Mt. Snow announcement

[threecy]

x2! I want one! But who knows, they may end up selling the entire lfit to another resort. Maybe I'll ask on the passholder site.

There isn't much of a market for used Yans.

 

[jaytrem]

There isn't much of a market for used Yans.

It might sell. At least two of them were installed last year. Discovery Basin (from Sun Valley) and Sleeping Giant (dont' know where it came from).

Would be nice if they could combine parts with the Challenger chair to increase reliability.

 

[drjeff]

It might sell. At least two of them were installed last year. Discovery Basin (from Sun Valley) and Sleeping Giant (dont' know where it came from).

Would be nice if they could combine parts with the Challenger chair to increase reliability.

Swapping out top drives on the Summit Local and Challenger sure would be a short move! I'd guess though that the main electric drive motor for the summit local has a bit more horsepower than Challenger's (I just don't really feel like searching through the lift installation records over at skilifts.org right now to see the exact specs of each of them )

Given the number of yan triples at Mount Snow (Discovery, Challenger, Sundance, Tumbleweed, and I'm pretty sure the most of Ego) , my guess is that many parts of that lift won't be leaving Mount Snow.

Now Sunbrook, well that lift might very well show up at another Peak Resort or end up at somewhere around the country at a different resort

 

[vcunning]

The brain at work here. I'm picturing sitting at a snowbar, with the seats being an old triple from the local!

Might need more than one :-D

 

[Glenn]

Might need more than one :-D

Now you're talkin'. Bench seats would be fairly easy. IIRC, the part that attaches to the top of the chair (and eventually to the grip) are held on with bolts. Nothing a little PB Blaster and an impact wouldn't make sort work of.

 

[threecy]

Given the number of yan triples at Mount Snow (Discovery, Challenger, Sundance, Tumbleweed, and I'm pretty sure the most of Ego) , my guess is that many parts of that lift won't be leaving Mount Snow.

Yan fixed grip lifts have a lot of things going against them, at least in the re-sale market. I've only been on that summit lift maybe a handful of times (and about 15 years ago), so I know next to nothing about it in particular. Nonetheless, poured footing (rather than bolted) towers, as well as chained tensioning, make Yans less desirable than most other lifts. I believe this lift also doesn't have lifting frames on the towers, which are expected on chairlifts nowadays.

 

[roark]

I do think this is all good. But it exacerbates what I think is Mt Snow's biggest problem: crowded trails.

I'm envisioning what a HS 6pk and HS quad both unloading at the same spot will do... Basically almost all of Mt Snow's lifts unload at the same spot (save Carinthia lifts, ego, bear trap, and to a lesser extent Canyon - the rest more or less are just below the Summit and a short skate can get you to the top of any of them). I'll ignore the beginner chairs, since the main face (save Upper Ledges) is all beginner anyway

That's why I'll bemoan the loss of the slow Summit chair - the line was never that long and combined with long lines at the quad limited uphill capacity to some extent. Surfaces were already beat and most primary trails overcrowded with the existing limited uphill capacity - how will they fare with (perhaps FAR) greater capacity?

 

[UVSHTSTRM]

Quick question, these lift are in part or mostly being funded my federal stimulus money correct (I believe this was mentioned)? If so, does this money have to be paid back? Is it like a bond? If it doesn't have to be paid back, why is every ski resort in Vermont not putting in for this money?

Seems to me that this creates a really unfair advantage for Mt Snow in an already tough industry.

Thanks
UVSHTSTRM

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I do think this is all good. But it exacerbates what I think is Mt Snow's biggest problem: crowded trails.

I'm envisioning what a HS 6pk and HS quad both unloading at the same spot will do... Basically almost all of Mt Snow's lifts unload at the same spot (save Carinthia lifts, ego, bear trap, and to a lesser extent Canyon - the rest more or less are just below the Summit and a short skate can get you to the top of any of them). I'll ignore the beginner chairs, since the main face (save Upper Ledges) is all beginner anyway

That's why I'll bemoan the loss of the slow Summit chair - the line was never that long and combined with long lines at the quad limited uphill capacity to some extent. Surfaces were already beat and most primary trails overcrowded with the existing limited uphill capacity - how will they fare with (perhaps FAR) greater capacity?

That's my question too. With that 6-pack, they will be able to offload 20 people on the summit every six seconds when all lifts are operating. That's a really big number.

 

[Newpylong]

I totally understand the downhill capacity question but you honestly need to be a consistent visitor to see there is no problem for the most part on the summit trails on the weekends - OUTSIDE of Long John, which is going to be widened at the exact same time these new lifts will go in. The problem at Mount Snow is not where to put the people, it's how to move them, and this will help resolve this. For sure there will be more people on the trails with both High Speed summit lifts running but part of the permitting process for the lifts was the study that the added uphill capacity will not drastically change the "skiing experience". It's all in the study to read...

