Lifts that need replacement

[MadMadWorld]

Smuggs has their niche and they do it will. People either love it or hate it. If affordability and incredible terrain is more important than Smuggs is for you.

 

[HowieT2]

Re: Attitash. I think that the lift placement is at least in part due to where the property boundary with the WMNF lies. I know that the summit is on WMNF land and that is part of the reason why Peaks has not done anything up there because any change would require a lengthy and expensive review process. If I had to guess, in addition to the steep terrain, Flying Yankee terminated where it did because it was below the WMNF boundary. It would be interesting to see a map showing where the boundary lies.

Re: Sugarbush. Lifts do have a life expectancy. Middlebury just faced this fact with the Worth Mountain Double. That lift was a 1960's vintage Poma-Heron that had seen some upgrade work done by CTEC in the 1980's or 1990's. Despite that work, the fact remained that the concrete footings on some of the towers had deteriorated. Sunny D, Village, and Valley House are all about the same age. So I imagine that they will eventually have to be replaced. As we know 2 out of 3 are slated to be replaced. I would imagine that Sunny D is not far behind. It's doing the job, but it is pretty old. As to HG, I agree that the issue is mainly the drive, etc. But it has a tendency to go on "wind hold" fairly often. Ripcord is pretty damn wide so lower the towers may not resolve that issue.

You're correct. The Valley house and village double are circa 1960 and '65 respectively and have reached the end of their serviceable lives. Heavens gate is from 1983, so while its no youngster, they should be able to get another 15-20 years out of it assuming the necessary upgrades are done to the machinery. the valley house had new chairs and drive terminal in the 80's.
The Sunny D is from '79 so that too should be serviceable for some time with necessary repairs.
The wind issue on heavens gate is what it is.

 

[Quietman]

1963 - Madonna I Double - Smuggs
1964 - Sterling Double - Smuggs
Late 60s - Village Double - Smuggs
Madonna II cant be a spring chicken either.

Madonna II is their "newest" lift, installed in 1979. I completely agree that if they're making money, why change anything. I had a fairly enjoyable day there on my only visit, probably won't go back unless I'm staying in the area.

 

[VTKilarney]

I completely agree that if they're making money, why change anything.

Two reasons:
1) They may have to replace the chair lifts whether they want to or not given their age.
2) A well run business should always seek growth.

 

[trackbiker]

Two reasons:
1) They may have to replace the chair lifts whether they want to or not given their age.
2) A well run business should always seek growth.

I thought they had plans to install a HS6 on Sterling.
Madonna I supposedly had the upper terminal upgraded by CTEC in 2002.
The last two lifts they installed in the 1990's on Morse to serve the village were both used lifts.
All of their lifts are Halls. Those things seem to run forever.

 

[skiNEwhere]

Two reasons:
1) They may have to replace the chair lifts whether they want to or not given their age.
2) A well run business should always seek growth.

With that logic, MRG should replace the single chair with a high speed six pack, complete with bubble.

I see what you are saying though. I think they can leave the lifts alone and try to improve other aspects of their business to maintain growth

 

[VTKilarney]

With that logic, MRG should replace the single chair with a high speed six pack, complete with bubble.

Wrong. MRG is not a for-profit business. MRG is giving its investors exactly what they want.

You do have a point, though. If replacing the lift would be revenue-negative, the lift should not be replaced. There are definitely some mountains that would not see a return on the investment. Not every mountain can be a Ski Sundown.

 

[skiNEwhere]

The issue usually isn't with the lift itself, but with the concrete footings that support the towers. Once they start getting cracked, they deteriorate quickly, especially during the spring freeze/thaw cycle.

That's why the castlerock lift was replaced in 2001, I'm sure there are others

 

[HowieT2]

The issue usually isn't with the lift itself, but with the concrete footings that support the towers. Once they start getting cracked, they deteriorate quickly, especially during the spring freeze/thaw cycle.

That's why the castlerock lift was replaced in 2001, I'm sure there are others

I think that's right. Other than the footings, its a machine, so parts can be replaced/upgraded and it should run fine. like on a bike, you keep tuning it, replacing parts, until the frame is obsolete.

