# Lifts that need replacement



## woofydoggie (Sep 4, 2014)

*Lifts that should be replaced*

Lets make a list of lifts that need replacing or updating!


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 4, 2014)

- Bonaventure Quad at Jay Peak
- Madonna Lift at Smuggler's Notch


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

The (former) south ridge triple


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 4, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> - Bonaventure Quad at Jay Peak
> - Madonna Lift at Smuggler's Notch



+1.

Heavens Gate, Valley House, Sunny D, Village Double at Sugarbush.
Outpost Double at Pico
Snowdon Quad and Triple at Killington
Tempest Quad at Sunday River


Those are the immediate ones that come to mind for me....


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 4, 2014)

Summit Triple at Attitash


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 4, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Summit Triple at Attitash



I knew I was missing one.......

Add Jet Triple @ Jay


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

I thought I remember hearing that attitash didn't having any plans whatsoever on replacing the summit triple


----------



## WoodCore (Sep 4, 2014)

Snow Bowl Quad at Stratton
Black Triple at Magic


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 4, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I thought I remember hearing that attitash didn't having any plans whatsoever on replacing the summit triple



They don't, which really sucks.


----------



## benski (Sep 4, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> +1.
> 
> Heavens Gate, Valley House, Sunny D, Village Double at Sugarbush.
> Outpost Double at Pico
> ...



Why the Sunny D. It does not come close to the other three at sugarbush. 
I think replacing the Heavens gate is overkill since the only problems that would solve are mechanical. I assume those problems can be fixed for much less than a new lift.


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 4, 2014)

The bus at Moose Mountain!


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

I know this is Rockies but chair 2 at Loveland has to be mentioned. 14 minute ride for like 1,000 feet of vertical.

Something needs to be done with chair 5.....it's still physically there but hasn't spun once in over 10 years....it's not even on the trail map anymore

Edit: I was going to say chair 2 could at least get one of those loading treadmills to increase speed, but they have a mid loading station so I don't think it's possible


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 4, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> The bus at Moose Mountain!



High speed detachable bus?  Maybe with a bubble?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 4, 2014)

benski said:


> Why the Sunny D. It does not come close to the other three at sugarbush.
> I think replacing the Heavens gate is overkill since the only problems that would solve are mechanical. I assume those problems can be fixed for much less than a new lift.



The Sunny D is ancient and I imagine that it will need to be replaced soon.  

As to HG, yes there have been mechanical issues with it lately from what I understand.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 4, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I know this is Rockies but chair 2 at Loveland has to be mentioned. 14 minute ride for like 1,000 feet of vertical.
> 
> Something needs to be done with chair 5.....it's still physically there but hasn't spun once in over 10 years....it's not even on the trail map anymore
> 
> Edit: I was going to say chair 2 could at least get one of those loading treadmills to increase speed, but they have a mid loading station so I don't think it's possible



Good one.  That lift is slow.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 4, 2014)

Everything at Smuggler's Notch.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

Wildcat needs a surface lift to the summit.....4 reelz


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 4, 2014)

Savemeasammy said:


> High speed detachable bus?  Maybe with a bubble?



Some heated seats and complimentary beverages?  Maybe a lavatory or two?


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 4, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Everything at Smuggler's Notch.


One problem they will have is that if they only replace one lift with a high speed lift, the remaining lifts are going to seem that much worse.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 4, 2014)

Cannonball Quad


----------



## ss20 (Sep 4, 2014)

Sunbrook Quad at Mount Snow
SRT at Killington
Sunbowl at Stratton
Glade Quad at Okemo
Tempest at Sunday River, plus do something to speed up Aurora.


----------



## woofydoggie (Sep 4, 2014)

(removed) Kidderbrook Quad- Stratton, VT
And for any millionaires out there, red at magic, and fixing all of it up.


----------



## woofydoggie (Sep 4, 2014)

Sachem quad @ Okemo


----------



## Edd (Sep 4, 2014)

Saddleback Rangeley Double!! (Edd repeats this at the top of his lungs again and again until he passes out)


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

I want to know what's up with all the grab handles on the safety bar at alta..... It's serious overkill and actually gets in the way of putting the bar down. 

They need to go! lol


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

Said grab bars


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 4, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Everything at Smuggler's Notch.



You should be ashamed of yourself. When the Fourrunner is closed and Madonna is spinning I bet you don't complain!


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> You should be ashamed of yourself.



Maybe the single chair at MRG instead?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 4, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Maybe the single chair at MRG instead?



Blasphemer!!!!


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

I keed I keed! Put down the pitchfork!

Although I wouldn't protest if they upgraded the sunnyside double to a triple.


----------



## Boston Bulldog (Sep 4, 2014)

Rangeley Double at Saddleback

(Oops didn't see Edd's post)


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 4, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I keed I keed! Put down the pitchfork!
> 
> Although I wouldn't protest if they upgraded the sunnyside double to a triple.



Turning any of the lifts into triples would be cool but makes zero financial sense. A HSQ would ruin the terrain on Madonna. A HSQ on Sterling would be fine but the tickets would be more expensive because of operating cost and need for a lot more snowmaking. The lift ticket price is what differentiates them from their neighbors in the notch.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

I was talking about MRG, not smuggs


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 4, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I was talking about MRG, not smuggs



My bad. Yea, I agree with you on that.


----------



## xlr8r (Sep 4, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Said grab bars
> 
> View attachment 13565



Its for children's safety.  The extra handles are supposed to go between their legs to keep them from slipping under the bar.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

They have that at a-basin. Doesn't take up nearly as much space or bang thighs


----------



## xlr8r (Sep 4, 2014)

Out of the places I've been

Mount Snow - Sundance, Tumbleweed, Sunbrook
Stratton - Snow Bowl
Okemo - Green Ridge
Killington - Snowdon Quad
Jay - Bonaventure, Jet
Waterville - High Country
Loon - Gondola
Attitash - Summit
Sunday River - Tempest, Locke, Spruce


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 4, 2014)

Snowdon Quad!!!!


----------



## Edd (Sep 4, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> Loon - Gondola



This is a good one. I'd love to see a 6-pack replace that thing.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 4, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> *One problem they will have is that if they only replace one lift with a high speed lift, the remaining lifts are going to seem that much worse.*



No, because if all the hoards flock to that lift I'll just stick to one of the crappy ones!  In all seriousness though, something needs to be done.  I dont know how much longer they can go on the current lift system.



MadMadWorld said:


> You should be ashamed of yourself. *When the Fourrunner is closed and Madonna is spinning I bet you don't complain!*



If I'm at Smuggs I probably dont care what's happening at the FourRunner either way!


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

Highway Star said:


> Snowshed Quad!!!!



You would want the snowshed quad replaced, of all the lifts at K


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 4, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Said grab bars
> 
> View attachment 13565



If I had to guess it is to prevent kids from sliding out.  I have no idea though.  Those bars were all aftermarket.  The first time I skied there in 2010 they did not have any safety bars.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> If I had to guess it is to prevent kids from sliding out.  I have no idea though.  Those bars were all aftermarket.  The first time I skied there in 2010 they did not have any safety bars.



Apparently that is what it's for. (Click back one page  )


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 4, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Apparently that is what it's for. (Click back one page  )



Yeah I saw that after I posted.  I would not be surprised if their insurer insisted that they put them on or if there was an incident.


----------



## drjeff (Sep 4, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> Out of the places I've been
> 
> Mount Snow - Sundance, Tumbleweed, Sunbrook
> Stratton - Snow Bowl
> ...



All 3 of those you mentioned for Mount Snow, plus one of the triples on the Northface are scheduled for replacement in their master plan


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 4, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> They don't, which really sucks.



They should have replaced it with the HSQ that they bought for Bear Peak and moved the triple to BP. It's kind of overkill over there IMO. To add salt to the wound, they have that HSQ that goes like a 1/3 of the way up the mountain and services only a few trails (not even popular ones). That place is a complete cluster fuck.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 4, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> They should have replaced it with the HSQ that they bought for Bear Peak and moved the triple to BP. It's kind of overkill over there IMO. To add salt to the wound, they have that HSQ that goes like a 1/3 of the way up the mountain and services only a few trails (not even popular ones). That place is a complete cluster fuck.



I think at a minimum, if they don't want the summit getting too crowded since it only serves 2 blues, they could add a HSQ from the top of the flying
Yankee HSQ to the summit.


----------



## HowieT2 (Sep 4, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> +1.
> 
> Heavens Gate, Valley House, Sunny D, Village Double at Sugarbush.
> Outpost Double at Pico
> ...



valley house double and village double are on the docket to be replaced.  I believe with a quad and a triple respectively.  Expect both to happen within the next year or 2.
Don't think heavens gate needs to be replaced but we'll see how the refurbishment they did this summer works out.  Sunny d is no big deal either way as it only serves the terrain park at mt Ellen.


----------



## Madroch (Sep 4, 2014)

Vally house double is so overdue....particularly with the super bravo so spotty.....


----------



## Edd (Sep 4, 2014)

I'm torn on the Attitash triple. I dislike riding it but there's some fairly steep terrain that gets easily scraped off as it is. 

A conveyor belt with a bump in speed might be a good compromise.


----------



## HowieT2 (Sep 4, 2014)

Madroch said:


> Vally house double is so overdue....particularly with the super bravo so spotty.....



So true.  Reliable (mechanically and wind wise), but decrepit and slow as all get all.  The new quad will be a huge improvement.  Can't come soon enough.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 4, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> The new quad will be a huge improvement.  Can't come soon enough.



As long as they don't widen the crap out of the Mall it will be a huge improvement.  I'm nervous about what happens with that trail.  One of my favorites on the mountain. And truthfully, that rickety old lift kind of plays a part in the charm on the Mall.  I recognize the need for an upgrade, but I'll miss the old school feel of the way it is today.  Guess I better get my ass back there this season before the change happens.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> As long as they don't widen the crap out of the Mall it will be a huge improvement.  I'm nervous about what happens with that trail.  One of my favorites on the mountain. And truthfully, that rickety old lift kind of plays a part in the charm on the Mall.  I recognize the need for an upgrade, but I'll miss the old school feel of the way it is today.  Guess I better get my ass back there this season before the change happens.



The chairs have to be a certain distance from the trees. The longer cross arms will obviously bring them closer. In case of emergency, ski patrol needs to be able to throw the evac line quickly over the haul rope without getting it stuck in the branches in the process, I'm sure there are fire considerations in case of a lightning strike as well.

Probably more of a technical answer than you were looking for, but the minimum distance from the trees is probably somewhere in here http://labor.vermont.gov/tramway/lift-inspection-guidelines/


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 5, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> They should have replaced it with the HSQ that they bought for Bear Peak and moved the triple to BP. It's kind of overkill over there IMO. To add salt to the wound, they have that HSQ that goes like a 1/3 of the way up the mountain and services only a few trails (not even popular ones). That place is a complete cluster fuck.



I think a HSQ is completely necessary over on Bear Peak.  It's a 1450 terrain pod with the best long blue square terrain at the ski area.  Terrain for the average skier that really isn't available on Attitash proper except for Northwest Passage.  I'm kind of surprised they haven't upgraded the snowmaking on Avenger on Bear.  That's a huge acreage trail that could absorb a bunch of the crowds, but it's late to open due the old school guns on it. 

A lot of people think the Flying Yankee is a bad lift.  I disagree.  It provides a high capacity lift out of the main lodge.  It really can't realistically go higher up the mountain than where it goes.  That's the challenge with Attitash proper.  It's so steep in the middle, so there's no really good place for a lift to stop higher up than where the Yankee goes.  Where that lift stops it provides access to low intermediate terrain (something unavailable anywhere further up the hill) access to actually popular lower mountain terrain in Spillway, Whitehorse, the terrain park, Moat, Grandstand....as well as access to both slopeside real estate locations on the hill.   



skiNEwhere said:


> I think at a minimum, if they don't want the summit getting too crowded since it only serves 2 blues, they could add a HSQ from the top of the flying
> Yankee HSQ to the summit.



Not a lot of real estate at the terminus of the Flying Yankee to put a HSQ summit lift in from there to the summit.  You'd have the expense of cutting a whole new liftline if the Triple was left in as well.  Here's another idea though, that would be fairly cheap. Why not shorten the Top Notch Double and run it from the mid-station only to where it tops out?  Eliminate the bottom portion of the lift all together.  That lift would give you access to lap most of Northwest Passage, all of Upper Ptarmigan and Tightrope, plus enable you to ski all the trails off the Saco side.  The ride would be pretty short too.  



