# Cannon lift out to bid



## bigbob (May 7, 2010)

Looks like it might happen this summer!

http://planroom.infiniteimaging.com/details.php?job=1109


----------



## riverc0il (May 7, 2010)

Let's go Doppelmayr!


----------



## Johnskiismore (May 7, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Let's go Doppelmayr!




Another one for Doppelmayr!


----------



## Telemechanic (May 7, 2010)

The only bidders were Leitner-Poma of America and Doppelmayr CTEC, according to my sources.  They could both used the work.


----------



## riverc0il (May 7, 2010)

Telemechanic said:


> The only bidders were Leitner-Poma of America and Doppelmayr CTEC, according to my sources.  They could both used the work.


Yea, only two big ones left. I have never ridden a Poma chair that I felt comfortable on and Dopp/CTEC have been the most comfortable chairs I have been on... so I am just cheering on my preferred brand of the two. 

Since All of Cannon's other lifts are Dopp/CTEC (excepting the Tram), would it make sense from a cost perspective to stay with Dopps for the parts and maintenance perspective or would it matter?


----------



## jerryg (May 7, 2010)

While I am a big fan of Doppelmayr, my favorite brand of double was/is SLI. Granted, they're defunct, but I just love the chairs. There are only two in the east, IIRC. I don't really like the fact that Doppelmayr and Poma have bought out everyone and basically have made it a two company show. That being said, I know Riblet is willing to build a lift even though it's not their primary business anymore.


----------



## skibumm100 (May 10, 2010)

*Hall!*

I vote for an old, slow Hall double. Something to keep the rif-raf out.

Maybe a Poma platter-pull would be better. Something really inconvenient that will just get you up the hill.


----------



## WakeboardMom (May 10, 2010)

Will they be selling the old ones...?  I could use another one!


----------



## Mapnut (May 10, 2010)

I took a look at the civil plans.  The base elevation is 1873, the unloading ramp is at 3153 for a vertical rise of 1280 feet, and the length is about 4050 feet.  The same as the original as far as I can tell.


----------



## riverc0il (May 10, 2010)

The old chairs are long gone. They still have a bunch of T's in the old double terminal though.

No surprise that the plans call for a chair the same length as the old chair since the land swap stipulated that Cannon had to stay within the original foot print of the area. Last summer, they already started cutting out the lift line in the same place as the old one. Would have been nice if they destumped and graded as it was not skiable this season (at least the newly cut areas).


----------



## deadheadskier (May 10, 2010)

In all my years of skiing, I've never much cared what brand of chair a mountain uses.  I know growing up that all the new chairs Okemo was installing throughout the 80s and early 90s were Poma chairs and many of them felt like sitting on your living room couch.  Whenever I skied else where I never even bothered to look what kind of chairs I was riding. 

Now I just don't care.


----------



## bvibert (May 11, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> In all my years of skiing, I've never much cared what brand of chair a mountain uses.  I know growing up that all the new chairs Okemo was installing throughout the 80s and early 90s were Poma chairs and many of them felt like sitting on your living room couch.  Whenever I skied else where I never even bothered to look what kind of chairs I was riding.
> 
> Now I just don't care.



That just means that you're not hardcore enough...


----------



## Rogman (May 11, 2010)

I'm just happy that Mittersill will really be off the NELSAP list. Loved to ski it as a kid.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 11, 2010)

careful Rogman.........I think you're well in the minority round these parts.  such comments could be perceived as blasphemy by those who wanted to keep Mittersill off the map.


----------



## riverc0il (May 11, 2010)

Rogman said:


> I'm just happy that Mittersill will really be off the NELSAP list. Loved to ski it as a kid.


Technically, it was off the NELSAP list this year as it was officially incorporated into Cannon as in bounds and on map so called "backcountry". Lift serviced but with a small hike. That is all I am going to say about that.


----------



## Rogman (May 12, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> careful Rogman.........I think you're well in the minority round these parts.  such comments could be perceived as blasphemy by those who wanted to keep Mittersill off the map.


Well, then they're a lazy bunch of poser back/side country skiers. If it comes to that, there are plenty of untracked places their mommies can drive them to that they can ski down. Economics and environmental regulations make it near impossible to open a new area in the Northeast. Let's keep the ones we've got.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2010)

I don't know if I'd necessarily call them lazy, poser, slack country skiers.  I think most are just interested in limiting traffic over there in order to preserve the snow conditions / experience.  As it currently stands, it takes 3 lifts and about an hours time to do a run over there.  With a lift, people will be doing 5-6 runs an hour (without a lift line).   In addition to that lift capacity, you'll have people over there skiing multiple runs, instead of maybe one or two and others that never venture over there because of the hike will be skiing there.

Effectiviely, I'd estimate that the lift will increase the traffic over there in the neighborhood of 15 times from where it stands today! 

Knowing that, ask yourself, "Is the skiing going to be anywhere near as good over there as it is now?"

More convenient? absolutely.  As good? no frickin way


----------



## billski (May 12, 2010)

I've never seen plans before.  That's pretty cool.  Watch out for the Mountain Avens.  It looks like the biggest hazard on the mountain!


----------



## threecy (May 12, 2010)

Unfortunately, the state will likely spend in excess of $1M for this chair, whereas had it been done privately, the whole job could have been done for a few hundred thousand.

Regardless, the economics of it make very little sense to me.  I think this money could have been spent much more wisely.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 12, 2010)

Its actually 2 lifts and technically could be done in one with the tram with one long ass traverse.We usually lap it in about 40 minutes.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 12, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Its actually 2 lifts and technically could be done in one with the tram with one long ass traverse.We usually lap it in about 40 minutes.



you traverse straight over to Peabody?  I thought the more common method was to catch Tuckerbrook first.  that's the way I went anyhow.

I certainly don't lay claim to being a Mittersill expert, but I do get people's concerns with adding a lift.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 12, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> you traverse straight over to Peabody?  I thought the more common method was to catch Tuckerbrook first.  that's the way I went anyhow.
> 
> I certainly don't lay claim to being a Mittersill expert, but I do get people's concerns with adding a lift.



Yes.You don't need to ride that useless Tuckerbrook chair.
I have mixed feelings about with adding a lift.Being a 35 year passholder I have seen and felt a lot of kinship with that mountain.It's always been "home" to me.I have a place at Mittersill across from the main building that I've been in for 15 years so I kind of would like to see Mittersill reopened for obvious reasons.That said,I have no problem driving the 30 seconds to the Tuckerbrook lift all booted up and step out of the car onto the trail.I love the slack country aspect of semi earning your turns and all the secret stashes we have all around Mt Jackson.But I think the old double lift in the same footprint was a pretty good compromise.Many older locals were really pushing puting a surface lift over the saddle and I was definately not in that camp.I can live with whatever was or was not going to change.


----------



## Puck it (May 12, 2010)

The amount of traffic will go way up.  And two lifts is right.  You can by pass Tuckerbrook if cut right soon enough.


----------



## riverc0il (May 12, 2010)

Personally, I always skied down to the bottom of TB Quad and took three lifts or I skied to the bottom and walked and then you had to take three lifts. Coyote Crossing often is not groomed (unless they started grooming it, haven't been to Cannon much recently) or is a bit of a slog even when it is. Moot point now, regardless. I will miss hiking back. It will be a different experience for sure... not quite as much of a hardcore aspect any more. But with change come opportunities... so in some ways, I really don't mind at all.


----------



## Johnskiismore (May 12, 2010)

Yeah, I have done away with my negative feelings, hurry up and build the lift get it over and done with!


----------



## Puck it (May 12, 2010)

There are plenty of other spots to ski that the yahoos do not know about.


----------



## bobbutts (May 13, 2010)

threecy said:


> Unfortunately, the state will likely spend in excess of $1M for this chair, whereas had it been done privately, the whole job could have been done for a few hundred thousand.
> 
> Regardless, the economics of it make very little sense to me.  I think this money could have been spent much more wisely.



Why so expensive for the state vs Private?  Can you elaborate?


----------



## billski (May 13, 2010)

bigbob said:


> Looks like it might happen this summer!
> 
> http://planroom.infiniteimaging.com/details.php?job=1109



Boo! hiss!  Looks like the deadline passed, so they took it down.


----------



## threecy (May 13, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> Why so expensive for the state vs Private?  Can you elaborate?



Most privately owned ski areas would be on the market for a used double and refurbish it, which would be just as good as an OEM fixed grip double.


----------



## Telemechanic (May 13, 2010)

threecy said:


> Most privately owned ski areas would be on the market for a used double and refurbish it, which would be just as good as an OEM fixed grip double.



I think many smaller ski areas like to buy used lifts but most of the larger ski areas in Northern NH install new lifts. Cannon has tried to save money in the past taking old lifts from Sunapee but they've also installed two new lifts in 11 years.  Most years there aren't many used doubles on the market.  I don't think Cannon is willing to wait for one that fit their needs.  They probably feel bringing lift service to Mittersill this year is necessary to maintain or expand their share of the I-93 skiers.  Used lifts when refurbished are good but not as good as a new lift.


----------



## bigbob (May 13, 2010)

DOPPLEMAYR CTEC, INC got it!

http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/administration/finance/bids/bidresults/2010/index.htm
 Scroll down toward the bottom and click on Franconia.


----------



## riverc0il (May 13, 2010)

Telemechanic said:


> I think many smaller ski areas like to buy used lifts but most of the larger ski areas in Northern NH install new lifts. Cannon has tried to save money in the past taking old lifts from Sunapee but they've also installed two new lifts in 11 years.  Most years there aren't many used doubles on the market.  I don't think Cannon is willing to wait for one that fit their needs.  They probably feel bringing lift service to Mittersill this year is necessary to maintain or expand their share of the I-93 skiers.  Used lifts when refurbished are good but not as good as a new lift.


Good call here. I am trying to think of the last major ski area to install a used lift in a major trail pod (i.e. non-transfer lift). Saddleback is private and they went new. Loon replaced their North Peak with a new HSQ. SR got a new chondola. Killington's HSQ was new. Burke, new HSQ. Can't think of any major mountain with 2k-ish vert in recent memory that installed a used lift except perhaps as a minor, transfer, or beginner lift.


----------



## threecy (May 14, 2010)

threecy said:


> Most privately owned ski areas would be on the market for a used double and refurbish it, which would be just as good as an OEM fixed grip double.





Telemechanic said:


> I think many smaller ski areas like to buy used lifts but most of the larger ski areas in Northern NH install new lifts. Cannon has tried to save money in the past taking old lifts from Sunapee but they've also installed two new lifts in 11 years.  Most years there aren't many used doubles on the market.  I don't think Cannon is willing to wait for one that fit their needs.  They probably feel bringing lift service to Mittersill this year is necessary to maintain or expand their share of the I-93 skiers.  Used lifts when refurbished are good but not as good as a new lift.



Please note that my comment was in regard to double chairs.  Most installs in northern NH in recent years have been triples and quads - it's very difficult to find a triple or quad chair on the used market.

While many double chairs have been installed in New England this past decade, only 1 was brand new (Sugarbush).

A good, used double chair will function just as well as a new double chair when installed.  There are plenty of examples of used double chairs operating without a hitch for 30 years after their used install date.  Certainly that's a much better ROI with an install cost of perhaps 25% and same maintenance costs.

Since the Mittersill project was first disclosed, quite a few used double chairs have passed through the market that would have worked.  However, since this was a bidded out to OEMs with essentially no lead time (in other words, since there apparently wasn't any effort to procure a used lift and perhaps store it for a year or two), OEM is the only way they'll go.  This added expense comes out of the pockets of NH taxpayers.


----------



## threecy (May 14, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Good call here. I am trying to think of the last major ski area to install a used lift in a major trail pod (i.e. non-transfer lift). Saddleback is private and they went new. Loon replaced their North Peak with a new HSQ. SR got a new chondola. Killington's HSQ was new. Burke, new HSQ. Can't think of any major mountain with 2k-ish vert in recent memory that installed a used lift except perhaps as a minor, transfer, or beginner lift.



I don't think 2K vertical is particularly relevant here, since we're talking about a low-capacity lift, circa 1K vertical.  Quite a few circa 1K vertical fixed grip lifts have been installed used in New England this year.  The most recent example is (will be) the new main lift at Shawnee Peak, which was purchased used from Loon almost half a decade ago and has been in storage since then.  That lift, when installed, will spin probably twice as many hours as compared to the Mittersill double.


----------



## threecy (May 14, 2010)

bigbob said:


> DOPPLEMAYR CTEC, INC got it!
> 
> http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/administration/finance/bids/bidresults/2010/index.htm
> Scroll down toward the bottom and click on Franconia.



$2,631,490.00 for a double chairlift - wow!

I'll make a guess that Shawnee Peak's "new" summit triple chairlift (similar dimensions to the Mittersill chair) will cost maybe 20% of that number.


----------



## bigbob (May 14, 2010)

This added expense comes out of the pockets of NH taxpayers. 

I do not believe this is true. The extra money from the Suneppe sp? lease payment and lift ticket revenue will pay for the bond.


----------



## EPB (May 14, 2010)

threecy said:


> $2,631,490.00 for a double chairlift - wow!
> 
> I'll make a guess that Shawnee Peak's "new" summit triple chairlift (similar dimensions to the Mittersill chair) will cost maybe 20% of that number.



I'd be willing to bet that $2 + million dollar figure includes installation, which isn't cheap. Shawnee will likely incur a hefty sum on top of the price they payed from Loon for the lift. 

You could also say that Shawnee's triple purchase is irrelevant because the trails are not allowed to be widened at Mittersill beyond their original footprint. This includes the lift line; a double is probably the only option.  I believe someone already mentioned earlier that doubles that cover similar lengths and vertical as the Mittersill line are difficult to find, if at all.  It might not be prudent to sit around and wait for an acceptable double to be removed from another area. It could take many years.


----------



## billski (May 14, 2010)

BMM made a comment several months back that the engineering is largest cost in a lift installation.


----------



## threecy (May 14, 2010)

bigbob said:


> This added expense comes out of the pockets of NH taxpayers.
> 
> I do not believe this is true. The extra money from the Suneppe sp? lease payment and lift ticket revenue will pay for the bond.



Cannon and Sunapee are owned by New Hampshire.  The revenues received from the Sunapee lease belong to the people of New Hampshire.




eastern powder baby said:


> I'd be willing to bet that $2 + million dollar figure includes installation, which isn't cheap. Shawnee will likely incur a hefty sum on top of the price they payed from Loon for the lift.


The $2.6M includes installation.  My estimate also includes install (via crane, which is not unreasonable).  Shawnee likely paid Loon somewhere in the low 6 digits for the lift itself.  They'd then have to pay for transport (relatively cheap, vs. transporting from the other side of the country), engineering, take-down of their existing lift, and install.  With the exception of engineering, much of this work could be done by their own employees, along with some qualified contractors (as an example, Crotched and Berkshire East shared an install crew half a decade ago, with their own employees doing the balance of the work).



eastern powder baby said:


> You could also say that Shawnee's triple purchase is irrelevant because the trails are not allowed to be widened at Mittersill beyond their original footprint. This includes the lift line; a double is probably the only option.  I believe someone already mentioned earlier that doubles that cover similar lengths and vertical as the Mittersill line are difficult to find, if at all.  It might not be prudent to sit around and wait for an acceptable double to be removed from another area. It could take many years.


