015)

Jully said:


> From the power point proposed, the bucksaw replacement is not going to have a base where the old one did. It's going to be a pulse gondola with two chains of 15 cabins each installed in 2024 I think. It's going to have a base at the superquad and then turn at the old bucksaw base, then continue up to Bullwinkle's.



I assume you know the powerpoint from the Sugarloaf chat is not real....It's someone's pie in the sky dream....HOWEVER the discussions in the thread are "real", and were supposedly discussed this past weekend at Sugarloaf's homecoming (I think...If its on the internet it must be truth).


----------



## skiMEbike (Oct 12, 2015)

Here's the whole meeting for those interested.... http://wskitv.com/2015/10/10/2015-annual-meeting/


----------



## Jully (Oct 12, 2015)

skiMEbike said:


> I assume you know the powerpoint from the Sugarloaf chat is not real....It's someone's pie in the sky dream....HOWEVER the discussions in the thread are "real", and were supposedly discussed this past weekend at Sugarloaf's homecoming (I think...If its on the internet it must be truth).



Haha yes, I know it's not real. But I'd assume they would be doing the gondola over a lift directly in bucksaw's place.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 12, 2015)

No one in their right mind would use a Pulse on the main mountain, and I have never seen a 15 cabin line set up either. Didn't they say HSQ?


----------



## machski (Oct 13, 2015)

Newpylong said:


> No one in their right mind would use a Pulse on the main mountain, and I have never seen a 15 cabin line set up either. Didn't they say HSQ?



At this point, the type of lift is irrelevant.  I say this because the SL2020 vision had at least 2 HS lifts mentioned.  So far, Boyne has installed ZERO HS detach lifts at SL.  I wouldn't hold my breath for any others.  In fact, Boyne has I stalled a total of 1 HS detach lift in the east to date, the SR Chondi.  None at Loon either (south peak went in prior to their acquisition).


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 13, 2015)

Good points.

Though I bet if it were not for wind considerations, the Skyline would have been a detachable chair.


----------



## Jully (Oct 13, 2015)

machski said:


> I say this because the SL2020 vision had at least 2 HS lifts mentioned.  So far, Boyne has installed ZERO HS detach lifts at SL.



How much of the departure from 2020 occurred because of the immediate lift "upgrades" that they sort of had to do this year to try and build some kind of safety image back coupled with CNL up in the air?

 I didn't necessarily see 2020 falling apart as Boyne not following through. They have pretty good excuses in my opinion.


----------



## machski (Oct 13, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Good points.
> 
> Though I bet if it were not for wind considerations, the Skyline would have been a detachable chair.



Doubt it, not enough room for a top detach terminal at the top of skyline.


----------



## Skimaine (Oct 21, 2015)

Smellytele said:


> Bullwinkles is too small and needs to be expanded. Don't know if the food is any good there because I have never found a table after walking through all the skis left on the ground in front of the place. Just take a leak and leave



Barwinkles has been successful beyond their wildest dreams.  To your point that it is over crowded in spite of the additions they made.  

Money being no object - level it and start over with something twice as big (and a good bathroom).

And the restaurant food is pretty good.


----------



## wa-loaf (Oct 29, 2015)

Sugarloaf has started selling the chairs!



> Ever wanted to own a piece of Sugarloaf history? Now’s your chance. We  have a limited number of chairs from the recently decommissioned Bucksaw  chairlift available for purchase, in their original form, for $250.   You can place your order now by contacting Steve Niezgoda at  207-237-6973. These are expected to go fast, so act now.


----------



## goldenboy80 (Oct 29, 2015)

Apparently they're all sold out now. That was quick!


----------



## Smellytele (Oct 29, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> Apparently they're all sold out now. That was quick!



quick way to make 25K


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 29, 2015)

goldenboy80 said:


> Apparently they're all sold out now. That was quick!



Used chairs at places like this do indeed sell quickly. Still need to get one of my own.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## SIKSKIER (Oct 30, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Used chairs at places like this do indeed sell quickly. Still need to get one of my own.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


Indeed.When Cannon sold off the old Peabody double they went in 2 days I think.I got number 69 and its in my backyard.


----------



## thetrailboss (Oct 30, 2015)

SIKSKIER said:


> Indeed.When Cannon sold off the old Peabody double they went in 2 days I think.I got number 69 and its in my backyard.



Was that number choice intentional? 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Jully (Nov 14, 2015)

Bump.

Loaf says that KP chair should be up and running by late December. Not ideal, but not horrible.

In other news the Loaf has started snowmaking too with over 80 guns running. Not bad compared to what they could do a few years ago!



> BREAKING NEWS: Snowmaking. Is. ON!
> 
> That's right Sugarloafers, thanks to a good looking window of cold temperatures here the next few nights, we flipped the snowmaking switch on this morning! 80 guns are up and running as of 6pm with many more expected to come online this evening; Kings Landing and Lower Tote Road are the current targets, with Candyside expected to join in the fun later on. Snowmakers plan to run "as long as the temps hold," and a look at the forecast suggests that we might be able to keep the snow piling up all the way through Tuesday night. All aboard the hype train - our next stop is winter!


----------

