Saddleback - Replacing Rangeley Double - Fixed Grip or High Speed?

[maineskier69]

Wouldn't a detachable be more susceptible (sp?) to windolds? If so that should be a considertion.

 

[Edd]

Wouldn't a detachable be more susceptible (sp?) to windolds? If so that should be a considertion.

An excellent question. If they are more susceptible, why is that?

 

[loafer89]

Couldn't disagree more. That lift is Saddleback's main mover. A quad is definitely needed, especially as Saddleback begins to attract more skier visits. If Saddleback ever would put in a High Speed lift, this is the place to do it. I wouldn't be opposed to a High Speed lift replacing the existing double. This is really an ideal location as ever has been for a high speed lift.

If they put in a HSQ my days at Saddleback are done as that would be excessive capacity for the trail system in place right now. They are planning on replacing the Cupsuptic T-bar with a quad as well, overkill IMO.

Most of the trails right now are quite narrow, Jane Craig, Professor, Golden Smelt and the trails in the Cupsuptic area are not designed for hoards of people which will make these trails icy and unpleasant to ski.

It was my understanding that the new owner was opposed to HS lifts?

 

[deadheadskier]

If they put in a HSQ my days at Saddleback are done as that would be excessive capacity for the trail system in place right now. They are planning on replacing the Cupsuptic T-bar with a quad as well, overkill IMO.

Most of the trails right now are quite narrow, Jane Craig, Professor, Golden Smelt and the trails in the Cupsuptic area are not designed for hoards of people which will make these trails icy and unpleasant to ski.

It was my understanding that the new owner was opposed to HS lifts?

pretty bold statement to make without seeing how the lift changes things. I do agree that replacing the cupsuptic with a quad would be overkill. People have made pretty compelling arguments though that a HSQ and fixed grip Quad have the same capacity.

Only time I skied Saddleback was on a fairly busy weekend with liftlines in the 10-15 minute range on the double during peak hours. On that day, all of the natural snow trails were closed due to a rain/freeze episode a couple days prior. Despite how limited the terrain options were and how busy it was, conditions were still okay on the groomers. Doubling the amount of people on the hill wouldn't have been that bad.

 

[tipsdown]

If they put in a HSQ my days at Saddleback are done as that would be excessive capacity for the trail system in place right now. They are planning on replacing the Cupsuptic T-bar with a quad as well, overkill IMO.

Most of the trails right now are quite narrow, Jane Craig, Professor, Golden Smelt and the trails in the Cupsuptic area are not designed for hoards of people which will make these trails icy and unpleasant to ski.

It was my understanding that the new owner was opposed to HS lifts?

After reading through this thread it sounds like the uphill capacity being faster with a Detach is a misnomer. And if that's the case it sounds like a win-win for the detach. On days where there are no lines, you can get more vertical in, in one day. If there are lines, than it's a wash. Part of the reason they plan to put in a Quad lift is because of all the trail expansion they have planned to the East and West of the existing trail system so I wouldn't be concerned about the excessive capacity based on what's there now.

I do agree that a quad to replace the cupsuptic is overkill unless they relocate the lift to a certain extent that opens up additioinal terrain. But to keep it in the same line with a quad makes no sense. That plan there would do far more damage than a HSQ to replace the Rangeley..

 

[BushMogulMaster]

An excellent question. If they are more susceptible, why is that?

Given the sensitive nature of a detachable grip, it is more dangerous to operate a detachable in high winds. Ever heard stories of chairs dropping off the line? Any lift that operates at more than 600fpm is required per ANSI B77 to have some additional safety switches called RPDs (rope position detectors). These will trip out in gusts, and it is fairly typical for a detach to be put on windhold if an RPD trips due to the wind. If an RPD trips, it means that the path of the haul rope momentarily changed.

 

[Telemechanic]

Quads don't have to be high capacity.

I wouldn't worry too much about Saddleback replacing the Rangely Double with a lift that overloads the terrain with skiers. For that to happen they'd need their skiers visits to exceed the existing trail capacity. It wouldn't be enough to just build a high capacity lift.

I'd imaging they're anticipating the day skier visits overloads the current trails and so if their growth in visists continues as it has the last few years they'll probably move on trail expansion plans soon .

Replacing the Rangely is about retiring an old lift. Mountain managers are smart about picking a new lift that fits their needs as well as the skiers need. Lifts are expensive enough without paying for frills you don't need. So whether fixed or detachable grip they'll probably go for more uphill capacity than the old lift but just enough to keep the line up short (nothing close to 2400 or 2800pph). They can save money by keeping the capacity low. Fewer chairs and grips saves dough and so would smaller drive machinery and line equipment but I'd guess they'd still opt for a drive and tower design that allows for future chair purchasing.

They'd probably like the speed of a detachable. It would have a ride time of about 4:45 versus around 10:30 for a fixed grip quad. The choice would seem to come down to money and the opinions of their devoted skiers.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

The choice would seem to come down to money and the opinions of their devoted skiers.

