Lift configuration reorganization

[awf170]

Everyone loves to talk about how ski areas have horrible lift configurations. Sugarloaf needs a top-to-bottom lift, jay peak's Green Mountain Flyer is to windy and cold, Killington needs to have a lift for early and late season skiing, and so on. So how about trying to design your own layout these mountain or any other? Image the mountain had no lifts at all right now, but all of the same trails. How would you design the lifts? Try not to cut any new trails, short connecters are okay, but nothing else. Here are my designs for Sugarloaf and Jay Peak.

Before you look, here are some of my main ideas I try to follow:

• Cut acrosses and runouts are terrible, they should be avoided at all costs.
• I would rather wait in line they have the trails be too crowded.
• There is no point of having a lift if it is closed because of wind almost half the days.

Sugarloaf:

Fullsize: http://snowjournal.com/images/gallery_snowjournal/44ebbf6d8fe19.jpg

Whiffletree: HSQ. Same as now.
Kingpine: FSQ. Same as now.
Doublerunner: HSQ. Same path as old lift.
Spillway: HS6. Same path as old lift.
Lift going up to Bullwinkles: HS6
Lift from Bullwinkles to summit: HSQ
Lift from Spillway HS6 to Summit: T-bar
Bucksaw: double. Same as now.

Why:
Alright Whiffletree and King Pine are fine no need to touch them. Double runner is a great beginner lift and has a fine location. Spillway has plenty of terrian to justify a HS6, make it go up in the same location as it is in now and just make it lower so that the trees block westerly winds and when you get above the trees on the upper 1/3 make it very low and add wind fences and a chair 23 at mammoth summit station. Now for the important stuff.

Lift going to Bullwinkes:
Accesses a ton of intermidiate terrian. Intermidiates have no need to go up the Superquad, it just makes middle tote road icy, and crowded. With Spillway a HS6 lapping stuff like Skidder and Comp Hill is easier because there is less of a runout. The cut across from Skidder to the base of the spillway chair is not far at all. Also this drastically reduces traffic on candy side.

Lift going to Summit from Bullwinkes:
So that you can access the summit with one lift from the bullwinkes and the new HS6. How many times have you been sitting at Bullwinkles wishing you could go straight to the summit. This lift will be long, but being a HSQ it won't be a big deal. Also, there will be have to be some trail reconfiguration to avoid huge crowds on lower timberline.

Summit T-bar:
Easy access when the summit quad is down because of winds and when you don't want to ski all the way down to Bullwinkles to get to the summit.

Jay Peak:

Fullsize: http://snowjournal.com/images/gallery_snowjournal/44ebbfa32e6fa.jpg

Jet: HSQ. Same path as old lift.
Bonventure: HSQ. Same path as old lift.
Tram: Same as now.
Metro: Same as now.
Green Mountain Flyer: HSQ. Same path as old lift. Shorter than current HSQ.
JFF bowl lift: Triple. Starts on middle Ullr's dream. Ends same spot as current Green Mountain Flyer HSQ.

Why:
Jet and Bonventure need to be and are probably going to be HSQ's in real life. So that idea makes sense. Metro and other beginner lifts are fine as they are now.

Shorted Green Mountain Flyer:
Reduced wind closers and traffic on Upper Goat.

JFK bowl lift:
Gets rid of long terrible runout after the steeps. Also won't have wind closures as much as current Green Mountain Flyer because it is more protected by being in the bowl instead of on the ridge.




Anyway, is anyone interested in this? I love this kind of stuff, but I'm pretty much a total map dork. If it flops over here atleast I know those dorks over at snow journal will enjoy it.

Someone should defiantly do Killington. I would but I don't know it well enough because I have only been there once.

Feel free to insult/critique mine as much as you want. I bet I missed some important stuff.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Nice work Austin, with a post that well crafted, this thread deserves some run. I'm just not up to the task.

 

[ctenidae]

Nice job on those. I'm 100% sure I don't have the motivation to even begin to consider the question.

 

[awf170]

Yeah, I kind of figured you guys weren't map dorks like me. It will probably go over well at snow journal though.

