MEtoVTSkier
Active member
So is the Tram's water tank the ONLY possible way to get water up to the lodge?
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Jay this weekend
- Thread starter camberstick
- Start date
fbrissette
Well-known member
I use the tram when there is less than a 10 minute wait (1 tram), which means that I very rarely use it nowadays. I really enjoy the terrain up there but there is no justification for the wait. When I back-country ski out West, a typical climb is anywhere from 2 to 4 hours. Why am I doing this ? Because the ensuing run is going to be as good as sex.
What do I get out of that one hour tram wait ? Not much. To me, the terrain is worth a 10 minutes wait. It'll be worth a climb up or a skin on a tram-down day when the snow is good.
Expert skiers definitely use the Tram even when there is a 60 minutes wait. For the heck of me I don't understand why. If there is someone on this board who waits one hour for the tram, I'd like to know why.
As to Madonna, you can't compare a 1200 skiers/hour lift to the currently 240 skiers/hour tram. Smuggs is not limiting skier capacity, they just don't appear to have the money to upgrade anything.
What do I get out of that one hour tram wait ? Not much. To me, the terrain is worth a 10 minutes wait. It'll be worth a climb up or a skin on a tram-down day when the snow is good.
Expert skiers definitely use the Tram even when there is a 60 minutes wait. For the heck of me I don't understand why. If there is someone on this board who waits one hour for the tram, I'd like to know why.
As to Madonna, you can't compare a 1200 skiers/hour lift to the currently 240 skiers/hour tram. Smuggs is not limiting skier capacity, they just don't appear to have the money to upgrade anything.
from_the_NEK
Active member
Hour wait for the tram > 1.25 skin to the summit. Also access to Big Jay.
Optional approach = ride the Flyer and skin up from there.
Optional approach = ride the Flyer and skin up from there.
fbrissette
Well-known member
Alternatively, from the Tram, 15 minutes walk up.
from_the_NEK
Active member
Why not?
I mapped it out. The Tram exclusively accesses 73 total acres of terrain. Madonna 1 exclusively accesses 435 total acres (obviously some amount of that acreage is unskiable at both resorts). That works out to 240/73=3.2 skiers per acre-hour at the peak of Jay and 1200/435=2.75 skiers per acre-hour at Smuggs. Why isn't there a bigger outcry to upgrade the Madonna 1 lift!
Apparently they don't know how to run a resort if they can't figure out that the double is too slow and the lines too long and it is costing them money.
LasersInTheTaiga
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 183
- Points
- 18
I made the drive up from Warren on Sunday to Jay -- so glad I did. Even tracked out a lot of the woods are really fun, and there was a much better base, even lower elevation. One question, though, since I don't remember this from previous visit -- do the lifts stop that often on a "normal" day. I counted two rides up where the lift didn't stop at least once, often for 20-30 seconds at a time.
fbrissette
Well-known member
Somehow it's been worse this year. Last week-end was the tail end of the Ontario school break, so lots of once-a-year beginner skiers. In addition, they are enforcing the 'backpack on your lap' rule more severely and I've seen them stop the chair twice to force skiers to remove their backpacks. Not if this explains a large percentage of the stoppage.
I'd be curious as to the origin of this backpack rule. There is no such thing in Canada (well at least in Quebec and BC where I have skied this year).
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
Lets take these in order:
MRG single chair - I haven't skied MRG enough to have an informed opinion, but my guess is it's (thankfully) more about history than math. I don't think a double would destroy the terrain. That's still a relatively small number of folks even if you double it.
Castlerock double - I've never been to Sugarbush when there's a massive live at Castlerock. Perhaps this is only a powder day thing? So in my limited experience, putting a quad at Castlerock would seem to be a waste of money as the double seems fine AFAIK.
Madonna Double - This one is oft-repeated and total BS. There is a lot of terrain off Madonna and a quad would not ruin conditions. At all. Period. I'm adamant about this. Madonna has more "choose your own adventure" intermediate routes down than most places. It's just an excuse because Smuggler's Notch doesn't spend money. Their apres-ski entertainment still consists of free hot cocoa, pilly mascots, a magician show, and a dark 1960s bingo hall. I do enjoy the cocoa though.
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
My girlfriend skis with one of those little camelpacks, which is like a very small backpack, but JP considers it like it's a full pack and makes her take it off (no other area does so). I cant recall JP ever making her take it off before, but they started to about 2 months ago.
Perhaps it started after this highly-publicized incident? The timeframe seems about right.
http://fox13now.com/2017/01/05/expe...kiers-get-stuck-hanging-from-backpack-straps/
Personally I bet there's more danger from people dropping backpacks from 60 feet off the Flyer than there is of a freak incident like this.
There are signs all over the place in Switzerland that say one has to put your backpack on your lap. Makes a lot of sense IMHO.
I'll be honest, since I started putting mine on my lap this year I would never go back to wearing it on the lift on my back. It is just so much more comfortable riding the chair with it on my lap.
Although at the same time, BG's argument about the small camelpack is a good one. I wouldn't personally consider those like full size backpacks and am not really sure I would force those to be on laps.
from_the_NEK
Active member
Ok...
MRG single chair - I haven't skied MRG enough to have an informed opinion, but my guess is it's (thankfully) more about history than math. I don't think a double would destroy the terrain. That's still a relatively small number of folks even if you double it.
Tell that to the people who voted to restore the single chair vs install something with higher capacity. They like the very low skier density. Historical value was also a big component in the decision.
Castlerock double - I've never been to Sugarbush when there's a massive live at Castlerock. Perhaps this is only a powder day thing? So in my limited experience, putting a quad at Castlerock would seem to be a waste of money as the double seems fine AFAIK.