 

[drjeff]

I totally understand the downhill capacity question but you honestly need to be a consistent visitor to see there is no problem for the most part on the summit trails on the weekends - OUTSIDE of Long John, which is going to be widened at the exact same time these new lifts will go in. The problem at Mount Snow is not where to put the people, it's how to move them, and this will help resolve this. For sure there will be more people on the trails with both High Speed summit lifts running but part of the permitting process for the lifts was the study that the added uphill capacity will not drastically change the "skiing experience". It's all in the study to read...

Another thing to remember capacity wise, is that once the 6 pack is installed, then The Grand Summit Express becomes the "overflow" lift - likely to operate about the same number of hours per week as the summit local does, so you're talking about 6, maybe 8 hours(roughly 10AM to maybe 2PM Sat/Sunday) a week that both lifts will be spinning.

Totally agree that in the big scheme of things, downhill trail density won't be that much different than it currently is. Another thing to remember too is that *hopefully* these lift upgrades will happen simultaneously with Mount Snow getting the West Lake Project done which would take the snowmaking capacity to essentially 100%, thus additionally providing further, consistant snow coverage on many additional acres of terrain on the main face that folks lapping the new 6 pack and/or "old faithful" (the GSE) would be using.

 

[jaytrem]

Totally agree that in the big scheme of things, downhill trail density won't be that much different than it currently is.QUOTE]

I don't know, I think the more popular trails will be mobbed. You can't put that many more people on top of the mountain without the crowds going somewhere. The top of Sunbrook is far enough away that most people won't go downs the front, so we can take that out of the equation. Now with less stoppage and 3 extra people per chair the six seater should move at least 2000 extra people per hour. With about 15 unique ways down the front that's an extra 133.3 people per trail. That's an extra person every 27 sec per trail. At the top there are only about 6 ways to start out down the front. That's an extra person every 11 sec. Cascade and Canyon should get the worst of it. And of course Long John. Maybe they should put in a magic carpet on the uphill section on the original Long John. Could probably cut down on the Long John congestion a bit.

 

[EPB]

Totally agree that in the big scheme of things, downhill trail density won't be that much different than it currently is.QUOTE]

I don't know, I think the more popular trails will be mobbed. You can't put that many more people on top of the mountain without the crowds going somewhere. The top of Sunbrook is far enough away that most people won't go downs the front, so we can take that out of the equation. Now with less stoppage and 3 extra people per chair the six seater should move at least 2000 extra people per hour. With about 15 unique ways down the front that's an extra 133.3 people per trail. That's an extra person every 27 sec per trail. At the top there are only about 6 ways to start out itown the front. That's an extra person every 11 sec. Cascade and Canyon should get the worst of it. And of course Long John. Maybe they should put in a magic carpet on the uphill section on the original Long John. Could probably cut down on the Long John congestion a bit.

For what its worth, Skilifts.org lists the summit quad's capacity at 3000 pph and the Sundance Quad at 2667 pph. If these numbers are correct, the two lifts can dump 5667 skiers at capacity. Six packs seem to top out around 3600 pph; if we assume for a moment that the new six pack will carry 3600 people per hour, the Sundance quad could still carry roughly 2000 to 2100 pph and non overflow capacity would remain unchanged.

A few quads have been built recently to serve about 2000 skiers per hour: Gore's Burnt Mountain Quad (2008), the Lincoln Express at Loon (2007), and North Peak at Loon (2004). Examples of 6 pack capacity at 3000 pph are also out there.

It seems that Mt. Snow could rather easily curb capacity to its current level if it tweaks its chair spacing properly. The biggest wild card, however, will be the current summit quad's overflow use, which could vary in uphill capacity greatly depending on how fast it runs, and how many chairs it will use.

 

[drjeff]

For what its worth, Skilifts.org lists the summit quad's capacity at 3000 pph and the Sundance Quad at 2667 pph. If these numbers are correct, the two lifts can dump 5667 skiers at capacity. Six packs seem to top out around 3600 pph; if we assume for a moment that the new six pack will carry 3600 people per hour, the Sundance quad could still carry roughly 2000 to 2100 pph and non overflow capacity would remain unchanged.

A few quads have been built recently to serve about 2000 skiers per hour: Gore's Burnt Mountain Quad (2008), the Lincoln Express at Loon (2007), and North Peak at Loon (2004). Examples of 6 pack capacity at 3000 pph are also out there.

It seems that Mt. Snow could rather easily curb capacity to its current level if it tweaks its chair spacing properly. The biggest wild card, however, will be the current summit quad's overflow use, which could vary in uphill capacity greatly depending on how fast it runs, and how many chairs it will use.

