Sugarloaf projects

[wa-loaf]

I should say they won't replace the gondola on the existing line. I could see one running up where the superquad is and then taking a left up to the summit. With a mid station near the current top of the superquad for drop offs on really windy days. Move the superquad over to replace the spillway chairs or up the gondi line to the old mid-station. And I still want a t-bar to the summit. :smile:

 

[snowman]

Everybody's always keen to start moving lifts around. It costs a lot of money to move lifts around. You're better off going with something new and leaving lifts where they are. I guess the main point of my post is I don't totally buy that the ONLY reason for moving the old mid station is beautification and trail improvement. I think they're up to something on the old gondi line, to come next year, and they are doing what they can do this year to help it along next year. I'm sitting here wondering if Bill is sitting in Kingfield saying "Dammit, busted already!" to himself. hee hee hee :beer:

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

I should say they won't replace the gondola on the existing line. I could see one running up where the superquad is and then taking a left up to the summit. With a mid station near the current top of the superquad for drop offs on really windy days. Move the superquad over to replace the spillway chairs or up the gondi line to the old mid-station. And I still want a t-bar to the summit. :smile:

Gotta have a t-bar to the summit...only thing that'd be able to run 60% of the time. We could benefit from another high speed way outta the base area...or, like you said, a hs quad where spillway is...I'd hate to see it stop where short-side ends...but they'd have to figure out a way to prevent most wind closures...so stop at short side, then t-bar to the top I guess.

 

[wa-loaf]

Everybody's always keen to start moving lifts around. It costs a lot of money to move lifts around.:beer:

Just my wish list! Good point on the future of gondi line.

 

[thebigo]

This turned into a good discussion about the lift arrangement at sugarloaf. People I know that have skied the loaf typically have two complaints: drive time and lift orientation.

They cant do anything about the first item but I guess to fix the second they would need something that could operate unphased by wind. A surface lift would work, but lets face it only people willing to discuss theoretical lift arrangement in the middle of august would ride a surface lift on mid-winter days with high winds at the loaf.

I would guess that trams would be able to run in higher winds. I think I have also seen a modified gondola with two haul cables that allows it to run in higher winds.

 

[snowman]

I think a point that a lot of you are ignoring is the fact that if it's too windy to run a summit lift, the summit would be a pretty unsavory place to be anyway. I think a similar set up to the previous set up: a 2 stage gondola or chair, would be premo. Given the amount of cold, windy and inclement days at the Loaf the gondola would probably be the best bet. Gondola's are pretty sweet on *dare I say it* rainy days. You can put in a decent ski day on a rainy day with a decent rain suit if you have a gondola to get up the hill on. I only ever get wet sitting my ass on a wet chair on a rainy day. I'm sure there are atleast 15 open rainy days a year at the Loaf, or 10% of the season, so, just based on that fact it's worth looking at. THEN there's the fact that there's atleast another 15 days where it's below 0 and windy. The only way to even try to ski safely in that is to have a sheltered way up. Now we're up to 20% of the season where a gondola is required to put in any sort of a day. Then I'd say there's atleast another 20% of the season where a gondola would make a so-so ski day much more comfortable. End conclusion, the Loaf needs a gondola. I think it would help destination business a lot as well if one knew they would be able to ski every day even though there is a forecasted bad day or 2 in the up-coming week that they were planning to go skiing at the loaf. There's not much else to do there if you can't ski. There are also multi-rope gondolas now that they could employ to run trouble free to the summit in a hurricane, however the cost of them is a bit more than I could see being feasable at the loaf. I can't see a T bar happening as the grade is a bit much to allow for a comfortable ride, or even a safe ride for anyone other than a hard core expert.

 

[wa-loaf]

I think a point that a lot of you are ignoring is the fact that if it's too windy to run a summit lift, the summit would be a pretty unsavory place to be anyway. I think a similar set up to the previous set up: a 2 stage gondola or chair, would be premo.

That's why I sugested the route up by the superquad and then on to the summit. It's less wind prone on that side. I don't think replacing the current gondi line with another is smart.

I can't see a T bar happening as the grade is a bit much to allow for a comfortable ride, or even a safe ride for anyone other than a hard core expert.

That's the idea! :smile:

 

[snoseek]

just replace that p.o.s. summitquad with a shorter, faster t-bar and i'm content. the summit of sugarloaf doesn't need fast lifts. spillway does the job just fine (although those chairs are pretty old).

