Pico Will Not Operate 7 Days A Week

@Snowman, many of the lifts at Killington are mismatched, as a result of modifications over the years, and creating lifts out of spare parts they have....it's worked pretty well for them. The only lifts that currently have any major problems are the Glades/North Ridge triple (they were leaving every 5th chair empty for a good part of this year), and maybe the SS Quad, as it seems to have mechanical problems often.

Actually, it appears that the Snowshed lift is 800hp according to the 1987 lifts construction survey (http://www.skilifts.org/install_na1987.htm), which is the same as the Superstar Quad (About the same vertical), so it would not need to be modified/replaced if you were to put it on Snowdon.

OK, I think I see what people were saying about chain tensioning systems. From Skilifts.org, a picture of the Skye Peak Quad base terminal:



And it must be interesting to place a tower into a concrete foundation rather than bolting it into place...

threecy said:

Their lifts are old, but one thing to consider is that lift technology is also old - look at a mid 80s fixed grip and compare it to a 2006 - while there are certainly advances in the computer systems, much of the design is consistent. Lifts are mainly replaced due to bad location, obsolete design (ie lattice Muellers with power tower spacing, old lifts without overhead drives, lifts with AC drives, etc.), or lack of capacity. I'd argue for the first and the last in that statement at Killington, but in reality most of their lifts should be able to continue for years to come with adequate maintenance.

Click to expand...

threecy -

Nobody (perhaps with the exception of you) has stated or implied that a massive overhaul of the lift network at K is necessary. IMO, there are three lifts that really fall into the categories of need you named: Skye Peak Quad, Snowdon Triple (or quad), and South Ridge. The first is the key lift connecting K Basin to the Falls Brook Basin (with Bear Mtn, South Ridge, south face of Skye Peak and the rump of NEK). It is old and long and in desperate need of an upgrade. I'd leave it to POWDR to determine whether to replace with a HSQ or a HSS. Snowdon Triple is old, but it isn't that long and Snowdon is already crowded given the decent cruising terain there. You probably want to upgrade the quad to a detatchable to shorten the ride and provide an attractive alternative to the always crowded K-1 without adding any incremental lift capacity to that area. South Ridge is just a funky relic at this point. this is a shame b/c not only does that area have great terrain, it is high elevation (all aobe 3000'), gets decent sun, and potentially provides you with another means to access K-Peak. Moreover, the Bear to South Ridge combo enables you to go bottom to top w/o the zoo that is the K-Basin side.

We've already discussed K's ageing snowmaking infrastructure and base lodge facilities ad nauseum here. My guess is that when you total everythign up, before even considering the capital for the Pico Interconnect, you are probably looking at close to $40-50MM of on-mountain improvements just to get back to the standard of where most of its competitors are today in terms of physical plant. For a place the size of K, you need to invest at least $5MM/year just to stay in the same place. By no means should they seek to close even half that gap in a single year but tackling it in $3MM increments doesn't get it done - you only slow the rate at which you fall behind your competitors.

It seems that you're hinting that you have inside knowledge of POWDR's long term plans for K/Pico. If those plans include all or most of the investments discussed here in this thread, then it's not surprising you would take the position you have. Truth be told, your general observations about depreciation and not investing so much so quick don't make much sense from a business perspective. Doesn't matter how much of an insider you are, that was nonsense in any language. Regardless, it is fair to point out that POWDR's PR stumbles thus far have been compounded by a less than overwhelming capital plan for the year. Moreover, in light of the backlog of capital needs, the "eat what you kill" approach they've announced doesn't hold out much hope for a turnaround in the near to medium term. So really the only thing that we who are skeptical of POWDR's plans have to point us in another direction is your inside information, which you can't/won't reveal. As such, you should understand the level of skepticism about K's future.

Edit: Oops, forgot to mention the dangerous relics like the Glades Triple. That's got to go sooner rather than later as well, unless POWDR wants to kill what they eat.

millerm277 said:

@Snowman, many of the lifts at Killington are mismatched, as a result of modifications over the years, and creating lifts out of spare parts they have....it's worked pretty well for them. The only lifts that currently have any major problems are the Glades/North Ridge triple (they were leaving every 5th chair empty for a good part of this year), and maybe the SS Quad, as it seems to have mechanical problems often.