The lines at Castlerock can get very long when the snow is good. When the snow is poor, most skiers don't bother with that pod. Granted the Tram line is still pretty long even when there isn't fresh snow. The expert skiers that are after the fresh lines off the ridge during fresh conditions are replaced by the intermediates that just want to say they have cruised off of the summit.
Madonna Double - This one is oft-repeated and total BS. There is a lot of terrain off Madonna and a quad would not ruin conditions. At all. Period. I'm adamant about this. Madonna has more "choose your own adventure" intermediate routes down than most places. It's just an excuse because Smuggler's Notch doesn't spend money. Their apres-ski entertainment still consists of free hot cocoa, pilly mascots, a magician show, and a dark 1960s bingo hall. I do enjoy the cocoa though.
Again I'm not arguing that Madonna couldn't support a higher capacity lift. Again compared to the acreage of terrain accessed by the Tram, there is a HUGE amount of terrain to choose from off of the Madonna 1 double. I'm sure there are a lot of Smuggs locals that do like the limited capacity since it keeps the traffic down and the "secret" spots don't get pressured as hard. To me it seems there should be a bigger argument about replacing the inefficient Madonna 1 lift vs the Jay Peak Tram.
Elements of brand identity, summer biz, conferences, weddings, etc all played into the decision to upgrade the Tram. Key factor in my mind, however, (along with, without question, the Receivership situation) has to do with the capacity for the top of the mountain to hold more people and the cost/lack of benefit to install a different type of equipment such as a gondola that would, by default, operate at about the same capacity.
It boils down this way………...At its former peak capacity, the tram operated at about 600 persons per hour, although lately it has been running at around 350 pph. The summit has limited space for skiers/riders to stage once they exit the tram and there are only two major ways down, Vermonter and Northway. If we were to add significantly to the uphill capacity to the summit we would have significant congestion at the summit itself and the density of people on Vermonter, Northway, and in the glades would become intolerable.
A gondola or a detachable chair could operate at full capacity in the range of 2,400 – 3,600 pph, but we could, of course, operate a new lift at any capacity we choose, based on placing a fewer number of carriers on the line. I figure the optimum uphill capacity based on available terrain is in the range of 500 – 800 pph. When the tram is repaired it will operate at just over 500 pph. All this being said, it doesn’t make sense to spend $8M - $12M (which is an appropriate estimated range given the number of unknowns that we would encounter and some tire kicking we actually did) on a new lift that operates at or slightly above the capacity of the tram. Add back into the equation the iconic value of the tram and I feel the $6M was the best deal we could make. I'm sure others feel differently and I guess that's part of the fun of quarterbacking from a more comfortable position. I get it.
It boils down this way………...At its former peak capacity, the tram operated at about 600 persons per hour, although lately it has been running at around 350 pph. The summit has limited space for skiers/riders to stage once they exit the tram and there are only two major ways down, Vermonter and Northway. If we were to add significantly to the uphill capacity to the summit we would have significant congestion at the summit itself and the density of people on Vermonter, Northway, and in the glades would become intolerable.
A gondola or a detachable chair could operate at full capacity in the range of 2,400 – 3,600 pph, but we could, of course, operate a new lift at any capacity we choose, based on placing a fewer number of carriers on the line. I figure the optimum uphill capacity based on available terrain is in the range of 500 – 800 pph. When the tram is repaired it will operate at just over 500 pph. All this being said, it doesn’t make sense to spend $8M - $12M (which is an appropriate estimated range given the number of unknowns that we would encounter and some tire kicking we actually did) on a new lift that operates at or slightly above the capacity of the tram. Add back into the equation the iconic value of the tram and I feel the $6M was the best deal we could make. I'm sure others feel differently and I guess that's part of the fun of quarterbacking from a more comfortable position. I get it.
Quick question - does anyone know why the old Skyline Double was removed? It appears it ran for several years in conjunction with the Tram. It was removed in the 70s after not that long of service.
Did it not operate enough because of wind?
Was it determined back then that it caused too much crowding at the summit?
Did it not operate enough because of wind?
Was it determined back then that it caused too much crowding at the summit?
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
I was going to ask the same question.
If the short double still existed, I would ski the summit at least occasionally.
from_the_NEK
Active member
As always, thank you Steve. Good to have the thought process from the source. Hopefully now the completely beaten dead horse can rest in peace! 
fbrissette
Well-known member
Hopefully now the completely beaten dead horse can rest in peace!
What would be the fun in that ? Remains the question as to why so many seem to think that a 60 min wait is worth it, even though you can load the flyer in 5 minutes. To me this is the puzzling one.
On another note, I disagree with the capacity as quoted above. The quoted former 600 pph capacity is based on an uphill time of 6 minutes. At ten trips per hour with the former 60 people capacity you get to 600. Truth is with loading and unloading Jay Peak roughly manages 1 tram every 10 minutes. Loading efficiency in particular is not great. That puts the former capacity at 360 pph and the current one at roughly 240 pph. Doesn't change the rationale for keeping the Tram, which, as a four-season user, I fully support.
Jully
Active member
It also sounds like the cost of the alternative is just too much. I think people here see the multi million dollar price tag for the tram outfit and balk, but 8-12 million for a lift alternative is just ridiculous.
That's the part that intrigues me more than the rationale to keep the tram. To use the Castlerock example someone else mentioned, if that line is long I will most likely not wait on it even if it is a powder day. I'd rather ski several runs off other lifts in the time it would take to wait in line at CR. I enjoy the CR terrain, but not enough to wait in line an hour. Although at least with CR you know everyone is waiting to ski expert terrain so I can understand the desire to wait for people that do. With the tram some of those people are waiting to ski blue routes which just baffles me completely.
Similar threads
