Saddleback's new website and trailmap

[awf170]

http://www.saddlebackmaine.com/

Looks nice. About time they actually got a real trailmap. Two new trails too. I have to get to Saddleback this season. Interesting expansion ideas...

 

[snoseek]

what's with the december 16 opening? Maybe they could increase pass sales if they lengthened their season for a few weeks, they definately have the elevation.

 

[Rushski]

A friend of mine has a place in Rangeley, will have to try to get up there this year. He said the lifts are old and slow but likes the trails.

Those possible expansions could make it a solid area...

 

[Skier75]

That's kinda exciting......well reason I say this is because not too many people know about this place and its really nice to be able to ski someplace that's not too crowded. Now everyone will want to go there! It has always had the laid back, family oriented type of ski mountain. We used to go there occasionally and used to love to be able to ski all over the place without the crowds.

Well maybe not everyone may not want to go there either.....couple reasons....one it's known to be colder/windier than both Sunday River and Sugarloaf because the trails faces North and it seems to be more out of the way then Sugarloaf(which is probably why it doesn't see a lot of action).

I have to say though, I'm glad to see that they're trying to get a little more updated. It can be pretty cold sitting on those slow the lifts. Great trials up there....we'll have to get back there sometime.

 

[EPB]

Does anybody else think that upper mountain lift would ruin Muleskinner? The isolation is part of what makes it such a unique trail.

 

[riverc0il]

Does anybody else think that upper mountain lift would ruin Muleskinner? The isolation is part of what makes it such a unique trail.

muleskinner certainly would feel less isolated, but i assume they would also build a lot of new trails and make that lift a new "pod". that traverse lasts forever, there is room for at least four trails in that area. what ever loss of isolation would be had on muleskinner would certainly be made up for by easier access and more trails in that pod. the pitch is just PERFECT up there. picture four more trails cut in that area including a narrow lift line, and that ridge instantly becomes one of the best expert pods in new england. it already is pretty damn good and better than most.

 

[klrskiah]

The new map looks good. I assume if they put a lift near muleskinner they would open alot more trails in that area between wardens worry and muleskinner, and i dont think it would ruin it, think of all the gnarly terrain possibiliries in that area. that could really put saddleback on the map (mayabe not a good thing)! But the new owner seems to really know what he is doing, although they could really use a HSQ to replace the Rangely double. i cant wait to hit saddleback again this year. THINK

 

[thetrailboss]

Nice James Niehaus map.

And the West Bowl expansion? Anyone got some details on that?

The location of the two other new chairs is really interesting...I guess that the False Summit Chair is to suppliment and NOT replace the T-Bar. The other one also seems very off to the side....reason? To add more terrain? For condos?

 

[Skier75]

The new map looks good. I assume if they put a lift near muleskinner they would open alot more trails in that area between wardens worry and muleskinner, and i dont think it would ruin it, think of all the gnarly terrain possibiliries in that area. that could really put saddleback on the map (mayabe not a good thing)! But the new owner seems to really know what he is doing, although they could really use a HSQ to replace the Rangely double. i cant wait to hit saddleback again this year. THINK

I agree about opening up more trials over in that area, that would really be nice, eh? We're hoping to get up that way this year....not really sure though.

 

[Mapnut]

I don't understand the locations of the two very long proposed lifts, or at least I don't understand their lengths. To be 8175 feet and 6258 feet long, they will have to go down a lot of really flat terrain (Haven't been there in many years, just looking at the topo). I mean flat even for green terrain. Isn't the quad below the base lodge really flat? The lower parts of those two proposed lifts would be in similar terrain. The 8175' chair can't possibly have more than 1500 feet of vertical.

Notice that they're not proposing any lifts to the summit. I expect that's because of the agreement with the Appalachian Mountain Club.

 

[riverc0il]

good eye mapnut. the below the base lodge quad is rather flat, good terrain for first timers and newbies. i am also puzzled by those two lifts in quest, particularly the one on lookers left as that terrain is already serviced by a lift. perhaps they plan on adding lodging, but that seems like a waste... a short connector lift would work fine for lodging. there is a lot of options for terrain on the lookers left proposed lift, but the low placement in flat terrain is odd to say the least.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

I have to assume that the False peak chair would add a liftline trail, if nothing else. I think It would be a bit o' double fall line though. There absolutely is tons of room for more trails (or better yet, glades!) in there. Maybe even a "soft edge" muleskiiner type trail with tree islands and edges that work into tighter glades.

Not running to the top of the ridge likely also has to do with wind scouring. The ridgeline doesn't seem to hold a lot of snow.

Glad to see they're planning on expanding. It's a great place with great potential!

 

[bigbog]

....more trails off the top of Muleskinner

Does anybody else think that upper mountain lift would ruin Muleskinner? The isolation is part of what makes it such a unique trail.

epb,
I think a few new trails branching off from the high traverse on Muleskinner will offer plenty of isolation as well. I agree on the questionable placement of the upper lift...I too would rather see it more directed more towards the center. Something med-to-hi_speed would be nice. $.01..

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Agree regarding the No Name and Magalloway chairs. It seems clear that both of them are designed more for servicing potential real estate developments more than anything. I could actually understand the Magalloweay in that context, but the No Name char would service terrain that offers just 800-900' vertical of actual worthwhile terrain, with the rest a completely flat runout. I'm also suprised there was no proposed growth into the Horn Bowl area. There are potential lift and trail alignments in there that would be very much sheltered from the prevailing NW wind.

That said, this will play out over many years, so I don't expect this to necessarily be the final alignment of things. What are the two new trails this year? Is anyone else intrigued by the proposed West Bowl lift? Given its short length and location, it seems like it may open up a situation similar to that of Hellroaring Basin at Big Mtn. Namely, you'll have runs starting from the top of the mountain/ridge funnelling down into that bowl offering nice, steep, long runs. At the bottom will be a lift that takes you up to the top of the ridge and back into the trail system, but not back to the top of the mountain. You'll have to ski down to the bottom of the front face and take the lifts there to the top in order to do laps. Could be a lot of fun, though the WSW aspect won't do much for snow quality.

 

[thebigo]

That is a great expansion map but it will be interesting to see how much of it is ever completed. I can think of many areas in the last ten years that have published major expansions on their trail maps that never came to fruition.

K/Pico interconnect, Bretton Woods Stickney Peak, the great expansion Burke map and Loon south peak come to mind. (maybe we should have a thread on 'lost expansion')

I just personally hope they stay below treeline. Along with the Bonds that is one of the truly special hiking areas in new england.