 

[dmc]

Yeah, I kind of figured you guys weren't map dorks like me. It will probably go over well at snow journal though.

no... I'm a map freak.... I just have a job... ;-)

 

[from_the_NEK]

I'm definitely a map freak. I'll get to this when I have a few minutes

 

[riverc0il]

i don't need a map to explain one obvious reorganization of lift that will never happen but is fun to dream about: cannon. peabody quad should have followed the old double chair lift from peabody base to next to the base of the cannonball quad. skiers could then unload the peabody high speed and easily access the cannonball for upper mountain trails without having to deal with the dreaded links. traffic on the links would be substantially reduced and they wouldn't be ice rinks by 10am. this would also reduce traffic and horrible conditions on middle cannon which is dreadful most afternoons. choices from this unload area would be lower hard or mid ravine, but spookie cuts off mid ravine leading to lower cannon, peabody slopes, and the cross cut to zoomer slopes. over all result would be better conditions on links and mid cannon, easier to access cannonball quad without dealing with a skating rink, and most importantly, a more protected and less exposed ride. i can think of few draw backs with exception of not being able to access mid-cannon... but that is a plus because improved conditions and less scraping due to traffic would make the trail enjoyable for skiers coming down from vista, tramway, and u.cannon. the placement of the quad was the dumbest decision of the cannon redesign.

 

[BeanoNYC]

We need Star Trek style transporters at the base of every mountain.....that would solve all our lift problems.

 

[thetrailboss]

i don't need a map to explain one obvious reorganization of lift that will never happen but is fun to dream about: cannon. peabody quad should have followed the old double chair lift from peabody base to next to the base of the cannonball quad. skiers could then unload the peabody high speed and easily access the cannonball for upper mountain trails without having to deal with the dreaded links. traffic on the links would be substantially reduced and they wouldn't be ice rinks by 10am. this would also reduce traffic and horrible conditions on middle cannon which is dreadful most afternoons. choices from this unload area would be lower hard or mid ravine, but spookie cuts off mid ravine leading to lower cannon, peabody slopes, and the cross cut to zoomer slopes. over all result would be better conditions on links and mid cannon, easier to access cannonball quad without dealing with a skating rink, and most importantly, a more protected and less exposed ride. i can think of few draw backs with exception of not being able to access mid-cannon... but that is a plus because improved conditions and less scraping due to traffic would make the trail enjoyable for skiers coming down from vista, tramway, and u.cannon. the placement of the quad was the dumbest decision of the cannon redesign.

Well, the biggest reason why the placed the HSQ terminal where it is was to distribute the traffic onto the trails that were not used when the double ended where it did. Much like Ullr's and the trails on the western side of Jay, which saw little or no traffic before the days of the HSQ, Paulie's, Bypass, Middle Cannon, Paulie's Extension, and Lower Cannon saw the same thing. So the HSQ has done a good job getting people spread out onto the E side of the mountain. Regrettably, some people still don't seem to get over to the Bypass side and simply skate down the Links.

Now I guess we are not going to do a Cannon Challenge, but if we did, I'd ask if they would consider doing early season skiing on the Cannonball Quad trails and upload/download via the HSQ...a setup similar to Sugarbush North.

 

[riverc0il]

Well, the biggest reason why the placed the HSQ terminal where it is was to distribute the traffic onto the trails that were not used when the double ended where it did. Much like Ullr's and the trails on the western side of Jay, which saw little or no traffic before the days of the HSQ, Paulie's, Bypass, Middle Cannon, Paulie's Extension, and Lower Cannon saw the same thing. So the HSQ has done a good job getting people spread out onto the E side of the mountain. Regrettably, some people still don't seem to get over to the Bypass side and simply skate down the Links.

Now I guess we are not going to do a Cannon Challenge, but if we did, I'd ask if they would consider doing early season skiing on the Cannonball Quad trails and upload/download via the HSQ...a setup similar to Sugarbush North.

that is not really a valid reason because spookie cuts in to access almost every single trail except mid-cannon. you can hit paulie's extension, lower cannon, gremlin, and zoomer from spookie. bypass is not an option from the quad anyways, they rope bypass even though there is a cut through. previously, you couldn't even bang a left off the HSQ, they changed that 04-05, iirc. before that, exit was only to the right of the HSQ and you couldn't hit the cut to bypass even if it wasn't roped because you had to go around the unload station the other way. the links are a waste, so the only addition the relocation made was mid-cannon, which in the condition it generally ends up in isn't worth the relocation, it is better served as a summit trail. all the HSQ has done is funnel massive amounts of people down mid cannon and the links, all other trails were already on the table. i am pretty familiar with cannon's layout, i say the HSQ location pretty much stinks all around except if you really enjoy skiing a scraped down mid-cannon. who yo-yos the HSQ at cannon any ways? only people who don't understand the layout of the mountain.

regarding early season skiing, that question isn't even worth asking. it has been done before and mountain ops didn't find it worth while. cannon has been pretty rigid with their tday weekend opening time frame, you won't see cannon ever open before tday even if they could (and they could). but of all the areas to go for early season glory (not that any ski area does any more any ways), it wouldn't be cannon.