This is where my concern lies. If they are actually going to consider public opinion in their decision, they need to be sure to explain these details that we have briefly explained in this thread, otherwise people will make decisions based on misconceptions. Most skiers believe that detachable lifts have a greater uphill capacity. If this is why they would be opposed to a detach, that's a big mistake! Perhaps they should simply explain that in a case like this, the actual uphill capacity is unrelated to the type of grip and lift machinery.

 

[mondeo]

FG capacity = HSQ capacity, as already explained.

However, on days that the quad isn't running at capacity, the number of runs taken by skiers is greater for a HSQ than a FG. If a run takes 10 minutes, and the lift ride is either 5 or 10 minutes depending on which way you go, and there is no line, the HSQ will result in 33% more skier traffic as a skier will get 4 runs/hour instead of 3.

Other factors:
HSQs are more popular, resulting in higher utilization.
HSQs usually have smoother loading, resulting in fewer stoppages and more completely loaded chairs, again resulting in higher utilization.

Anti-Snowdon HSQ arguments, anyone?

Don't know the specifics for Saddleback, but it seems to me like if they have ambitions to become a big-time resort, a HSQ is a necessity. It may not be the best for the snow surface, but a 12-13 minute ride can be a pain. This relates directly to the vast majority thread; the vast majority is pretty much a required market, outside niches like MRG and Jay, and they care more about short lift rides than fantastic snow surfaces.

 

[riverc0il]

Wouldn't a detachable be more susceptible (sp?) to windolds? If so that should be a considertion.

I am not sure on the wind issues at Saddleback. But the double currently unloads well below the wind prown ridge line. A detachable is always more susceptible than a fixed grip for wind holds given all other variables are consistent. But mid-mountain lifts are ideally suited for high speed lifts.

If they put in a HSQ my days at Saddleback are done as that would be excessive capacity for the trail system in place right now. They are planning on replacing the Cupsuptic T-bar with a quad as well, overkill IMO.

I am not so sure about that. When I have skied at Saddleback, I have found most slopes to be almost completely empty even with a fully loaded double at max capacity. I think Saddleback's trail system could handle a high speed quad replacing the double.

Additionally, we must not discount the master plan which calls for massive expansion. If the expansion happens, then the Rangely lift becomes the master transport lift who's job is not just to service trails but rather service other lift pods. Thinking long term, I think a high speed lift makes sense from the perspective of their long term trail system goals. Not to mention long term success as a destination resort. Most people think "long drive considering they don't even have a high speed lift".

I am normally very friendly towards fixed grip lifts. But as a transfer lift, high speed lifts work much better. I would be far more concerned with the Kennebago Quad maxing out with a line.

 

[dropKickMurphy]

Couldn't disagree more. That lift is Saddleback's main mover. A quad is definitely needed, especially as Saddleback begins to attract more skier visits. If Saddleback ever would put in a High Speed lift, this is the place to do it. I wouldn't be opposed to a High Speed lift replacing the existing double. This is really an ideal location as ever has been for a high speed lift.

I think you're right. A HSQ in that location would serve to prevent long lines at the base area. But, rather than deposit a bunch of skiers at the summit, it brings them to a point where they would be able to disperse to various areas of the mountain.

I skied in Utah for the first time this February. When I saw Snowbird's tunnel/conveyer to Mineral Basin, I immediately wondered if something like that could work to connect Saddleback to the Horn Bowl.

 

[tipsdown]

I am not sure on the wind issues at Saddleback. But the double currently unloads well below the wind prown ridge line. A detachable is always more susceptible than a fixed grip for wind holds given all other variables are consistent. But mid-mountain lifts are ideally suited for high speed lifts.


I am not so sure about that. When I have skied at Saddleback, I have found most slopes to be almost completely empty even with a fully loaded double at max capacity. I think Saddleback's trail system could handle a high speed quad replacing the double.

Additionally, we must not discount the master plan which calls for massive expansion. If the expansion happens, then the Rangely lift becomes the master transport lift who's job is not just to service trails but rather service other lift pods. Thinking long term, I think a high speed lift makes sense from the perspective of their long term trail system goals. Not to mention long term success as a destination resort. Most people think "long drive considering they don't even have a high speed lift".

I am normally very friendly towards fixed grip lifts. But as a transfer lift, high speed lifts work much better. I would be far more concerned with the Kennebago Quad maxing out with a line.

I think rivercOil is spot on here. Think long term and a HSQ makes total sense. Having said that, this should probably be the only HSQ installed as part of the 10 year plan.

 

[Mapnut]

. I would be far more concerned with the Kennebago Quad maxing out with a line.

Here's another point - with a double providing the only access to the summit quad, half of its capacity is wasted for much of the morning until enough people trickle over there. Anybody know the actual capacity of the Kennebago quad?

 

[Telemechanic]

According to Ski Area Managment Magazine's 2007 Lift Contruction Survey The Kennebego Quad's capacity is 1475 pph.

http://www.skilifts.org/install_na2008.htm

 

[Highway Star]

According to Ski Area Managment Magazine's 2007 Lift Contruction Survey The Kennebego Quad's capacity is 1475 pph.

http://www.skilifts.org/install_na2008.htm

Sweet link bro!!!!