Note that I referred to the state bid process as part of the issue.  Shawnee purchased the triple years ago when it came on the market, then installed it when they felt it was time.  Double chairlifts have passed through the used market since Mittersill was first announced - had this been a privately owned ski area, they would have likely jumped on one of those and stored it.  This is a very common practice.


----------



## EPB (May 14, 2010)

threecy said:


> Double chairlifts have passed through the used market since Mittersill was first announced - had this been a privately owned ski area, they would have likely jumped on one of those and stored it.  This is a very common practice.



Examples would be nice....  But hey, maybe its not too late for Cannon to inquire about Attitash's Hall double built in the late 60's. They could paint it back red and it would be just like the original Mittersill (and Attitash) one.


----------



## threecy (May 14, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> Examples would be nice....  But hey, maybe its not too late for Cannon to inquire about Attitash's Hall double built in the late 60's. They could paint it back red and it would be just like the original Mittersill (and Attitash) one.



A few miscellaneous notes...1) ski areas are now allowed to splice two haul ropes together, so two smaller lifts can be used.  2)  painted chairs and towers can be blasted and dipped, therefore eliminating the issue of paint colors/rusting (thought most will just galvanize the chairs and keep painting the towers).  3)  There's a chance that some of the existing concrete on the Mittersill lift could be reused, pending a pull test.  Some of the footings I looked at were in better shape than the Whittier lift, for instance.  That said, lifts are engineered differently today, so it's questionable how much of the existing footing locations would be reused.

In regard to doubles on the used market, there are quite a few Halls that have passed through in recent years.  Though not popular, there are also some Riblet doubles that could be had today for cheap.


----------



## riverc0il (May 14, 2010)

threecy said:


> I don't think 2K vertical is particularly relevant here, since we're talking about a low-capacity lift, circa 1K vertical.  Quite a few circa 1K vertical fixed grip lifts have been installed used in New England this year.  The most recent example is (will be) the new main lift at Shawnee Peak, which was purchased used from Loon almost half a decade ago and has been in storage since then.  That lift, when installed, will spin probably twice as many hours as compared to the Mittersill double.


That lift, which came from Loon, was replaced by a new lift. 1k or not, major resorts are just not replacing lifts with used lifts. 1k, 2k, or anything in between. The fact is that many private resorts in Cannon's market have built brand new lifts to service trail pods. Okemo's Jackson Gore comes to mind. Just because this is a double and not a HSQ does not excuse the fact that no other major resort is installing used lifts to service new trail pods or replace out dated lifts.

I am all for fiscal responsibility and saving NH tax payers money. But the argument that this is only happening in this situation because Cannon is state run I think is not accurate. I think any private operator would have installed new in this situation. Doubles run well over 50 years but they eventually all give out. A new lift could actually be beneficial cost wise in the long run.....


----------



## AdironRider (May 14, 2010)

Threecy is just pissed off because he thinks he knows better. 

There are lots of generalizatios and assumptions in his post. Shawnee probably paid low six figures. Maybe they did, maybe they didnt, he doesnt know. 

Cannon is not Shawnee. Shawnee is a borderline feeder hill, where as Cannon is more of a "destination", as much as I hate that description. Shawnee isnt running a tram. They have to blow less snow, they have a much smaller f&b operation, they have a smaller grooming operation. Nothing is comparable. 

I personally think it is a great thing for a state run operation to be valuing and investing in an asset that will pay off much greater in the long run. ORDA was another fine example (investing 6.6 million for 30+ million of tax revenue when looking at the economic impact regionwide - alas that is no longer). 

Get over it threecy, Cannon is making improvements. This is always a good thing. A used lift is going to show its a used lift just like no used car looks or performs like a new car. I dont care how well kept or refurbished it is.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 14, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> They have to blow less snow, they have a much smaller f&b operation, they have a smaller grooming operation.



Disagree with both these statements

Shawnee is a BUSY place.  I'd be willing to bet their ski operation revenue is equal to Cannon. If it's less, it's not by much.  

They blow quite a bit of snow at Shawnee.  The lodge is packed on weekends and pre-expansion thier lodge is of similar size as Cannon's.  With their night skiing operation, they easily do way more business than Cannon midweek.  Cannon probably does more on the weekends.


----------



## EPB (May 14, 2010)

Riverc0il put it best while asserting that it might be fiscally prudent to purchase a new lift because of the added expenses that would come with the operation of a used lift.  He also alluded to the idea that places like Cannon and other larger ski areas are expected to install new lifts on major trail pods; many customers would be underwhelmed by a used lift.  Cannon would A: incur added yearly expenses, B: lose potential revenue because they bought a chintzy lift, C: require a replacement lift much sooner.  These three reasons would greatly reduce the net present value of positive cash flows created by a used Mittersill lift.  Fewer years of cash flows would greatly deplete the years over which the costs of a used lifts would be made up in positive cash flows. This would adversely affect Estimated Annual Cash Flows per year, meaning the amount of money that the lift makes per year on average during the life of the lift.

Side note: Buying a used lift and storing it for a number of years means that you defer positive cash flows further and lose money on your investment.  Also the two double idea doesn't hold water when an engine capable of carrying skiers up 1400 vertical feet is needed. 

Just because initial costs are higher does not mean that this is a bad investment. What Shawnee did was somewhat of a cheap (i.e. money up front) fix, though it might have been necessary in the short run.  Cannon most certainly does not need a quick fix lift for an expansion. Rumblings of a Mittersill expansion are at least 10 years old now, indicating that this is clearly not a short sighted idea.  Wouldn't you imagine that some sort of financial planning was done before they decided to go new? Or do you just think the state of New Hampshire thinks its funny to blow cash on lifts at Mittersill? You seem to be suggesting some type of variation on the latter.


----------



## AdironRider (May 14, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Disagree with both these statements
> 
> Shawnee is a BUSY place.  I'd be willing to bet their ski operation revenue is equal to Cannon. If it's less, it's not by much.
> 
> They blow quite a bit of snow at Shawnee.  The lodge is packed on weekends and pre-expansion thier lodge is of similar size as Cannon's.  With their night skiing operation, they easily do way more business than Cannon midweek.  Cannon probably does more on the weekends.




Then I guess we agree to disagree. My better half worked there for 6 years, Ive spent a decent amount of time at the place. Shawnee seems busy because its small. Theres one triple to the summit with a mid, everyone rides it. The backside rarely has the coverage to be fully open. 

Yes they do have night skiing, which seems to be quite successful, but the size of the mountain really affects the seemingly large crowds. If Shawnees lot is packed it probably has about 7/8 the cars of just Cannons front lot. 

They do, or at least used to, do midday grooming runs prior to night skiing, which I thought was pretty awesome for a smaller place. 

Im not trying to trash Shawnee, I just think its an unfair comparison to Cannon. With Cannon's new management regime, they are clearly trying to be something different, which is a place that holds its "edge" so to speak, but still can cater to the Loon, Okemo, Sunday River crowd. Hence the large Tuckerbrook expansion, new double for Mittersill, et al.


----------



## threecy (May 15, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Threecy is just pissed off because he thinks he knows better.



I'm a bit vexed by this use of state money, yes.  I'm not thinking that I "know better."  Rather, I'm sharing information about one of the things I was/am involved in with the ski industry.  In regard to the Shawnee Triple, I don't recall offhand what it went for, as a) I was not involved in that private sale and b) half a decade later, I'm more likely to recall what the party I was representing would have paid for it.

If you want to think that I'm just trying to show off, that's fine.  I'm simply trying to shed some light on my experiences in the used lift market, of which I was involved in for about a decade.


----------



## bobbutts (May 15, 2010)

threecy said:


> I'm a bit vexed by this use of state money, yes.  I'm not thinking that I "know better."  Rather, I'm sharing information about one of the things I was/am involved in with the ski industry.  In regard to the Shawnee Triple, I don't recall offhand what it went for, as a) I was not involved in that private sale and b) half a decade later, I'm more likely to recall what the party I was representing would have paid for it.
> 
> If you want to think that I'm just trying to show off, that's fine.  I'm simply trying to shed some light on my experiences in the used lift market, of which I was involved in for about a decade.



I'm buying what you're selling.. Bottom line 2m+ for a double chair seems excessive.


----------



## LonghornSkier (May 15, 2010)

Somewhat off topic but, will there be a connecting trail from anywhere on the mountain besides tuckerbrook novice area?


----------



## riverc0il (May 15, 2010)

LonghornSkier said:


> Somewhat off topic but, will there be a connecting trail from anywhere on the mountain besides tuckerbrook novice area?


I have not heard of any additional trails being put in. Getting back to Cannon from Mittersill can be done via a traverse no matter what trail you come down. Though I suspect Barron's will absorb most of the traffic heading back to Cannon which easily gets you back to the lodge all down hill. Getting from the lodge to Mittersill without taking the Tuckerbrook Chair would be difficult. You could ski down the Mittersill road from the base of the Tuckerbrook Chair with only a little poling if there is enough natural snow on the side of the road. I see no reason to make extra expense when it only requires one extra lift from the base area to get over there.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 17, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> I have not heard of any additional trails being put in. Getting back to Cannon from Mittersill can be done via a traverse no matter what trail you come down. Though I suspect Barron's will absorb most of the traffic heading back to Cannon which easily gets you back to the lodge all down hill. Getting from the lodge to Mittersill without taking the Tuckerbrook Chair would be difficult. You could ski down the Mittersill road from the base of the Tuckerbrook Chair with only a little poling if there is enough natural snow on the side of the road. I see no reason to make extra expense when it only requires one extra lift from the base area to get over there.



Actually Steve,before they built the Tuckerbrook area there was a work road that comes out at the bottom of the old lift.I got my tuck stuck in there one late spring day and required a bizaar local's modified mud truck with an articulating center frame to pull us out.The "Dootlebug" was its name.I'm sure they would cut an appropriate traverse to access Mittersill from the Tuckerbrook lift.


----------



## bigbob (May 17, 2010)

I think the $2 mil is money well spent for a NEW lift as buying a used lift which may have hard to obtain parts in the future. With all the BS the state had to go thru and money that was spent during that process, they don't want to have to go through this again for a long time! It only gets harder each year to obtain permits, look at the whole picture before lambasting the state. 
 And good luck trying to get a PE to stamp the drawings using very old foundations.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 18, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> Riverc0il put it best while asserting that it might be fiscally prudent to purchase a new lift because of the added expenses that would come with the operation of a used lift.  He also alluded to the idea that places like Cannon and other larger ski areas are expected to install new lifts on major trail pods; many customers would be underwhelmed by a used lift.  Cannon would A: incur added yearly expenses, B: lose potential revenue because they bought a chintzy lift, C: require a replacement lift much sooner.  These three reasons would greatly reduce the net present value of positive cash flows created by a used Mittersill lift.  Fewer years of cash flows would greatly deplete the years over which the costs of a used lifts would be made up in positive cash flows. This would adversely affect Estimated Annual Cash Flows per year, meaning the amount of money that the lift makes per year on average during the life of the lift.


I'd eat my ski helmet if you could possibly gin up an NPV analysis that portrayed this scenario with realistic numbers.  Even with installation, you're looking at an initial cost difference of roughly $1.5MM in today's dollars.  Your A is going to be modest with a refurbished lift B is unmeasurable and likely to be tiny anyway (Who makes a decision not to come check out a major new expansion b/c it's a used lift?) and C is so far out anyway, the the PV of the impact is going to be microscopic.  Moreover, how does fewer years of cash flow (a measure of duration) have any impact or relationship with the"Estimated Annual Cash Flows" (I love how you capitalized this term for effect as if it's a formal term) within those years?



> Side note: Buying a used lift and storing it for a number of years means that you defer positive cash flows further and lose money on your investment.


Well this assumes constant or rising prices, doesn't it?  I'll bet you could have gotten yourself a lovely used lift for a song in the winter/spring of 2007/2008 after Lehman went tits up and the economy went into free fall.  No one was buying anything.  Maybe not so much now with a recovering economy and the 2nd strongest year in skier visits on record nationwide.



> Rumblings of a Mittersill expansion are at least 10 years old now, indicating that this is clearly not a short sighted idea.  Wouldn't you imagine that some sort of financial planning was done before they decided to go new? Or do you just think the state of New Hampshire thinks its funny to blow cash on lifts at Mittersill? You seem to be suggesting some type of variation on the latter.



Is this sarcasm or some form of satire?  Do you really think there's some bureaucrat at a desk in Concord who is performing a comparative analysis of various Mittersill lift installation options?  I would imagine that there isn't a single employee of the State of New Hampshire not working for Cannon who has any familiarity whatsoever with the financial planning for the Mittersill lift.  

While your post doesn't do anything for advancing the cause of those who aren't concerned with the new lift, it doesn't need to anyway.  Threecy's logic and experience are compelling and relevant.  I have no doubt that a used lift would have been the financially superior alternative.  But his argument is missing a few critical components.  Referring specifically to the Shawnee lift is misleading as, in his owns words "Shawnee purchased the triple years ago when it came on the market, then installed it when they felt it was time".  As he should know from the rather tortured history of the Mittersill reclamation, Cannon never had the luxury of buying a lift and storing it until they thought they were ready.  They had to fight a very complex battle with multiple competing and overlapping govt entities at both the State and Federal level.  The achievement of a successful outcome in this process was NEVER guaranteed and was, according to many observers, quite a bit in doubt for a long time.  Given this landscape, it would have been foolhardy and most certainly a waste of NH taxpayers' dollars to purchase a used lift, no matter how cheap, and place it in storage just in case the land swap was executed and the approvals secured.  The uncertainties inherent in that process were to great to act otherwise.  

Accordingly, the only time period that really matters it that which begins with the approval of Cannon's plans a year or so ago and now.  Do we know how many used doubles fitting Cannon's requirements were on the market during this window?  That's important information we need to understand the choices Cannon mgmt actually had available to them.  Even if there used options, I think Rivercoil's point is valid in that there are no private ski areas of Cannon's class who would have installed a used lift for a such a major expansion.  Could you name a precedent that would fit this mold?  Jackson Gore?  No.  Bolton Valley's new Vista lift (not all that major)?  No.  Loon Peak South Mtn?  No.  Saddleback?  No.  Stowe's Spruce Peak?  No.  Ascutney North Peak?  No.  Bretton Woods?  No.   Heck, even when tiny old, small-school owned and operated Middlebury Snow Bowl had to replace their Worth Mtn chair, they bought a brand new Dopplymayr.  

Given the time crunch involved as well as the prestige and market positioning of Cannon Mtn, I think it's entirely defensible to have purchased a new chair.  That $2.6MM does sound like a lot, so I'm interested to know why that cost so much as compared to the longer and more technically challenging single replacement at MRG (2000' of steep vertical) or the Worth Mtn chair I mentioned (1000' vertical), both of which came in at around $1.7MM.