Edd said:


> I'm torn on the Attitash triple. I dislike riding it but there's some fairly steep terrain that gets easily scraped off as it is.
> 
> A conveyor belt with a bump in speed might be a good compromise.



I'd be fine with a conveyor belt solution for the Triple to bring the ride time down by a few minutes.  Apparently the lift can run at a faster line speed according to the answers from an AZ challenge now 10 years ago.  http://www.alpinezone.com/skiing/ch...allenge-2004-sven-cole-of-attitash-bear-peak/  Conveyor technology didn't really exist back then.  Also note they said back then they had long term plans of upgrading to high speed quad when they could add more trails from the top.   That would be the big money plan but there's some terrain up there that's compelling if they ever went for the big dollar solution. 

Seems to me they could implement the conveyor system to the triple, plus a shorter top notch double and resolve a lot of the upper mountain access issues at Attitash for fairly short money in comparison to a base to summit HSQ.


----------



## dlague (Sep 5, 2014)

The lifts at Magic, Black Mountain chairs - any of them! Tomcat triple at Wildcat, Pats Peak chair lifts. 


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## WoodCore (Sep 5, 2014)

Not sure if it's been mentioned but would love to see the cabriolet at Mountain Creek go the way of the do-do bird.


----------



## Tin (Sep 5, 2014)

dlague said:


> The lifts at Magic,
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone



Shut your whore mouth!


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 5, 2014)

drjeff said:


> All 3 of those you mentioned for Mount Snow, plus one of the triples on the Northface are scheduled for replacement in their master plan



Jeff I haven't see anything on Sundance or a North Face replacement. Can you expand on these?

I have seen the Tumbleweed move to a Quad (with lowering of the bottom terminal) and the Sunbrook replacement in the Master plan.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 5, 2014)

Tin said:


>



Are they allowed to raise the safety bar on the Black Chair so it doesn't cut off circulation to my legs every time I lower it?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 5, 2014)

dlague said:


> Tomcat triple at Wildcat



what's wrong with the Tomcat as is?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd be fine with a conveyor belt solution for the Triple to bring the ride time down by a few minutes.  Apparently the lift can run at a faster line speed according to the answers from an AZ challenge now 10 years ago.  http://www.alpinezone.com/skiing/ch...allenge-2004-sven-cole-of-attitash-bear-peak/  Conveyor technology didn't really exist back then.  Also note they said back then they had long term plans of upgrading to high speed quad when they could add more trails from the top.   That would be the big money plan but there's some terrain up there that's compelling if they ever went for the big dollar solution.
> 
> Seems to me they could implement the conveyor system to the triple, plus a shorter top notch double and resolve a lot of the upper mountain access issues at Attitash for fairly short money in comparison to a base to summit HSQ.



Has there been any attempt to get attitash for another AZ challenge? Skied attitash many times and IMO that's their biggest Achilles heel to getting more visits.

I'd like to see if they have even considered a conveyer, since they don't plan on adding a new lift.

Didn't know the lift was capable of HSQ speeds, that would sure be interesting to watch if they cranked it up that high!


----------



## WWF-VT (Sep 5, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> valley house double and village double are on the docket to be replaced.  I believe with a quad and a triple respectively.  Expect both to happen within the next year or 2.
> Don't think heavens gate needs to be replaced but we'll see how the refurbishment they did this summer works out.  Sunny d is no big deal either way as it only serves the terrain park at mt Ellen.



The Sunny D is getting significant maintenance work done this summer.  Even though its primary use is for the terrain park it is one of the busiest lifts at Sugarbush.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 5, 2014)

I think the biggest Achilles heel for getting more skier visits at Attitash (Black, Wildcat and Cranmore too) is the location.  As great as the North Conway area is as a ski town, route 16 sucks.  It's much easier for metro Boston folks to head up 93 and 89 to get to ski destinations in those directions than it is to head up 95 to 16.   It's a little better now that the road has been expanded through Rochester, but IMO the road really should be expanded to four lanes all the way up to Center Ossippee to make an appreciably better travel experience.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 5, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I think a HSQ is completely necessary over on Bear Peak.  It's a 1450 terrain pod with the best long blue square terrain at the ski area.  Terrain for the average skier that really isn't available on Attitash proper except for Northwest Passage.  I'm kind of surprised they haven't upgraded the snowmaking on Avenger on Bear.  That's a huge acreage trail that could absorb a bunch of the crowds, but it's late to open due the old school guns on it.
> 
> A lot of people think the Flying Yankee is a bad lift.  I disagree.  It provides a high capacity lift out of the main lodge.  It really can't realistically go higher up the mountain than where it goes.  That's the challenge with Attitash proper.  It's so steep in the middle, so there's no really good place for a lift to stop higher up than where the Yankee goes.  Where that lift stops it provides access to low intermediate terrain (something unavailable anywhere further up the hill) access to actually popular lower mountain terrain in Spillway, Whitehorse, the terrain park, Moat, Grandstand....as well as access to both slopeside real estate locations on the hill.



I think my opinion of Attitash probably prevents me from having any rational feelings on the matter but I still think the HSQ would be better suited for Attitash proper. Bear Peak at least in my opinion sees far less traffic. My family has a time share across the street and I remember quite a few Christmas vacations where BP was either not open at all or had just one trail open. They don't seem to have any interest in blowing snow on Avenger either which is always a very popular trail when it's open. You are right about the intermediate stuff on BP. Illusion is definitely one of my favorite intermediate trails in NE. I kind of disagree with you though regarding the Flying Yankee. If I remember correctly I would always avoid that lift as a kid because it was a pain in the ass to get all the way over to Spillway and White Horse. When Grandstand is bumped up nicely though it is my favorite lift! The big problem with having a HSQ on Attitash proper would be the crosswind. It would make more sense to replace the Top Notch IMO.


----------



## HowieT2 (Sep 5, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> As long as they don't widen the crap out of the Mall it will be a huge improvement.  I'm nervous about what happens with that trail.  One of my favorites on the mountain. And truthfully, that rickety old lift kind of plays a part in the charm on the Mall.  I recognize the need for an upgrade, but I'll miss the old school feel of the way it is today.  Guess I better get my ass back there this season before the change happens.



The trail will remain as is except for the top where they will have to remove trees to accommodate the positioning of the top terminal.  That will be at the top of mall instead of above the traverse where it is now.  Obviously the old terminal will be removed and they are widening the traverse there to the top of snowball.  frankly, the current set up is dangerous with the traffic on the traverse funneling into a choke point where lift discharges at the confluence of Steins, the mall and snowball.

while there may be some nostalgic appeal to the old setup, the new quad will be safer, improve traffic flow on the traverse and markedly increase uphill capacity such that it will relieve pressure on super bravo and provide a viable alternative when the latter is not running for whatever reason.


----------



## HowieT2 (Sep 5, 2014)

WWF-VT said:


> The Sunny D is getting significant maintenance work done this summer.  Even though its primary use is for the terrain park it is one of the busiest lifts at Sugarbush.



i can count on one hand the number of times ive been on that lift.


----------



## bigbog (Sep 5, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


>



That's some bump trail...


----------



## HowieT2 (Sep 5, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> The trail will remain as is except for the top where they will have to remove trees to accommodate the positioning of the top terminal.  That will be at the top of mall instead of above the traverse where it is now.  Obviously the old terminal will be removed and they are widening the traverse there to the top of snowball.  frankly, the current set up is dangerous with the traffic on the traverse funneling into a choke point where lift discharges at the confluence of Steins, the mall and snowball.
> 
> while there may be some nostalgic appeal to the old setup, the new quad will be safer, improve traffic flow on the traverse and markedly increase uphill capacity such that it will relieve pressure on super bravo and provide a viable alternative when the latter is not running for whatever reason.



here's a link to the documents and maps filed with the usfs for the lift replacement.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fs...?project=43454


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

Re: Attitash.  I think that the lift placement is at least in part due to where the property boundary with the WMNF lies.  I know that the summit is on WMNF land and that is part of the reason why Peaks has not done anything up there because any change would require a lengthy and expensive review process.  If I had to guess, in addition to the steep terrain, Flying Yankee terminated where it did because it was below the WMNF boundary.  It would be interesting to see a map showing where the boundary lies.  

Re: Sugarbush.  Lifts do have a life expectancy.  Middlebury just faced this fact with the Worth Mountain Double.   That lift was a 1960's vintage Poma-Heron that had seen some upgrade work done by CTEC in the 1980's or 1990's.  Despite that work, the fact remained that the concrete footings on some of the towers had deteriorated.  Sunny D, Village, and Valley House are all about the same age.  So I imagine that they will eventually have to be replaced.  As we know 2 out of 3 are slated to be replaced.  I would imagine that Sunny D is not far behind.  It's doing the job, but it is pretty old.  As to HG, I agree that the issue is mainly the drive, etc.  But it has a tendency to go on "wind hold" fairly often.  Ripcord is pretty damn wide so lower the towers may not resolve that issue.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Re: Attitash.  I think that the lift placement is at least in part due to where the property boundary with the WMNF lies.  I know that the summit is on WMNF land and that is part of the reason why Peaks has not done anything up there because any change would require a lengthy and expensive review process.  If I had to guess, in addition to the steep terrain, Flying Yankee terminated where it did because it was below the WMNF boundary.  It would be interesting to see a map showing where the boundary lies.



I think that's a red herring, and attitash is using that as a BS excuse. If they wanted to replace that lift, they'd pull the proper permits and execute the paperwork to make it happen. I don't buy it for a second.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 5, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> what's wrong with the Tomcat as is?



I don't think it runs enough to be worth the upgrade especially since they haven't really run into many issues with it (knock on wood). I'm actually a big fan of that chair and the trails in that area.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I think that's a red herring, and attitash is using that as a BS excuse. If they wanted to replace that lift, they'd pull the proper permits and execute the paperwork to make it happen. I don't buy it for a second.



True.  Considering that the triple is going to be 30 soon they may not have a choice.


----------



## machski (Sep 5, 2014)

Considering the Sunday River lifts posed here, Spruce is upgraded this season with a carpet load and more speed.  As for Tempest, yes I'd like to see something done with that too, I have heard it may get a carpet loader as well (doubt they would add a detach there though).  Locke will likely never be replaced until it absolutely has to due to its status mid season as a peak/event day lift now (though something better to quelle the early season mid-download lines would be nice).  The Barker express is on the 5+ year horizon and I have heard a 6 pack replace talked about.  Aurora would be nice to see a carpet too.

As for Attitash, I have heard several times that Flying Yankee was done as is due to forest service land up higher.  Still, given peaks gave Crotched a HSQ and the Bluebird at Mt. Snow, very surprising they haven't done anything with summit triple (they may have to rethink that with Ragged and Sunapee's lift replacements this summer.  They are falling behind in the state quickly now).

Not mentioned yet which is surprising:  King Pine replacement/lower extension at Sugarloaf
                                                     Summit Surface lift at Sugarloaf (To supplement Timberline quad)


----------



## Domeskier (Sep 5, 2014)

machski said:


> Not mentioned yet which is surprising:  King Pine replacement/lower extension at Sugarloaf Summit Surface lift at Sugarloaf (To supplement Timberline quad)



This reminds me - the east coast needs more surface lists servicing decent terrain.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Re: Attitash.  I think that the lift placement is at least in part due to where the property boundary with the WMNF lies.  I know that the summit is on WMNF land and that is part of the reason why Peaks has not done anything up there because any change would require a lengthy and expensive review process.  If I had to guess, in addition to the steep terrain, Flying Yankee terminated where it did because it was below the WMNF boundary.  It would be interesting to see a map showing where the boundary lies.



The Flying Yankee terminates where it does because of topography, the lower mountain trail layout and because it services the Alpine Slide in the summer. It was a replacement for a lower mountain double chair that existed prior to it.   They had USFS approval for expansion above the current Attitash Summit in the 90s.  That permitting was in place prior to the Yankee install.  So, I highly doubt permitting is the reason it ends where it does.  It ends there because that's what makes sense for a lift to the mid-mountain area for both the skiing trails and the Alpine Slide.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 5, 2014)

The top 2 lifts I'd list for this thread are currently being replaced   Sun Bowl and Spear
I'll nominate Hurricane triple at Pat's Peak.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 5, 2014)

Any lift in South America by the looks of them.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> * Lifts do have a life expectancy.  *Middlebury just faced this fact with the Worth Mountain Double. *  That lift was a 1960's vintage Poma-Heron that had seen some upgrade work done by CTEC in the 1980's or 1990's.*



1963 - Madonna I Double - Smuggs
1964 - Sterling Double - Smuggs
Late 60s - Village Double - Smuggs
Madonna II cant be a spring chicken either.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 5, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> 1963 - Madonna I Double - Smuggs
> 1964 - Sterling Double - Smuggs
> Late 60s - Village Double - Smuggs
> Madonna II cant be a spring chicken either.



