Attitash Summit Triple Problems 2018-2019 - Page 16

AlpineZone

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 174
  1. #151
    MEtoVTSkier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Aroostook County, ME
    Posts
    1,198
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    Will the NFS/WMNF allow them to install a HSQ with a higher capacity?
    All depends on whose pockets get lined...

    Realistically though, just adjust the number of/spacing of carriers to get desired capacity.

  2. #152
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,877
    Quote Originally Posted by MEtoVTSkier View Post

    Realistically though, just adjust the number of/spacing of carriers to get desired capacity.
    I was wondering if that would be the solution.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  3. #153

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    the woods of greater-Waltham
    Posts
    617

    Attitash Summit Triple Problems 2018-2019

    Quote Originally Posted by MEtoVTSkier View Post
    All depends on whose pockets get lined...

    Realistically though, just adjust the number of/spacing of carriers to get desired capacity.
    Chair spacing doesn't help ride time. People expect fast lifts these days, outside of the Magic type crowd. Attitash will continue to decline without a fast summit lift. Vail knows this and will either make it happen or cut their losses and sell the place.


  4. #154
    MEtoVTSkier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Aroostook County, ME
    Posts
    1,198
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiingInABlueDream View Post
    Chair spacing doesn't help ride time. People expect fast lifts these days, outside of the Magic type crowd. Attitash will continue to decline without a fast summit lift. Vail knows this and will either make it happen or cut their losses and sell the place.
    Ride time is pretty much a fixed number. A set distance X a max line speed of 1100fpm. (At least until 1200fpm detaches become standard)theTrailBoss was questioning slope capacity vs lift capacity.

  5. #155

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    the woods of greater-Waltham
    Posts
    617

    Attitash Summit Triple Problems 2018-2019

    Quote Originally Posted by MEtoVTSkier View Post
    Ride time is pretty much a fixed number. A set distance X a max line speed of 1100fpm. (At least until 1200fpm detaches become standard)theTrailBoss was questioning slope capacity vs lift capacity.
    What I meant is that a detachable lift instead of a fixed grip (even a quicker, conveyor loading fg) is what's needed in place of the current triple to satisfy current expectations. Whether other factors exist that make it impossible to put a detachable chair there is a separate issue. But IMO a detachable summit lift is necessary to stop a slow sinking.

  6. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiingInABlueDream View Post
    What I meant is that a detachable lift instead of a fixed grip (even a quicker, conveyor loading fg) is what's needed in place of the current triple to satisfy current expectations. Whether other factors exist that make it impossible to put a detachable chair there is a separate issue. But IMO a detachable summit lift is necessary to stop a slow sinking.
    I was a regular at Attitash for the ASC years and some of the Peak years. The rumour was that ASC had the permits for a HSQ that lapsed somewhere in the 2008 range. The hope (at least by some of the ski patrollers) was that the triple could be re-installed from near the upper bride to/from Bear Peak to the summit (whether that was the summit of Little Attitash or just near the current summit, I no longer remember).

    Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
    Ski season is always too short

  7. #157
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,877
    Quote Originally Posted by MEtoVTSkier View Post
    Ride time is pretty much a fixed number. A set distance X a max line speed of 1100fpm. (At least until 1200fpm detaches become standard)theTrailBoss was questioning slope capacity vs lift capacity.
    Right. I think that they want to avoid having to expand terrain to handle more traffic because that triggers NFS review and that would be hard.

    With Vermont Act 250, if the project is not "new" but instead a replacement of an existing lift then permitting is not needed. That is of course focusing on the construction impacts on the land.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  8. #158
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,877
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiingInABlueDream View Post
    What I meant is that a detachable lift instead of a fixed grip (even a quicker, conveyor loading fg) is what's needed in place of the current triple to satisfy current expectations. Whether other factors exist that make it impossible to put a detachable chair there is a separate issue. But IMO a detachable summit lift is necessary to stop a slow sinking.
    I agree that a HS lift of some type would be warranted there. I think that the permitting required may be a stumbling block and create more delays, especially if the plan is to expand terrain off the top to handle more traffic.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  9. #159
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,877
    Quote Originally Posted by SkiingInABlueDream View Post
    What I meant is that a detachable lift instead of a fixed grip (even a quicker, conveyor loading fg) is what's needed in place of the current triple to satisfy current expectations. Whether other factors exist that make it impossible to put a detachable chair there is a separate issue. But IMO a detachable summit lift is necessary to stop a slow sinking.
    I agree that a HS lift of some type would be warranted there. I think that the permitting required may be a stumbling block and create more delays, especially if the plan is to expand terrain off the top to handle more traffic.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  10. #160

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    the woods of greater-Waltham
    Posts
    617

    Attitash Summit Triple Problems 2018-2019

    interesting points. I'm going to back pedal a bit. "slow sinking" might be an overstatement. *If* Attitash is currently sinking (separate issue) it's not because it lacks a fast ride to the summit. An unreliable lift, maybe is a cause, but not a slow lift IMO. I agree there's not enough trail capacity on the upper half of the mtn to absorb the traffic a high capacity lift could produce. If they can't cut more trails, then maybe the best solution is an FG chair running from mid mountain to summit. (Maybe put the bottom terminal just a bit below the Yankee top? I kind of think the Bear crossover would be too low; it'd still be a long ride.) Anyway Im commenting way more than I should given how few days I've actually skied there. But the last time I did, it was obvious that the mountain doesn't ski properly with such a timewise-long ride to the top.
    Last edited by SkiingInABlueDream; Dec 31, 2019 at 12:50 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:26 AM.