If the grand summit express carries more than 2400-2500 folks an hour to the summit, I'd be suprised based on the spacing/timing of that lift.

Sunbrook quad (if it actually ran fully loaded for an hour) would probably but 2200 or so per hour up there - although in the 20+ years it's been there, and the hundreds of days I've skied it, I don't think I can ever recall a situation where Sunbrook sent up full chairs for an hour straight - that just might change when the HSQ goes in

 

[EPB]

If the grand summit express carries more than 2400-2500 folks an hour to the summit, I'd be suprised based on the spacing/timing of that lift.

Sunbrook quad (if it actually ran fully loaded for an hour) would probably but 2200 or so per hour up there - although in the 20+ years it's been there, and the hundreds of days I've skied it, I don't think I can ever recall a situation where Sunbrook sent up full chairs for an hour straight - that just might change when the HSQ goes in

I certainly agree that the new lift configuration will be more likely to reach its full capacity once the new installations are complete. It wouldn't be surprising if niether the Sunbrook chair, nor the Granrd Summit Express have run at their full capacity speeds of 500 and 1000 feet per minute respectively. Numbers wise, it seems that there will only be a marginal increase of uphill skier traffic under the new configuration with capacity remaining roughly the same. I cannot comment on shifts in skier flow as I do not ski Mt. Snow nearly enough to have a valid opinion on the matter, though it seems reasonable to assume that Sunbrook would experience more volume, especially if new snow making is installed.

Here's the link to the skilifts.org page for Mt. Snow if you're interested:
http://www.skilifts.org/old/vt-mtsnow.html

I certainly hope that the new installs won't drastically alter skier traffic for the worst, but it just doesn't appear to be a big concern from my vantage point. Enjoy!

 

[jaytrem]

I don't think I can ever recall a situation where Sunbrook sent up full chairs for an hour straight - that just might change when the HSQ goes in

There used to be a descent line every weekend in the early to mid 90s. That was when it first went in and when Beartrap was also more popular. It was also before everybody on the east coast learned thier lesson.

 

[drjeff]

I certainly agree that the new lift configuration will be more likely to reach its full capacity once the new installations are complete. It wouldn't be surprising if niether the Sunbrook chair, nor the Granrd Summit Express have run at their full capacity speeds of 500 and 1000 feet per minute respectively. Numbers wise, it seems that there will only be a marginal increase of uphill skier traffic under the new configuration with capacity remaining roughly the same. I cannot comment on shifts in skier flow as I do not ski Mt. Snow nearly enough to have a valid opinion on the matter, though it seems reasonable to assume that Sunbrook would experience more volume, especially if new snow making is installed.

Here's the link to the skilifts.org page for Mt. Snow if you're interested:
http://www.skilifts.org/old/vt-mtsnow.html

I certainly hope that the new installs won't drastically alter skier traffic for the worst, but it just doesn't appear to be a big concern from my vantage point. Enjoy!

Because your not going to be changing the downhill routes any with these lift upgrades, chances are you won't be changing too much the downhill density all that much - even at Sunbrook - where my hunch is you'll just see something akin to the "normal" 10:30ish AM surge in volume back there that currently happens on a busy day as the masses get out of the base area and disperse across the mountain, that volume will just likely last for a few hours rather than less than an hour - and especially once they get the snowmaking expansion in back there - there's enough acerage to handle that! Bottomline line though about Sunbrook, is even with a HSQ in place, on a cold day with the usual *cough* light*cough* NW wind blowing, its still going to be a cold ride, granted a shorter cold ride, but still a cold ride and that will more than likely see folks not lapping Sunbrook all day

 

[arik]

crowding?

I am thinking it won't be all that crowded because the west lake water will (hopefiully) come on line same season as the new lifts so there will be more trails open most of the time (better dispersing the skiiers)

 

[Glenn]

I am thinking it won't be all that crowded because the west lake water will (hopefiully) come on line same season as the new lifts so there will be more trails open most of the time (better dispersing the skiiers)

That's what their plan has been all along; increase the snowmaking before increasing the uphill capacity.

As Jeff has mentioned, getting the new lifts running for the 11-12 season may be a bit optomisitic. I have a feeling they'll be able to bring more water to mountain just as the new lifts are being installed/running.

There are some nice trails over at Sunbrook. If they could blast snow over there and keep a lot of those open it would really help spread people out.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I am thinking it won't be all that crowded because the west lake water will (hopefiully) come on line same season as the new lifts so there will be more trails open most of the time (better dispersing the skiiers)

Crowding may not be the issue, but irrespective of getting the West Lake project online, the impact on snow surfaces on crowded weekends will be material, and for the worse. It's not possible to have it both ways - if you are "solving" the base area crowding/lines problem, those people have to be going somewhere. They will be on the popular trails, scraping off last night's coat of manmade down to boilerplate by 10:30.