 

[thetrailboss]

The issue usually isn't with the lift itself, but with the concrete footings that support the towers. Once they start getting cracked, they deteriorate quickly, especially during the spring freeze/thaw cycle.

That's why the castlerock lift was replaced in 2001, I'm sure there are others

Castlerock had other problems IIRC.

 

[skiNEwhere]

Castlerock had other problems IIRC.

I'm sure it did, but mechanical issues don't pose nearly as much of a safety threat as weak footings

 

[BenedictGomez]

Two reasons:
1) They may have to replace the chair lifts whether they want to or not given their age.
2) A well run business should always seek growth.

Yeah; as much as I love Smuggs, I dont know if I'd call it well run. I certainly don't think it's poorly run, and I think they do an okay job, but you see little things creep in here and there that you become aware of. Like having so little finance and HR infrastructure in place that a bottom-feeder with a criminal record can embezzle tens-of-thousands from you for 3 years before you notice.

And yes, the lift situation could obviously be improved and would be an investment in the business, which would definitely be revenue positive. You often hear people say they don't go to Smuggs due to the slow lifts and impaired downhill capacity. Granted, the upside to this is the slopes at Smuggs are pretty empty from the low-capacity, but I dont think they need to be AS empty as they are. Saturday's during January through early March have jumped the shark a bit with the wait times at Madonna I, and it's not because the resort is jam packed, it's because the uphill capacity is severely limited. Put it this way - when Smuggler's Notch has 3X the skiable acreage, but < 50% the uphill capacity, of your typical 800 foot vertical Poconos hill, that's a problem.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Yeah; as much as I love Smuggs, I dont know if I'd call it well run. I certainly don't think it's poorly run, and I think they do an okay job, but you see little things creep in here and there that you become aware of. Like having so little finance and HR infrastructure in place that a bottom-feeder with a criminal record can embezzle tens-of-thousands from you for 3 years before you notice.

And yes, the lift situation could obviously be improved and would be an investment in the business, which would definitely be revenue positive. You often hear people say they don't go to Smuggs due to the slow lifts and impaired downhill capacity. Granted, the upside to this is the slopes at Smuggs are pretty empty from the low-capacity, but I dont think they need to be AS empty as they are. Saturday's during January through early March have jumped the shark a bit with the wait times at Madonna I, and it's not because the resort is jam packed, it's because the uphill capacity is severely limited. Put it this way - when Smuggler's Notch has 3X the skiable acreage, but < 50% the uphill capacity, of your typical 800 foot vertical Poconos hill, that's a problem.

It's about the terrain do you think the challenging terrain off Madonna can handle much more traffic? It's not like they can just add snowmaking to those trails. Comparing Smuggs to the Poconos is just silly talk from someone who has skied Smuggs so much. If folks want to put a HSQ on Sterling I'm fine with it. Just leave Madonna alone.

 

[Savemeasammy]

It's about the terrain do you think the challenging terrain off Madonna can handle much more traffic? It's not like they can just add snowmaking to those trails. Comparing Smuggs to the Poconos is just silly talk from someone who has skied Smuggs so much. If folks want to put a HSQ on Sterling I'm fine with it. Just leave Madonna alone.

Modonna I is a tough one. It really doesn't make sense to deliver a lot of people up there - especially intermediates. There just isn't much up there for skiers who can't handle advanced terrain... I like the lift the way it is, but maybe if they did something like not run it all the way to the bottom, I think that would be ok. It would cut ride time down, and it would be less appealing to lower-level skiers. It would be nice if Madonna II were a little more exciting, but I'm not sure they can do anything else with it (as far as positioning goes...). It is what it is. It doesn't get much use, so who knows if increased capacity would do anything... I guess that I have to agree that increasing capacity on Sterling makes more sense. It's a decent pod, and it is friendlier for the masses. If it had short lines as the result of a higher-capacity lift, it would certainly take pressure off Madonna I.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[xlr8r]

I think that's a red herring, and attitash is using that as a BS excuse. If they wanted to replace that lift, they'd pull the proper permits and execute the paperwork to make it happen. I don't buy it for a second.

