If you're thinking about going to the massif

[crank]

I always ski both Ste Anne and Le Massif when in the region. Usually conditions have been better at Le Massif, but not always.

Regarding the train. The were charging over $200 dollars to ride the train and it included gourmet breakfast and gourmet happy hour on the return. So for 2 people you are shelling out over $400 for a day of skiing. As mentioned earlier, you have to drive 10-15 minutes outside of Quebec towards Ste. Anne to catch the train. Makes no sense - if you are already in the car with all your gear and the hill is now about 40 minutes away so you might as well keep driving. Not very well thought out.

What Le Massif needs is beds.

 

[steamboat1]

I don't know why I have this bias against a ski area you can park at the top.I understand how it occurs with the topography at Massif though.Maybe its because I was learning to ski at an upside mt in NH (King Ridge) where you only parked at the top.

You can still park at the bottom if you like. Actually the road down to the river from the main hwy is quite interesting. It's fairly steep in sections & has a few hairpin turns. It's kind of like a bobsled course for cars. Once you get down to the river it's still a bit of a drive over to the ski area. It's a scenic drive along the river & you pass through one small town. When I first skied Le Massif there were no lifts on the mountain. You parked at the top pretty much where parking is today then skied down to the base where a school bus met you to bring everyone back up using the same road I described. A full days skiing was 5 runs at most. When they put the first two lifts in they built the base lodge at the bottom. It wasn't until they installed the second HSQ that they built a lodge on top & opened up parking. I haven't been up there since they installed the gondola so I don't know what that's like. To me the second HSQ was kind of a waste because it starts & ends in pretty much the same area as the original HSQ. You can ski to either lift at the base & the summit. I don't think the gondola added to much terrain but like I said I haven't been there since it's installation. I'm sure the cost of the second HSQ & gondola wasn't cheap & in actuality didn't add to much to the ski area. I'm sure the cost of the man made pyramid on top wasn't cheap either. Taken together I'm sure that's where a lot of the losses for the mountain occurred not to mention the cost of operating & maintaining those additional lifts. The second HSQ has a mid station where the upside of the lift detaches allowing skiers to board without going all the way to the base. It's the only high speed lift I've ever seen this on.

 

[crank]

The Gondola did not add any terrain but it is warmer than a HSQ. I first heard about Le Massif from a ski magazine back in 1990 when they had no lifts and were running skiers up in a school bus. I wanted to go but did not make it there until 2007.

Someone mentioned backcountry skiing there. I am interested in where? Seemed like the trees were just too tight to be any fun though I am sure it must open up somewhere.

 

[bigbog]

I always ski both Ste Anne and Le Massif when in the region. Usually conditions have been better at Le Massif, but not always.

Regarding the train. The were charging over $200 dollars to ride the train and it included gourmet breakfast and gourmet happy hour on the return. So for 2 people you are shelling out over $400 for a day of skiing. As mentioned earlier, you have to drive 10-15 minutes outside of Quebec towards Ste. Anne to catch the train. Makes no sense - if you are already in the car with all your gear and the hill is now about 40 minutes away so you might as well keep driving. Not very well thought out.

What Le Massif needs is beds.

Needs a cheaper train...

 

[BenedictGomez]

Oh look another comment about your political ideology, you are as predictable as rain in seattle. Leave it to you to make the first anti union comment.

It's not political ideology or opinion, it's a financial fact increasingly (thankfully) with less & less dispute regardless of one's political ideology. Also, lurkers are creepy.

Regarding the train. The were charging over $200 dollars to ride the train and it included gourmet breakfast and gourmet happy hour on the return. So for 2 people you are shelling out over $400 for a day of skiing.

Dear god, I could FLY to Colorado or Utah for less than that.

Any idea why is the train so expensive?

 

[Edd]

It's not political ideology or opinion, it's a financial fact increasingly (thankfully) with less & less dispute regardless of one's political ideology.