----------



## Puck it (May 18, 2010)

I think the money was not money from the state.  Cannon has had a profit the last profit two years with their own business increase and the money from the Sunapee lease.


----------



## bigbob (May 18, 2010)

If I recall correctly, Killingtons new Skye Peak Express detachable Quad was about $5 mill, reusing the old lift towers.


----------



## riverc0il (May 18, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> That $2.6MM does sound like a lot, so I'm interested to know why that cost so much as compared to the longer and more technically challenging single replacement at MRG (2000' of steep vertical) or the Worth Mtn chair I mentioned (1000' vertical), both of which came in at around $1.7MM.


As I recall, the Single refurb cost more than a new Double at the time which was one of the few valid points double supporters had going for them. Prices have gone up since then.


----------



## threecy (May 18, 2010)

Puck it said:


> I think the money was not money from the state.  Cannon has had a profit the last profit two years with their own business increase and the money from the Sunapee lease.


That money is the money of New Hampshire taxpayers.  NH taxpayers own Cannon and any profits or losses, direct or indirect.




Tin Woodsman said:


> But his argument is missing a few critical components.  Referring specifically to the Shawnee lift is misleading as, in his owns words "Shawnee purchased the triple years ago when it came on the market, then installed it when they felt it was time".


You'll note that part of my comments included the current structure of Cannon which resulted in this bid process.



Tin Woodsman said:


> Accordingly, the only time period that really matters it that which begins with the approval of Cannon's plans a year or so ago and now.  Do we know how many used doubles fitting Cannon's requirements were on the market during this window?


I do, but that's what people pay money for 



> That's important information we need to understand the choices Cannon mgmt actually had available to them.  Even if there used options, I think Rivercoil's point is valid in that there are no private ski areas of Cannon's class who would have installed a used lift for a such a major expansion.  Could you name a precedent that would fit this mold?  Jackson Gore [quad]?  No.  Bolton Valley's new Vista lift (not all that major) [quad]?  No.  Loon Peak South Mtn [quad]?  No.  Saddleback [quad]?  No.  Stowe's Spruce Peak [quad]?  No.  Ascutney North Peak [quad]?  No.  Bretton Woods [quad]?  No.   Heck, even when tiny old, small-school owned and operated Middlebury Snow Bowl had to replace their Worth Mtn chair, they bought a brand new Dopplymayr [triple].


I think this is poor logic.  Why can only new pods be used to compare?  Also, from that list, Bolton Valley/Middlebury/Ascutney/Saddleback where done without creating any significant new terrain.  Regardless, if looking for mid-sized to major ski areas who have installed used lifts in recent years, a few examples would be Attitash, Cannon (!), Crotched (every chairlift is used), Gunstock, Sunapee, Okemo, Smugger's Notch, Berkshire East, Catamount, Jiminy Peak, Wachusett, Shawnee Peak, and Sunday River, just to name a few.



bigbob said:


> as buying a used lift which may have hard to obtain parts in the future.


Unless they were to obtain an obscure brand, it wouldn't be much of an issue to obtain parts.  In fact, the CTEC actually provides parts for a lot of used lifts.


I think it's also very important to point out that this new chairlift will operate the least number of hours of any primary, public chairlift in the entire state.  We're not talking about massive a new area that will be open day and night, 7 days a week, November-April.  Rather, we're talking about something that *might* be in operation for about 10 weeks a year, based upon what has been presented.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 18, 2010)

threecy said:


> I think it's also very important to point out that this new chairlift will operate the least number of hours of any primary, public chairlift in the entire state.  We're not talking about massive a new area that will be open day and night, 7 days a week, November-April.  Rather, we're talking about something that *might* be in operation for about 10 weeks a year, based upon what has been presented.



Where do you come up with the info for this statement?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 18, 2010)

Looks like Threecy is really fired up about this project!


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 18, 2010)

threecy said:


> You'll note that part of my comments included the current structure of Cannon which resulted in this bid process.


Mind you, I'm as big a skeptic as there is w/r/t State run businesses (see the rest of my response to EPB), but you've presented zero evidence that state ownership is the sole or even primary factor driving the bid process.  Just saying that's a reason doesn't make it so.The compressed time frame, amongst other factors, means this issue could have been one based solely on defendable, commercial rationales.



> I do, but that's what people pay money for


Really?  That's your answer?  "I could tell you but I won't"  I'm sure no one is paying you to tell them how many used double chairs were available during that period, sans names, locations, sizes, prices and capacities etc..  What a cop out.




> I think this is poor logic.  Why can only new pods be used to compare?


The answer to that is self-evident.  New trail pods, especially ones as large as Mittersill, have orders of magnitude more visibility and marketing hype than a simple replacement of an older lift.  None of the mountains you referenced lower down in your post used the old lift to support new terrain.  Not one.  (Smuggs?  That was 20 years ago).  Whether you appreciate it or not, this is the biggest news to hit Cannon in decades, so it's no surprise they want to put their best foot forward with their customers.



> Also, from that list, Bolton Valley/Middlebury/Ascutney/Saddleback where done without creating any significant new terrain.


Bullshit. the 30 new acres at Bolton were the biggest thing to happen to them in 20 years.  You may recall their previous expansion to Timberline area was accomplished with a new FG quad.  Ascutney added 270 vertical feet to their mountain and three new expert trails, pushing it into the big leagues from a vertical drop and marketing perspective (1800' vert jumps out at you a lot more than 1530').  Including just the liftline and the Casablanca glade, Saddleback experienced a massive increase in skiable terrain just this year alone.  When you consider the terrain additions from the last 2-3 years in that pod, they've more than doubles the available terrain on the Kennebago pod.  So all in all, I'd disagree strongly that no significant new terrain was added in support of those lifts.  The terrain, while not significant from the perspective of a mega-resort or the industry as a whole, was very much significant to those mountains and their market positioning.



> Regardless, if looking for mid-sized to major ski areas who have installed used lifts in recent years, a few examples would be Attitash, Cannon (!), Crotched (every chairlift is used), Gunstock, Sunapee, Okemo, Smugger's Notch, Berkshire East, Catamount, Jiminy Peak, Wachusett, Shawnee Peak, and Sunday River, just to name a few.


How many of those lifts serve major new terrain for those mountains?  How many of those areas does Cannon legitimately compete in the same league with?  Wachusett, BEast, Catamount, Jiminy, Gunstock and Shawnee are either geographically irrelevant or serving a different section of the market altogether.  Of the remainder, Sunapee, Okemo and Sunday River only used these lifts to replace existing ones and none of them served core terrain.  I presume that with Smuggs you're referring to the new Morse Woods pod, which you know is tiny, out of the way, and 20 years ago.  In sum, you have yet to provide a SINGLE example of a private destination ski area installing a used lift to service a major new terrain pod.   Not even one.  That's a pretty low bar, and you still haven't been able to overcome it.


----------



## threecy (May 18, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Where do you come up with the info for this statement?



Take a look at the various articles and proposals.  This will be a "backcountry" area.  As per Cannon's site, "There is no snowmaking right now, but there may be limited snowmaking on just a couple of primary trails some time in the future"


I've hiked around this area in just about every calendar month in the past three years...the critical points of the area do not hold snow as well as Cannon.  This isn't much of an issue as an expert backcountry area, however as a lift served intermediate area, it is.

Here's a shot from above the double chair base terminal from last March, for instance:






Or Christmas week this year:


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 18, 2010)

threecy said:


> Take a look at the various articles and proposals.  This will be a "backcountry" area.  As per Cannon's site, "There is no snowmaking right now, but there may be limited snowmaking on just a couple of primary trails some time in the future"
> 
> 
> I've hiked around this area in just about every calendar month in the past three years...the critical points of the area do not hold snow as well as Cannon.  This isn't much of an issue as an expert backcountry area, however as a lift served intermediate area, it is.
> ...


Two things - the new lift will be built to last 50 years or so.  It's reasonable to assume, given what you posted and the nature of the terrain and ski industry in the northeast that snowmaking will be used for trouble areas at some point early on in that lift's projected lifespan.  Moreover, I'd be interested to know the impacts that grooming and skier compaction would have on snow retention.  A few cherry-picked photos from the bottom of the mountain don't really help to inform these questions all that much.


----------



## threecy (May 18, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Really?  That's your answer?  "I could tell you but I won't"  I'm sure no one is paying you to tell them how many used double chairs were available during that period, sans names, locations, sizes, prices and capacities etc..  What a cop out.


What's with the moving target?  I thought the modified question was limited to only this year, since it wasn't fair to look back over the years since the project was announced.  Being that it's limited to this year, it's a question of what *is* on the market, which I'm not going to disclose here.





Tin Woodsman said:


> The answer to that is self-evident.  New trail pods, especially ones as large as Mittersill, have orders of magnitude more visibility and marketing hype than a simple replacement of an older lift.


Visibility and marketing hype?  Then why put in a double chairlift and little to no snowmaking?



Tin Woodsman said:


> None of the mountains you referenced lower down in your post used the old lift to support new terrain.  Not one.


Really?  Firstly, your list was actually mixed (new terrain vs. replacement).  Secondly, if you look at my list, which was not under the guise of serving all new terrain, many of those *did* serve net new terrain.  Thirdly, a well installed used chairlift would in fact look like a new chairlift (especially if they were to opt to put in a new drive).

Bottom line, most skiers can't identify the age or make of a lift.  This brand new double chairlift will look virtually the same as a nicely painted 20 year old lift to most folks.



Tin Woodsman said:


> Bullshit...clip...So all in all, I'd disagree strongly that no significant new terrain was added in support of those lifts.  The terrain, while not significant from the perspective of a mega-resort or the industry as a whole, was very much significant to those mountains and their market positioning.


With all due respect, you're all over the place in using your own rules as to what constitutes new expansion and what constitutes replacement.



Tin Woodsman said:


> How many of those lifts serve major new terrain for those mountains?  How many of those areas does Cannon legitimately compete in the same league with?


What *is* Cannon's league?  This is a question that has been a tough one for many people in the industry to answer.  Regardless, we're talking about a ~1K vertical double chairlift, whether it was installed new or old.  We're not talking about a major pod that will transport 3,000 skiers an hour, or be the basis of 300 new condos, etc.




Tin Woodsman said:


> Wachusett, BEast, Catamount, Jiminy, Gunstock and Shawnee are either geographically irrelevant or serving a different section of the market altogether.


But Bolton Valley and Saddleback are?



Tin Woodsman said:


> Of the remainder, Sunapee, Okemo and Sunday River only used these lifts to replace existing ones and none of them served core terrain.


So Mittersill is core terrain?  Regardless, are you 100% sure of the rest of your statement?


----------



## EPB (May 18, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Even with installation, you're looking at an initial cost difference of roughly $1.5MM in today's dollars.


It's certainly possible, though that might be a little much.



Tin Woodsman said:


> Moreover, how does fewer years of cash flow (a measure of duration) have any impact or relationship with the"Estimated Annual Cash Flows" (I love how you capitalized this term for effect as if it's a formal term) within those years?



More years of cash flow from a lift means more PV of cash flows. It also spreads the negative amount of cash flow spent up front over more years.... EACF is the abbreviation that I was taught; I imagine many wouldn't know what I was referencing. Remind me why is the capitalization was relevant to anything you're asserting. Are YOU familiar with the EACF calculation? It doesn't seem to be the case.



Tin Woodsman said:


> Well this assumes constant or rising prices, doesn't it?  I'll bet you could have gotten yourself a lovely used lift for a song in the winter/spring of 2007/2008 after Lehman went tits up and the economy went into free fall.  No one was buying anything.  Maybe not so much now with a recovering economy and the 2nd strongest year in skier visits on record.



Inflation would lower PV of cash flows too. Skilifts.org also said this about the triple: "Sold to Shawnee Peak Maine in 2006. Had a special variance from NH Tramway Board to run at 550 fpm. " Pre Lehman going "titties up".



Tin Woodsman said:


> Is this sarcasm or some form of satire?  Do you really think there's some bureaucrat at a desk in Concord who is performing a comparative analysis of various Mittersill lift installation options?  I would imagine that there isn't a single employee of the State of New Hampshire not working for Cannon who has any familiarity whatsoever with the financial planning for the Mittersill lift.



A little bit of both. You too have a documented track record of sarcasm and satire; I'm glad you picked up on mine.... Last time I checked, Cannon had a GM that was at least somewhat responsible for financial planning. Wouldn't you say? The last statement in this bit is almost certainly not true- "any familiarity whatsoever..." You should know better than to use such broad sweeping statements.



Tin Woodsman said:


> Threecy's logic and experience are compelling and relevant.  I have no doubt that a used lift would have been the financially superior alternative.  But his argument is missing a few critical components.  Referring specifically to the Shawnee lift is misleading as, in his owns words "Shawnee purchased the triple years ago when it came on the market, then installed it when they felt it was time".  As he should know from the rather tortured history of the Mittersill reclamation, Cannon never had the luxury of buying a lift and storing it until they thought they were ready.  They had to fight a very complex battle with multiple competing and overlapping govt entities at both the State and Federal level.  The achievement of a successful outcome in this process was NEVER guaranteed and was, according to many observers, quite a bit in doubt for a long time.  Given this landscape, it would have been foolhardy and most certainly a waste of NH taxpayers' dollars to purchase a used lift, no matter how cheap, and place it in storage just in case the land swap was executed and the approvals secured.  The uncertainties inherent in that process were to great to act otherwise.



This seems spot on to me; I agree.  He also didn't point to any used lifts that could have been a viable option even IF they would have been able to purchase and store for a few years. 



Tin Woodsman said:


> Even if there used options, I think Rivercoil's point is valid in that there are no private ski areas of Cannon's class who would have installed a used lift for a such a major expansion.  Could you name a precedent that would fit this mold?  Jackson Gore?  No.  Bolton Valley's new Vista lift (not all that major)?  No.  Loon Peak South Mtn?  No.  Saddleback?  No.  Stowe's Spruce Peak?  No.  Ascutney North Peak?  No.  Bretton Woods?  No.   Heck, even when tiny old, small-school owned and operated Middlebury Snow Bowl had to replace their Worth Mtn chair, they bought a brand new Dopplymayr.



This is exactly where my point B that you dismissed earlier comes from.  Customers of larger areas expect new lifts. The precedent that you alluded to here makes it seem that Cannon could miss out on a noteworthy sum of extra cash by building something cheap. Good financial planners would be able to make a decent estimate as to how much business they would lose by choosing the cheaper option. It certainly isn't easy as you said earlier.  I also wouldn't say that someone with, "a dilettante's understanding of the issue" would be able to decipher if the cash flows lost due to a chintzy lift install would be significant. 



Tin Woodsman said:


> Given the time crunch involved as well as the prestige and market positioning of Cannon Mtn, I think it's entirely defensible to have purchased a new chair.  That $2.6MM does sound like a lot, so I'm interested to know why that cost so much as compared to the longer and more technically challenging single replacement at MRG (2000' of steep vertical) or the Worth Mtn chair I mentioned (1000' vertical), both of which came in at around $1.7MM.