I remember reading somewhere that Peaks did not feel that they got a return on investment on the Bluebird at Mount Snow. That the new lift did not provide an noticeable increase in skier visits the year they installed it. This is their new reason for not upgrading the summit lift at Attitash. It seems like it is one excuse after another, and Peaks comes across as being cheap. First it was they needed permits to expand further up the mountain. Then it was the terrain cannot handle any more skiers, now its new High Speed lifts do not increase skier visits. Well tell that to almost every other successful ski corporation that invests in modern lifts. I know Peaks came from the midwest where lifts tend to be very short, but that is not a reason to avoid spending money on long lifts at their New England resorts. They better watch out at Mount Snow now because both Stratton and Okemo have just built competitors to their bluebird when it comes to base to summit comfort with the new Stratton Gondola and Okemo Bubble 6 pack.

Also there is no way Attitash does the same amount of business now as it did during the ASC years. It must be bleeding skier visits to Cranmore and Bretton Woods with the investments that have been made at those areas. Remember the days when Attitash claimed being the largest ski area in NH, those days a certainly over, in fact it is a lot like Waterville in that no major change to the mountain has been made in well over a decade now. Something needs to be done soon, if they really are never going to put a high speed lift to the summit, they could shorten and realign the triple so that it starts where tightrope intersects upper highway. This would require a new lift line to be cut, and some trails to be rerouted and or fences put up to keep skiers from crashing into one another on the traverse from the top of Flying Yankee to the new base of the triple. That area would become very crowded with a lot of people heading in different directions.

 

[Brad J]

Re: Attitash. I think that the lift placement is at least in part due to where the property boundary with the WMNF lies. I know that the summit is on WMNF land and that is part of the reason why Peaks has not done anything up there because any change would require a lengthy and expensive review process. If I had to guess, in addition to the steep terrain, Flying Yankee terminated where it did because it was below the WMNF boundary. It would be interesting to see a map showing where the boundary lies.

When Atttitash was built in 64-65 they put a double in where the flying yankee is today , they replaced that lift with the HSQ to get people to use the lower mt. the top notch chair was put in in 68-69 season. The summit lift must be changed in some manner to get the ride down to 12 minutes or less. they slowed it down last year to a 17+ minute ride. Everyone wants that lift upgraded. you can run the lift faster and still keep the capacity the same by removing chairs on the cable. Peak resorts just does not get it .

 

[xlr8r]

Modonna I is a tough one. It really doesn't make sense to deliver a lot of people up there - especially intermediates. There just isn't much up there for skiers who can't handle advanced terrain... I like the lift the way it is, but maybe if they did something like not run it all the way to the bottom, I think that would be ok. It would cut ride time down, and it would be less appealing to lower-level skiers. It would be nice if Madonna II were a little more exciting, but I'm not sure they can do anything else with it (as far as positioning goes...). It is what it is. It doesn't get much use, so who knows if increased capacity would do anything... I guess that I have to agree that increasing capacity on Sterling makes more sense. It's a decent pod, and it is friendlier for the masses. If it had short lines as the result of a higher-capacity lift, it would certainly take pressure off Madonna I.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

I have never been to Smuggs, but looking on google Earth, it appears as though Madonna I runs up a ridge for the most part as it ascends to the summit. This would makes it tough to move the base of the lift up as the only trail that crosses back to liftline is Link. Locating it at Link would shave 2000' off the bottom of the lift. Again I have not been there, but to me it looks like Madonna II has the terrain to handle being a High Speed Quad as it serves only intermediate terrain. Maybe if Madonna II, Morse, and Sterling were upgraded to High Speed Quads (6 Packs seem overkill), Madonna I could either be shortened or remain as is and be marketed as a Castlerock or MRG Single chair type of lift. Make the rest of the mountain modern and competitive with rival mountain lift systems, but keep Madona I and therefore the Summit of Madonna as a classic mostly expert trail pod, and market it as such.