Actually, it appears that the Snowshed lift is 800hp according to the 1987 lifts construction survey (http://www.skilifts.org/install_na1987.htm), which is the same as the Superstar Quad (About the same vertical), so it would not need to be modified/replaced if you were to put it on Snowdon.

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha ha. That says it all right there. Would you want to get on a lift that they're not allowed to load all the chairs on?!?! Lordy! My point was 2 fold. 1. Yes, I know there is a lot of crap in the way of lift engineering at K. 2. The crap is only going to get worse in the years to come and they need to start on a lift replacement program NOW, so that they don't suddenly find themselves 8 years from now with 6 lifts they can't get certified all at the same time. My point was you can make gold out of that situation by having a shiny new lift to advertise every year. A shiny new lift every year could bring them in as much additional revenue as the thing costs. It's not just about rehabing or moving lifts to get people from A to B. It's about the ADVERTISING VALUE. They need to take a page from the amusement park industry or sucessfull resorts like Whistler that build a new lift every winter and get with the program of success. The only reason the amusement park industry isn't raking it in is their shiny new "lifts" unfortunately cost $20-$30 million dollars. Ski lifts (chairs) $1-$5. In addition to the damn things paying for themselves in advertising value/extra revenue in year one alone, you have a piece of equipment that isn't going to break down on MLK weekend, you have a new capital cost you can write down, you have a much lower chance of being on the evening news for having some sort of loaded lift failure/disaster and your insurance is going to drop. Re-fitted or not, you can't tell me they aren't paying an insurance premium for having Yan lifts. The insurance industry is surely milking that for all it's worth. They NEVER forget.

P.S. Someone else here said that the drive has been replaced by a Poma. That spec was likely the one for the original yan drive. Anyone know how new or what HP the poma drive is? Was it just the drive or the whole terminal? If the whole to terminal is a newer poma terminal with 800 + HP, well then they could maybe buy the rest of the lift to go with it, re-use it and pass it off as new if need be. I still think they would be better off finding someone to buy the thing as a complete unit and going new-new though.

thetrailboss said:

OK, I think I see what people were saying about chain tensioning systems. From Skilifts.org, a picture of the Skye Peak Quad base terminal:

And it must be interesting to place a tower into a concrete foundation rather than bolting it into place...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see the dangers in that. Most modern chairlifts are tensioned with hydraulic rams for a reason.

Tin Woodsman said:

Nobody (perhaps with the exception of you) has stated or implied that a massive overhaul of the lift network at K is necessary. IMO, there are three lifts that really fall into the categories of need you named: Skye Peak Quad, Snowdon Triple (or quad), and South Ridge. The first is the key lift connecting K Basin to the Falls Brook Basin (with Bear Mtn, South Ridge, south face of Skye Peak and the rump of NEK). It is old and long and in desperate need of an upgrade. I'd leave it to POWDR to determine whether to replace with a HSQ or a HSS. Snowdon Triple is old, but it isn't that long and Snowdon is already crowded given the decent cruising terain there. You probably want to upgrade the quad to a detatchable to shorten the ride and provide an attractive alternative to the always crowded K-1. South Ridge is just a funky relic at this point. this is a shame b/c not only does that area have great terrain, it is high elevation (all aobe 3000'), gets decent sun, and potentially provides you with another means to access K-Peak. Moreover, the Bear to South Ridge combo enables you to go bottom to top w/o the zoo that is the K-Basin side.

Click to expand...

The South Ridge Triple doesn't really need to be replaced (unless that's required to extend it to the peak). Mechanically, it's in good shape, and a new lift would probably only shave around 30secs to a minute off the ride. It's already very useful because Home Run allows it to get to anywhere. It needs to be run and painted, and extending it to the peak would be a good idea. In order for it to get traffic to make it worthwhile to run, Lower Pipe Dream needs to have the snowmaking used, and the entrance to it needs to be a bit clearer. Do not ever put snowmaking on the other South Ridge trails, it'd ruin them.

Skye Peak Quad is the most important lift to be replaced, and it has been mentioned as the highest priority in the past. However, something will need to be done about the way traffic flows up there, as it will be even more insane on Skyelark with the traffic from that as well.

Snowdon Quad needs a replacement, but you have to be careful, because Great Northern and the runs below can't even handle the traffic on them currently.