The crunch time as Threecy mentioned earlier could certainly have something to do with it. I believe he also brought up the state bidding process, though I wouldn't know the extent to which that would affect pricing.


----------



## threecy (May 18, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Two things - the new lift will be built to last 50 years or so.


A used lift can last just as long.  New or used, they would have the same concrete.  New or used, they would have rust free towers installed.  Cables and grips are likely to be replaced at some point, new or used.  Drives may need to be replaced at some point, new or used.  We're not talking about a beat up used car vs. a brand new Lexus.


----------



## riverc0il (May 18, 2010)

One item for consideration that would support used being a better decision is longevity really will not be an issue. Though, I did suggest that might be the case as a new will certainly last longer and have lower overall long term costs. However, that said, I will reconsider based on the following reasoning: This lift won't run a heck of a lot. As threecy pointed out above, as a natural snow area, the main routes don't hold snow exceptionally well. Cannon had Mitty "closed" a good portion of the season last year. There are often years when it is not skiable until late January or even early February (by my standards, which are much more generous than most folks that care about their skis). So one factor is that this lift will likely spin no more than 60-70 days per season at best until other lifts that spin a significant percentage higher.

Also, it is interesting that just two years after they cut out select tram operation mid-week for expense savings, they will now have to staff a whole new lift for what is likely an evenly off setting amount of days or wages.

Any ways, I still think new is the way to go but I can understand the argument for used even if I don't agree with it. And even if state run operations' revenue is "owned" by the tax payers (in a manner of speaking as threecy uses), all state run operations would be in dire trouble if they did not wisely reinvest their extra revenue in long term infrastructure upgrades. Ultimately, I think this is a good long term purchase.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 18, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Also, it is interesting that just two years after they cut out select tram operation mid-week for expense savings, they will now have to staff a whole new lift for what is likely an evenly off setting amount of days or wages.



That I understand.  Tram doesn't open up any terrain that can't be skied from other lifts.  Mittersill, as it currently stands, isn't 'lift serviced' in the eyes of 95% of people using the product.  

I'm guessing the thought is that the added revenue they project lift servied Mittersill will bring in increased skier visits will offset the cost of operation.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 18, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Two things - the new lift will be built to last 50 years or so. It's reasonable to assume, given what you posted and the nature of the terrain and ski industry in the northeast that snowmaking will be used for trouble areas at some point early on in that lift's projected lifespan. Moreover, I'd be interested to know the impacts that grooming and skier compaction would have on snow retention. A few cherry-picked photos from the bottom of the mountain don't really help to inform these questions all that much.


 
I've skied Mittersill twice and loved it. I recall, and Google Earth confirmed, that Mitty faces due north so I was a not confused to hear that it does not hold snow well, but considering that my memory is that the terrain does tilt a bit to the NW, and wind is a problem with that area, I am not really too shocked I guess. I wonder if they will roll some fan guns to the base during lean seasons....


----------



## threecy (May 18, 2010)

Here's another way to put it, using rough numbers for sake of discussion.

Is a new double chairlift 3X better than a refurbished double chairlift?

They will be spending 3X more money to install this brand new double chairlift as compared to a refurbished chairlift (perhaps I should be using the word refurbished instead of used, as used chairs are generally refurbished prior to install).  Again, they are likely to have the same lifespan.  Perhaps some maintenance will be needed a few years sooner, but not a replacement, and not for millions of dollars.

Again, using rough numbers for sake of discussion, what if Cannon was able to save $2M by installing a refurbished chairlift.  What is considered by many to be one of Cannon's biggest problems (rightly or wrongly so)?  Conditions.

The hypothetical savings would buy Cannon nearly as SMI Polecat fan guns as Peak bought for Mt. Snow back in 2007.  Remember how big of a splash that was, both in terms of marketing and conditions?

Scenario A:  Cannon advertises a "brand new" ~1K vertical double chairlift, open when natural snowfall permits.

Scenario B:  Cannon advertises a "new" ~1K vertical double chairlift, open when natural snowfall permits, and a massive fan gun snowmaking expansion.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 18, 2010)

Interesting discussion.....


----------



## AdironRider (May 19, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Looks like Threecy is really fired up about this project!



Man, I noticed this like 5 pages ago. Im willing to bet he was never for Mittersill being opened back up in the first place. 

I still think that this is going to bring in much more money in terms of revenue than 2.6 million over its useful life, so the taxpayer of NH is more than getting a good deal. Threecys taxpayer argument is moot if you ask me, which is really all hes got going for him right now. 

Maybe it could have been done for cheaper, but the taxpayer is going to make much more than 2.6 million over the 20-30 years this thing will be in operation. So its not as good a deal as it possibly could be, but were talking a couple hundred grand over 20-30 years. This is the government were talking about here.

As you can see, Im not buying that a used lift would be 1/3 the price. Im also not buying that used lifts last nearly as long for not much more in terms of maintenance costs. Look at the Hunter debacle this winter. A crappy lift can really change opinions of a place.


----------



## threecy (May 19, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> Im willing to bet he was never for Mittersill being opened back up in the first place.


Not for $10,000,000.  Frankly, I think having Mittersill as a backcountry area and then spending the $10M (the estimate used for the whole project) on improving Cannon would be a much better idea.



AdironRider said:


> I still think that this is going to bring in much more money in terms of revenue than 2.6 million over its useful life


There's a big difference between revenue and profit.  Using rough numbers as an example and assuming a 10% profit margin (which would be extremely high for the ski industry), Cannon would need to generate $26,000,000 in additional revenue from this area in order to break even.




AdironRider said:


> As you can see, Im not buying that a used lift would be 1/3 the price.


It's absolutely possible.  Heck, take a look at Hugh Knapp's listings...slim pickings at the moment, but none of those approach $2M.  In regard to install, there are lift crews who specialize in installing refurbished lifts.  Crotched opened a few years ago with all refurbished lifts, saving them millions of dollars as compared to new installs.



AdironRider said:


> Im also not buying that used lifts last nearly as long for not much more in terms of maintenance costs.


There are plenty of refurbished workhorses in New England that have been operating without a hitch for decades.  Are you familiar with lift maintenance?  Why do you think a refurbished lift is going to be suddenly inrreparable?  What parts are going to cost dramatically more in terms of maintenance between a refurbished lift and a net new lift?  Did you know that some parts for new lifts are actually dramatically more expensive?



AdironRider said:


> Look at the Hunter debacle this winter.


1)  That's a detachable, not a fixed grip.  Nobody here is advocating installing a used detachable.  Big difference.  2)  That was a new install.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 19, 2010)

I agree that the Hunter lift is a bad example.

I also can't think of a fixed grip lift in the east that is continually down for maintenance unless it is very old or at an area that lacks financial resources to maintain it properly.  Tenney and the Hornet double come to mind with the latter.


----------



## bigbob (May 19, 2010)

Sugarloaf has a few older lifts, always breaking down. Timberline and King Pine bowl lifts reused from other locations on mnt.They have issues also. Why would the Loaf want to speng the money to rip out the spillway lifts and install a refurbished quad? Why not just rehab whats there?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 19, 2010)

my understanding with the spillway chairs is the thought that a heavy fixed grip quad will run better in heavy winds than the current doubles do.


----------



## drjeff (May 19, 2010)

One of the big things I'm noticing in this thread when the mention of refurbished installs keeps being brought up is that all of the ski areas cited in the use of refurbished lifts are privately owned.  I wonder if that, the situation where obviously cost conscious in any situation, the folks at Cannon (and at any other publically owned ski area) don't have to be quite as cost conscious???  

Come to think of it, can anyone think of a publically owned ski area that has installed a refurbished lift??


----------



## thetrailboss (May 19, 2010)

Again, appreciate all the viewpoints and discussion on this topic.  Keep it coming.


----------



## threecy (May 19, 2010)

Wow, look at all of these horrible lifts that were installed used...oh the humanity!





Q1 Quad, Jiminy Peak, 23 years old





Summit Quad, Crotched, 21 years old





Valley Quad, Crotched, 21 years old





West Double, Crotched, ~40 years old





Zero G Triple, Crotched, 21 years old





Pistol Triple, Gunstock, 24 years old





West Quad, Berkshire East, 21 years old





Summit Triple, Berkshire East, 23 years old





Top Notch Double, Berkshire East, 46 years old





Macomber Double, Easton, ~30 years old





Vickery Triple, Wachusett, ~30 years old





Morning Star Triple, Okemo, 27 years old





Eagle Cliff Triple, Cannon, 23 years old


----------



## threecy (May 19, 2010)

drjeff said:


> Come to think of it, can anyone think of a publically owned ski area that has installed a refurbished lift??



Gunstock and Cannon both have, but in those cases, they reinstalled their decades-old chairlifts (Pistol Triple at Gunstock (former Summit Triple) and Eagle Cliff Triple at Cannon (formerly the Summit Triple at Sunapee, I believe).

Sunapee has also installed a used chair, but that was after it was privately leased.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 19, 2010)

threecy said:


> Wow, look at all of these horrible lifts that were installed used...oh the humanity!


 
Love the chairlift porn.....

What a pretty photo.  I remember the BEast as having a really neat base area:









Complete with wooden slats!  Nice!


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 19, 2010)

threecy said:


> Gunstock and Cannon both have, but in those cases, they reinstalled their decades-old chairlifts (Pistol Triple at Gunstock (former Summit Triple) and Eagle Cliff Triple at Cannon (formerly the Summit Triple at Sunapee, I believe).
> 
> Sunapee has also installed a used chair, but that was after it was privately leased.



First,Cannon did install a used lift from Sunapee mainly because they got it free from the Muellers and they made 2 lifts out of it.The Eagle Cliff and the Brookside.Second,to your point about Mittersill not holding snow as good as Cannon I say BS.For the last 15 years I've  lived right across the street from where the new lift will be installed and I've been on that mountain virtually every weekend for the last 35.I think I have a lot more knowledge of what's happening there than probably anybody on this forum.Mittersill has a more northerly exsposure than Cannon and holds snow just fine.When you show photos from Mittersill they are natural snowfall photos.You can't compare that with Cannon's mammade snow coverage.Apples and oranges.Just look at the few trails Cannon does not make snow on and you'll see the same amount.The more northerly exposed Mittersill is not a detrement to snow depth as the north winds only effect the upper reaches of Cannon's terrain.The biggest issues with wind by far are the ones from the south which acount for almost all the lift closures along with bringing in warm temps and very high melting.I know,I watched  it out my window for decades.
Third,Mittersill WILL have snowmaking so I don't know where you get the idea that the lifts will spin only 10 weeks a year.Your basing that on its being skiable with natural snow.


----------



## AdironRider (May 19, 2010)

Im fully taking into account profit margin. 26,000,000 over the lifts useful life is certainly attainable. You have to think outside of just Cannons profit margin as well, which I think they will meet by adding Mittersill as lift served alone. Think of the economic impact to the surrounding area. Hotels, gas, food, other tourist destinations. It all adds up. You cant just compare lift ticket sales to a cost of a lift. 

And those lifts look pretty and all, but outside of Okemos lift, and Cannons tuckerbrook lift, not a single area youve posted is in the same league. The powerhouses of Crotched, Jiminy, and Wachusett oh my!

Mittersill alone is probably bigger than all of those areas. Id like to see an entire mid level ski area be opened for under ten million alone.

Im not saying used lifts are going to cost just as much, but maintenance is not free, and if it needs more of it, great, thats a constant draw on funds that could be better spent on the on mountain experience year after year. Id rather take the hit up front and leave much more in the coffers on a year over year basis. That is like comparing a used car to a new car. Pay me now or pay me later. 

I also think its tough to compare snow holding capacity on Mittersill now to after it opens. Skier compaction goes a decent way towards preserving snow over the long term, compared to the relatively little amount of traffic it currently gets. The notion to compare it to Cannons current natural snow trails is spot on.


----------



## threecy (May 19, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> Second,to your point about Mittersill not holding snow as good as Cannon I say BS.



Left natural, critical parts of Mittersill do not hold snow well enough to provide a lift served product that skiers expect, from Thanksgiving to Easter.



SIKSKIER said:


> Third,Mittersill WILL have snowmaking so I don't know where you get the idea that the lifts will spin only 10 weeks a year.Your basing that on its being skiable with natural snow.



"There is no snowmaking right now, but there may be limited snowmaking on just a couple of primary trails some time in the future" - Cannon Mountain web site





AdironRider said:


> Im fully taking into account profit margin. 26,000,000 over the lifts useful life is certainly attainable.


Using 2010 US dollars again for argument's sake, Cannon would have to sell over 393,000 full price adult lift tickets above and beyond their current levels at a 10% profit margin in order to pay for the installation of that brand new lift.



AdironRider said:


> And those lifts look pretty and all, but outside of Okemos lift


Those were just a few examples.  Did you know the South Face at Okemo was opened with a used quad chairlift (I didn't post a photo because I don't have a photo of that lift when it was there)?  The South Face has just about the same vertical drop as Mittersill.



AdironRider said:


> not a single area youve posted is in the same league. The powerhouses of Crotched, Jiminy, and Wachusett oh my!


Oh really?  Did you know Jiminy and Wachusett ski more people than Cannon?



AdironRider said:


> Mittersill alone is probably bigger than all of those areas.


How is Mittersill bigger than Jiminy, Crotched, and Wachusett?  Lift served vertical drop, by a few hundred feet, sure.  But total official acreage?  Trails?  Lifts?  Snowmaking terrain?  Skier visits?  Days of operation?



AdironRider said:


> Id like to see an entire mid level ski area be opened for under ten million alone.


With little to no infrastructure, as the $10M for Mittersill included, if I'm not mistaken?  Regardless, Crotched Mountain raises its hand.



AdironRider said:


> That is like comparing a used car to a new car. Pay me now or pay me later.


Not at all.  Comparing new/used lifts to cars is like managing a major league baseball team using knowledge gathered from a pack of baseball cards.


----------



## AdironRider (May 19, 2010)

Cannon is aiming for a different market than any of those areas mentioned. Do I literally have to spell out everything with every post I make? Its like arguing with a donkey.  We already covered that like 6 pages ago, yet you keep bringing it up. Im not doubting Wachusett gets more skier visits, but they get a different market. Get it? People go to Wachusett cause its cheap and right near Boston. Noone is going to say, hey that Wachusett is just the same as Cannon, why bother? If theyre going to drive 2+ hours north they are looking for a different experience. The car argument is a generalization, youre just arguing semantics at this point. 

Again you bring up just lift tickets when, being a government entity and seeing how thats your entire base for your argument, you should really be looking at overall economic impact. But if you want to keep it just lift tickets fine, I feel 100% confident that over the course of this lifts life, and lets put it at 30 years for a nice round number, that it will certainly bring in more than an additional 13,100 lift tickets sold a year. (Thats 393,000 divided by 30, since I have to spell it out for you). Add a couple thousand to cover labor and maintenance costs and I still feel confident. Thats without taking into account the additional economic impact for the surrounding area, which Im sure theyre stoked about as well. You've yet to comment on that.