 

[awf170]

bypass is not an option from the quad anyways, they rope bypass even though there is a cut through. previously, you couldn't even bang a left off the HSQ, they changed that 04-05, iirc. before that, exit was only to the right of the HSQ and you couldn't hit the cut to bypass even if it wasn't roped because you had to go around the unload station the other way.

Do you understand why they do this? It has always boogled my mind. So the only trail you gain is middle cannon which is usually icy and windy.

Edit: actually all you lose is the upper half of middle cannon. Check out this cut across they have on the old trail map. I loved those old lifts.

 

[riverc0il]

you do loose all of middle cannon. lower cannon starts around spookie. no real loss in my book. it was probably a great idea on paper cause technically you get the links and middle cannon and it is easier to get to extension and the peabody slopes around lower cannon (spookie isn't exactly a main trail and is off most people's maps, especially snow boarders). but they just didn't anticipate how bad traffic for erode the links and mid cannon. if you build it, they will come... i.e. traffic increased dramatically in those areas not because people wanted to ski those trails, but that is where the lift dumped people. also, i don't think they foresaw how bad the exposure of sending a chair up lower/middle cannon would be. coming over the ridge above middle cannon just plain sucks. i usually opt to take the eagle cliff triple when i want to get from the peabody slopes to the zoomer slopes. yup, you read that right, i would rather take a slow clucky triple and get less than half the vertical in a run than ride the HSQ after the first hour or two of operation.

cannon's topography surely is a designers nightmare. the zoomer and cannonball lifts are perfectly placed and the tram is ideal for the shortest distance to the top which makes for the least amount of cable. eagle cliff triple and the brookside lifts are ideal for learners (though some of the green circles off the eagle cliff don't get snow making!!!!?) and the tuckerbrook chair is nicely placed out of the way for the developing skier. everything is where it should be at cannon except that quad. jay and cannon have so many amazing similarities.

 

[awf170]

you do loose all of middle cannon.

Don't you see Goat Path on that older trail map? I don't why it isn't there now, and heck it maybe totally flat or up hill, but it is just another reason why the placement of the Peabody HSQ was a terrible idea.

 

[threecy]

It makes you wonder if they should have put the HSQ where the Eagle Cliff Triple is, then run the Eagle Cliff triple from near the top of that to where the HSQ ends now.

 

[SnowRider]

Do people think the sunapee needs to replace the sunbowl quad with a HSQ?

SnowRider

 

[Zand]

Up until last year, I would've said yes when it was slow as hell. It seemed quite faster last year. If it keeps running like that, I don't see a problem with it. I'd like to see a triple or quad from the bottom of the bowl to the top of North Peak, probably straight up Cataract.

 

[thetrailboss]

that is not really a valid reason because spookie cuts in to access almost every single trail except mid-cannon.

regarding early season skiing, that question isn't even worth asking.

Wow. Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed :blink:

HSQ: the source for my thought was from the SnoEngineering Maps and reports that I have seen. They're only the folks who designed the layout and did the construction, but hey, you know better. :roll:

Honestly Riv, where else would you put the HSQ??? Where the double was, folks either skied to the quad for ANOTHER lift ride (which made about 30-35 mins of lift riding before skiing) or they skied Ravine and Turnpike and the other trails that were on that side. How is that any better?

Now you get some vert off the HSQ and at least three ways down. The mountain does have an hourglass shape to the trail layout and it is really inevitable that you're going to have problems unless you dropped the Cannoball further downslope and moved the HSQ down. NH doesn't want to spend the $$$ to do that. As for Spookie, many folks still use it, but look at the map...there are still a handfull of trails (Upper Middle Cannon, Links, and Bypass) which would have LITTLE or NO traffic. It is clear that they were trying to get traffic onto those lesser used areas much like the Ullr's Dream area...they were too high for the lower lifts and too low for skiers who wanted to ski the upper mountain (because you really had to go to the base and zip by the Cannonball).

As for the early season skiing, it was just an idea. Sorry it it did not meet your standards.

I guess you can make the changes you want to when you leave LSC and lease/operate Cannon.

 

[ctenidae]

Do people think the sunapee needs to replace the sunbowl quad with a HSQ?

SnowRider

Dear God, no. Just keep it running. Being slow keeps teh bowl empty, and for that, I am grateful. I very very rarely ski the main face at Sunapee. I stay in the Sunbowl and on Lynx/Goosebumps/whatever that third one is.

