Saddleback Maine

[Smellytele]

About 75 percent had underlying conditions, and the average age is 82. The vaccine works as intended.

What were those numbers pre vaccine?

 

[dblskifanatic]

About 75 percent had underlying conditions, and the average age is 82. The vaccine works as intended.

but the push was to get those people vaccinated first - apparently still deadly for them. Did it create a false sense of security?

 

[skiur]

About 75 percent had underlying conditions, and the average age is 82. The vaccine works as intended.

Exactly, the common cold could have killed them

 

[dblskifanatic]

just realized the saddleback thread got infected! Need new Saddleback news to get this back on track

 

[skiur]

just realized the saddleback thread got infected! Need new Saddleback news to get this back on track

The new varients are highly contagious!

 

[deadheadskier]

Yeah, let's keep the Covid stuff to the other thread.

 

[2Planker]

reported on the local news today in MA

100 Fully Vaccinated People Have Died From COVID in Mass.​

The 100 deaths out of nearly 4.3 million vaccinated residents represents a rate of just 0.002%.
Nuf Said

 

[PAabe]

Saddleback Seeks Environmental Balance with New Mid-Mountain Lodge

Saddleback Mountain broke ground on building a mid-mountain lodge structure. Here are some interesting things to know about the new building.

www.maineskifamily.com

I know there was already an article about this in here but this has some drawings of the concept

 

[skef]

Saddleback Seeks Environmental Balance with New Mid-Mountain Lodge

Saddleback Mountain broke ground on building a mid-mountain lodge structure. Here are some interesting things to know about the new building.

www.maineskifamily.com

I know there was already an article about this in here but this has some drawings of the concept

Thanks. Looks pretty darn cool!

 

[Edd]

 

[deadheadskier]

View attachment 51942

As much as I like T Bars, I really wish they went with a chair and maybe a realignment dropping the base down to the lodge area.

The T bar lifeline was a great bump run last season. It will be missed

 

[machski]

As much as I like T Bars, I really wish they went with a chair and maybe a realignment dropping the base down to the lodge area.

The T bar lifeline was a great bump run last season. It will be missed

I believe they were going to put a new Sandy chair in that would run for m the base lodge up to a point you could grab the T-Bar from. Did not see anything happening on that when we were up last weekend. Also thought they were using the Rangeley Double's drive for that (it was fairly new IIRC).

 

[deadheadskier]

I believe that's the plan too. I just see the Sandy lift as really short and a waste of staffing an energy when 1 chair extended could cover the terrain.

But really I just wanted that bump run to stay. It was really nice last season

 

[Zand]

I loved that liftline as well. I rarely ski bump runs on purpose any more but that and Peachy's Peril were a blast when I was there. Bump lines were kind of gentle and fun.

 

[machski]

I believe that's the plan too. I just see the Sandy lift as really short and a waste of staffing an energy when 1 chair extended could cover the terrain.

But really I just wanted that bump run to stay. It was really nice last season

A la Misery Whip on the other side of the range. I get that and would have been cool, but I also get why a surface is important at SB and SL for that matter. I would guess Sandy would be more a backup lift of the new Rangeley is down due wind/MX rather than a dedicated full time lift. If so, cobbling a lift together from used parts isn't a bad way to go on such low angle terrain.

 

[Newpylong]

Installing a "realigned" chair in lieu of the T-Bar is a non-starter for several reasons. One of the driving factors for a surface lift there was to provide redundancy in high wind conditions. The Sandy Lift will be replaced and is not a waste of staffing because it will serve the terrain park(s) in normal operation. For this season there will be a portable handle tow. Also, depending on lower terminal location, it would either require massive cutting or towers along a good portion of Grey's - not an option with its homolugation.

Also keep in mind many people "discovered" SB last season and beginner options are non-existent off Rangeley if Lower Hudson is not filled in. The trails off Sandy albeit short are a step up off South Branch, and South Branch was busy busy this winter so demand is there.

The ideal solution if wind did not exist would be a weekend only aerial lift on the same line as the T-Bar.

 

[deadheadskier]

Installing a "realigned" chair in lieu of the T-Bar is a non-starter for several reasons. One of the driving factors for a surface lift there was to provide redundancy in high wind conditions. The Sandy Lift will be replaced and is not a waste of staffing because it will serve the terrain park(s) in normal operation. For this season there will be a portable handle tow. Also, depending on lower terminal location, it would either require massive cutting or towers along a good portion of Grey's

I'm not naive Newpy. I get the wind redundancy. I also don't see a FG chair at that elevation on that mountain getting shutdown often. The vast majority of ski areas in New England don't bother with surface lifts as a hedge against wind.

What I do see is a much greater benefit of having a second lift coming out of the base that accesses most of the upper mountain terrain than the combo of Sandy plus T Bar. As the mountain hopefully gains popularity, the Rangeley chair is going to see significant lines on the weekends. Having a FG quad leaving from the same area would help that a lot.

And you're not necessarily right about Grey's. If the bottom terminal of that lift was on the opposite side of the trail from the terrain park, it wouldn't even cross Grey to end at where the T Bar terminates. It would cross Belle, but not Grays

Granted my idea is far more expensive, but the benefits would be worth it IMO from a people moving perspective. And you gain a sweet bump run.

 

[Newpylong]

No, see attached.

Also, there is real estate development planned along Lower Hudson in the future. On a busy day those folks could boot up and essentially have direct to lift access, even if it's a surface lift.

I'm just commenting on management's thought process, and that's not even mentioning cost. They have gone through all of these scenarios and chose what they felt was the best course all things considered. Bound to be dissent like everything else.

 

[deadheadskier]

Um are we talking about the same trail? Gray Ghost? Your screenshot shows maybe 50 feet of that trail being impacted on the very edge about half way up, if that.

Wasn't aware of that real estate plan location. They'd be wise to look at Sugarloaf in regards to development placement and not make a mistake that could end up impacting lift and trail flow for future development. At SL they put those condos in above and to lookers right of the Superquad. I bet they'd wish they had a do over because it makes the flow from the Bucksaw area and future west mountain expansion a bit wonky to get back to the main base.

 

[Newpylong]

Yes, I placed the line there to show an alignment that does not interfere with the trail as you described that would work. However, if you look at the lower portion / base terminal you will see it would need to traverse and terminate in the middle of the base facilities.

There is no rideable terrain potential for the development locations along Hudson as they are proposed to simply be extending what's already there just south of the trail. Nothing up on the actual map.