We've already discussed K's ageing snowmaking infrastructure and base lodge facilities ad nauseum here. My guess is that when you total everythign up, before even considering the capital for the Pico Interconnect, you are probably looking at close to $40-50MM of on-mountain improvements just to get back to the standard of where most of its competitors are today in terms of physical plant. For a place the size of K, you need to invest at least $5MM/year just to stay in the same place. By no means should they seek to close even half that gap in a single year but tackling it in $3MM increments doesn't get it done - you only slow the rate at which you fall behind your competitors.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I've said before...they may be fixing things, but other mountains are adding new....

If they can get the snowmaking working properly, it's pretty powerful (although still too little than they need for this size mountain), although the portable guns they tend to use are ridiculously inefficient in the marginal conditions they often need to make snow in, and the low-e's don't work at those temps. K could really use fan guns on the lower elevations.

I think their infrastructure may be in worse shape than people realize, consider the following.

-The pipe on lower superstar last year had a big leak at the beginning of the season, and they couldn't make snow on it for a long time.

-They abandoned the pipes (rather than repairing them) on Valley Plunge last year, and stopped labeling it as having snowmaking and I wouldn't be shocked if some of the pipes in a few other portions of the mountain aren't functional.

-The tower guns were never run (to my knowledge), last season, even though they are much more efficient....has to be some reason for that.

I'm not going to debate Killington in this thread, as I said earlier, and again, I wasn't endorsing a relocation of the Snowshed lift to Snowdon. What I was saying is that many of the lifts I have seen at Killington that would be considered 'old' are indeed reusable. When a lift is reinstalled, it's gone through top to bottom - anything iffy is replaced. The main concern with the fixed grip Yans again is the chain tensioning - it might be possible to modify that with a counterweight, but otherwise you're talking a drive terminal replacement (which basically means you're just getting some chairs and towers).

In terms of poured towers, its more common than you think - if you're hiking ski areas in the summer, take a look - often times you'll have some bolted and some poured (usually depends upon the topography/ledge/tower types).

Riblet lifts tend to have another variation of this - a smaller portion of 'pipe' is poured into the footing, then the actual tower is bolted to that segment.

millerm277 said:

The South Ridge Triple doesn't really need to be replaced (unless that's required to extend it to the peak). Mechanically, it's in good shape, and a new lift would probably only shave around 30secs to a minute off the ride. It's already very useful because Home Run allows it to get to anywhere. It needs to be run and painted, and extending it to the peak would be a good idea. In order for it to get traffic to make it worthwhile to run, Lower Pipe Dream needs to have the snowmaking used, and the entrance to it needs to be a bit clearer. Do not ever put snowmaking on the other South Ridge trails, it'd ruin them.

Click to expand...

Good point. South Ridge was an afterthought under ASC ownership, so it was a viscious circle in terms of lift neglect and associated neglect of the trail system that feeds it. I would straighten that lift so people could actually see the good terrain in that area (people ski what they see under the lift - take that to the bank) and extend it towards the Peak if possible, though that might not be value added given the access afforded by Home Run. Regardless, for a variety of reasons, that terrain pod is dramatically underutilized - something K can't afford given the crowding elsewhere. This is especially acute b/c South Ridge has great cruising and intermediate terrain.

Skye Peak Quad is the most important lift to be replaced, and it has been mentioned as the highest priority in the past. However, something will need to be done about the way traffic flows up there, as it will be even more insane on Skyelark with the traffic from that as well.

Click to expand...

If I were them I'd simply switch that lift to a HSQ to avoid exacerbating the crowd problems in that area. It's insane already as you point out.

Snowdon Quad needs a replacement, but you have to be careful, because Great Northern and the runs below can't even handle the traffic on them currently.

Click to expand...

Which is why I suggested replacing it with a HSQ to retain the same capacity. The problem with that lift isn't capacity. Rather, it's the length of the ride and its inability to draw skiers away from K-1 b/c it's "only" a fixed grip chair.

If they can get the snowmaking working properly, it's pretty powerful (although still too little than they need for this size mountain), although the portable guns they tend to use are ridiculously inefficient in the marginal conditions they often need to make snow in, and the low-e's don't work at those temps. K could really use fan guns on the lower elevations.

I think their infrastructure may be in worse shape than people realize, consider the following.

-The pipe on lower superstar last year had a big leak at the beginning of the season, and they couldn't make snow on it for a long time.

-They abandoned the pipes (rather than repairing them) on Valley Plunge last year, and stopped labeling it as having snowmaking and I wouldn't be shocked if some of the pipes in a few other portions of the mountain aren't functional.