We get it, you dont like Mittersill being opened again for your own personal reasons, but this is far from a losing deal for the citizens of NH. Ill concede that, yes, in some form they could have done it cheaper, but I think in the long run this is great for Cannon and great for the taxpayer of NH. Get over it.


----------



## threecy (May 19, 2010)

AdironRider said:


> The car argument is a generalization, youre just arguing semantics at this point.


The car argument is ridiculous to begin with.  Why will only a brand new chairlift last 30 years?  You haven't provided any sort of evidence as to what would only cause a refurbished chairlift to fail and need to be replaced.



AdironRider said:


> Cannon is aiming for a different market than any of those areas mentioned. Do I literally have to spell out everything with every post I make? Its like arguing with a donkey.  We already covered that like 6 pages ago, yet you keep bringing it up. Im not doubting Wachusett gets more skier visits, but they get a different market. Get it? People go to Wachusett cause its cheap and right near Boston. Noone is going to say, hey that Wachusett is just the same as Cannon, why bother? If theyre going to drive 2+ hours north they are looking for a different experience.



What's the difference though?  Are you suggesting that the average skier in Cannon's market knows the difference between a 100% brand new double chairlift and a refurbished new double chairlift, but the average skier in Wachusett's market doesn't?

Are you suggesting that a skier in Cannon's market will only visit Cannon if the new double chairlift is brand new, rather than refurbished?  Are you suggesting that the original install date of double chairlift is the deciding factor, rather than the terrain, conditions, pricing, etc.?


----------



## bobbutts (May 19, 2010)

It's a double chair! not a fancy gondola or detachable.  I would say the impact of new vs. used for visitor perception is close to 0

Joe skier is going to think it sucks for being so slow anyway.

IMO they should have gone cheap here with a used double or gone all out and made this pod into a real draw with detachable chair and extensive snowmaking.


----------



## AdironRider (May 19, 2010)

You want to make the time frame longer, it only hurts your point. 

And yes, I am saying that someone who is going to spend a weekend at Cannon, is going to be looking for more than a feeder hill like WaWa. Im done arguing with you, agree to disagree.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 19, 2010)

threecy said:


> Left natural, critical parts of Mittersill do not hold snow well enough to provide a lift served product that skiers expect, from Thanksgiving to Easter.
> 
> .



You don't have a clue what your talking about.It  holds snow as well or better than most of Cannon.Cannon is way more exposed than Mittersill.Again,I know,I've lived at the bottom of Mittersill for the last 15 years.You could say the exact same thing about any mountain in the east if left natural.Whats the point?


----------



## threecy (May 19, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> You don't have a clue what your talking about.It  holds snow as well or better than most of Cannon.Cannon is way more exposed than Mittersill.Again,I know,I've lived at the bottom of Mittersill for the last 15 years.





I'm only basing that on my year round exploration of the Mittersill area in the past three years and the hundreds of photographs I have taken of it.  I should have not used Cannon proper as the comparison, however it doesn't change the issue - critical parts of Mittersill (in relation to this project) do not hold snow well enough to provide a lift served product that skiers expect.

Unless Cannon plans to do at least a moderate amount of snowmaking over there, or if we get some great snow years, Mittersill will only be open probably ~10 weeks a year.  This also assumes that Cannon doesn't pull the plug on operations over there when skier vists lag.



SIKSKIER said:


> You could say the exact same thing about any mountain in the east if left natural.Whats the point?


The point is that Cannon is dumping millions of dollars on an area that they admit will have no snowmaking at first and limited in the future.  If they wanted to have a natural, lift serviced area, they could have done so for a significantly lower price (and perhaps preserved the character of the trails a bit more - I would imagine you agree they butchered the Taft Trail above the top double chair terminal).


----------



## bigbob (May 19, 2010)

The approval that was received allowed Cannon only to replace what was there. They have a used lift, it is there already. Why was that lift not refurbished? Would that of not been the lowest cost option to the taxpayers of NH??? Obviously some one must of looked at this option prior to purchasing a new lift and dismissed this option.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 19, 2010)

bigbob said:


> The approval that was received allowed Cannon only to replace what was there. They have a used lift, it is there already. Why was that lift not refurbished? Would that of not been the lowest cost option to the taxpayers of NH??? Obviously some one must of looked at this option prior to purchasing a new lift and dismissed this option.


 
Just to be clear...that lift has not operated for over 20 years and is quite decayed.  It is not even close to being safe.

From NELSAP:












From Chairlift.org:


----------



## threecy (May 19, 2010)

bigbob said:


> The approval that was received allowed Cannon only to replace what was there. They have a used lift, it is there already. Why was that lift not refurbished? Would that of not been the lowest cost option to the taxpayers of NH??? Obviously some one must of looked at this option prior to purchasing a new lift and dismissed this option.





thetrailboss said:


> Just to be clear...that lift has not operated for over 20 years and is quite decayed.  It is not even close to being safe.



Indeed, there isn't much from that lift that could be reused.

On a related note, crews were already up there scoping things out yesterday.


----------



## riverc0il (May 19, 2010)

Most of the install photos shown are small players (not major resorts). The few major resorts shown are minor secondary lifts or beginner areas, not a major trail pod. I had thought of some of those examples (especially Crotched). But again, they do not fit the criteria of a A) a major destination/resort and B) a major trail pod (no-beginner).


----------



## riverc0il (May 19, 2010)

threecy's 10 week estimate is a little low, I think, but that double definitely won't run more than 15 weeks a season MAX. Mitty holds snow okay but the problem is sometimes Cannon has inconsistent seasons. In the past either years, there have been one or two seasons when natural snow trails like Mitt were not skiable until February (at least by the sane! I may have tried but regretted a few runs). Also at issue is Mitty is not graded and rock free like many trails. It takes a little more to cover everything up to Cannon standards for opening a trail (which are quite excessive, many a time ropes stay up at Cannon long past what is warranted, IMO).


----------



## thetrailboss (May 19, 2010)

I wonder what efforts will be (and can be) made to clear out underbrush on the trails and to remove rocks, etc.  Dangerous question I know....and probably sacrilege!


----------



## riverc0il (May 19, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> I wonder what efforts will be (and can be) made to clear out underbrush on the trails and to remove rocks, etc.  Dangerous question I know....and probably sacrilege!


No sacrilege at all. Often times, the trees ski better than the trails over there because the trails have not been maintained. They just need to send a bunch of guys up there with scythes and crap. The trails definitely need some work and cleaning them up would not hurt as long as the trails don't get widened. Not much they can do about the rock. Lots of areas in which the rock is exposed with no vegetation covering it up. Perhaps erosion? I dunno. It is a lot easier to ski thin cover over grass than rock though.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 19, 2010)

So.......when they do add Mittersill, anyone care to guess what their advertised Trail Count will be?  Seeing how it's 72 now, I wouldn't be surprised if they stretch it into the 90s or maybe 100.  That I would find freaking hilarious.  

Cannon ranks up there with the biggest offenders in the East of boosting their trail count.

Wonder if they'll maintain the old Mittersill trail names.


----------



## riverc0il (May 19, 2010)

Cannon is indeed a horrid offender of adding new trail names without adding trails. Amazing how few trails they "used to" have (prior to TBrook, Profile, and a few other legit new ones):
http://teachski.com/brochures/cannonmt/cannonmittersillsm.jpg

Mitty has maybe a dozen real runs but they could easily put over two dozen names on the map not even counting glades.
http://teachski.com/books/nationalsurvey/atlasmittersill.jpg

I would not be surprised to see Cannon push for the 100 count. uke:


----------



## threecy (May 19, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Most of the install photos shown are small players (not major resorts). The few major resorts shown are minor secondary lifts or beginner areas, not a major trail pod.


I'm not sure why Mittersill should be considered a major trail pod?  It will likely have the second lowest uphill capacity of any chairlift served pod in New England (next to the MRG single).

Another example of used lifts serving major pods at major resorts that I left out - the South Face at Okemo was originally built using a used fixed grip quad.  They later replaced that with a high speed quad.  That fixed grip quad was then installed used at Sunapee as the Sun Bowl Quad.








riverc0il said:


> But again, they do not fit the criteria of a A) a major destination/resort


I don't understand why Cannon is considered a major ski area but Jiminy and Wachusett aren't.  Jiminy has a much larger lift network than Cannon.  Wachusett has more detachable chairs than Cannon.  But, more importantly, Jiminy skis twice as many people as Cannon, and Wachusett skis three times as many people as Cannon.  Cannon may seem like a major resort due to the tram and large vertical drop, however it certainly doesn't ski anywhere near as many people as the big players in New England.



riverc0il said:


> No sacrilege at all. Often times, the trees ski better than the trails over there because the trails have not been maintained. They just need to send a bunch of guys up there with scythes and crap. The trails definitely need some work and cleaning them up would not hurt as long as the trails don't get widened.


They already started this last year, by widening a few trails (including Taft above the top of the chairlift and leaving a bunch of stubs sticking about 2-3" above the ground).  As of yesterday, they've widened a bunch more (including the lift line), and are solidifying the work road to the top terminal.


----------



## threecy (May 19, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> I would not be surprised to see Cannon push for the 100 count. uke:



I wouldn't be surprised either...with Bretton Woods and Attitash chasing after each other for the last 20 years for the title of "NH's biggest," I wouldn't be surprised to see Cannon try to lay claim as a result of this project.  In some comparisons, the numbers Bretton Woods and Attitash use are just silly vs. some Vermont areas, as an example.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 19, 2010)

not 100% sure, but wasn't the South Face Quad the original Solitued Fixed Grip?  I do believe they moved it over when they replaced Solitude with a Detach.

I think all Mueller used lift applications that they've done over the past several years have been done with lifts they actually own, not bought 2nd hand.

I say this not to take away from your argument of buying used at Cannon. You have a good point given the minimal usage the lift will see without significant snowmaking effort.

Personally?  I think it's silly to argue the point either way......yours or those in favor of a new lift.  I say that meaning no offense.  Cannon is a state owned entity that is successful enough to not fail.  As I mentioned prior, 2 mil is about $2 a resident, so as a NH tax payer, I really could care less.  

Just wish I lived a touch closer to take advantage of the $475 pass as an NH resident.   Really wish they offered a Sunday afternoon NH resident deal like Sunapee.


----------



## threecy (May 19, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> Personally?  I think it's silly to argue the point either way......yours or those in favor of a new lift.  I say that meaning no offense.  Cannon is a state owned entity that is successful enough to not fail.  As I mentioned prior, 2 mil is about $2 a resident, so as a NH tax payer, I really could care less.



$2,000,000 is a big deal, especially considering that Concord is about to tip over right now.

Since it is not a direct budget line item though, one can still question how they could better spend the $2,000,000 at Cannon.  Again, imagine if Cannon were to spend that on fan guns - imagine what the conditions would be like at Cannon if they had the fan gun snowmaking coverage that Mt. Snow has?  I still think a multi-million dollar investment addressing Cannon's achilles' heel would go much further in making Cannon a strong ski area.

As it stands now, they're skiing the skier visits of a small to mid-sized ski operation on the mountain of a major ski area.  Adding this brand new double chairlift will actually add to this inbalance.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 19, 2010)

But isn't it arguable that Cannon is trying to get more skiers and riders by catering to the natural terrain/conditions crowd since they pretty much only have Wildcat to compete with for that market?  

As to Cannon having 72 trails, are you kidding?  When I was in high school in the late 1990's they had 45 or so.  I mean come on....almost as bad as Stowe going from 45 to 100 or so in one season after years of marketing on the point that they did not pander to padded trail counts.  Oh wait, they were owned by AIG, so that explains why the numbers got so inflated without anything to back it up.  :lol:


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> What's with the moving target?  I thought the modified question was limited to only this year, since it wasn't fair to look back over the years since the project was announced.  Being that it's limited to this year, it's a question of what *is* on the market, which I'm not going to disclose here.



There's no moving target.  I asked a simple question:  How many doubles have been on the market this year?  I have no interest in which doubles those are, where they came from, or where they might be going.  If you could simply answer the question, which gives away nothing of a proprietary nature, that would help clear things up, wouldn't it?



> Visibility and marketing hype?  Then why put in a double chairlift and little to no snowmaking?


So you're suggesting they should have spent even more money for a triple, quad or detatchable lift?  How is that consistent?   Regarding not having snowmaking, as you are at pains to point out, Cannon is fully a part of the NH state govt.  They invest what they are appropriated/approved/allowed by poorly paid politicians with little to no knowledge of the complexities of the ski industry.  While snowmaking is in the long-term picture, it's not like they can just call the bank to secure the financing for such an expansion this year, no matter how compelling the business case.    


Really?  Firstly, your list was actually mixed (new terrain vs. replacement).  Secondly, if you look at my list, which was not under the guise of serving all new terrain, many of those *did* serve net new terrain. [/quote]
Shouldn't it under the guise of serving new terrain?  Is that now what we're talking about here?  Which ones on your list served a brand new pod of trails?  Widow White's peak at Jiminy?  Even if true, that's a lousy example for your case, as that modest amount of terrain surely didn't need a quad chair to serve it.



> Bottom line, most skiers can't identify the age or make of a lift.  This brand new double chairlift will look virtually the same as a nicely painted 20 year old lift to most folks.


So then why don't we see major resorts buying a lot of used lifts?  I understand why small to mid-sized resorts would consider it, but why is that there are precious few examples of major resorts buying them to serve new, marquis terrain?



> With all due respect, you're all over the place in using your own rules as to what constitutes new expansion and what constitutes replacement.


Enlighten us.  How was I inconsistent?    I think it's pretty easy to determine what's expansion and what's replacement.



> What *is* Cannon's league?  This is a question that has been a tough one for many people in the industry to answer.  Regardless, we're talking about a ~1K vertical double chairlift, whether it was installed new or old.  We're not talking about a major pod that will transport 3,000 skiers an hour, or be the basis of 300 new condos, etc.


Why does a major pod have to support more real estate (Hint: The real estate was already built there) or have excessive lift capacity for the terrain?  Is that your vision of what skiing and terrain expansions today should be about?    It is a major expansion of terrain for Cannon anyway you slice it.  A 1300' lift is nothing to sneeze at on any mountain.  That likely places it in the top 20% of all lifts in the East in terms of vertical.



> But Bolton Valley and Saddleback are?


You're joking right?  Saddleback is another 2000' vert mountain with a hard core reputation going after the metro Boston market.  Duh.  

As for BV, in terms of acreage, vertical, clientele, snow surfaces and pricing, it's clearly more in Cannon's league than the local Mass and Southern NH hills you referenced, even if they are drawing from largely different markets.



> So Mittersill is core terrain?  Regardless, are you 100% sure of the rest of your statement?


Core was as poor word choice.  It will certainly be marquis terrain that will generate buzz amongst the skiing community. When they install snowmaking, the Mittersill terrain should help to fill a gap in Cannon's current offering.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> More years of cash flow from a lift means more PV of cash flows.


Once you get out past the usable life of a used lift, the PV of the out years is a rounding error b/c they're being discounted almost completely by that point.  Also, that has nothing do with the the amount of cash flows you generate in a given year, which was what you originally claimed.