At this point, it would appear it's going to take the death of one of these lifts before Smuggs every puts in a new chair.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

Smugglers notch is consistently ranked high in ski resort polls. Why would they feel the need to change anything?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 5, 2014)

Smuggs has their niche and they do it will. People either love it or hate it. If affordability and incredible terrain is more important than Smuggs is for you.


----------



## HowieT2 (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Re: Attitash.  I think that the lift placement is at least in part due to where the property boundary with the WMNF lies.  I know that the summit is on WMNF land and that is part of the reason why Peaks has not done anything up there because any change would require a lengthy and expensive review process.  If I had to guess, in addition to the steep terrain, Flying Yankee terminated where it did because it was below the WMNF boundary.  It would be interesting to see a map showing where the boundary lies.
> 
> Re: Sugarbush.  Lifts do have a life expectancy.  Middlebury just faced this fact with the Worth Mountain Double.   That lift was a 1960's vintage Poma-Heron that had seen some upgrade work done by CTEC in the 1980's or 1990's.  Despite that work, the fact remained that the concrete footings on some of the towers had deteriorated.  Sunny D, Village, and Valley House are all about the same age.  So I imagine that they will eventually have to be replaced.  As we know 2 out of 3 are slated to be replaced.  I would imagine that Sunny D is not far behind.  It's doing the job, but it is pretty old.  As to HG, I agree that the issue is mainly the drive, etc.  But it has a tendency to go on "wind hold" fairly often.  Ripcord is pretty damn wide so lower the towers may not resolve that issue.



You're correct.  The Valley house and village double are circa 1960 and '65 respectively and have reached the end of their serviceable lives.  Heavens gate is from 1983, so while its no youngster, they should be able to get another 15-20 years out of it assuming the necessary upgrades are done to the machinery.  the valley house had new chairs and drive terminal in the 80's.
The Sunny D is from '79 so that too should be serviceable for some time with necessary repairs.
The wind issue on heavens gate is what it is.


----------



## Quietman (Sep 5, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> 1963 - Madonna I Double - Smuggs
> 1964 - Sterling Double - Smuggs
> Late 60s - Village Double - Smuggs
> Madonna II cant be a spring chicken either.



Madonna II is their "newest" lift, installed in 1979.  I completely agree that if they're making money, why change anything.  I had a fairly enjoyable day there on my only visit, probably won't go back unless I'm staying in the area.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 5, 2014)

Quietman said:


> I completely agree that if they're making money, why change anything.


Two reasons:
1) They may have to replace the chair lifts whether they want to or not given their age.
2) A well run business should always seek growth.


----------



## trackbiker (Sep 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Two reasons:
> 1) They may have to replace the chair lifts whether they want to or not given their age.
> 2) A well run business should always seek growth.



I thought they had plans to install a HS6 on Sterling.
Madonna I supposedly had the upper terminal upgraded by CTEC in 2002.
The last two lifts they installed in the 1990's on Morse to serve the village were both used lifts.
All of their lifts are Halls. Those things seem to run forever.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Two reasons:
> 1) They may have to replace the chair lifts whether they want to or not given their age.
> 2) A well run business should always seek growth.



With that logic, MRG should replace the single chair with a high speed six pack, complete with bubble.

I see what you are saying though. I think they can leave the lifts alone and try to improve other aspects of their business to maintain growth


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 5, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> With that logic, MRG should replace the single chair with a high speed six pack, complete with bubble.


Wrong.  MRG is not a for-profit business.  MRG is giving its investors exactly what they want.

You do have a point, though.  If replacing the lift would be revenue-negative, the lift should not be replaced.  There are definitely some mountains that would not see a return on the investment.  Not every mountain can be a Ski Sundown.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

The issue usually isn't with the lift itself, but with the concrete footings that support the towers. Once they start getting cracked, they deteriorate quickly, especially during the spring freeze/thaw cycle.

That's why the castlerock lift was replaced in 2001, I'm sure there are others


----------



## HowieT2 (Sep 5, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> The issue usually isn't with the lift itself, but with the concrete footings that support the towers. Once they start getting cracked, they deteriorate quickly, especially during the spring freeze/thaw cycle.
> 
> That's why the castlerock lift was replaced in 2001, I'm sure there are others



I think that's right.  Other than the footings, its a machine, so parts can be replaced/upgraded and it should run fine.  like on a bike, you keep tuning it, replacing parts, until the frame is obsolete.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> The issue usually isn't with the lift itself, but with the concrete footings that support the towers. Once they start getting cracked, they deteriorate quickly, especially during the spring freeze/thaw cycle.
> 
> That's why the castlerock lift was replaced in 2001, I'm sure there are others



Castlerock had other problems IIRC.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Castlerock had other problems IIRC.



I'm sure it did, but mechanical issues don't pose nearly as much of a safety threat as weak footings


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 5, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Two reasons:
> 1) They may have to replace the chair lifts whether they want to or not given their age.
> 2) *A well run business should always seek growth.*



Yeah; as much as I love Smuggs, I dont know if I'd call it well run.   I certainly don't think it's poorly run, and I think they do an okay job, but you see little things creep in here and there that you become aware of.  Like having so little finance and HR infrastructure in place that a bottom-feeder with a criminal record can embezzle tens-of-thousands from you for 3 years before you notice.  

And yes, the lift situation could obviously be improved and would be an investment in the business, which would definitely be revenue positive.  You often hear people say they don't go to Smuggs due to the slow lifts and impaired downhill capacity.  Granted, the upside to this is the slopes at Smuggs are pretty empty from the low-capacity, but I dont think they need to be AS empty as they are.  Saturday's during January through early March have jumped the shark a bit with the wait times at Madonna I, and it's not because the resort is jam packed, it's because the uphill capacity is severely limited.   Put it this way - when Smuggler's Notch has *3X* the skiable acreage, but *< 50%* the uphill capacity, of your typical 800 foot vertical Poconos hill, that's a problem.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 5, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yeah; as much as I love Smuggs, I dont know if I'd call it well run.   I certainly don't think it's poorly run, and I think they do an okay job, but you see little things creep in here and there that you become aware of.  Like having so little finance and HR infrastructure in place that a bottom-feeder with a criminal record can embezzle tens-of-thousands from you for 3 years before you notice.
> 
> And yes, the lift situation could obviously be improved and would be an investment in the business, which would definitely be revenue positive.  You often hear people say they don't go to Smuggs due to the slow lifts and impaired downhill capacity.  Granted, the upside to this is the slopes at Smuggs are pretty empty from the low-capacity, but I dont think they need to be AS empty as they are.  Saturday's during January through early March have jumped the shark a bit with the wait times at Madonna I, and it's not because the resort is jam packed, it's because the uphill capacity is severely limited.   Put it this way - when Smuggler's Notch has *3X* the skiable acreage, but *< 50%* the uphill capacity, of your typical 800 foot vertical Poconos hill, that's a problem.



It's about the terrain do you think the challenging terrain off Madonna can handle much more traffic? It's not like they can just add snowmaking to those trails. Comparing Smuggs to the Poconos is just silly talk from someone who has skied Smuggs so much. If folks want to put a HSQ on Sterling I'm fine with it. Just leave Madonna alone.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 5, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> It's about the terrain do you think the challenging terrain off Madonna can handle much more traffic? It's not like they can just add snowmaking to those trails. Comparing Smuggs to the Poconos is just silly talk from someone who has skied Smuggs so much. If folks want to put a HSQ on Sterling I'm fine with it. Just leave Madonna alone.



Modonna I is a tough one.  It really doesn't make sense to deliver a lot of people up there - especially intermediates.  There just isn't much up there for skiers who can't handle advanced terrain...  I like the lift the way it is, but maybe if they did something like not run it all the way to the bottom, I think that would be ok.  It would cut ride time down, and it would be less appealing to lower-level skiers.  It would be nice if Madonna II were a little more exciting, but I'm not sure they can do anything else with it (as far as positioning goes...).  It is what it is.  It doesn't get much use, so who knows if increased capacity would do anything...  I guess that I have to agree that increasing capacity on Sterling makes more sense.  It's a decent pod, and it is friendlier for the masses.  If it had short lines as the result of a higher-capacity lift, it would certainly take pressure off Madonna I.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## xlr8r (Sep 5, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I think that's a red herring, and attitash is using that as a BS excuse. If they wanted to replace that lift, they'd pull the proper permits and execute the paperwork to make it happen. I don't buy it for a second.



I remember reading somewhere that Peaks did not feel that they got a return on investment on the Bluebird at Mount Snow.  That the new lift did not provide an noticeable increase in skier visits the year they installed it.  This is their new reason for not upgrading the summit lift at Attitash.  It seems like it is one excuse after another, and Peaks comes across as being cheap.  First it was they needed permits to expand further up the mountain.  Then it was the terrain cannot handle any more skiers, now its new High Speed lifts do not increase skier visits.  Well tell that to almost every other successful ski corporation that invests in modern lifts.  I know Peaks came from the midwest where lifts tend to be very short, but that is not a reason to avoid spending money on long lifts at their New England resorts.  They better watch out at Mount Snow now because both Stratton and Okemo have just built competitors to their bluebird when it comes to base to summit comfort with the new Stratton Gondola and Okemo Bubble 6 pack.

Also there is no way Attitash does the same amount of business now as it did during the ASC years.  It must be bleeding skier visits to Cranmore and Bretton Woods with the investments that have been made at those areas.  Remember the days when Attitash claimed being the largest ski area in NH, those days a certainly over, in fact it is a lot like Waterville in that no major change to the mountain has been made in well over a decade now.  Something needs to be done soon, if they really are never going to put a high speed lift to the summit, they could shorten and realign the triple so that it starts where tightrope intersects upper highway.  This would require a new lift line to be cut, and some trails to be rerouted and or fences put up to keep skiers from crashing into one another on the traverse from the top of Flying Yankee to the new base of the triple.  That area would become very crowded with a lot of people heading in different directions.


----------



## Brad J (Sep 5, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> Re: Attitash.  I think that the lift placement is at least in part due to where the property boundary with the WMNF lies.  I know that the summit is on WMNF land and that is part of the reason why Peaks has not done anything up there because any change would require a lengthy and expensive review process.  If I had to guess, in addition to the steep terrain, Flying Yankee terminated where it did because it was below the WMNF boundary.  It would be interesting to see a map showing where the boundary lies.
> 
> When Atttitash was built in 64-65 they put a double in where the flying yankee is today , they replaced that lift with the HSQ to get people to use the lower mt. the top notch chair was put in in 68-69 season. The summit lift must be changed in some manner to get the ride down to 12 minutes or less. they slowed it down last year to a 17+ minute ride. Everyone wants that lift upgraded. you can run the lift faster and still keep the capacity the same by removing chairs on the cable. Peak resorts just does not get it .