-The tower guns were never run (to my knowledge), last season, even though they are much more efficient....has to be some reason for that.

Click to expand...

You nail it. K was an aggrssive early adopter of snowmaking technology. As a result, they have a huge amount of old snowmaking infrastructure, much of which is buried underground. Given the lack of capital over the last decade, much of this system is in desperate need of repair - as evidenced by the examples provided above. Also, people need to keep in mind that the investment needs to be not only in up front capital, but also in operating expense dollars for snowmaking and running lifts and the other little things that customers notice. It will be interesting to see if POWDR has this figured out.

Tin Woodsman said:

It will be interesting to see if POWDR has this figured out.

Click to expand...

I learned alot from this discussion today.

One of the main criticisms of POWDR Corp. when they bought K was that their other resorts are in the west where abundant snowfall is not a major issue. They are not experienced with resorts that require massive snowmaking efforts.

This may turn out to be an Achilles heel for them.

threecy said:

I'm not going to debate Killington in this thread, as I said earlier, and again, I wasn't endorsing a relocation of the Snowshed lift to Snowdon. What I was saying is that many of the lifts I have seen at Killington that would be considered 'old' are indeed reusable. When a lift is reinstalled, it's gone through top to bottom - anything iffy is replaced. The main concern with the fixed grip Yans again is the chain tensioning - it might be possible to modify that with a counterweight, but otherwise you're talking a drive terminal replacement (which basically means you're just getting some chairs and towers).

In terms of poured towers, its more common than you think - if you're hiking ski areas in the summer, take a look - often times you'll have some bolted and some poured (usually depends upon the topography/ledge/tower types).

Riblet lifts tend to have another variation of this - a smaller portion of 'pipe' is poured into the footing, then the actual tower is bolted to that segment.

Click to expand...

Right. With the kind of income K has though, they are best off selling the removed lifts to marginal areas in the midwest etc. that can't afford new lifts and go all new to reap the previously mentioned ancillary rewards of having the newest lifts.

I've never noticed a poured tower ever. I have seen short tube extenders (mostly on Poma lifts) and figured they ended up having to put the tower in a different spot than the design called for or the design was flawed. Maybe those were poured. I'll be looking now! lol

I predict that this thread will last longer than Powdr's reign at Killington. Damn, I'm suprised this is still going.

andyzee said:

I predict that this thread will last longer than Powdr's reign at Killington. Damn, I'm suprised this is still going.

Click to expand...

What is more surprising is that there is all this talk of K in a thread that was started to discuss Pico. But its not that much of a stretch.... I've only skied 3 days at K so this thread has taught me a great deal about K/Pico.

snowman said:

With the kind of income K has though, they are best off selling the removed lifts to marginal areas in the midwest etc. that can't afford new lifts and go all new to reap the previously mentioned ancillary rewards of having the newest lifts.

Click to expand...

Probably not that likely (sale of lifts to the midwest) - the lifts are way too big (they'dlikely be split into two or three) and old (cost of transport would drop the overall value of an install). If anything, it wouldn't be surprising to see some of the older lifts at Pico replaced, for instance, with an outgoing KMart triple or quad.

threecy said:

Probably not that likely (sale of lifts to the midwest) - the lifts are way too big (they'dlikely be split into two or three) and old (cost of transport would drop the overall value of an install). If anything, it wouldn't be surprising to see some of the older lifts at Pico replaced, for instance, with an outgoing KMart triple or quad.

Click to expand...

I was thinking they would be shortened if necessary with a new and likely needed haul rope. The best parts would be used and the rest would be stored for spares. Most of them don't exactly climb monsterous verticals at K either. I think the lifts that need replacing typically climb about 600 to 1200 vert? Midwest mountains run 600 to 1200 vert total, so instead of serving a terrain pod they would be scaling the whole mountain there.

where is pico? is it in new england?

Hmmmm....

Someone's missing his med

The opposite. This is classic 2knees when he's OVER medicated.

deadheadskier said:

The opposite. This is classic 2knees when he's OVER medicated.

Click to expand...

yup replying to to threads that are 9 years old

Interesting that this has come up again.

However it is also interesting, that 9 years later (hard to believe it has been that long) it sure seems as if the Pico operating schedule has worked out very well. (Setting aside this miserable winter of course).