> It also spreads the negative amount of cash flow spent up front over more years....


No, your depreciation schedule, which is mandated by GAAP, determines how long you can spread out the "negative cash flow" in the form of the original investment.  Any business worth it's salt uses the most aggressive schedule possible in order to maximize the real-dollar benefit of the depreciation tax shield.  Whatever happens in 40-50 years is irrelevant to this analysis b/c the lift would be long since depreciated regardless of whether it's new or used.



> EACF is the abbreviation that I was taught; I imagine many wouldn't know what I was referencing. Remind me why is the capitalization was relevant to anything you're asserting. Are YOU familiar with the EACF calculation? It doesn't seem to be the case.


There is no calculation for EACF b/c it's not a formal term with a specific formula.  Find it on investopedia.com or something similar.  You see references to such a term here and there, but it's just a very general and non-descript term of art.  You were using it as if it was something like NPV, Book Value, or ROI, which it clearly is not.



> Inflation would lower PV of cash flows too. Skilifts.org also said this about the triple: "Sold to Shawnee Peak Maine in 2006. Had a special variance from NH Tramway Board to run at 550 fpm. " Pre Lehman going "titties up".


Inflation has been next to non-existent in the last few years, despite the best efforts of Ben Bernanke.  Pricing for specific goods and services, especially those tied to industries dependent entirely upon discretionary income, tend to swing by a bit more than macro prices during major disruptions like we saw in 2008.




> A little bit of both. You too have a documented track record of sarcasm and satire; I'm glad you picked up on mine.... Last time I checked, Cannon had a GM that was at least somewhat responsible for financial planning. Wouldn't you say?


But you stated that the rumblings have been ongoing for 10 years now.  We know the GM has changed during that time.  I'm certain there's been other turnover.   As important, there isn't a private owner or corp office ensuring consistency of planning (call it "the vision thing") as administrations come and go.  



> The last statement in this bit is almost certainly not true- "any familiarity whatsoever..." You should know better than to use such broad sweeping statements.


Really?  You really think there are some bureaucrats or part-time politicians in Concord who are in the weeds on the planning for the Mittersill lift?  You honestly think that's how it works?


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> Wow, look at all of these horrible lifts that were installed used...oh the humanity!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All of those, with the exception of Okemo, are 2nd and third rate, non-destination resorts.  That's not Cannon.  As for Okemo, the Morning Stare triple is a 500' vertical real estate lift.  I would be shocked if more than 25% of Okemo skiers on any given day could tell you where it is.  How that should be compared to Mittersill is beyond me.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

drjeff said:


> One of the big things I'm noticing in this thread when the mention of refurbished installs keeps being brought up is that all of the ski areas cited in the use of refurbished lifts are privately owned.  I wonder if that, the situation where obviously cost conscious in any situation, the folks at Cannon (and at any other publically owned ski area) don't have to be quite as cost conscious???
> 
> Come to think of it, can anyone think of a publically owned ski area that has installed a refurbished lift??


Maybe the Lookout Triple at WF?  

Definitely the Top Ridge Triple at Gore.

I don't count any at Sunapee b/c it's privately operated regardless of ownership.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> Left natural, critical parts of Mittersill do not hold snow well enough to provide a lift served product that skiers expect, from Thanksgiving to Easter.


Who is moving the goal posts now?  Name me a single trail on any mountain in the East that is generally skiable on natural snow from Thanksgiving to Easter.   Not meeting that standard has zero to do with the question of whether it holds snow well.  Spillsville at SB holds snow as well as any run in the East b/c it's high up, narrow, and faces NE.  Even that run is only skiable by Thanksgiving well less than 50% of the time.



> Using 2010 US dollars again for argument's sake, Cannon would have to sell over 393,000 full price adult lift tickets above and beyond their current levels at a 10% profit margin in order to pay for the installation of that brand new lift.


Why use 2010 dollars when lift ticket prices are increasing much faster than inflation?  In addition, as an alleged industry insider, you should know darn well that lift ticket revenue alone accounts for only a portion of overall revenue from a skier, especially the kind that like walking out their door from a condo at the base of a mountain - one like say, Mittersill!  There is F&B, lessons, rentals - all of which are major revenue streams.  Stop being so disingenuous.

[quote[Those were just a few examples.  Did you know the South Face at Okemo was opened with a used quad chairlift (I didn't post a photo because I don't have a photo of that lift when it was there)?  The South Face has just about the same vertical drop as Mittersill.[/quote]
Why didn't they buy a used double for less?  It's not like the South Face needs the capacity a quad brings to the table.



> Oh really?  Did you know Jiminy and Wachusett ski more people than Cannon?


Oh! Ooh!  I can play that game too!  Did you know that Mountain High outside of LA has way more skier visits than Jackson Hole?  Mountain High must be world class!!



> How is Mittersill bigger than Jiminy, Crotched, and Wachusett?  Lift served vertical drop, by a few hundred feet, sure.  But total official acreage?


Whether you like to admit it or not, things like vertical and snowfall matter.  I like how you use "official" acreage too.  It is likely that Mittersill alone has more terrain than the other three when "unofficial" acreage is included.  In today's market, that matters.



> With little to no infrastructure, as the $10M for Mittersill included, if I'm not mistaken?  Regardless, Crotched Mountain raises its hand.


How much of that went to the approval process mandated by Cannon's ownership and land owners?  I don't know why you think it's relevant to compare it to a hill entirely on private land.  It doesn't cost $7.4MM (the $10MM total less $2.6MM for the lift) to clear overgrown trails.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> I'm not sure why Mittersill should be considered a major trail pod?  It will likely have the second lowest uphill capacity of any chairlift served pod in New England (next to the MRG single).


Well, you've sort of blown up your own argument while trying to make it.  Why does uphill capacity matter when discussing how important a trail pod is?  I think the terrain served my MRG's single is pretty major, as is Sunnyside.   I think Castlerock is a pretty major trail pod, but that's just me.  I'm sure there's a few Jay Peak aficionados who like skiing off the summit, even though the tram has such a pathetic and paltry uphill capacity (while we're at it - Rendezvouz Peak at Jackson?  Pshaw!  Second rate!  Not enough capacity!!!)  Madonna 1 doesn't do it for you I suppose?  Wilderness at Bolton doesn't make the grade?  

Oopsie.



> Another example of used lifts serving major pods at major resorts that I left out - the South Face at Okemo was originally built using a used fixed grip quad.  They later replaced that with a high speed quad.  That fixed grip quad was then installed used at Sunapee as the Sun Bowl Quad.
> [/IMG]
> Their own or someone else's? Big difference.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> Since it is not a direct budget line item though, one can still question how they could better spend the $2,000,000 at Cannon.  Again, imagine if Cannon were to spend that on fan guns - imagine what the conditions would be like at Cannon if they had the fan gun snowmaking coverage that Mt. Snow has?  I still think a multi-million dollar investment addressing Cannon's achilles' heel would go much further in making Cannon a strong ski area.


How much extra budget would they have to run those fan guns and make that extra snow?  Also, the water will always be there if they decide to tackle snowmaking in the future.  The chance to re-open Mittersill was a one-time opportunity given the competing and overlapping jurisdictions.   No one can fault them for taking it, expect perhaps for a self-interested industry insider who is in the used-lift business.



> As it stands now, they're skiing the skier visits of a small to mid-sized ski operation on the mountain of a major ski area.  Adding this brand new double chairlift will actually add to this inbalance.


Certainly will do so on Day 1, but that lift will be around for 50 years, and I'm sure that Cannon is betting that dramatically expanding terrain and now having a new neighborhood of condos at the base of one of their lifts will heighten their profile just a tad.


----------



## bigbob (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> I wouldn't be surprised either...with Bretton Woods and Attitash chasing after each other for the last 20 years for the title of "NH's biggest," I wouldn't be surprised to see Cannon try to lay claim as a result of this project.  In some comparisons, the numbers Bretton Woods and Attitash use are just silly vs. some Vermont areas, as an example.



 Isn't Loon now considering itself to be "NH Biggest " now?


----------



## riverc0il (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> I'm not sure why Mittersill should be considered a major trail pod?  It will likely have the second lowest uphill capacity of any chairlift served pod in New England (next to the MRG single).


Why not? Look at how much terrain it serves? It serves more terrain and vertical than the Zoomer Chair which I would consider a major trail pod. Over a 1000 vert. My definition of a major trail pod is quality and quantity of terrain served relative to the mountain, not up hill capacity (or else you could consider Castlerock not major either).



threecy said:


> I don't understand why Cannon is considered a major ski area but Jiminy and Wachusett aren't.  Jiminy has a much larger lift network than Cannon.  Wachusett has more detachable chairs than Cannon.  But, more importantly, Jiminy skis twice as many people as Cannon, and Wachusett skis three times as many people as Cannon.  Cannon may seem like a major resort due to the tram and large vertical drop, however it certainly doesn't ski anywhere near as many people as the big players in New England.


Jiminy and WaWa are not destinations. People are not over nighting those areas. When most folks want to do serious skiing, they are driving right past those areas. Nashoba has about as many lifts than Cannon, does that make them on par? Nashoba probably also has more visits than Cannon due to night skiing and after school programs. Again, not a good comparison. Vertical drop and destination makes a mountain "major" IMO.



threecy said:


> They already started this last year, by widening a few trails (including Taft above the top of the chairlift and leaving a bunch of stubs sticking about 2-3" above the ground).  As of yesterday, they've widened a bunch more (including the lift line), and are solidifying the work road to the top terminal.


The only trail I noticed widened last year was the Taft (unfortunately, and a trail that will not even be serviced by the lift, talk about a waste of time and money). I was actually kind of surprised that there wasn't really much if any (I certainly didn't notice any and I know the area very well) widening and cleaning done last year aside from Taft. They did chop in a very narrow lift line last year on the lower mountain, the upper mountain lift line was already cleared. They definitely needed to expand it more than their efforts last year which were very basic and minimal.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 20, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Jiminy and WaWa are not destinations. People are not over nighting those areas. .




Jiminy actually is for some.  CEO of my company headquartered in NJ has a condo there.  Not sure why they don't just drive a bit less to the Catskills region or a bit more for VT.  Perhaps the summer appeal of the Berkshires.


----------



## threecy (May 20, 2010)

Tin Woodsman said:


> There's no moving target.  I asked a simple question:  How many doubles have been on the market this year?  I have no interest in which doubles those are, where they came from, or where they might be going.  If you could simply answer the question, which gives away nothing of a proprietary nature, that would help clear things up, wouldn't it?


Without looking at my records or any recent listings, I can think of half a dozen doubles that could be attained today.




Tin Woodsman said:


> So you're suggesting they should have spent even more money for a triple, quad or detatchable lift?  How is that consistent?   Regarding not having snowmaking, as you are at pains to point out, Cannon is fully a part of the NH state govt.  They invest what they are appropriated/approved/allowed by poorly paid politicians with little to no knowledge of the complexities of the ski industry.  While snowmaking is in the long-term picture, it's not like they can just call the bank to secure the financing for such an expansion this year, no matter how compelling the business case.





Tin Woodsman said:


> Who is moving the goal posts now?  Name me a single trail on any mountain in the East that is generally skiable on natural snow from Thanksgiving to Easter.   Not meeting that standard has zero to do with the question of whether it holds snow well.  Spillsville at SB holds snow as well as any run in the East b/c it's high up, narrow, and faces NE.  Even that run is only skiable by Thanksgiving well less than 50% of the time.





Tin Woodsman said:


> serve new, marquis terrain?


Perhaps you're missing my point.  They are installing a double chairlift on, as of today, non-snowmaking terrain.  They aim to provide limited snowmaking.  We're not talking about South Face, or Jackson Gore, or South Peak, or Bear Peak here.  




Tin Woodsman said:


> A 1300' lift is nothing to sneeze at on any mountain.  That likely places it in the top 20% of all lifts in the East in terms of vertical.





Tin Woodsman said:


> So then why don't we see major resorts buying a lot of used lifts?  I understand why small to mid-sized resorts would consider it, but why is that there are precious few examples of major resorts buying them to serve new, marquis terrain?



We do, but you apparently have an arbitrary system of deciding what's a major resort and what's not.





Tin Woodsman said:


> Wachusett, BEast, Catamount, Jiminy, Gunstock and Shawnee are either geographically irrelevant or serving a different section of the market altogether.





Tin Woodsman said:


> You're joking right?  Saddleback is another 2000' vert mountain with a hard core reputation going after the metro Boston market.  Duh.
> 
> As for BV, in terms of acreage, vertical, clientele, snow surfaces and pricing, it's clearly more in Cannon's league than the local Mass and Southern NH hills you referenced, even if they are drawing from largely different markets.


You don't think Gunstock and Wachusett draw from Cannon's market?  Yet you think Saddleback is going after the "metro Boston market?"  Where do Gunstock and Wachusett draw from?  New York City?





Tin Woodsman said:


> All of those, with the exception of Okemo, are 2nd and third rate, non-destination resorts.


Clearly skier visits and revenue don't matter to you - only the magical vertical drop number.  I'd like to see you walk up to the owners and General Managers of those mountains and tell them to their faces that they run "2nd and third rate" resorts.



Tin Woodsman said:


> As for Okemo, the Morning Stare triple is a 500' vertical real estate lift.


South Face was also?






Tin Woodsman said:


> In addition, as an alleged industry insider, you should know darn well that lift ticket revenue alone accounts for only a portion of overall revenue from a skier, especially the kind that like walking out their door from a condo at the base of a mountain - one like say, Mittersill!  There is F&B, lessons, rentals - all of which are major revenue streams.  Stop being so disingenuous.


How many Mittersill skiers rent equipment?  How many Mittersill skiers get lessons?  Where are they selling F&B at Mittersill?



Tin Woodsman said:


> Why didn't they buy a used double for less?  It's not like the South Face needs the capacity a quad brings to the table.


I was not in the industry when they built South Face, so unfortunately I have zero insight on that decision.  Regardless, the management at Okemo likes to ensure new areas have high uphill capacity.  Certainly there are lines there when Okemo is busy, at least in my limited experience skiing there.





Tin Woodsman said:


> Their own or someone else's? Big difference.


Absolutely.  That's a critical aspect in buying used - knowing how well the lift was maintained.  One of the reasons Loon's triple chairlift was coveted was that Loon had a good reputation for maintaining their equipment.



Tin Woodsman said:


> As discussed elsewhere, that's a specious argument.  Comparing local hills that do big volume to larger destination resorts is apples and elephants.
> 
> Wachusett skis more people than Jackson Hole, Telluride, Aspen Highlands, and Taos.  Is Wachusett more of a premier/major ski area than those locales?


More of a premier?  No.  But they're certainly not Ward Hill.



Tin Woodsman said:


> How much extra budget would they have to run those fan guns and make that extra snow?


If they ran them at a Mt. Snow pace, hundreds of thousands of dollars extra.  If they ran them instead of air/water, using the same hours, they'd see better yield and some savings.



Tin Woodsman said:


> The chance to re-open Mittersill was a one-time opportunity given the competing and overlapping jurisdictions.


