Big Burke announcement

[thetrailboss]

That's seriously going for it. 2 HSQs at a mountain that does less than 100K skier visits in unheard of. That really speaks to the faith Stenger has in growing the business at Burke. For current frequent Burke skiers, the next few years are going to be pretty fantastic; major on mountain improvements to enjoy prior to real estate development and increased crowding. I really need to find a way to get to Burke for a day this season.

It would be 3 HSQs if another is added.

 

[deadheadskier]

That's right. Forgot about the Sherburne. In my few visits there, I think I've only skied down to it once; hence my omission. It services pretty great learning terrain though; something often not discussed here on AZ.

 

[thetrailboss]

That's right. Forgot about the Sherburne. In my few visits there, I think I've only skied down to it once; hence my omission. It services pretty great learning terrain though; something often not discussed here on AZ.

But here is a good point. Currently, Burke has more high speed lifts than:

* Bolton
* Jay (not counting the tram)
* Cannon (not counting the tram)
* Smuggs
* Sunapee
* Wildcat
* Gunstock

Just to name a few. And it has the same number of HSQ's as Sugarbush North, alone, or Sugarbush South alone. That is something that I don't think a lot of folks realize yet.

 

[fbrissette]

But here is a good point. Currently, Burke has more high speed lifts than:

* Bolton
* Jay (not counting the tram)
* Cannon (not counting the tram)
* Smuggs
* Sunapee
* Wildcat
* Gunstock

Just to name a few. And it has the same number of HSQ's as Sugarbush North, alone, or Sugarbush South alone. That is something that I don't think a lot of folks realize yet.

Not sure what what the fascination with HSQ is all about, especially at a resort with no lift-line. Higher lift capacity means more people on the runs at the same time, and more rapidly decaying ski conditions.

 

[Masskier]

But here is a good point. Currently, Burke has more high speed lifts than:

* Bolton
* Jay (not counting the tram)
* Cannon (not counting the tram)
* Smuggs
* Sunapee
* Wildcat
* Gunstock

Just to name a few. And it has the same number of HSQ's as Sugarbush North, alone, or Sugarbush South alone. That is something that I don't think a lot of folks realize yet.

Good point. And soon Burke will have new lodges/hotels with restaurants and skier services, a 2 acre indoor Mtn Biking park, a state of the art Tennis Center, 8 indoor and 12 outdoor courts with 4 different surfaces, also a stadium, and a aquatic center and another major investment in snow making. Its been a long time coming

 

[from_the_NEK]

The East Bowl should have a new lift in time for next winter. Most likely it will be a HSQ.

If the plan is indeed for a HSQ in the East Bowl, I fear the bowl is going to get chopped up into trails.

At this point, the general lack of snowfall to have consistantly open glades during the last and current winters, as DHS points out, it almost makes sense to have trails they can make snow on so they can at least open something over there. especially after making an investment to put a lift there.

 

[riverc0il]

That's seriously going for it. 2 HSQs at a mountain that does less than 100K skier visits in unheard of.

If two is unheard of then three HSQs is unfathomable. It still boggles my mind that Burke has two, let alone three. Masskier of course has an inside line at Burke, but I'll still only believe this when I see an official world. Would Willoughby remain as a backup lift only? It just doesn't make sense to pull in another HSQ when they have a fixed grip long enough to make it happen. And what of the trails? If they already have plans for a HSQ, then surely they already have the trail/glade questions somewhat firmed up. This is just bonkers. Though Stenger gets involved and things go crazy... so I guess that makes sense.

However, whats up with JPR? Are we getting a high speed Bonnie replacement over there for next season as planned? Or will Burke outpace Jay for on slope improvements...

 

[riverc0il]

Not sure what what the fascination with HSQ is all about, especially at a resort with no lift-line. Higher lift capacity means more people on the runs at the same time, and more rapidly decaying ski conditions.

I think the point is that Burke doesn't need the HSQ for East Bowl. I haven't read any posts behind the idea yet. Trailboss is saying Burke already out numbers many other big name resorts for HSQs, so what is the point in adding another? It isn't going to bring in the numbers more than the new summit lift. Point of diminishing returns for sure. Summit HSQ was justifiable I think, it really puts Burke in another league as far as "the average" skiing family is concerned. But three? I don't think any one notices once you have more than 1/3 of your major mountain lifts high speed.

TB you can add Sugarloaf to your list of big name resorts that Burke already equals in number of HSQs. Three would tie Stowe excluding the Gondi.

 

[thetrailboss]

If the plan is indeed for a HSQ in the East Bowl, I fear the bowl is going to get chopped up into trails.