----------



## xlr8r (Sep 5, 2014)

Savemeasammy said:


> Modonna I is a tough one.  It really doesn't make sense to deliver a lot of people up there - especially intermediates.  There just isn't much up there for skiers who can't handle advanced terrain...  I like the lift the way it is, but maybe if they did something like not run it all the way to the bottom, I think that would be ok.  It would cut ride time down, and it would be less appealing to lower-level skiers.  It would be nice if Madonna II were a little more exciting, but I'm not sure they can do anything else with it (as far as positioning goes...).  It is what it is.  It doesn't get much use, so who knows if increased capacity would do anything...  I guess that I have to agree that increasing capacity on Sterling makes more sense.  It's a decent pod, and it is friendlier for the masses.  If it had short lines as the result of a higher-capacity lift, it would certainly take pressure off Madonna I.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app



I have never been to Smuggs, but looking on google Earth, it appears as though Madonna I runs up a ridge for the most part as it ascends to the summit.  This would makes it tough to move the base of the lift up as the only trail that crosses back to liftline is Link.  Locating it at Link would shave 2000' off the bottom of the lift.  Again I have not been there, but to me it looks like Madonna II has the terrain to handle being a High Speed Quad as it serves only intermediate terrain.  Maybe if Madonna II, Morse, and Sterling were upgraded to High Speed Quads (6 Packs seem overkill), Madonna I could either be shortened or remain as is and be marketed as a Castlerock or MRG Single chair type of lift.  Make the rest of the mountain modern and competitive with rival mountain lift systems, but keep Madona I and therefore the Summit of Madonna as a classic mostly expert trail pod, and market it as such.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 5, 2014)

Savemeasammy said:


> Modonna I is a tough one.  It really doesn't make sense to deliver a lot of people up there - especially intermediates.  There just isn't much up there for skiers who can't handle advanced terrain...  I like the lift the way it is, but maybe if they did something like not run it all the way to the bottom, I think that would be ok.  It would cut ride time down, and it would be less appealing to lower-level skiers.  It would be nice if Madonna II were a little more exciting, but I'm not sure they can do anything else with it (as far as positioning goes...).  It is what it is.  It doesn't get much use, so who knows if increased capacity would do anything...  I guess that I have to agree that increasing capacity on Sterling makes more sense.  It's a decent pod, and it is friendlier for the masses.  If it had short lines as the result of a higher-capacity lift, it would certainly take pressure off Madonna I.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app



So start a lift from the mid station to the top? But then they would need to have a separate lift since you wouldn't be able to access it from any Sterling or Madonna II trails.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 5, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> I remember reading somewhere that Peaks did not feel that they got a return on investment on the Bluebird at Mount Snow.  That the new lift did not provide an noticeable increase in skier visits the year they installed it.  This is their new reason for not upgrading the summit lift at Attitash.  It seems like it is one excuse after another, and Peaks comes across as being cheap.  First it was they needed permits to expand further up the mountain.  Then it was the terrain cannot handle any more skiers, now its new High Speed lifts do not increase skier visits.  Well tell that to almost every other successful ski corporation that invests in modern lifts.  I know Peaks came from the midwest where lifts tend to be very short, but that is not a reason to avoid spending money on long lifts at their New England resorts.  They better watch out at Mount Snow now because both Stratton and Okemo have just built competitors to their bluebird when it comes to base to summit comfort with the new Stratton Gondola and Okemo Bubble 6 pack.
> 
> Also there is no way Attitash does the same amount of business now as it did during the ASC years.  It must be bleeding skier visits to Cranmore and Bretton Woods with the investments that have been made at those areas.  Remember the days when Attitash claimed being the largest ski area in NH, those days a certainly over, in fact it is a lot like Waterville in that no major change to the mountain has been made in well over a decade now.  Something needs to be done soon, if they really are never going to put a high speed lift to the summit, they could shorten and realign the triple so that it starts where tightrope intersects upper highway.  This would require a new lift line to be cut, and some trails to be rerouted and or fences put up to keep skiers from crashing into one another on the traverse from the top of Flying Yankee to the new base of the triple.  That area would become very crowded with a lot of people heading in different directions.



They used to average around 200K skier visits a year.  Now it's down around 150K.

http://newenglandskihistory.com/NewHampshire/attitash.php

Interesting thought on the Triple going to upper mountain only from the top of the Yankee. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, you could accomplish something similar by moving the base of the Top Notch Double further up the hill.  Maybe start it at the base of Moat.  That lift ride would be likely under 10 minutes and would access all of the Upper Mountain except for a small part of Saco and all of Humphrey's and Wilfred's.  It also would be located where you could get a least a short run off of the Yankee instead of just taking one lift to get to another.  You could ski the bumps on Grandstand, enjoy Middle Ptarmigan and a few others to get to the lift via Middle Highway.  From the east side you would need to cut a traverse back from about the bottom of Idiots and Tims.  This configuration would both eliminate having to take a long ass ride to ski the top trails and it would make for a better loading situation at the Yankee as you could have Qeues coming from both directions instead of just the west as it is now.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 5, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> It's about the terrain *do you think the challenging terrain off Madonna can handle much more traffic? *It's not like they can just add snowmaking to those trails.



Absolutely.  Yes.  Especially if they upgraded Sterling as well. 

 It would alleviate the, _"well, both lifts are turbo-slow, so we may as well go all the way to the top"_ mentality, and not only would it take some pressure off Madonna I, but I think it would help herd more intermediates to Sterling, which would be a welcome thing since it's better terrain for them, and IMO, Sterling is under-utilized in that regard.   

As for the slopes of Madonna I, I never feel the black diamonds are crowded.  Ever.  IMO the most "crowded" trail at Smuggs (and I think even this is reaching a bit) is Upper Chilcoot, but how many eastern mountains dont count a summit intermediate as their most trafficked trail? Probably not many.



MadMadWorld said:


> *Comparing Smuggs to the Poconos is just silly talk from someone who has skied Smuggs so much.* If folks want to put a HSQ on Sterling I'm fine with it. Just leave Madonna alone.



You missed the point entirely.  It has nothing to do with "comparing" one to the other, it has to do with scale and mathematics.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 5, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> I have never been to Smuggs, but looking on google Earth, it appears as though Madonna I runs up a ridge for the most part as it ascends to the summit.  This would makes it tough to move the base of the lift up as the only trail that crosses back to liftline is Link.  Locating it at Link would shave 2000' off the bottom of the lift.  Again I have not been there, but to me it looks like Madonna II has the terrain to handle being a High Speed Quad as it serves only intermediate terrain.  Maybe if Madonna II, Morse, and Sterling were upgraded to High Speed Quads (6 Packs seem overkill), Madonna I could either be shortened or remain as is and be marketed as a Castlerock or MRG Single chair type of lift.  Make the rest of the mountain modern and competitive with rival mountain lift systems, but keep Madona I and therefore the Summit of Madonna as a classic mostly expert trail pod, and market it as such.



I've long felt they should move the base of Madonna I to exactly where you suggest, where Link goes across.  I think it would be fine that you couldn't access the lift from the Sterling side.  That would only reduce traffic on the lift.   I've also felt a HSQ for Madonna II makes sense.  I'd rather see that than capacity raised over on Sterling.  Liftline at Sterling sucks, but the lift is fine.  A HSQ on II would reduce the line and trail traffic on Sterling considerably.


----------



## Quietman (Sep 6, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> And now its new High Speed lifts do not increase skier visits.  Well tell that to almost every other successful ski corporation that invests in modern lifts.  I know Peaks came from the midwest where lifts tend to be very short, but that is not a reason to avoid spending money on long lifts at their New England resorts.



They did put a HS quad in a Crotched 2 years ago(not a very long lift), and from what I see, skier visits have not increased much and are still well below Pat's Peak and it's slow chairs.  



VTKilarney said:


> Two reasons:
> 1) They may have to replace the chair lifts whether they want to or not given their age.
> 2) A well run business should always seek growth.



I agree somewhat, but the biggest driver in today's business environment is that a well run business MAKES MONEY.  Smuggs seems to be able to keep people coming with very minimal capital investments year after year.  Why spend money if you don't need to?  My first couple of posts on this site got me blasted as a Smuggs hater because I complained of long lines and slow lifts. I will not make a return visit, but apparently there are enough people who will.  

One additional comment, the Madonna 1 Hall double is an amazing lift.  Is there another 50 year old slow double with 2k vert still in existence today? The way that the towers are configured to keep it close to the ground and avoid the wind really impressed me. Yes, I am a lift nut!


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 6, 2014)

Quietman said:


> One additional comment, the Madonna 1 Hall double is an amazing lift.  Is there another 50 year old slow double with 2k vert still in existence today? The way that the towers are configured to keep it close to the ground and avoid the wind really impressed me. Yes, I am a lift nut!


That's not the way the lift was originally configured. Originally it ran pretty high off the ground just past the mid station. Yeah I'm an old fuck.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 6, 2014)

RE:  Madonna I.  Yes, xlr8r, the most sensible spot to relocate is at the intersection of link.   IMO it would disrupt too much terrain to relocate near the present midstation - however if it WERE located right there, at the base of the liftline headwall, it would suitably scare the sh!t out of people who don't belong up top!

I do agree that the terrain off of Madonna II can handle the traffic of a HSQ, but the few times I've been when that lift was spinning, it was basically ski-on, even though Madonna I and Strerling were packed.  Maybe a HSQ right there would attract more of the intermediate masses that WOULD utilize that terrain.  

Does anyone know if Smuggs owns the land to the summit of Morse?   There is another opportunity right there...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 6, 2014)

Savemeasammy said:


> RE:  Madonna I.  Yes, xlr8r, the most sensible spot to relocate is at the intersection of link.   IMO it would disrupt too much terrain to relocate near the present midstation - however if it WERE located right there, at the base of the liftline headwall, it would suitably scare the sh!t out of people who don't belong up top!
> 
> I do agree that the terrain off of Madonna II can handle the traffic of a HSQ, but the few times I've been when that lift was spinning, it was basically ski-on, even though Madonna I and Strerling were packed.  Maybe a HSQ right there would attract more of the intermediate masses that WOULD utilize that terrain.
> 
> ...



Exactly. A HSQ really wouldn't help Madonna II at all. The terrain over there is pretty boring in my opinion. Some of glades over there can be fun but it's a long traverse back. I think a HSQ on Sterling makes a lot more sense. Folks at Smuggs will bounce back and forth between Sterling and Madonna based on wait time so any way to alleviate congestion at one of the lifts will help spread out the crowds.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 6, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Absolutely.  Yes.  Especially if they upgraded Sterling as well.
> 
> It would alleviate the, _"well, both lifts are turbo-slow, so we may as well go all the way to the top"_ mentality, and not only would it take some pressure off Madonna I, but I think it would help herd more intermediates to Sterling, which would be a welcome thing since it's better terrain for them, and IMO, Sterling is under-utilized in that regard.
> 
> ...



No I got your point it still doesn't make sense to anyone but you.

And by the way you are crazy if you think trails like Liftline, Freefall, Robin's and Black Hole can handle the extra traffic. I don't think you know the mountain as well as you think you do.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 6, 2014)

Savemeasammy said:


> Does anyone know if Smuggs owns the land to the summit of Morse?   There is another opportunity right there...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Can't go further up Morse.  Largest Black Bear habitat in the State.  At least that's what I was told doing land surveys in there as a UVM student in the School of Natural Resources.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 6, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Can't go further up Morse.  Largest Black Bear habitat in the State.  At least that's what I was told doing land surveys in there as a UVM student in the School of Natural Resources.



I think the people that told you that might be Smuggs locals


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 6, 2014)

No, just some Act 250 State official Nazis.  This was prior to the Morse Highlands area going in.  That pod was supposed to be much larger than what it is.  

I will say, I've never encountered a higher density of Beech trees complete with bear claw markings anywhere I've ever walked in the woods.  You want to see a bear?  Go about 500 feet up and slightly east of Morse Highlands and there's a pretty good bet you'll see one.


----------



## xlr8r (Sep 6, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Exactly. A HSQ really wouldn't help Madonna II at all. The terrain over there is pretty boring in my opinion. Some of glades over there can be fun but it's a long traverse back. I think a HSQ on Sterling makes a lot more sense. Folks at Smuggs will bounce back and forth between Sterling and Madonna based on wait time so any way to alleviate congestion at one of the lifts will help spread out the crowds.



My though is that if you move the base of Madonna I up to Link, then more people will need to ride Madonna II to access the base of Madonna I.  Madonna II will then have much longer lines, but Madonna I's lines might decrease, or at least the ride will be shorter.  Therefore upgrading Madonna II to a high speed quad makes sense.  Even if Madonna I remains as is, upgradeing Madonna II will shorten Madonna I's lines as a lot of people would prefer to ride a fast comfortable lift, even if it accesses less interesting terrain.  

Again I have not been to Smuggs, but their antique lifts is the main reason why.   I am not going to drive over 8 hours round trip to wait in lines all day, and only get 10 or so runs in.  The terrain looks awesome, but not worth the drive plus waiting in lines.  That is why I think their best strategy would be to upgrade the three other main lifts, Morse, Sterling, and Madonna II, and make Madonna I a Castlerock like pod for classic skiing.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 6, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> No, just some Act 250 State official Nazis.  This was prior to the Morse Highlands area going in.  That pod was supposed to be much larger than what it is.
> 
> I will say, I've never encountered a higher density of Beech trees complete with bear claw markings anywhere I've ever walked in the woods.  You want to see a bear?  Go about 500 feet up and slightly east of Morse Highlands and there's a pretty good bet you'll see one.