You essentially just said that your opinion is a fact. I have no interest in a union debate but I assume you're well aware that that's a politically loaded comment. If you want to be political, again and again, whatever. It's just weird to not admit it that you're making political comments when you clearly are.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone

 

[Rowsdower]

The Gondola did not add any terrain but it is warmer than a HSQ. I first heard about Le Massif from a ski magazine back in 1990 when they had no lifts and were running skiers up in a school bus. I wanted to go but did not make it there until 2007.

Someone mentioned backcountry skiing there. I am interested in where? Seemed like the trees were just too tight to be any fun though I am sure it must open up somewhere.

I've seen videos on youtube of some pretty sick tree lines at the Massif.

 

[Rowsdower]

Dear god, I could FLY to Colorado or Utah for less than that.

Any idea why is the train so expensive?

Because the ski resort runs it themselves so they don't really have any way to offset the cost. The train runs infrequently and its a luxury line, so its very expensive to operate. Plus, they don't own the infrastructure, meaning they're paying to use the ROW of whichever freight carrier owns the tracks.

 

[BenedictGomez]

You essentially just said that your opinion is a fact.

I'm approaching it from an economics/finance perspective, an area I have a fair bit of experience in. If you wish to see it as "politics", so be it - to those who approach the subject from an economic perspective you'll not find much debate, unless of course, "politics" rears its' ugly head. As I said, this is changing. That "opinion" to the contrary of mine is growing less and less common, in no small part attributable to the fact it's simply no longer defensible. There's a reason why Union membership in America is nearly confined to the government now numerically on a percent basis, with private sector membership only something like 5% to 7% (and shrinking) and that reason aint good. In whole numbers it's similar, but the trend is telling.

Because the ski resort runs it themselves so they don't really have any way to offset the cost. The train runs infrequently and its a luxury line, so its very expensive to operate. Plus, they don't own the infrastructure, meaning they're paying to use the ROW of whichever freight carrier owns the tracks.

This all seems very strange to me. I dont see how it could be profitable. Do they own the trains?

I'd love to ski up there someday, but I guess I wont be traveling by rail at $800 per couple.

 

[SIKSKIER]

Because the ski resort runs it themselves so they don't really have any way to offset the cost. The train runs infrequently and its a luxury line, so its very expensive to operate. Plus, they don't own the infrastructure, meaning they're paying to use the ROW of whichever freight carrier owns the tracks.

Aren't they also in cahouts with the new hotel where the train stops?

 

[bigbog]

I wouldn't doubt it SIKSKIER.
Just a few guesses....
Far fewer high schools and colleges with sports programs producing far fewer sports-oriented people into Canadian society = far less of a demand for cheap pubs/restaurants..apres_ski...imho
Far less densely populated country and fewer ski resorts....eg Le Massif IS Their Aspen, Vail, Deer Valley, or Sun Valley....y/n?

 

[Rowsdower]

This all seems very strange to me. I dont see how it could be profitable. Do they own the trains?

I'd love to ski up there someday, but I guess I wont be traveling by rail at $800 per couple.

Try starting your own airline between your town and the nearest city. Imagine having to buy a small fleet of jets, and then have to lease hanger space and a runaway from the nearest airport. The rolling stock and locomotives themselves belong to a tourist short line, and I'm not entirely sure what their situation is and who they're owned by. Thats pretty much par for the course as far as passenger rail goes. The tracks are generally owned and maintained by freight carriers. If you want to run passenger service you need to come to an agreement with the freight road, or build your own railroad. There's only a few railroads in North America that are owned by an entity that runs passenger service: namely Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. Personally, I would never take a ski trip by train. I used to commute almost daily via subway and rail, and feel thats where its biggest strengths are. That, and connecting short/medium distance cities together. But if I'm trekking out to ski country, I need to have more flexibility. Plus, you're not moving a lot of people around, which hurts the line financially. Just look at the balance sheet for Amtrak's long distance routes. Granted, thats not a private enterprise, and no form of public transportation is profitable, whether its highways, airlines, or rail, but if you are going to try and run a railroad as a purely tourist/luxury route, you need the numbers to work out. I don't know what their frequency is, but I'm sure its not more than one or two round trips a day.

 

[fbrissette]

Good news. After government 'forced' mediation, a deal was struck today between Le Massif and employees.