At this point, the general lack of snowfall to have consistantly open glades during the last and current winters, as DHS points out, it almost makes sense to have trails they can make snow on so they can at least open something over there. especially after making an investment to put a lift there.

I would not let one and a half rough seasons dictate things. It is still early this season and they will get the snow.

Not sure what what the fascination with HSQ is all about, especially at a resort with no lift-line. Higher lift capacity means more people on the runs at the same time, and more rapidly decaying ski conditions.

Yeah, I've made this point for years and it is from talking with the average SNE skier. Ask him/her what they want and they say fast lifts. They don't appreciate Castlerock or MRG's single or that kind of terrain. They want Wachusett, man. Fast lifts, wide groomers. Now most of us aren't in that market. But when Burke has HSQ's, average Joe skier who lives in Boston or NYC and has disposable income that ski areas want, takes notice.

If two is unheard of then three HSQs is unfathomable. It still boggles my mind that Burke has two, let alone three. Masskier of course has an inside line at Burke, but I'll still only believe this when I see an official world. Would Willoughby remain as a backup lift only? It just doesn't make sense to pull in another HSQ when they have a fixed grip long enough to make it happen. And what of the trails? If they already have plans for a HSQ, then surely they already have the trail/glade questions somewhat firmed up. This is just bonkers. Though Stenger gets involved and things go crazy... so I guess that makes sense.

I still think that Willoughby is better left where it is and untouched. We're talking pylons that are almost fifty years old, other equipment that is now 24 years old, and older carriers that folks despise because they don't have footrests, which is kind of a lame gripe. And the current drive is very slow. As folks who work with lifts have told me the lift is 1989 technology that, if removed and relocated, will require upgrades to comply with new regulations. So that means you salvage the chairs, some tower components, the base terminal, summit bullwheel, line equipment, and have to get a new drive and safety/electronics. It's really not worth it when they can buy new...as in brand new with 2013 technology and a nice warranty.

However, whats up with JPR? Are we getting a high speed Bonnie replacement over there for next season as planned? Or will Burke outpace Jay for on slope improvements...

As they've been talking in the Jay thread, the Power Line Six Pack is coming this summer.

I think the point is that Burke doesn't need the HSQ for East Bowl. I haven't read any posts behind the idea yet. Trailboss is saying Burke already out numbers many other big name resorts for HSQs, so what is the point in adding another? It isn't going to bring in the numbers more than the new summit lift. Point of diminishing returns for sure. Summit HSQ was justifiable I think, it really puts Burke in another league as far as "the average" skiing family is concerned. But three? I don't think any one notices once you have more than 1/3 of your major mountain lifts high speed.

TB you can add Sugarloaf to your list of big name resorts that Burke already equals in number of HSQs. Three would tie Stowe excluding the Gondi.

Yeah, add Sugarloaf. I was just saying that Burke's image should be moving up to where it should be...if only looking at terrain and vert, but with the lifts folks are now thinking twice about it. As to overkill? Yeah, I think that is true as well. Right now a good fixed grip quad with a conveyor load, at most, would be more than sufficient. And if you need to you can upgrade it to an HSQ later when the business justifies it.

 

[deadheadskier]

The only rationale I could see in not re-locating Willoughby is avoiding a situation where if the Summit HSQ goes down, people would need to use the Poma to get over to the East Burke lift and reach the Summit. That said, given how infrequent new HSQs go offline, it seems like a waste of resources to have the Willoughby sit there idle except for those very rare occasions it might be needed.

 

[Masskier]

East Bowl will remain mostly glades. As discussed above, The cost of moving and upgrading, the advantage of a back up lift when or if the new quad goes down, plus the advantage of operating a 2nd summit lift on peak days are all reasons why it make sense to go with a new lift.

 

[Smellytele]

The only rationale I could see in not re-locating Willoughby is avoiding a situation where if the Summit HSQ goes down, people would need to use the Poma to get over to the East Burke lift and reach the Summit. That said, given how infrequent new HSQs go offline, it seems like a waste of resources to have the Willoughby sit there idle except for those very rare occasions it might be needed.

Of course I was there when the HSQ went down and I was glad they had the Willoughby as a back up.

 

[from_the_NEK]

I would not let one and a half rough seasons dictate things. It is still early this season and they will get the snow.