I believe it. Thankfully it's safer it's much safer in the winter!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 6, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> My though is that if you move the base of Madonna I up to Link, then more people will need to ride Madonna II to access the base of Madonna I.  Madonna II will then have much longer lines, but Madonna I's lines might decrease, or at least the ride will be shorter.  Therefore upgrading Madonna II to a high speed quad makes sense.  Even if Madonna I remains as is, upgradeing Madonna II will shorten Madonna I's lines as a lot of people would prefer to ride a fast comfortable lift, even if it accesses less interesting terrain.
> 
> Again I have not been to Smuggs, but their antique lifts is the main reason why.   I am not going to drive over 8 hours round trip to wait in lines all day, and only get 10 or so runs in.  The terrain looks awesome, but not worth the drive plus waiting in lines.  That is why I think their best strategy would be to upgrade the three other main lifts, Morse, Sterling, and Madonna II, and make Madonna I a Castlerock like pod for classic skiing.



I guess this could work. I just think it would be a shit show with folks trying to move around the mountain.  They could do everything you say but at what cost? They put in a few HSQ and increase there lift ticket to 75-80 dollars.....now what makes them any different then Stowe? Why bother driving an extra 45 minutes around the notch? This isn't a comment about what you said but just a generalization.....they have branded themselves in a way that allows them to survive year after year. We have seen ski areas sell off or close because of local competition (Magic, Glen Ellen, Haystack, etc.). I don't know many places that could survive being 2 miles from Stowe. They have figured out a way to do it and though it may not be a place for everyone I think it is a sound business model for their situation.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 6, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> No, just some Act 250 State official Nazis.  This was prior to the Morse Highlands area going in.  That pod was supposed to be much larger than what it is.
> 
> I will say, I've never encountered a higher density of Beech trees complete with bear claw markings anywhere I've ever walked in the woods.  You want to see a bear?  Go about 500 feet up and slightly east of Morse Highlands and there's a pretty good bet you'll see one.



I this seems a bit unfortunate to me...  Bears and skiers are using the mountain during opposite seasons.  I'm sure that something could be done to have minimal effect on the beech trees up there.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 6, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Can't go further up Morse.  Largest Black Bear habitat in the State.  At least that's what I was told doing land surveys in there as a UVM student in the School of Natural Resources.



What does this even mean, really?  By what measure?  By what margin over other areas.  I'm always skeptical of claims like this, because the numbers can be massaged in a convenient way to make this claim sound true...!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 6, 2014)

Savemeasammy said:


> I this seems a bit unfortunate to me...  Bears and skiers are using the mountain during opposite seasons.  I'm sure that something could be done to have minimal effect on the beech trees up there.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Maybe we can broker a deal with them. I've never met a Black Bear that isn't reasonable


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 6, 2014)

Savemeasammy said:


> What does this even mean, really?  By what measure?  By what margin over other areas.  I'm always skeptical of claims like this, because the numbers can be massaged in a convenient way to make this claim sound true...!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Beech trees provide a critical source of food in the fall for Black Bears prior to hibernation.

http://badger.uvm.edu/omeka/exhibit...h-introduction/american-beech-bark-and-black-

As I said, I've never seen a higher concentration of Beech trees than in that location.  There are acres upon acres of forest with a high concentration of them; maybe 50% or so of the trees were Beech.  It would've been impossible to cut any trails, lift lines etc. without removing some of them.  The state would not allow any development within 500 yards of the area.  They even shot down plans for some cross-country skiing trails in the area.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 6, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Beech trees provide a critical source of food in the fall for Black Bears prior to hibernation.
> 
> http://badger.uvm.edu/omeka/exhibit...h-introduction/american-beech-bark-and-black-
> 
> As I said, I've never seen a higher concentration of Beech trees than in that location.  There are acres upon acres of forest with a high concentration of them; maybe 50% or so of the trees were Beech.  It would've been impossible to cut any trails, lift lines etc. without removing some of them.  The state would not allow any development within 500 yards of the area.  They even shot down plans for some cross-country skiing trails in the area.



Sorry, I understood the beech tree thing.  It's the "largest black bear habit" statement that could be subject to interpretation IMO.  I guess it's a non-issue though, but I think it's a shame.  Skiers and black bears peacefully coexist with one-another ski season after ski season.  

As an aside, I'm sure that Smuggs could actively manage the beech tree population, and there would be minimal disruption to the bears...  Oh well, it just seems a shame that that area cannot be developed.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 6, 2014)

People still ski in the area.  You just have to do your own work for it.   I haven't skied that location personally, but I imagine it's pretty awesome mid to low angle tree skiing.  The trees are very well spaced. 

I'm guessing one consideration other than tree removal that might have been considered in not allowing development is that perhaps the noise generated by grooming equipment might disturb hibernating bears?  

Who knows.  Given how unique the ecology is there and how massive Smuggs terrain is on other parts of the mountain, I don't really have an issue with the area being off limits to development.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 6, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> *I have not been to Smuggs, but their antique lifts is the main  reason why.*



Exhibit: A.



Quietman said:


> My first couple of posts on this site got me blasted as a Smuggs hater because *I complained of long lines and slow lifts. I will not make a return visit*



Exhibit: B


_The defense rests its' case._


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 6, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> *A HSQ on II would reduce the line and trail traffic on Sterling considerably.*



I dont get that.  They're 2 different mountains.  If anything, the first lift I'd upgrade at Smuggs would be Sterling.





MadMadWorld said:


> No I got your point it still doesn't make sense to anyone but you.
> 
> And by the way *you are crazy if you think trails like Liftline,  Freefall, Robin's and Black Hole can handle the extra traffic. I don't  think you know the mountain as well as you think you do.*



I don't think you've skied Smuggs if you think those trails are EVER (and I do mean ever) "crowded".   Hell, even on President's Saturday those trails arent really "crowded".   Unless your definition of "crowded" is, _"I had to wait 20 seconds for someone in my line"_. That's just not a beef or a complaint in my world.

Regardless of that subjectivity, you're not even in the right zip code on this matter.  

The most crowded trails off Madonna I are clearly Upper Chilcoot and Upper Drifter, which are summit intermediates, which are (near) always the most crowded trails at any venue.  You're forced onto those trails unless you hit Liftline, which virtually nobody does given it's (IMO) one of the hardest on-map trails east of the Mississippi, so they de facto receive the highest skier volume.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 6, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I dont get that.  They're 2 different mountains.  If anything, the first lift I'd upgrade at Smuggs would be Sterling.



Three thoughts behind that....

Skiers are lemmings for High Speed lifts.  Look at Stowe.  The Forerunner line can be 20 minutes and there's barely a five minute line on the Lookout Double.

Second thought is that Smuggs markets itself as a family ski area.  The best low intermediate "family" terrain on the mountain is off Madonna II.  

The combination of those two scenarios would reduce traffic on Sterling, which I think would be a good thing.  That terrain gets chewed up quick due to it's traffic.  Adding a high speed lift over there would only exasperate that problem.  I wouldn't want to see more than a fixed grip triple on Sterling.


----------



## 4aprice (Sep 6, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> My though is that if you move the base of Madonna I up to Link, then more people will need to ride Madonna II to access the base of Madonna I.  Madonna II will then have much longer lines, but Madonna I's lines might decrease, or at least the ride will be shorter.  Therefore upgrading Madonna II to a high speed quad makes sense.  Even if Madonna I remains as is, upgradeing Madonna II will shorten Madonna I's lines as a lot of people would prefer to ride a fast comfortable lift, even if it accesses less interesting terrain.
> 
> Again I have not been to Smuggs, but their antique lifts is the main reason why.   I am not going to drive over 8 hours round trip to wait in lines all day, and only get 10 or so runs in.  The terrain looks awesome, but not worth the drive plus waiting in lines.  That is why I think their best strategy would be to upgrade the three other main lifts, Morse, Sterling, and Madonna II, and make Madonna I a Castlerock like pod for classic skiing.



There is only one way to add an upper mountain lift since apparently expansion to the east is verboten. (the ultimate being up Morse and over to Whiteface).  Take the Madonna II chair and move its terminus over to the top of the corner where Chilcoot bends back toward the base, run something up the ridge to the summit or top of Catwalk. (you can almost access everything from there).  Madonna has and always will be subject to closures.  There's your chance for a HS lift, along with Sterling if its going to be done (not my personal choice).  It would end a little higher then the current MII and I believe there is some terrain to open below the Chilcoot Corner dropping down Morse toward Mid Madonna.  Leave Madonna I as is.  

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Sep 7, 2014)

I figured this was relevant:
http://www.newenglandskihistory.com/skiareaexpansions/Vermont/smugglersnotch/whitefacemtn.php


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 7, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Three thoughts behind that....
> 
> Skiers are lemmings for High Speed lifts.  Look at Stowe.  The Forerunner line can be 20 minutes and there's barely a five minute line on the Lookout Double.
> 
> ...



I could see moving the base of Madonna I up the hill to where link intersects liftline.  Then perhaps Madonna II could be reconfigured so that it starts closer to the lodge somewhere (although I wouldn't put it down where Madonna I starts now).   And, yes, I see the logic in upgrading to a HSQ for MII.  The sport of skiing is mostly populated by intermediates and beginners, and if resorts want their money, they need to cater to them.  One would think that Smuggs would want to address their uphill capacity given their desire to sell timeshares.  I think a HSQ would spark a lot of interest for people who avoid Smuggs.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 7, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I dont get that.  They're 2 different mountains.  If anything, the first lift I'd upgrade at Smuggs would be Sterling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not what I said. They aren't crowded but because of the terrain the snow quality goes downhill quickly.


----------



## jimk (Sep 7, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Summit Triple at Attitash





Next candidate


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 7, 2014)

4aprice said:


> There is only one way to add an upper mountain lift since apparently expansion to the east is verboten. (the ultimate being up Morse and over to Whiteface).  Take the Madonna II chair and move its terminus over to the top of the corner where Chilcoot bends back toward the base, run something up the ridge to the summit or top of Catwalk. (you can almost access everything from there).  Madonna has and always will be subject to closures.  There's your chance for a HS lift, along with Sterling if its going to be done (not my personal choice).  It would end a little higher then the current MII and I believe there is some terrain to open below the Chilcoot Corner dropping down Morse toward Mid Madonna.  Leave Madonna I as is.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



They researched this back in the day and even did some surveying (the lines are still skiable after a big storm). They found that winds in that area would have made that spot unworkable.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 7, 2014)

jimk said:


> Next candidate



where is the second pic from?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 7, 2014)

Yea I'm curious too.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 7, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> where is the second pic from?



That's what I want to know.  That looks like a great trail.  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Edd (Sep 7, 2014)

Jesus, that's 4 of us that we're wondering. I was thinking it was this trail far skiers right on the Attitash side.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 7, 2014)

Old Upper Giant Killer poma line at Pico maybe?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 7, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Old Upper Giant Killer poma line at Pico maybe?



It looks like it but the overhead lines are wrong. It could be the very bottom of it.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 7, 2014)

The road looks way too close for it to be poma line.  It could be some place in the mid-atlantic that most of us have never heard of...!


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 7, 2014)

This belongs in the guess the ski area thread.


----------



## dmw (Sep 7, 2014)

Crotched poma line?


----------



## xlr8r (Sep 7, 2014)

Mittersil


----------



## Edd (Sep 7, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> Mittersil



That's a good guess, I think. I was assuming it was Attitash earlier because of his post.


----------



## Cornhead (Sep 7, 2014)

Greek Peak, chair 5 triple, the only lift I've been lowered from,  I just missed having to be rescued from it last year too. It doesn't have footrest either, never bothered me, I don't usually use them, but my snowboarding Son hated riding it.

Sent from my DROID X2 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Sep 7, 2014)

Well, the picture's filename is "mittersill" which is perhaps a clue, unless the poster intends to mislead. If it is Mittersill, is it the line of the old chair that got displaced by the new chair?


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 7, 2014)

skifastr said:


> Well, the picture's filename is "mittersill"



I guess that pretty much settles it, then...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jimk (Sep 7, 2014)

xlr8r said:


> Mittersill


Correct, from a fun visit I made to Cannon in 2010.  Don't believe it's where they put in that new chair about a year later.  This line is closer to the Cannon beginner area.

Here's another candidate although it would be kind of a travesty to mess with fabulous old school aura:


Here's a classic mid-Atlantic chair that could stand to be replaced, it crapped out recently and was refurbished, but just enough to keep moving:=)


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 7, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> *Skiers are lemmings for High Speed lifts.  Look at Stowe.  The Forerunner line can be 20 minutes and there's barely a five minute line on the Lookout Double.
> *



This has always fascinated me.  Whiteface is another great example.  Long lines at the Gondola, with small lines at another lift that unloads literally right next to the Gondola.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 7, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> This has always fascinated me.  Whiteface is another great example.  Long lines at the Gondola, with small lines at another lift that unloads literally right next to the Gondola.