 

[MadMadWorld]

Modonna I is a tough one. It really doesn't make sense to deliver a lot of people up there - especially intermediates. There just isn't much up there for skiers who can't handle advanced terrain... I like the lift the way it is, but maybe if they did something like not run it all the way to the bottom, I think that would be ok. It would cut ride time down, and it would be less appealing to lower-level skiers. It would be nice if Madonna II were a little more exciting, but I'm not sure they can do anything else with it (as far as positioning goes...). It is what it is. It doesn't get much use, so who knows if increased capacity would do anything... I guess that I have to agree that increasing capacity on Sterling makes more sense. It's a decent pod, and it is friendlier for the masses. If it had short lines as the result of a higher-capacity lift, it would certainly take pressure off Madonna I.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone mobile app

So start a lift from the mid station to the top? But then they would need to have a separate lift since you wouldn't be able to access it from any Sterling or Madonna II trails.

 

[deadheadskier]

I remember reading somewhere that Peaks did not feel that they got a return on investment on the Bluebird at Mount Snow. That the new lift did not provide an noticeable increase in skier visits the year they installed it. This is their new reason for not upgrading the summit lift at Attitash. It seems like it is one excuse after another, and Peaks comes across as being cheap. First it was they needed permits to expand further up the mountain. Then it was the terrain cannot handle any more skiers, now its new High Speed lifts do not increase skier visits. Well tell that to almost every other successful ski corporation that invests in modern lifts. I know Peaks came from the midwest where lifts tend to be very short, but that is not a reason to avoid spending money on long lifts at their New England resorts. They better watch out at Mount Snow now because both Stratton and Okemo have just built competitors to their bluebird when it comes to base to summit comfort with the new Stratton Gondola and Okemo Bubble 6 pack.

Also there is no way Attitash does the same amount of business now as it did during the ASC years. It must be bleeding skier visits to Cranmore and Bretton Woods with the investments that have been made at those areas. Remember the days when Attitash claimed being the largest ski area in NH, those days a certainly over, in fact it is a lot like Waterville in that no major change to the mountain has been made in well over a decade now. Something needs to be done soon, if they really are never going to put a high speed lift to the summit, they could shorten and realign the triple so that it starts where tightrope intersects upper highway. This would require a new lift line to be cut, and some trails to be rerouted and or fences put up to keep skiers from crashing into one another on the traverse from the top of Flying Yankee to the new base of the triple. That area would become very crowded with a lot of people heading in different directions.

They used to average around 200K skier visits a year. Now it's down around 150K.

http://newenglandskihistory.com/NewHampshire/attitash.php

Interesting thought on the Triple going to upper mountain only from the top of the Yankee. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, you could accomplish something similar by moving the base of the Top Notch Double further up the hill. Maybe start it at the base of Moat. That lift ride would be likely under 10 minutes and would access all of the Upper Mountain except for a small part of Saco and all of Humphrey's and Wilfred's. It also would be located where you could get a least a short run off of the Yankee instead of just taking one lift to get to another. You could ski the bumps on Grandstand, enjoy Middle Ptarmigan and a few others to get to the lift via Middle Highway. From the east side you would need to cut a traverse back from about the bottom of Idiots and Tims. This configuration would both eliminate having to take a long ass ride to ski the top trails and it would make for a better loading situation at the Yankee as you could have Qeues coming from both directions instead of just the west as it is now.

 

[BenedictGomez]

It's about the terrain do you think the challenging terrain off Madonna can handle much more traffic? It's not like they can just add snowmaking to those trails.

Absolutely. Yes. Especially if they upgraded Sterling as well.

It would alleviate the, "well, both lifts are turbo-slow, so we may as well go all the way to the top" mentality, and not only would it take some pressure off Madonna I, but I think it would help herd more intermediates to Sterling, which would be a welcome thing since it's better terrain for them, and IMO, Sterling is under-utilized in that regard.

As for the slopes of Madonna I, I never feel the black diamonds are crowded. Ever. IMO the most "crowded" trail at Smuggs (and I think even this is reaching a bit) is Upper Chilcoot, but how many eastern mountains dont count a summit intermediate as their most trafficked trail? Probably not many.

Comparing Smuggs to the Poconos is just silly talk from someone who has skied Smuggs so much. If folks want to put a HSQ on Sterling I'm fine with it. Just leave Madonna alone.

You missed the point entirely. It has nothing to do with "comparing" one to the other, it has to do with scale and mathematics.