 

[riverc0il]

WOW. and you thought i woke up on the wrong side of the bed? i disagreed with your assessment using logic, reasoning, and personal experience and apparently i am the next person to lease/operate cannon?! sweet! gimme a break boss :roll: your animosity based on my disagreement of your assessment is not warrented. let's review this:

HSQ: the source for my thought was from the SnoEngineering Maps and reports that I have seen. They're only the folks who designed the layout and did the construction, but hey, you know better. :roll:

obviously snoengineering got it right and the essence of this very thread (hypothetical reorganization) is a moot point since designers always get it right. it is not a matter of knowing better than snoengineering... i need only have skied the area a few times! the only trails that are added by the HSQ installation were mid cannon and the links. the links are complete waste of trails, no one looks at a map and says "hey, we haven't hit the links yet, let's check them out!" they are connector trails, and bad ones at that. and in practice, as opposed to design and layout, mid cannon sucks by 10am because of the traffic. this is fact, i have skied the mountain enough to know to avoid the HSQ when ever possible.

Honestly Riv, where else would you put the HSQ??? Where the double was, folks either skied to the quad for ANOTHER lift ride (which made about 30-35 mins of lift riding before skiing) or they skied Ravine and Turnpike and the other trails that were on that side. How is that any better?

honestly, boss, yes... where the double was! folks still DO ski down to the cannonball to ride "ANOTHER" lift--the HSQ did not change that... it just made it so people had to ski/board down a trecherous scraped down horrible links trail to get there. 30-35 minutes? have you ever gone peabody base > peabody HSQ > cannonball > summit? 20 minutes tops. do you think ravine and turnpike are the only trails available from the bottom of the cannonball quad? boss, you are showing your ignorance of cannon layout. here is a list of the trails that are skiable from the bottom of the cannonball chair: middle ravine, lower hardscrabble, redball, turnpike, turnpike glade, lower ravine, upper gremlin, lower gremlin, parkway, lower cannon, toss up, time zone, paulie's extension, gary's, zoomer, paulie's, avalanche, banshee, banshee glade, banshee lift line, jaspers, mickeys margin, echo woods, lakeside glade, and spookie. that is almost half of the mountain that is accessable from the bottom of cannoball quad. how is that any better? you don't have to slide down the links, middle cannon isn't a complete mess, and it is a quicker transition to the cannonball quad for upper mountain access.

in regards to your assessment that bypass and mid cannon wouldn't get much traffic with the HSQ in a different location... they would certainly get less traffic, and that would be welcome. mid cannon is a nasty trail because it is the obvious way down that most people getting off the HSQ take. as for bypass, it is one of the worst trails on the mountain. these two trails would get ample usage from skiers coming off the top of the mountain via vista way, tramway, and upper cannon. this is the ideal top to bottom route for any one that wants to yo yo the tram. skier traffic patterns at cannon tend to have most tram skiers going down tramway, the majority of tram skiers do not head through the tunnell and sufficed with tramway, creating lots more traffic on bypass (when it is open) and mid cannon (even more traffic since bypass gets closed a lot). summit only traffic is all that these trails can really handle without going to crap. yes, the area has an hour glass shape but the layout works to the detriment of good snow conditions by dumping out the highest volume of skiers at the narrowest section of the hour glass with few options, this causes terrible conditions within only an hour or two of operation. at the least, mid ravine is a lot wider and milder pitcher than mid cannon and could better take the abuse of high traffic before skiers/riders branched off in various directions. other trails could have been built to make the cross cuts between the mountain better had the HSQ gone up the old double route (it obviously was a smart route at one point, why else was that double built in that location? just because snoengineering had a well thought out plan doesn't mean changing things worked as ideally as prethought when put into practice).

As for the early season skiing, it was just an idea. Sorry it it did not meet your standards.

what the hell is this? i love early season skiing. i am out there in friggin october hiking for turns for crying out loud. early season skiing DOES meet MY standards, it doesn't meet a state owned ski area's standards. it doesn't meet hardly any ski area any more. i wasn't indicating my preference, but rather the industry's preference. especially a ski area that has tried it before and gave up after only one season, it clearly didn't work in cannon's favor. nor is it likely considering the huge expense of money involved considering half the legislatures in the state seem to like the ideal of leasing the area to increase revenue.

I guess you can make the changes you want to when you leave LSC and lease/operate Cannon.

you don't know how hard i am resisting a come back on that one. for the sake of remaining somewhat civil, i shall opt not to retort to your bait.

 

[awf170]

Here is my design for Cannon. I also redesigned the trails, that was against my rules, but who cares. This wouldn't work now because the trails are already there. But if I(also mspaint and teraserver) was around 60 years ago Cannon would now be a better ski area. I rule.

(Also, this trail design kills you if you don't have knowledge of the mountain. Learn the trail layout, or get stuck going down the base. Cut acrosses are the sissy way out for not learning the layout of the mountain, they kill the flow of the trail, and cause wicked nasty intersections(coughkillingtoncough)

Fullsize: http://snowjournal.com/images/gallery_snowjournal/44efaa21c5977.jpg