When I used to ski Waterville and someone I was with wanted to go on the world cup triple, I'd ride the quad (assuming the line was under a few minutes) and after some fast skiing, would be waiting for them when they finally unloaded.  Of course if the line for the HS lift is really long you get a better deal with the alternate, but people do tend to underestimate the difference in speed.


----------



## yeggous (Sep 7, 2014)

There is nothing wrong with the Tomcat chair at Wildcat. It serves as their backup lift in case of wind holds, holiday crowds, or pathetic snowmaking. As a result it got a lot of action last year.

Attitash saw some record days last year since Wildcat was effectively out of action, though they were disproportionately refugee passholders. In a big change from last year, the lift lines at the Bear Peak HSQ were out of control. On multiple occasions I fled Bear Peak for Attitash proper due to the crowds. I timed my runs and found it was about break even in time whether I rode the summit triple or Bear HSQ. Yes, the summit triple can run faster but they slow it down due to "misloading" problems with rookies. No, Peak Resorts has no plans to replace the lift. They don't see the ROI, especially after the Mt Snow Bluebird.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 7, 2014)

Any lift at Magic. Pick one.


----------



## Edd (Sep 7, 2014)

yeggous said:


> In a big change from last year, the lift lines at the Bear Peak HSQ were out of control. On multiple occasions I fled Bear Peak for Attitash proper due to the crowds.
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



That is a big change. I've always found Attitash more crowded. Love parking at Bear.


----------



## yeggous (Sep 7, 2014)

Edd said:


> That is a big change. I've always found Attitash more crowded. Love parking at Bear.



They made some changes specifically designed to move the crowds over the Bear. Chief among them was moving the terrain park to draw over the families. I have changed my Attitash strategy. I start at Bear first thing in the morning. Around 10am the lines become Vermont-like so I move over to Attitash and grind out some runs on the triple. I'll head back to Bear around 2pm.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 8, 2014)

Surprised the Thompson Double at Big Squaw hasn't been mentioned yet.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 8, 2014)

That is the old Mittersill chair liftline before they widened it for the new lift.  It is about halfway down.   This is the section that gets scrpaed off quickly now.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 8, 2014)

Down lower


----------



## Puck it (Sep 8, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> Down lower



That is not the old chair line.  That is the old T-bar line which will be gone.  IT serviced the Taft Slope.


----------



## bobbutts (Sep 8, 2014)

oops


----------



## jimk (Sep 8, 2014)

Puck it said:


> That is the old Mittersill chair liftline before they widened it for the new lift.  It is about halfway down.   This is the section that gets scrpaed off quickly now.



Oops.  Thanks for the correct ID.


----------



## WWF-VT (Sep 8, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Surprised the Thompson Double at Big Squaw hasn't been mentioned yet.



This is a Northeast ski forum.  Not many people that likely care about Big Squaw active here.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 8, 2014)

WWF-VT said:


> This is a Northeast ski forum.  Not many people that likely care about Big Squaw active here.



More than you'd think. I've seen a few people that live in Maine talk about big squaw occasionally


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Sep 8, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> More than you'd think. I've seen a few people that live in Maine talk about big squaw occasionally



...and last time I checked, Big Squaw is in Maine...


----------



## ss20 (Sep 8, 2014)

WWF-VT said:


> This is a Northeast ski forum.  Not many people that likely care about Big Squaw active here.



Wrong Squaw


----------



## canobie#1 (Sep 8, 2014)

Killington: 
South Ridge Triple (first priority)
Snowdon Quad

Smugglers:
Everything

Bolton Valley:
Visa quad (atleast make it a carpet lift and boost the speed)
Timberline
Wilderness double

Attitash:
Summit Triple (have no desire to go back until they do some big improvements)

Stratton:
Kidderbrook
Snow Bowl

Sugarbush:
Heaven's Gate 
New chairs on the two high speeds on ellen
Summit quad replacement

Yawgoo Valley:
New carpet lift
Connan Double replacement

Whaleback:
New lift

Mount Snow:
Sunbrook quad


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 8, 2014)

canobie#1 said:


> Killington:
> South Ridge Triple (first priority)
> Snowdon Quad
> 
> ...



What's wrong with the GMX at Sugarbush?  Summit?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 8, 2014)

Puck it said:


> That is not the old chair line.  That is the old T-bar line which will be gone.  IT serviced the Taft Slope.


----------



## WWF-VT (Sep 8, 2014)

ss20 said:


> Wrong Squaw



Got it.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 8, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> What's wrong with the GMX at Sugarbush?  Summit?



Or Heaven's Gate!


----------



## canobie#1 (Sep 8, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> What's wrong with the GMX at Sugarbush?  Summit?




What's wrong with the Sunny D char or the classic Outpost double?  No need to replace a classic with low attendence in a smaller area. 

I wouldn't replace the chair life, just refurb or replace the chairs.  They're beaten up and ratty.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 8, 2014)

canobie#1 said:


> What's wrong with the Sunny D char or the classic Outpost double?  No need to replace a classic with low attendence in a smaller area.



Both lifts are at the end of their useful life.  Specifically I'd say towers and footings.  



> I wouldn't replace the chair life, just refurb or replace the chairs.  They're beaten up and ratty.



OK.  Sounds like just a replacement of the carrier pads and covers would do it.  I think you might mean the North Ridge as being ratty too.  GMX is not as old.


----------



## benski (Sep 8, 2014)

Newpylong said:


> Or Heaven's Gate!



Heavens Gate broke down regularly last year.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 8, 2014)

benski said:


> Heavens Gate broke down regularly last year.



Exactly. It was down a lot when I skied there. IIRC they had a significant incident last year when the line deroped.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## 4aprice (Sep 8, 2014)

canobie#1 said:


> What's wrong with the Sunny D char or *the classic Outpost double*?  No need to replace a classic with low attendence in a smaller area.
> 
> I wouldn't replace the chair life, just refurb or replace the chairs.  They're beaten up and ratty.



Found your replacement list interesting.  Outpost is the shakiest chair I've ridden in the last 10 years anywhere.  Love the pod but that chair needs work.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 8, 2014)

4aprice said:


> Found your replacement list interesting.  Outpost is the shakiest chair I've ridden in the last 10 years anywhere.  Love the pod but that chair needs work.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



I love Outpost but man it was in tough shape when I last rode it in 2007. I don't think that POWDR has done much to help it. A newer double would be nice and reliable.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 8, 2014)

thetrailboss said:


> I love Outpost but man it was in tough shape when I last rode it in 2007. I don't think that POWDR has done much to help it. A newer double would be nice and reliable.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


Outpost was the only upper mountain lift open at 9am after a big dump last year. Summit chair didn't open till 11am. I'd say that's pretty reliable.


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 9, 2014)

I haven't been to Pico in 25 years but will be going this year hopefully Outpost will be open but not putting any money on it after what I have read on line over the years.


----------



## jimk (Sep 9, 2014)

jimk said:


> Correct, from a fun visit I made to Cannon in 2010.  Don't believe it's where they put in that new chair about a year later.  This line is closer to the Cannon beginner area.
> 
> Here's another candidate although it would be kind of a travesty to mess with fabulous old school aura:
> View attachment 13583
> ...



ID: TOP PHOTO IS SURFACE LIFT AT BLACK MTN, NH

ID:  SECOND PHOTO IS ORIGINAL 1964 DOUBLE AT BLUE KNOB, PA.  BTW, THIS IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE SKI PICS I EVER TOOK.  THAT IS ONE LARGE STEELERS FAN, MADE THE LIFT LOOK LIKE A SINGLE CHAIR  DON'T SPEAK ILL OF STEELERS WHILE IN WESTERN PA.


Smellytele said:


> I haven't been to Pico in 25 years but will be going this year hopefully Outpost will be open but not putting any money on it after what I have read on line over the years.



Speaking of Outpost Double, from Mar 2011:


----------



## WoodCore (Sep 9, 2014)

jimk said:


>




One of the last remaining original Carlevaro Savio lifts. Would be a shame to see it replaced.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 9, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> I haven't been to Pico in 25 years but will be going this year hopefully Outpost will be open but not putting any money on it after what I have read on line over the years.



Every weekend for the most part. They've been making snow on Bronco too.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 9, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Outpost was the only upper mountain lift open at 9am after a big dump last year. Summit chair didn't open till 11am. I'd say that's pretty reliable.


This was on a Thursday.


----------



## canobie#1 (Sep 9, 2014)

Outpost seemed to be in good condition this past season.  No reason to replace it unless it's really bad.

The heaven's gate triple not only broke down a lot but it also gets a huge line all day long.  More capacity.  Maybe some more trails up there or add snowmaking to spillsvile.


----------



## WWF-VT (Sep 9, 2014)

canobie#1 said:


> The heaven's gate triple not only broke down a lot but it also gets a huge line all day long. More capacity. Maybe some more trails up there or add snowmaking to spillsvile.



You will likely never see snowmaking on Spillsville and many people share my opiniion that additional uphill capacity is not needed for that trail area.


----------



## Madroch (Sep 9, 2014)

WWF-VT said:


> You will likely never see snowmaking on Spillsville and many people share my opiniion that additional uphill capacity is not needed for that trail area.



Agree- don't need more capacity unless jester is widened (and hence ruined) or another easy way down is added- jester gets sled off quick as it is as it gets most of the HG traffic...


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 9, 2014)

I don't see adding uphill capacity at Heaven's gate remotely being a good idea. If for some reason continuous mechanical issues can't fix the lift I would hope to see nothing more than a new fixed grip Quad replace it.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 9, 2014)

I'd like to see a top to bottom lift up organ grinder.I think they had that at one time.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 9, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> I'd like to see a top to bottom lift up organ grinder.I think they had that at one time.



That would be the former Sugarbush Gondola.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 9, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> I'd like to see a top to bottom lift up organ grinder.I think they had that at one time.





thetrailboss said:


> That would be the former Sugarbush Gondola.


----------



## machski (Sep 10, 2014)

I don't think that trail pod could handle the capacity a bottom to top lift would supply.  Sugarbush supposedly did major upgrades to the lift this year in hopes of fixing the issues.  If the upgrades work, a bit more speed with a carpet load would be nice (and you can hold capacity as is by removing a few chairs)





steamboat1 said:


> I'd like to see a top to bottom lift up organ grinder.I think they had that at one time.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 10, 2014)

I thought the wind played a factor in the original gondola being removed


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 10, 2014)

I feel like Wildcat should just turn it's HSQ into a chondola since they already have all the infrastructure.


----------



## EPB (Sep 10, 2014)

I like the quad the way it is, though they should consider lowering capacity on it early season at the least. I doubt that the lift could unload passengers on the gondola if the lift we're to run at full speed, but I could be wrong.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Sugarloaf beyond the king pine chair (I think the hsq/extension would be nice). I'd like to see the double runner chairs replaced with at least a conveyor loading fixed quad (with a mid station making use of the longer lift line). Also, I'd like to see a redone timeline quad that either stays at Bullwinkle's or extends down the same line below Bullwinkle's to provide a better upper mountain lapping experience.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 10, 2014)

It might not be easy but it would definitely make things interesting!


----------



## ceo (Sep 10, 2014)

Sugarloaf has made noises about replacing KP with a longer high-speed quad and moving the existing lift to replace Double Runner. I'd like it if they added a loading carpet so they can speed the thing up a bit; DR is a slow enough ride as it is and I'm pretty sure KP is slower.


----------



## Skimaine (Sep 10, 2014)

Certainly the double runner chairs at Sugarloaf need to be replaced with something more beginner friendly.  I like the carpet loaded fixed grip.  King Pine would benefit from a new lift.  longer to pick-up more folks from Bracket Basin and re aligned to give it more shelter from the wind.   Something faster and more wind tolerant to the summit replacing Timberline would be great.  Even better as noted above if they could move the loading down to Bullwinkle's.   Not holding my breath on this upgrade.  The KP and double runner upgrade is at least in the realm of possibilities.


----------



## jimk (Sep 10, 2014)

eastern powder baby said:


> I like the quad the way it is, though they should consider lowering capacity on it early season at the least. I doubt that the lift could unload passengers on the gondola if the lift we're to run at full speed, but I could be wrong.
> 
> I'm surprised nobody mentioned Sugarloaf beyond the king pine chair (I think the hsq/extension would be nice). I'd like to see the double runner chairs replaced with at least a conveyor loading fixed quad (with a mid station making use of the longer lift line). Also, I'd like to see a redone timeline quad that either stays at Bullwinkle's or extends down the same line below Bullwinkle's to provide a better upper mountain lapping experience.