I don't believe the landswap was dependent upon them buying a brand new double chairlift in 2010.  Frankly, I think the situation they had in 2009-2010 was pretty neat (having Mittersill as an official non-lift served backcountry ski area).  They were able to operate it at little cost.  I think, as they continue to widen and homgenize the trails back into the generally intermediate area that it is, there will be a lot of unhappy, diehard Cannon skiers.  Will they stop going to Cannon?  Who knows.



Tin Woodsman said:


> Cannon is betting that dramatically expanding terrain and now having a new neighborhood of condos at the base of one of their lifts will heighten their profile just a tad.


Cannon is building new condos?  Or are you suggesting that today, the folks who own at Mittersill are all driving to Loon?



Tin Woodsman said:


> No one can fault them for taking it, expect perhaps for a self-interested industry insider who is in the used-lift business.


My only real interest in this is as a New Hampshire taxpayer.  My dealings in the used equipment business are miniscule as compared to when I was in the industry full time.

I'm trying to share knowledge with folks, as I think a lot of people had the same reaction when they saw the $2,600,000 cost for a double chairlift.  At this point, I'm getting pretty sick arguing this point with people who don't know or don't care to know about the workings of the ski industry.  There are quite a few folks on these forums who know a heck of a lot more about lifts than I do, but they have wisely chosen to stay out of this thread.


----------



## threecy (May 20, 2010)

riverc0il said:


> Jiminy and WaWa are not destinations. People are not over nighting those areas.



Zero people stay overnight _at_ Cannon.  Jiminy, on the other hand, has a massive slopeside condo/timeshare complex.  Wachusett if I'm not mistaken also owns the lodging facilities they advertise on their site.


----------



## Puck it (May 20, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Just to be clear...that lift has not operated for over 20 years and is quite decayed. It is not even close to being safe.
> 
> From NELSAP:
> 
> ...


 

All it needs is a little rattle can paint and it would be fine!!!!!!!!:wink:


----------



## deadheadskier (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> Zero people stay overnight _at_ Cannon.  Jiminy, on the other hand, has a massive slopeside condo/timeshare complex.  Wachusett if I'm not mistaken also owns the lodging facilities they advertise on their site.



and there lies the problem for Cannon wanting to grow its business.  Outside of a small amount over on Mittersill, there is minimal bed base for Cannon and that probably will never change due to permitting.

The two biggest ways for increasing skier visits are:

1. New lifts and terrain

2. Increasing the bed base

I do understand your point that fan guns would make a world of difference for the skiing product on Cannon Mountain.  Also I'm in the camp of wanting to let Mittersill remain the way it is.  

The lift being new or used is what it is.  I do get why they're moving forward with it.  The increased trail acreage it will provide might be the largest at any eastern ski area for one summer in the past 20 years.  Maybe Jackson Gore at Okemo was more, but it was done in stages.  

Now, enthusiasts know that that terrain will not be open more than 70ish% of the season, some years less.   Joe Recreational skier won't know that though nor will the shiny new brochures say that.  

Cannon can market the hell out of Mittersill and it will bring a lot of new traffic to the mountain.  Fan Guns wouldn't have the same impact.   I imagine once they get the increased traffic / revenue, the next stage of investment will involve snowmaking upgrades.


----------



## billski (May 20, 2010)

Cannon and the Mitt, 1939.  Nice narrow trails, huh?


----------



## billski (May 20, 2010)

http://www.cannonmt.com/intrailmap.html
That's interesting.  Are the Mitt trails shown the original ones?
Looks pretty much the same
http://www.nelsap.org/nh/mittersill.html


----------



## Puck it (May 20, 2010)

Fan Guns at Cannon would be a bad idea.  Too much wind for them.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 20, 2010)

billski said:


> http://www.cannonmt.com/intrailmap.html
> That's interesting. Are the Mitt trails shown the original ones?
> Looks pretty much the same
> http://www.nelsap.org/nh/mittersill.html


 

That's pretty much what Mittersill looked like and still does today.  The lift in question is the one on the far left (or east) next to "A."


----------



## thetrailboss (May 20, 2010)

Judging by the amount of interest with Cannon and Mittersill, the question remains, *when are we going to do an AZ Mittersill Day?*


----------



## EPB (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> Without looking at my records or any recent listings, I can think of half a dozen doubles that could be attained today.



I might be mistaken, but you did say you are no longer in the industry, correct?  If that's the case, there should be no reason why you cannot disclose said half dozen doubles.  You did also say that western mountains would be much more expensive to purchase from because of shipping issues, so I presume these lifts would be from the east coast.  Would the available lifts be so short that Cannon would need to purchase two for Mittersill?  The consensus here seems to be that there are no long doubles lying around the northeast that are for sale, unless of course you have information that we don't.  I, for one, am skeptical that a good replacement lift built in the past 25 years exists. 





threecy said:


> We do, but you apparently have an arbitrary system of deciding what's a major resort and what's not.
> 
> You don't think Gunstock and Wachusett draw from Cannon's market?  Yet you think Saddleback is going after the "metro Boston market?"  Where do Gunstock and Wachusett draw from?  New York City?



With all due respect, you appear to be having an incredibly difficult time understanding what seems to be a fairly obvious distinction.  There are ski areas close to Boston where people go for day trips, or when they don't want to travel particularly far.  Gunstock, WaWa, Jimminy, etc fall into that category.  The bedding situation is somewhat irrelevant because many people that go to ski areas closer to Boston sacrifice convenience for major New England ski area terrain.  Whether they stay overnight is aside from the point.  When people venture into northern ME, NH and VT, their expectations of snow, terrain and lifts change.




threecy said:


> Absolutely.  That's a critical aspect in buying used - knowing how well the lift was maintained.  One of the reasons Loon's triple chairlift was coveted was that Loon had a good reputation for maintaining their equipment.



So when you referenced those phantom half dozen lifts earlier, you also know that they are in acceptable condition? 


I'll agree with you on this much:
A lift build in the past, 25 years by CTEC, and Poma could probably pass for "like new" in most people's minds.  Lifts built in the last 18 to 20 years by Doppelmayr would fall under the same category (the 80's dopps could easily be recognized as old and shitty).  Lifts built by any other manufacturer wouldn't fly.  Now, if Cannon could have turned up a lift of acceptable length that fit the above criteria between last spring and now, that could have been a viable alternative.  

Without any evidence that such lifts were available, there really isn't much more to say.  The used lift market likely did not match up with Cannon's needs, and they might have paid a bit too much on a new install.  Nobody here has given a solid estimate for how much money the state leases Sunapee for, and nobody here knows exactly what type of profit (or loss) Cannon has been generating the past few years.  This lift could  fit nicely into their budget and lead to a healthy increase in cash flows that a used lift couldn't offer.  I presume you don't have much experience with the degree to which installing new lifts increases cash flows, but maybe you do; I haven't seen you mention it thus far.


----------



## AdironRider (May 20, 2010)

Check out the legs on this thread.

I will say Tin put up a better fight than I did. Im just to lazy to split up quotes fifteen times. 

I like my blatant armchair quarterback style. And pissing off irrational "insiders" like threecy.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 20, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Fan Guns at Cannon would be a bad idea.  Too much wind for them.



I'm sure they could be useful on certain trails and high traffic areas.


----------



## threecy (May 20, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Fan Guns at Cannon would be a bad idea.  Too much wind for them.


That statement is nonsensical.  If it's too windy for snowmaking, it's too windy for snowmaking, air/water or fan gun.




eastern powder baby said:


> I might be mistaken, but you did say you are no longer in the industry, correct?  If that's the case, there should be no reason why you cannot disclose said half dozen doubles.


I am still a consultant and I am bound to NDAs.



eastern powder baby said:


> With all due respect, you appear to be having an incredibly difficult time understanding what seems to be a fairly obvious distinction.  There are ski areas close to Boston where people go for day trips, or when they don't want to travel particularly far.  Gunstock, WaWa, Jimminy, etc fall into that category.  The bedding situation is somewhat irrelevant because many people that go to ski areas closer to Boston sacrifice convenience for major New England ski area terrain.  Whether they stay overnight is aside from the point.  When people venture into northern ME, NH and VT, their expectations of snow, terrain and lifts change.


Again, Gunstock and Jiminy are absolutely destination resorts.  Again, Jiminy has a very large slopeside complex, which drives the western Berkshire economy in winter.  Gunstock fills a large number of beds in the southern Lakes Region.

Throwing out a question that probably can't be answered here - I wonder what % of skier visits to Cannon, Gunstock, and Jiminy are overnighters vs. daytrippers.  I bet the % is rather similar.


And again, I'd venture a guess that 99% of skiers can't tell you the make or age of the chairlift they're riding.  So long as it works, looks good, and the chairs are comfortable, no one would notice a difference between a $2.6M and a $0.6M double chairlift at Mittersill.  Do you really think a non-Cannon skier would say, "I'm only going to Cannon if they install a 2010 Doppelmayr/CTEC double chair at Mittersill?"



eastern powder baby said:


> So when you referenced those phantom half dozen lifts earlier, you also know that they are in acceptable condition?


Yes.  There are plenty more double chairlifts in New England if condition isn't an issue.




eastern powder baby said:


> I'll agree with you on this much:
> A lift build in the past, 25 years by CTEC, and Poma could probably pass for "like new" in most people's minds.  Lifts built in the last 18 to 20 years by Doppelmayr would fall under the same category.  Lifts built by any other manufacturer wouldn't fly.


Doppelmayr and CTEC have been the same company for the last decade.  Many other brands were actually absorbed by Doppelmayr/CTEC/Garventa and share similarities.  For instance, Hall/Von Roll eventually were rolled into CTEC.  Borvig was rolled into Partek, which was rolled into Doppelmayr/CTEC.




Without any evidence that such lifts were available, there really isn't much more to say.  The used lift market likely did not match up with Cannon's needs, and they might have paid a bit too much on a new install.  Nobody here has given a solid estimate for how much money the state leases Sunapee for,



eastern powder baby said:


> and nobody here knows exactly what type of profit (or loss) Cannon has been generating the past few years.


I don't believe this season's financials have been released, but Cannon made a profit in 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.  This is not necessarily comparable to a private sector ski area, though, as Cannon doesn't have to worry about land ownership or debt in the same fashion.



eastern powder baby said:


> This lift could  fit nicely into their budget and lead to a healthy increase in cash flows that a used lift couldn't offer.  I presume you don't have much experience with the degree to which installing new lifts increases cash flows, but maybe you do; I haven't seen you mention it thus far.



A lift alone only increases expenses.  Assuming they operate this 7 days a week, Christmas through President's Week, Cannon will need to pay about 2,000 lift operator hours (assuming they can get away with 3 ops), daily maintenance support, electric, etc.  Those are a given and would not vary whether the lift was brand new or refurbished.  Clearly, Cannon already has an issue with the facility being too big to operate, in that they've scaled back midweek operations in recent years.  This only adds to the issue.

The revenue impact will be tough to measure.

Again, I don't think there are many, if any, skiers who would only come to Cannon if the Mittersill double chairlift were brand new vs. refurbished new.  Both would have a modern drive, fresh paint, and perhaps the same comfortable chairs (1960s vintage double chairs don't cut it for a lot of people now).  Very few would know the difference, and maybe a few dozen skiers who know would even care.

Offhand, I think cashflow would be derived from a) folks who want to ski Mittersill-like-terrain served by a lift b) intermediates who previously thought Cannon lacked enough intermediate terrain c) folks who otherwise avoid Cannon in windy conditions.


----------



## bobbutts (May 20, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> With all due respect, you appear to be having an incredibly difficult time understanding what seems to be a fairly obvious distinction.  There are ski areas close to Boston where people go for day trips, or when they don't want to travel particularly far.  Gunstock, WaWa, Jimminy, etc fall into that category.  The bedding situation is somewhat irrelevant because many people that go to ski areas closer to Boston sacrifice convenience for major New England ski area terrain.  Whether they stay overnight is aside from the point.  When people venture into northern ME, NH and VT, their expectations of snow, terrain and lifts change..



Distance in miles and travel time from "Boston" according to Google Maps

Jiminy -         145    2:54
Cannon -       141    2:23
Gunstock -    103    1:59
Wachusett -    66    1:20

You fail at the distance/time argument, which even if you were right about didn't make much sense anyway.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> blah blah



So we've reached the point where we are just talking past each other, which I think it why the Internets were invented.  Regardless, here's my fundamental objection to your original post on this subject, and I think this is something we can discuss in a rational manner w/o resorting to semantics:

You portrayed the decision to purchase a new chair as being irresponsible and one that was likely a function of Cannon being State owned instead of privately owned.  The problem with this argument is that there are literally hundreds of examples of private ski areas purchasing new lifts when a used lift, or even a less expensive new lift (e.g. replacement Single at MRG), were available options.  Prima facie, that renders your central point moot.  The reality is that each chairlift installation is bespoke.  Every chair serves different terrain, for different skiers, in a different climate, under different mgmt, and at resorts with different market positioning and needs.  It is absolutely, fundamentally untrue to say that a privately-owned resort would have done this or that - you have no freaking idea what a private resort would have done.  For each example fitting your heuristic, I can point to just as many going to other way.  By definition, that means you can't portray your POV as being some sort of objective reality.  Instead, you are resorting to intellectual dishonesty by calling WaWa a major/1st class resort or insisting that Thanksgiving to Easter on natural snow is the proper standard for ability to hold snow in New England.  

So you're disappointed that it's costing more money than you'd like as a NH taxpayer.  That's totally fair - I don't live there.  But don't come in here and pretend that you've got insider knowledge rendering your opinion as fact.  That's just bullshit.


----------



## EPB (May 20, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> Distance in miles and travel time from "Boston" according to Google Maps
> 
> Jiminy -         145    2:54
> Cannon -       141    2:23
> ...



I've never been to Jiminy, so I shouldn't have mentioned them in there without doing research. That said, you would be out of your mind to not concede to my point on Wachussett, especially considering how much easier it would be to get there from the Metro West and southeast Mass.  Everybody knows that place is an absolute zoo becasue its the closest 1k vert area around.  Also- the reused chairlift that they relocated is quite short from what I can gather.

Gunstock is better suited to service young families and beginners though upper intermediates. Totally different crowd.  Again, probably one of the closest quazi resort areas to Boston, so there is most certainly a convenience factor (ie the trade-off of time/convenience/price (potentially) v. resort amenities, ski lifts, terrain, and snow certainly apply). Again, they re-used THEIR OWN summit triple to replace a beginner/low intermediate pod's double that was roughly 40+ years old. 

Those installs are weak for comparison to Cannon on a good day at best.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> Distance in miles and travel time from "Boston" according to Google Maps
> 
> Jiminy -         145    2:54
> Cannon -       141    2:23
> ...



Guess what - Thunder Ridge is even further from Boston.  Perhaps that's a better comp for Cannon?  

Jiminy, while very well-run, is a 2nd tier resort.   Sorry if that hurts feelings.  They do tremendous day skier business and a significant night-skiing business as well, drawing from the nearby Capital District, Western Mass, and the CT River Valley region of Hartford to Springfield.  