 

[snowman]

I dunno. There's just something about a gondola going straight up the middle of a mountain. That's where it's spossed to be. That's where they ALL are. It IS that way because straying from that course adds major $$$$$$$$$$ to the build cost. I'm thinking it would likely be cheaper to put a higher tech multi line gondola in which doesn't get blown around on a straight shot than it would be to go looping around the mountain with the regular single haul rope unit. A gondola starting right in front of the lodge would solve the problem of having to clamber up the hill to a lift to get going, and the previously mentioned problems with weather. The placement of the 2 high speed quads isn't so bad if you put a marque lift back in the middle (where it should be) lifting people from the lodge area. The lift network would almost start to make sense then. I'm sure replacement of the gondola was always the idea for the last 20 years (judged by where the new lifts were placed). It's just that for 20 years, no one has had a vested enough interest in the place to see the plan thru. Ha ha. I just looked at the trail map. I go to the loaf once or twice a year on a destination trip and had no idea they had as many lifts as they do as most of them are rarely open when I'm there. Anyways, went there to look at where Bullwinkles is exactly. Just as I suspected, they could have ran the timberline from bullwinkles. Why in the hell didn't they?!?! So, looking beyond a new gondola, I see a high speed quad leaving right from Bullwinkles to the peak, or a new bullwinkles placed somewhere that would have a better ski out and a timberline high speed leaving from there. The boardwalk lifts would be yanked and replaced with the timberline quad the same year. Then I would either rip out the spillway chairs and replace them with a high speed quad of whatever lenght makes the most sense, or replace the fixed grip quad above whifletree with a longer high speed quad, take your pick which you do first. All the other doubles serve their purpose for the limited amount of use they see and would just need replacing with newer lifts when an engineer tells you that you have to. The lift network as it exists now is entirely un-conducive to anyone wanting to "pop in" to any of the lodges to grab a bite to eat. I don't know a single resort that I've visited with such a poor set up for getting back skiing after the "pop in". The pop in pretty much always resorts in the "hike out". I bet food and beverage sales at the loaf are way below the industry standards per visit for just this reason. I bet you could pay for a new gondola in 3 years just from the added revenue of people not considering making a trip to the lodge a "last resort" due to overwheming hunger or a bursting bladder. And the T bar. Oh the T bar. I know you would love to have your own private 60 degree incline T-bar to ride up in a white out, but I don't think it's happening. Sorry

 

[threecy]

I I bet you could pay for a new gondola in 3 years just from the added revenue of people not considering making a trip to the lodge a "last resort" due to overwheming hunger or a bursting bladder.

I hate to say it, but I don't think you'd come anywhere close. A major lift network rebuild at Sugarloaf is a pipe dream without a significant increase in revenue/real estate and/or skier visits.

 

[snowman]

I hate to say it, but I don't think you'd come anywhere close. A major lift network rebuild at Sugarloaf is a pipe dream without a significant increase in revenue/real estate and/or skier visits.

How many annual visits have they averaged the last 10 years or so. Any idea? I think a new gondi would give them a serious shot in the arm and drive the rest of it over the 10 years following.

 

[snoseek]

more areas need to look more carefully at uphill vs. downhill capacity. faster lifts don't usually translate into a better experience (although i have to admit they can help. wide trails and fast lifts are more for the advantage of making $$$$ and usually have little to do with the customers best interest. how about fast lifts that don't carry as many (like the hs triple at alta) or bigger spacing in between chairs. that would be pretty cool. i guess i'm dreaming.

 

[skiNEwhere]

I think I have also seen a modified gondola with two haul cables that allows it to run in higher winds.

I could see that as an option. BTW it is called a funitel. Squaw Valley is currently the only place in the US that has one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funitel

Kinda curious as well, how windy "too windy" is for a lift to operate. Like someone said earlier , if its too windy for a lift to operate, maybe you shouldn't be up there skiing as well.

 

[thebigo]

I could see that as an option. BTW it is called a funitel. Squaw Valley is currently the only place in the US that has one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funitel

Kinda curious as well, how windy "too windy" is for a lift to operate. Like someone said earlier , if its too windy for a lift to operate, maybe you shouldn't be up there skiing as well.

Thanks couldnt think of what they were called. I think the point made earlier about guaranteed operations will have a large impact on destination visits. There were a couple of storms last year that hit maine better than vermont and with only one exception we chose sunday river over sugarloaf becasue of the threat of wind holds.

How many annual visits have they averaged the last 10 years or so. Any idea?

I have no idea on the average but a quick google search yielded the following statements:

Since the winter of 1997-98, skier visits have fallen 14 percent at Sunday River and 13 percent at Sugarloaf.

Sugarloaf/USA is the 11th largest ski resort in New England (in terms of skier visits) with approximately 352,000 skier visits during the 2005-2006 ski season.