I was just thinking out loud about how cutting trails over glading could be justified. I'm not saying I agree with it

Yeah, I've made this point for years and it is from talking with the average SNE skier. Ask him/her what they want and they say fast lifts. They don't appreciate Castlerock or MRG's single or that kind of terrain. They want Wachusett, man. Fast lifts, wide groomers. Now most of us aren't in that market. But when Burke has HSQ's, average Joe skier who lives in Boston or NYC and has disposable income that ski areas want, takes notice.

HIGH SPEED everything! Unfortunately this is true. However, with the MidBurke HSQ already going to the summit, I agree with RiverC0il that another HSQ to the summit would start to tip in the direction of diminishing return on the investment. Having three quads to the summit of Burke would be completely rediculous :razz::blink:

I still think that Willoughby is better left where it is and untouched. We're talking pylons that are almost fifty years old, other equipment that is now 24 years old, and older carriers that folks despise because they don't have footrests, which is kind of a lame gripe. And the current drive is very slow. As folks who work with lifts have told me the lift is 1989 technology that, if removed and relocated, will require upgrades to comply with new regulations. So that means you salvage the chairs, some tower components, the base terminal, summit bullwheel, line equipment, and have to get a new drive and safety/electronics. It's really not worth it when they can buy new...as in brand new with 2013 technology and a nice warranty.

That makes total sense, but I would think a brand new HSQ is still far more expensive than moving and upgrading the Willoughby.
Even if the Willoughby is left in place as a back-up, i'm not sure that it would be good for anything 5-6 years from now as it would essentially sit there and rust. If a lift is anything like a car, using it on a fairly regular basis helps keep it in good running order than just firing it up once or twice a year. Lubricants and connections don't perform real well if they sit around a lot.
If they decide to leave the Willoughby where it is, I would be happier with a new double or triple chair in the East Bowl over a quad. I can't see that pod ever needing the capacity of a quad (IMHO, even the Willoughby would actually be overkill).
If the lift line plans are anything like what I have laid out in previous pages, the result would be a 1410 vert/4,850' long line. For comparison sake, the Castlerock double is 1689' vert/4700' long (granted the chairs are spaced eight miles apart on that thing ). Currently, the traverse out of East Bowl to the Mid-Burke Express takes me about 5-7 minutes (and I do it faster than most) and it takes a lot of energy. Having a Double or triple chair that takes 12 minutes to get to the top of East Bowl would still be a few minutes faster than going all the way back to Mid-Burke and it would save you an exhausting skate-n-pole. Additionally, a double or triple would not require as wide a liftline be cut that a HSQ would need.

If it comes down to it, and the plan is indeed a HSQ in the East Bowl, they should sell the Willougby for what they can get for it and install a triple chair on the old lift line between Big and Little Dippers (Boarderline). How high up to run this lift is debatable. However, it would be a good lift for lower intermediate terrain and it would provide a good lift to access the East Bowl quad if the Mid-Burke quad goes down.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Of course I was there when the HSQ went down and I was glad they had the Willoughby as a back up.

You were there that Saturday too? I may have seen you but the fog was so thick, I could barely see my feet

 

[Smellytele]

You were there that Saturday too? I may have seen you but the fog was so thick, I could barely see my feet

I try to get to Burke once or twice a year for the last 4 years but have yet to have a day that isn't in the clouds. Twice it was snowing as well but never sunshine.

 

[from_the_NEK]

The East Bowl should have a new lift in time for next winter. Most likely it will be a HSQ.

So if this is true, this should fit quite nicely into Burke's history of deciding to install a HSQ on very short notice and getting it running by December :lol:.

 

[SkiRaceParent]

Saw this on the free side of the Cal Rec paywall (at least for now):

http://caledonianrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=180&SubSectionID=778&ArticleID=89610

 

[SkiRaceParent]

http://caledonianrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=180&SubSectionID=778&ArticleID=89610

 

[from_the_NEK]

I talked to a very reliable source this weekend. The HSQ is not a done deal in the East Bowl. Moving the Willoughby Quad over there is still on the table. It is getting pretty late in the year to decide on this but I'm assuming that the financial options are a big part of this. I'm not sure if trail and lift improvements are funded by EB5 since it is hard to "attach" significant job creation to that sort of development. I think most of the trail and lift work at Jay has been paid for by the resort. Although I could be mistaken.

Additionally, the major expansion of East Bowl may be very limited in open cut trail development. Instead it sounds like three main glade paths are planned. This would likely leave plenty of room for "non-major thinning" :-D. We'll have to see how this plays out. It sounds like a final meeting with Burke's DRB on Phase 1 is happening this week. Assuming the DRB approves, then it is on to Act250.

 

[thetrailboss]

Things are moving ahead.....

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...ig-infrastructure-improvements?nclick_check=1