Destination resort are defined by their mix of clientele and the mix/size of terrain they offer.  Cannon isn't drawing a big day skier crowd from the greater Franconia metropolitan region.  Stop being disingenuous.


----------



## Puck it (May 20, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm sure they could be useful on certain trails and high traffic areas.


 

That is true, but I would not put in 200 of them like Mt Snow.  They do not like the wind if mounted on towers like Attiash.  Stand guns are lower to gun and can be positioned to have the trees stop the wind from blowing the snow where it is not wanted.


----------



## Puck it (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> That statement is nonsensical. If it's too windy for snowmaking, it's too windy for snowmaking, air/water or fan gun.


 
Tower fan guns are more affected by wind then ground guns.  Trees can protect ground guns and keep the snow from blowing ito the woods.  

BTW, I say first hand Cannon blowing snow this year with the winds gusting pretty high and it blowing in to the woods, so that statement does hold either.


----------



## EPB (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> I am still a consultant and I am bound to NDAs.



Fair enough. Hopefully you at least understand why there is considerable doubt that such lifts exist. This site has skiers from all over the northeast posting, and not one has come forth saying that their mountain could have a potential replacement that would fit the criteria for a "like new" lift.




threecy said:


> Again, Gunstock and Jiminy are absolutely destination resorts.  Again, Jiminy has a very large slopeside complex, which drives the western Berkshire economy in winter.  Gunstock fills a large number of beds in the southern Lakes Region.



My last post sheds some light on this situation especially concerning the nature of the replacement there.  The type of skier that shows up to Gunstock as opposed to Cannon are completely different.  Hopefully you would agree there. Being a destination or not is completely irrelevant, as you failed to address in my last post. Expectations are relevant. Many skiers at Gunstock really have no idea what the difference between an 80's dopp and a new install would be, especially ones that frequent the Pistol area.  Again, people using the Mittersill double in the early going would be very experienced skiers who would probably respond more favorably to a new lift, especially compared to any particularly old lift.  




threecy said:


> And again, I'd venture a guess that 99% of skiers can't tell you the make or age of the chairlift they're riding.  So long as it works, looks good, and the chairs are comfortable, no one would notice a difference between a $2.6M and a $0.6M double chairlift at Mittersill.  Do you really think a non-Cannon skier would say, "I'm only going to Cannon if they install a 2010 Doppelmayr/CTEC double chair at Mittersill?"



No, but I imagine if they put in a 1974 Mueller, they'd say something to the effect of "Why on Gods green earth would they build such a P.O.S.?  This thing's been outdated for hmmmmm. 20 years?"  Back to the point, a new install is not necessary, but if they built a lift that appeared to be the same age or older than either the Cannonball or Zoomer, people would take note and it would certainly make Cannon look cheap.




threecy said:


> Yes.  There are plenty more double chairlifts in New England if condition isn't an issue.



I understand and respect that you are somewhat of an industry insider, but this is a completely unsubstantiated claim from my perspective.




threecy said:


> Doppelmayr and CTEC have been the same company for the last decade.  Many other brands were actually absorbed by Doppelmayr/CTEC/Garventa and share similarities.  For instance, Hall/Von Roll eventually were rolled into CTEC.  Borvig was rolled into Partek, which was rolled into Doppelmayr/CTEC.



First sentence: that's exactly why I said that any of the Dopp or CTEC models that they used individually circa 2000 (which date back to roughly 1990 for Dopp and 1985 for CTEC would be acceptable for a "like-new" install. Same goes for used Pomas up to 25ish years old.)  Virtually anyone who will ski Mittersill as long as it remains mostly natural could pick out a Hall, Borvig, Mueller, Heron, Stadeli, or Von Roll and tell you that its certainly outdated.  

Refurbishing lifts can certainly give them new life, I agree with you there, but to say that nobody will notice or care has its limitations.  I, for one, think that it would be completely unreasonable to install doubles that don't fit the criteria I have outlined in my past two responses to you, because people CAN notice when build something especially old and out-dated.  As you have mentioned before, building doubles of this length in the models that fit my idea of realistic age and model types are hard to come by.  I believe you said it was somewhat of a "custom job" in the past 10 to 15 years.  The only pod that is any type of a precedent for Mittersill is Castlerock, that got a NEW Poma double in 2001.  

It's clear by now that you think that resorts can pull a quick one on their customers, and I don't.  Small trail pods, beginner areas, sure.  Why not?  You have failed to produce evidence that any reasonably new (see above criteria) and available lift from the north east is out there for the taking.  You have also failed to show that any resort has even tried such a move on a trail pod like Mittersill.  Cannon isn't a second rate destination resort with many other things to do in the summer, it is a place for more advanced skiers and riders that have much more exposure to good lift systems servicing good terrain.  Sure, they compete with everybody in the northeast to some extent, but that is irrelevant when they have their own particular niche to fill.  I certainly wouldn't expect a crappy lift there.  Would it stop me from skiing there more? Who knows. If the lift is completely garbage, it probably would. I'd feel cheated, and I certainly wouldn't be the only one.  Opening Mittersill is a big deal and trying to cut corners to save money in a pod like this is irresponsible and unprecedented.


----------



## Puck it (May 20, 2010)

Has anybody thought they may have to go with a custom double since they have stick within the requirements of the land transfer?  This would up the cost.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 20, 2010)

Ultimately, as a NH taxpayer, I don't care about the cost of the lift considering Cannon is running in the Black.

Heck, Hampton Beach is in the midst os a 14.5 million state funded revitilization right now.  I don't think that project will bring in any additional people personally.  Place is a zoo already.


----------



## billski (May 20, 2010)

> Again, Gunstock and Jiminy are absolutely destination resorts.  Again,  Jiminy has a very large slopeside complex, which drives the western  Berkshire economy in winter.  Gunstock fills a large number of beds in  the southern Lakes Region.
> 
> Throwing out a question that probably can't be answered here - I wonder  what % of skier visits to Cannon, Gunstock, and Jiminy are overnighters  vs. daytrippers.  I bet the % is rather similar.



Me thinks EPB needs a marketing 101 course.  It's all about market segmentation.
Not all day trippers are created equal.  Nor are all destination skiers.
We have lazy skiers, fanatic skiers, party skiers, pamper-me skiers, cheap skiers, busy-too-little time.  There are many, many niches to be filled.  The key to success is to define your target market , identify your competitors and stick with it.  
Jiminy is a destination resort, but very different from Stowe for example.  Jiminy defines their target market as being the Hartford-Albany crowd.  
Interestingly, if you look at Jay Peak, they do a lot of business with the Montreal crowds - again, back to proximity.  It's only a half-hour further than Stowe, but the Boston and NY crowd often stops at Stowe, Bush and so on.   

Jiminy doesn't really target the Boston market, because it's too far a drive.  Most Boston skiers would point north for a similar destination.  Interstingly, Berkshire East finds themselves in a similar situation.  I've spoken with marketing folks from both about these things.

Gunstock competes against Loon, - not on terrain, but on Boston proximity, price, and to some extent, a simpler operation.  An beginner/intermediate-skill area actually an attraction to to many who don't want to pay for all the black diamonds they'll never use.

Living in metro boston subub-topia I find that "convenience" is a huge factor for many people.  How fast can I get in and out?  Some define convenience by drive time, some by slope-side accommodation, some by ski lockers, some by all of the above.   

I also agree the mid-market money isn't as affected by snow conditions, they expect there will be skiing, and don't get bent out of shape about powder days like we all do.

Each resort has to decide what they want to be.


----------



## EPB (May 20, 2010)

billski said:


> Me thinks EPB needs a marketing 101 course.  It's all about market segmentation.



That wasn't my quote, I believe it was from threecy.  My biggest observation about main stream marketing is that it is highly manipulative because it probes at the less intellegent's psyche with precision and know-how. 



billski said:


> The key to success is to define your target market , identify your competitors and stick with it.



 So we seem to agree that the comparisons threecy brought up with refurbished lift installations are invalid? You go into it in more detail with Jiminy, but I didn't quote it all. I'd also be willing to bet that Jay does a substantial amount of its on slope business from greater Montreal.



billski said:


> Each resort has to decide what they want to be.



So would you say that you endorse Cannon's decision to build a new lift?


----------



## neil (May 20, 2010)

Puck it said:


> Tower fan guns are more affected by wind then ground guns.  Trees can protect ground guns and keep the snow from blowing ito the woods.
> 
> BTW, I say first hand Cannon blowing snow this year with the winds gusting pretty high and it blowing in to the woods, so that statement does hold either.



I'm all for snowmaking on glade runs


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (May 20, 2010)

Tin Woodsman, where are you from?  Also at this point I don't even know if I agree or disagree with you, but is your stance that they should have bought a used lift?  And that Mittersill doesn't need snowmaking?

I can't read through all this non sense for my answers, sorry to lazy.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Tin Woodsman, where are you from?  Also at this point I don't even know if I agree or disagree with you, but is your stance that they should have bought a used lift?  And that Mittersill doesn't need snowmaking?
> 
> I can't read through all this non sense for my answers, sorry to lazy.


Born and raised in New England.  

My stance is that none of us on this board have sufficient information to empirically prove one way or the other whether they should have installed a new or used lift.  My objection to threecy was based on his statement that a private ski area would have purchased a used lift.  Despite the fact that the differential in up front economics is clear enough, there are so many holes in that POV it can't be taken seriously.

As for snowmaking, I suspect that they will install it on some runs/key problem areas there b/c that's what you do in New England when you're at an elevation of 2000-3000' and have an annual snowfall in the 160" range.  Given the current state of the economy, and knowing what a clusterf*ck the annual budgeting process can be, it's not at all surprising that they are taking a piecemeal approach.   Get the lift in and re-open the area for the 95% of people who don't do slackcountry while you have the opportunity to do so.  Then as budgeting and market demands dictate, add in snowmaking and skier services to more fully integrate Mittersill into Cannon.  This approach is not only entirely defensible, it is just these sorts of compromises in the face of competing demands and limited budgets that characterize running any large organization.


----------



## threecy (May 20, 2010)

Sorry, I've had enough of this thread.  If you don't believe I know what I'm talking about, that's fine.  You're welcome to continue living in your armchair quarterback ski industry dreamworld.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (May 20, 2010)

threecy said:


> Sorry, I've had enough of this thread.  If you don't believe I know what I'm talking about, that's fine.  You're welcome to continue living in your armchair quarterback ski industry dreamworld.



It's nice and toasty in here.   Would you like a marshmallow?


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 21, 2010)

*Stomp your feet,take your ball and go home?*



threecy said:


> Sorry, I've had enough of this thread.  If you don't believe I know what I'm talking about, that's fine.  You're welcome to continue living in your armchair quarterback ski industry dreamworld.



So if somebody disagrees with you our point of views don't matter?I know you don't know what your talking about with a few of your comments of Cannon because I've lived there for 35 years.This makes your other arguments open to debate whether you like it or not.I'm sure you know a lot more than I do about the used lift market so I would not pretend to post opinions as fact in that reguard.Don't be afraid to yield to people with more knowledge in other areas than yourself.The more you learn,the more you find out how much you don't know.


----------



## bobbutts (May 21, 2010)

eastern powder baby said:


> I've never been to Jiminy, so I shouldn't have mentioned them in there without doing research. That said, you would be out of your mind to not concede to my point on Wachussett, especially considering how much easier it would be to get there from the Metro West and southeast Mass.  Everybody knows that place is an absolute zoo becasue its the closest 1k vert area around.  Also- the reused chairlift that they relocated is quite short from what I can gather.
> 
> Gunstock is better suited to service young families and beginners though upper intermediates. Totally different crowd.  Again, probably one of the closest quazi resort areas to Boston, so there is most certainly a convenience factor (ie the trade-off of time/convenience/price (potentially) v. resort amenities, ski lifts, terrain, and snow certainly apply). Again, they re-used THEIR OWN summit triple to replace a beginner/low intermediate pod's double that was roughly 40+ years old.
> 
> Those installs are weak for comparison to Cannon on a good day at best.



Cannon and Gunstock very much a day trip destinations for Boston and people stay over for weekends or longer near both.  Wawa is an appetizer for Metro MA.  Jiminy is another market altogether.  Point is none of that really matters.

I think alot of the market expects a detachable of some kind, and the  decision to install a slow, low capacity lift instead of detachable is to me the most  interesting aspect of this. 

Second most interesting is going  with very limited widening and snowmaking for this pod.  

Read: we're getting (semi)new, uncrowded, natural terrain = win in my book

Cannon is pretty unique really and this is a fairly unique expansion to reclaim a mostly lost area while retaining character.  Regardless of whether the State of NH got the best possible value on the chair or made the best financial investment overall, I think it's an exciting expansion.  I will certainly visit it this season to check it out.


----------



## EPB (May 21, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> Read: we're getting (semi)new, uncrowded, natural terrain = win in my book
> 
> Cannon is pretty unique really and this is a fairly unique expansion to reclaim a mostly lost area while retaining character.  Regardless of whether the State of NH got the best possible value on the chair or made the best financial investment overall, I think it's an exciting expansion.  I will certainly visit it this season to check it out.



I'm with you on this much. It will be exciting for sure. As a NH resident, I'll be sure to see what my state has mustered up for this expansion.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 25, 2010)

bobbutts said:


> .
> 
> I think alot of the market expects a detachable of some kind, and the  decision to install a slow, low capacity lift instead of detachable is to me the most  interesting aspect of this.
> 
> Second most interesting is going  with very limited widening and snowmaking for this pod.


The decision was made for them to install a double and have limited cutting.The only way the USFS would allow the land swap was with trails remaining at the width of when Mittersill last operated.A higher capacity lift would need a wider clearing than ever existed and that was not allowed.Widening can only go back to what was there before.


----------



## Puck it (May 25, 2010)

SIKSKIER said:


> The decision was made for them to install a double and have limited cutting.The only way the USFS would allow the land swap was with trails remaining at the width of when Mittersill last operated.A higher capacity lift would need a wider clearing than ever existed and that was not allowed.Widening can only go back to what was there before.


 
Thus may be a custom design and not a std. double


----------



## Johnskiismore (Jun 4, 2010)

My sources tell me that Doppelmayr will be building the new lift at Mittersill.  It will be a double as we all know, no frills, an econo lift if you will...  more to come


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 6, 2010)

Johnskiismore said:


> My sources tell me that Doppelmayr will be building the new lift at Mittersill. It will be a double as we all know, no frills, an econo lift if you will... more to come


 
Thanks.  I think we had that covered 15 pages back or so........


----------



## Johnskiismore (Jun 6, 2010)

thetrailboss said:


> Thanks.  I think we had that covered 15 pages back or so........



No, that was 11 pages back.... my bad


----------



## bigbob (Jun 6, 2010)

Johnskiismore said:


> My sources tell me that Doppelmayr will be building the new lift at Mittersill.  It will be a double as we all know, no frills, an econo lift if you will...  more to come



 Has the governor's council signed the contract yet? Perhaps he was referring to this.


----------