I got stuck on the King Pine chair last March on a single digit day.  I had already felt a touch of frostbite on my cheek earlier in the day and was in no mood to get stuck for long on a chair.  I immediately started thinking and vocalizing about jumping off the chair because it was at a point pretty close to the ground, but it kept stopping and starting and got us to the top after only about a 10-15 minute delay.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 10, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I feel like Wildcat should just turn it's HSQ into a chondola since they already have all the infrastructure.



I don't understand the point of a chondola (or telemix).  I've never seen one, but it seems odd.   Are there people who will pass on getting in a chair and wait for the gondola car like people waiting for front-row at a rollerocoaster?


----------



## catsup948 (Sep 10, 2014)

Jay needs to replace the bonnie with a high speed lift.  There is a ton of good glades, powerline and several other fun trails that can be accessed from the chair but it's so damn slow.  The Jet is pretty slow and old as well.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 10, 2014)

I can't remember how long the ride on the Bonnie actually was, but it always felt like a 15 minute ride. Maybe because you can see the whole length of the lift vs lifts where the topology hides the top portions.

I think it would be useful to truncate the top 200-300 yards of the freezer where it goes over that ridge and the wind hits you full force, to minimize wind holds. You don't really gain any vertical, in fact it almost feels like you lose it. 

You could replay that truncated section with a surface lift easily as well since it's not steep.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 10, 2014)

Yeah Bomnie has been on the replacement list for a while. At least put a conveyor in to speed it up.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 10, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I can't remember how long the ride on the Bonnie actually was, but it always felt like a 15 minute ride. Maybe because you can see the whole length of the lift vs lifts where the topology hides the top portions.
> 
> I think it would be useful to truncate the top 200-300 yards of the freezer where it goes over that ridge and the wind hits you full force, to minimize wind holds. You don't really gain any vertical, in fact it almost feels like you lose it.
> 
> You could replay that truncated section with a surface lift easily as well since it's not steep.



It's a lot more than 200-300 yards I believe. You would lose a lot of fun glades like Everglade, Staircase, BP, and AP when the Tram is down.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 10, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> It's a lot more than 200-300 yards I believe. You would lose a lot of fun glades like Everglade, Staircase, BP, and AP when the Tram is down.



You know what I'm talking about, the flat, almost downhill portion at the top.

I know this seems far fetched but that would minimize a lot of wind holds, surface lift would ensure you could still access the same terrain.


----------



## ss20 (Sep 10, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I don't understand the point of a chondola (or telemix).  I've never seen one, but it seems odd.   Are there people who will pass on getting in a chair and wait for the gondola car like people waiting for front-row at a rollerocoaster?



I've ridden the one at Sunday River and its setup is pretty straightforward.  Gondola people have their own line, chair people have their line.  At no point are the two lines merged.  They both have separate entry points.  After that its just like a normal chairlift or gondola.  If there's a gondola entering the terminal, then the gates for the chair people stay closed.  If there's a chair, then gondola people stay put.

Like yourself, I was a doubter in the convenience of a chondola, but it's really nice to have the option.  The chondola concept works great when you have people who are lapping the lift and would like the convenience of keeping on their skis instead of taking them off each run.  But if you're coming out of the lodge then you can take a gondola instead of wasting time putting on your skis.


----------



## machski (Sep 10, 2014)

Yes, and they know that as well.  It was suppose to be replaced with the Powerline 6 last season but that got held up (multiple reasons that I have heard).  So they moved the base of the lift up instead (as they had to with the new stateside lodge/hotel).  I know it is still planned but have heard no definitive schedule since.  If it does happen, the old bonnie is suppose to move over and replace the Jet triple.





catsup948 said:


> Jay needs to replace the bonnie with a high speed lift.  There is a ton of good glades, powerline and several other fun trails that can be accessed from the chair but it's so damn slow.  The Jet is pretty slow and old as well.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 10, 2014)

ss20 said:


> Gondola people have their own line, chair people have their line.  At no point are the two lines merged.  They both have separate entry points.  After that its just like a normal chairlift or gondola.  If there's a gondola entering the terminal, then the gates for the chair people stay closed.  If there's a chair, then gondola people stay put.



Is the Gondola line generally longer (i.e. is it usually quicker in the Chair line)?


----------



## ss20 (Sep 10, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Is the Gondola line generally longer (i.e. is it usually quicker in the Chair line)?



The chair line is usually longer because it uses a maze.  The gondola line is "old-school" single file which scares people away since it looks longer than it really is.


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 10, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I don't understand the point of a chondola (or telemix).  I've never seen one, but it seems odd.   Are there people who will pass on getting in a chair and wait for the gondola car like people waiting for front-row at a rollerocoaster?


Only rode a chondola one day at MT. Orford in Quebec. There were no lines that day so I couldn't tell.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 11, 2014)

The purpose of the Chondola at SR is not for any skiing benefit its for providing a sheltered travel to the North Peak lodge both in winter for dining events and summer for weddings and scenic rides.


----------



## yeggous (Sep 11, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> The purpose of the Chondola at SR is not for any skiing benefit its for providing a sheltered travel to the North Peak lodge both in winter for dining events and summer for weddings and scenic rides.



A chondola at Wildcat is ridiculous. Gondola cars are even more wind prone which is one reason it will never happen.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 11, 2014)

yeggous said:


> A chondola at Wildcat is ridiculous. Gondola cars are even more wind prone which is one reason it will never happen.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



It was a joke.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 11, 2014)

I think the chondola has worked well for SR. As DHSkier said, it is dual purpose both for skiing and transportation. You don't use it that much when skiing other than to get out of South Ridge base. Can always take lift 2 to 6 if you want to avoid it. North Peak runs a lot more now with the terrain park over there.


----------



## EPB (Sep 11, 2014)

I've been on the ones at Orford and SR. The gondola always seems to take longer as I recall because there are more chairs on the line. The day I asked Orford, the lift was put on wind gold around mid day. When the lift was spinning, there was a pretty long gondola ride while the chair side was ski on.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 11, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I think it would be useful to truncate the top 200-300 yards of the freezer where it goes over that ridge and the wind hits you full force, to minimize wind holds. You don't really gain any vertical, in fact it almost feels like you lose it.


I highly doubt that they would be willing to lose access to the Northway trail from the Bonnie chair.


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 11, 2014)

Ski Sundown should replace the Exhibition Triple with at least a 6-pack bubble.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> I highly doubt that they would be willing to lose access to the Northway trail from the Bonnie chair.



Who said anything about the Bonnie chair?


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 11, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> Who said anything about the Bonnie chair?


These people:



catsup948 said:


> Jay needs to replace the bonnie with a high speed lift.  There is a ton of good glades, powerline and several other fun trails that can be accessed from the chair but it's so damn slow.  The Jet is pretty slow and old as well.





skiNEwhere said:


> I can't remember how long the ride on the Bonnie actually was, but it always felt like a 15 minute ride. Maybe because you can see the whole length of the lift vs lifts where the topology hides the top portions.
> 
> I think it would be useful to truncate the top 200-300 yards of the freezer where it goes over that ridge and the wind hits you full force, to minimize wind holds. You don't really gain any vertical, in fact it almost feels like you lose it.





thetrailboss said:


> Yeah Bomnie has been on the replacement list for a while. At least put a conveyor in to speed it up.





MadMadWorld said:


> It's a lot more than 200-300 yards I believe. You would lose a lot of fun glades like Everglade, Staircase, BP, and AP when the Tram is down.





skiNEwhere said:


> You know what I'm talking about, the flat, almost downhill portion at the top.
> 
> I know this seems far fetched but that would minimize a lot of wind holds, surface lift would ensure you could still access the same terrain.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Sep 11, 2014)

I did mention the Bonnie, but not shortening it. I was talking about the flyer


----------



## VTKilarney (Sep 11, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> I did mention the Bonnie, but not shortening it. I was talking about the flyer


My bad.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Sep 11, 2014)

yeggous said:


> A chondola at Wildcat is ridiculous. Gondola cars are even more wind prone which is one reason it will never happen.



I agree wintertime gondola cars would be a bad idea at Wildcat. 

I don't like the summer gondola either. If I'm going to take a summertime lift ride to the top of a mountain, which is rare because I'm inclined to hike but hypothetically, Id much rather ride an open chair than an enclosed gondola.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Sep 11, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Ski Sundown should replace the Exhibition Triple with at least a 6-pack bubble.


uke:bubble chairs
:flame:bubble chairs

ixnay on the ubblebay airschay


----------



## dlague (Sep 11, 2014)

catsup948 said:


> Jay needs to replace the bonnie with a high speed lift.  There is a ton of good glades, powerline and several other fun trails that can be accessed from the chair but it's so damn slow.  The Jet is pretty slow and old as well.



+1


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## dlague (Sep 11, 2014)

ss20 said:


> I've ridden the one at Sunday River and its setup is pretty straightforward.  Gondola people have their own line, chair people have their line.  At no point are the two lines merged.  They both have separate entry points.  After that its just like a normal chairlift or gondola.  If there's a gondola entering the terminal, then the gates for the chair people stay closed.  If there's a chair, then gondola people stay put.
> 
> Like yourself, I was a doubter in the convenience of a chondola, but it's really nice to have the option.  The chondola concept works great when you have people who are lapping the lift and would like the convenience of keeping on their skis instead of taking them off each run.  But if you're coming out of the lodge then you can take a gondola instead of wasting time putting on your skis.



We have ridden the chondola both ways!  It was on a near zero degree day with wind. So the gondola was a little relief with out heading into the lodge - line was short too!


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 11, 2014)

skiNEwhere said:


> You know what I'm talking about, the flat, almost downhill portion at the top.
> 
> I know this seems far fetched but that would minimize a lot of wind holds, surface lift would ensure you could still access the same terrain.



I know exactly what your talking about but I think you are underestimating how far it is from that spot to the end of the lift.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 11, 2014)

In most instances, it seems this thread should be renamed, "Lifts people _want_ replaced", rather than "need" replacement.


----------



## woofydoggie (Sep 11, 2014)

I changed it.


----------



## Madroch (Sep 11, 2014)

VTKilarney said:


> Ski Sundown should replace the Exhibition Triple with at least a 6-pack bubble.



Funitel-  ct winters can be harsh...


----------



## The Sneak (Sep 11, 2014)

The Jet is just fine. My legs are usually trashed after skating that long flat runout coming uh back in bounds.

I hate the freezer 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Zand (Sep 12, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> In most instances, it seems this thread should be renamed, "Lifts people _want_ replaced", rather than "need" replacement.



Finally someone speaks the truth. Seriously folks...if you're skiing it right then the longer rides on the Jet and Bonnie should be welcomed lol. I also find Madonna I to be fine because it's a very interesting ride...much more so than a turtle fixed grip that goes over some groomer for 15 minutes.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 12, 2014)

Okay, I'll go a bit crazy with a proposed total lift overhaul for Sugarloaf.  

King Pine gets replaced with a HSQ.

Timberline chair gets replaced with the current King Pine Quad and extended down to Bullwinkles.

Bucksaw gets replaced with a HSQ and additional low intermediate / beginner terrain is cut skiers left of it where there's a ton of acreage.  This will siphon traffic away from the Superquad and probably Wiffletree as well by providing an expanded 1000 foot vert pod with near mile long trails for lower level skiers.  It also would provide the quickest means of getting to the summit by connecting to the new Timberline chair. 

Bucksaw Double gets moved over to Burnt Mountain, creating a "Castlerock" type lift in that area.

Add a summit T-Bar from the top of Bateau to be able to offer lift serviced skiing off the summit when Skyway, Timberline and the Superquad are on Windhold.

Lastly, add conveyors to the Double Runner lifts to increase the line speed.  I think those lifts are fine as is and I like the two different unload points.  They're just a tad slow. 

All told, it would only cost Peaks about 30-40 million bucks.  :lol:


----------



## dlague (Sep 12, 2014)

I am still still stuck on Rangley double at saddleback! 


.......


----------



## Smellytele (Sep 12, 2014)

dlague said:


> I am still still stuck on Rangley double at saddleback!
> 
> 
> .......



Yes 1st and foremost.


----------



## bigbob (Sep 12, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Okay, I'll go a bit crazy with a proposed total lift overhaul for Sugarloaf.
> 
> King Pine gets replaced with a HSQ.
> 
> ...




It shouldn't cost Peaks a dime, unless they just bought the Loaf from CNL/Boyne! Do you have some inside info you wish to share?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 12, 2014)

whoops, ownership slip up.  Meant to say CNL/Boyne


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 12, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Okay, I'll go a bit crazy with a proposed total lift overhaul for Sugarloaf.
> 
> King Pine gets replaced with a HSQ.
> 
> ...



Why replace a fixed grip quad with another fixed grip quad? Wouldn't it make more sense to replace Timberline with a HSQ since it's a longer lift and more terrain? Perhaps wind issues would inhibit a detach over there? A fixed grip all the way down to Bullwinkles would be a brutal ride.

Bucksaw to HSQ seems like a no brainer. Lot of underutilized terrain there.

Perhaps the Upper Mountain T-Bar could go up Gondola line from SpillwayXcut up?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 12, 2014)

Yup, wind would be my concern with a HSQ on Timberline.  It's already on wind hold a ton.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 12, 2014)

They certainly have their work cut out for them when it comes to aging lifts.


----------



## Puck it (Sep 12, 2014)

The whole lift arrangement at Sugarloaf is really messed up.  IMHO.


----------



## xwhaler (Sep 12, 2014)

IMHO the terrain is not very interesting off the Timberline unless you are trying to access the 'snowfields'
And typically folks are not lapping the snow fields because they are usually very scraped off and wind scoured....its fun to hit it once and then move on.

I personally think it would be hard to justify doing anything with that lift. I do like the idea of putting it down to Bullwinkles.
Generally intermediates are sticking to Whiffletree or SQ.....the intermediate terrain off Timberline gets very little use I'd suspect.


----------



## Edd (Sep 12, 2014)

On the right day for crowds / conditions, the sets of narrow intermediate trails that run the length of Timberline are pretty fun. 

Sigh, a beer at Bullwinkles sounds pretty good right now.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 12, 2014)

HowieT2 said:


> The trail will remain as is except for the top where they will have to remove trees to accommodate the positioning of the top terminal.
> .


Sorry I'm late to this thread party.I did see this in a link somebody provided.
Individual trees along the edge of the lift corridor would be removed to accommodate the wider gauge of the new lift.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Sep 12, 2014)

I saw this on another link somebody posted and was blown away by the propsed # of lifts for Smuggs.

Ten years later, the ten year plan was announced again, this time under the ownership of Tom Watson. Whiteface was still considered part of the proposed expansion, which called for a total of fourteen additional new chairlifts for the resort. It is thought the expansion was quietly cancelled after the sale of the ski area in the 1970s.


----------



## ceo (Sep 12, 2014)

Kind of silly to relocate King Pine to replace Timberline, when they're basically identical lifts. Timberline was originally installed as the Whiffletree Quad at the same time as King Pine, and was moved to the ridgeline when the HSQ replaced it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 12, 2014)

To me the King Pine operates at a much faster speed than Timberline.   Maybe they have different horse power drives?


----------



## Edd (Sep 12, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> To me the King Pine operates at a much faster speed than Timberline.   Maybe they have different horse power drives?



Without a doubt. Timberline is set very low so it should appear to be moving kind of fast if it were an average fixed grip. That lift crawls as slow as any lift I can think of.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 12, 2014)

The biggest and only downside to the place I think is the lifts. There are more than there needs to be and many are aging. I mean, in reality there is probably a need to do something with 5 of them, 6 if they want the top to bottom gondola.

Yanking out the Double runners and putting another fixed grip like Skyline will help. Has that lift run more on windy days as they expected? If it has, might as well yank Bateau out with the doubles.

What's the status with the summit T-Bar? A few AZ challenges ago they said it would go in as soon as "this season" up Cinderhoe where it used to be.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 12, 2014)

SIKSKIER said:


> I saw this on another link somebody posted and was blown away by the propsed # of lifts for Smuggs.
> 
> Ten years later, the ten year plan was announced again, this time under the ownership of Tom Watson. Whiteface was still considered part of the proposed expansion, which called for a total of fourteen additional new chairlifts for the resort. It is thought the expansion was quietly cancelled after the sale of the ski area in the 1970s.



Fun fact but Whiteface is actually Sterling. I think they probably just renamed since Smuggs decided to name the other peak Sterling.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 12, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Fun fact but Whiteface is actually Sterling. I think they probably just renamed since Smuggs decided to name the other peak Sterling.



Why has Morse never been fully developed is what I'd like to know.  You could go up to 3000 feet letting off somewhere under the Long Trail.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 12, 2014)

Went over this earlier in the thread.  Black Bear habitat.


----------



## dlague (Sep 12, 2014)

Who cares about black bears and 
Bicknel thrush etc.


.......


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 12, 2014)

dlague said:


> Who cares about black bears and
> Bicknel thrush etc.
> 
> 
> .......



The Bicknell Thrush and Black Bears maybe?


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 12, 2014)

Bears have legs and Birds have wings don't they? Lotta space in Vermont...


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 12, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Why has Morse never been fully developed is what I'd like to know.  You could go up to 3000 feet letting off somewhere under the Long Trail.





deadheadskier said:


> Went over this earlier in the thread.  Black Bear habitat.



Was the Morse Highland area part of the Black Bear habitat? I thought it was just higher up.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 12, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Was the Morse Highland area part of the Black Bear habitat? I thought it was just higher up.



Basically the area I shaded red here, with a bit more buffer between it and Morse.  It also extended up onto Northwestern slope of Whiteface.


----------



## 4aprice (Sep 12, 2014)

SIKSKIER said:


> I saw this on another link somebody posted and was blown away by the propsed # of lifts for Smuggs.
> 
> Ten years later, the ten year plan was announced again, this time under the ownership of Tom Watson. Whiteface was still considered part of the proposed expansion, which called for a total of fourteen additional new chairlifts for the resort. It is thought the expansion was quietly cancelled after the sale of the ski area in the 1970s.



When I was young (1969 - 1972 or 73) and we had a place up in the village at Smuggs (then known as Madonna Mountain Ski Area) there was a relief map display with all the proposed lifts in one of the mountain offices.  Not only did it have lifts up Morse and Whiteface (Sterling Mountain if you want) but there was proposed stuff on the backside of Madonna and across the street from the village up Mt Mansfield.  Would have been quite the complex (especially if attached to Stowe).

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 12, 2014)

4aprice said:


> When I was young (1969 - 1972 or 73) and we had a place up in the village at Smuggs (then known as Madonna Mountain Ski Area) there was a relief map display with all the proposed lifts in one of the mountain offices.  Not only did it have lifts up Morse and Whiteface (Sterling Mountain if you want) but there was proposed stuff on the backside of Madonna and across the street from the village up Mt Mansfield.  Would have been quite the complex (especially if attached to Stowe).
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



Yeaaaaa I know nothing about that area.....


----------



## 4aprice (Sep 12, 2014)

MMW, When I say "relief map display"  I mean a model with the shape of the mountains and little lift towers. Someone spent a lot of time making it.  It was really cool and I really wonder what happened to it.  You wouldn't destroy it.   Someone's got to have it.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 12, 2014)

4aprice said:


> MMW, When I say "relief map display"  I mean a model with the shape of the mountains and little lift towers. Someone spent a lot of time making it.  It was really cool and I really wonder what happened to it.  You wouldn't destroy it.   Someone's got to have it.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Lake Hopatcong, NJ



There's something to that map that's all I have to say. People have done work in all those areas but as like many places I would never venture out into some of those areas with someone with knowledge of the area. But that would be a very cool map to own!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 12, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Basically the area I shaded red here, with a bit more buffer between it and Morse.  It also extended up onto Northwestern slope of Whiteface.



Seems like there is plenty of room for development.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 12, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> *Seems like there is plenty of room for development*.



Yeah, it's ridiculous if that's the correct answer.  

For starters, black bear are a species of Least Concern, they're not even close to threated.  
Secondly, they're highly adaptable and dont depend on a specific environment for survival.
 Not that that even matters so much given there are tens-of-thousands of unspoiled Vermont forest.   
Plus the fact that skiing is an activity that isn't that invasive in the first place, and the bears could have that area too, the other 7.5 or 8 months of the year.  Seems a lame excuse to prevent building if that truly was the reason.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 13, 2014)

I explained it earlier in the thread BG.  Largest Beech tree stand in the state is where that red dot is.  That is a critical food resource for Black Bears prior to hibernation.  Beech trees are also endangered due to various diseases.  The state's not going to allow development within a considerable buffer of the area.  I took part in the forest surveys while I student in UVM's SNR in the 90s.  

And honestly, considering that Smuggs has a fleet of chairs that have been around since Abe Lincoln, does anyone think they'll be expanding terrain anytime soon?


----------



## steamboat1 (Sep 13, 2014)

dlague said:


> Who cares about black bears and
> Bicknel thrush etc.
> 
> 
> .......


...


----------



## Savemeasammy (Sep 13, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Basically the area I shaded red here, with a bit more buffer between it and Morse.  It also extended up onto Northwestern slope of Whiteface.



It looks like there would be plenty of room for expansion on the other side of the mountain that faces the rest of the resort.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 13, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I explained it earlier in the thread BG.*  Largest Beech tree stand in the state is where that red dot is.  That is a critical food resource for Black Bears prior to hibernation.*  Beech trees are also endangered due to various diseases.  The state's not going to allow development within a considerable buffer of the area.  I took part in the forest surveys while I student in UVM's SNR in the 90s.



I dont understand this. 

 We have thriving black bear populations from Maine to South Florida, they'll eat anything they can get their ambitious and highly intelligent paws or snouts on, and some do live in areas with no beech trees.  So why would bear in Vermont be different?  In New Jersey we actually have too many bear due to the great habitat we have, the habitat encroachment that restricts them to certain areas (mostly central and NW), and political-driven bans on bear hunting (though Christie reinstated bear hunting a few years ago).  In Central Florida where my Mom lives, habitat loss is a big problem, to the point where bears wander housing development streets at dawn/dusk and pick through trash.  But Vermont?  I don't see how habitat loss can be much of an argument.  I'm all for protecting wildlife that's threatened, and/or not doing things that could put an areas populations in danger, but I think humans sometimes go over-the-top in these efforts.  And I think bans on ski trail cutting is a great example of that given the miniscule area effected and the fact that the area isn't "spoiled".  New York State is, IMO, the poster-child for this.

But even if the beech tree answer is 100% correct, and perhaps it is, I don't see how cutting 4 or 5 trails would have an impact as a function of the total percentage of the area - what would the entire cut area of 4 or 5 trails represent, maybe 5% of the area? Less?




deadheadskier said:


> And honestly, considering that* Smuggs has a fleet of chairs that have been around since Abe Lincoln, does anyone think they'll be expanding terrain *anytime soon?



Zing!  I was referring to the old plans back-in-the-day though.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 13, 2014)

shocking

BG is also the forum's foremost expert on wildlife ecology.

I'm just the messenger dude.  Participated in a study.  State said no go on trail development in the area.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Sep 13, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> *shocking BG is also the forum's foremost expert on wildlife ecology.*
> 
> *I'm just the messenger dude.* *Participated in a study.*  State said no go on trail development in the area.



Really?  

While sarcastic, the bolded snipe above adds nothing meaningful to the conversation,_ "study participation" _or not.  And I never said you weren't correct, but rather that your comment made no sense to me.  Our eastern Black Bears aren't Panda Bears or Koala Bears.  They are not specialists.   In fact, they're the antithesis of specialists with an omnivorous diet, and can thrive elsewhere with or without beech tree stands, and do so quite happily.  Which is why it surprised me that beech tree stands would be considered so paramount to their survival that you cant interfere with them so slightly as cutting a few ski trails, given they manage fine in other hardwood forests.  

There's your long answer explaining my curiousity.  One caveat:_ Didn't_ participate in a study.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 13, 2014)

I would suggest you read on why the Beech tree is so important to Black Bears in Northern Forests.  There's very little point in discussing the same species in New Jersey.  Just like there's very little point in discussing how white tail deer thrive down your way, but are managed very differently in VT.


----------



## twinplanx (Sep 13, 2014)

Don't Jersey Vermont!

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk


----------



## MadMadWorld (Sep 14, 2014)

I'm really okay with them not putting lifts up Sterling but lifts up Morse Highland would be nice. The terrain wouldn't be anything crazy but the tree skiing would be pretty awesome as it pretty much exclusively birch and beech.


----------