Sources:

Skier Visits

Declining skier visits

 

[snowman]

I could see that as an option. BTW it is called a funitel. Squaw Valley is currently the only place in the US that has one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funitel

Kinda curious as well, how windy "too windy" is for a lift to operate. Like someone said earlier , if its too windy for a lift to operate, maybe you shouldn't be up there skiing as well.

It can be windy enough to have to tuck to make any sort of downward process on the lower trails, never mind the upper trails. Translation, when the upper lifts don't run, I wouldn't want to be up there anyway. That's why a new gondola would need a mid station somewhere around the station they're taking down or maybe even lower. I don't know if wind holds are entirely for the comfort of the guests riding or if running a lift empty in windy conditions can result in damage to the lift itself. At our area it's always been if it's insanely windy you don't want to put people on the chairs for the mere fact it would be too scary. If it's just to keep the guests from getting sea sickness uke:, they could run a 1 haul rope gondola with a mid station and just force guests to get off at the mid station on windy days. If the lift is going to tear itself apart on the upper half during a wind storm it would obviously have to be a 2 stage unit with 2 drives and ropes with a diverter track in the mid station to allow gondolas to circuit just on the lower half. If they could make a single haul rope gondi work in the 60's, I'm pretty sure they could make one work much better 50 years later.

 

[threecy]

Kinda curious as well, how windy "too windy" is for a lift to operate. Like someone said earlier , if its too windy for a lift to operate, maybe you shouldn't be up there skiing as well.

It's all relative to the lift and the wind. If the wind is blowing the carriers from side to side, you'll be concerned starting at 20 mph easily (again, this depends upon the carrier weight, tower spacing, tower height, tree cover, etc.). A wind blowing up or down the line won't necessarily be as worrysome, however any heavy wind in reality is a problem.

One thing skiers have a problem understanding is gusts vs. constant wind - I'll sometimes see people quesitoning a mountain's decision to close a lift because it doesn't seem windy - however if there are a few isolated gusts up high, that's enough to cause a derailment.

I wouldn't say that it's too dangerous to ski if it's too windy to operate a lift - but, if you're above treeline, that's a whole different ballgame (or if trees/wires are coming down).

It should be noted that T-Bars derail due to wind also (I remember Easton closed their T-Bar a few times back when I skied there years ago) - one advantage, of course, is that there's usually no evac procedure needed.

 

[snowman]

Thanks couldnt think of what they were called. I think the point made earlier about guaranteed operations will have a large impact on destination visits. There were a couple of storms last year that hit maine better than vermont and with only one exception we chose sunday river over sugarloaf becasue of the threat of wind holds.



I have no idea on the average but a quick google search yielded the following statements:





Sources:

Skier Visits

Declining skier visits

That's what I thought. I think a flashy new gondola could drive them back up to 500,000 ish a year. Now, you take those 500,000 visits a year and you see them in the lodge once more per day (because going to the lodge is no longer a pain) = $10 more per skier visit - $3 of cost = $7 net x 3 years x 500,000 = $10.5 million dollars = a new gondola. Granted, that's all a bit of a stretch, but on the same hand not so far fetched and shows how selling just a few more hot chocolates and beers can pay for a new gondola in a place like Sugarloaf in just 3 years. Never mind the added revenue of the extra skier visits . Take those into account and the thing pays for itself in one year.

On a personal note, like yours, even though the loaf is a 7 hour drive for me and Mont Ste. Anne is 10 hours, I tend to go to Mont Ste Anee more due in part to them having a gondola and better lift network. I also know AS A FACT I spend MORE than $10 extra per day in the lodge at Mont. Ste Anne because it seems like less of a pain to get to (mind you the base placement of their lifts is less than perfect as well, but they're atleast not up 100 feet of vert!!!!!)

 

[threecy]

they could run a 1 haul rope gondola with a mid station and just force guests to get off at the mid station on windy days.

In theory I think you're right - assuming there isn't much going on on the lower portion in terms of swaying and assuming there's no tree/wire threat, this could be done - though it would be critical to have the carriers return to the downhill line at mid station (an unloaded carrier can be at just as much risk as a loaded carrier in windy conditions).

 

[snowman]

It's all relative to the lift and the wind. If the wind is blowing the carriers from side to side, you'll be concerned starting at 20 mph easily (again, this depends upon the carrier weight, tower spacing, tower height, tree cover, etc.). A wind blowing up or down the line won't necessarily be as worrysome, however any heavy wind in reality is a problem.

One thing skiers have a problem understanding is gusts vs. constant wind - I'll sometimes see people quesitoning a mountain's decision to close a lift because it doesn't seem windy - however if there are a few isolated gusts up high, that's enough to cause a derailment.

I wouldn't say that it's too dangerous to ski if it's too windy to operate a lift - but, if you're above treeline, that's a whole different ballgame (or if trees/wires are coming down).

It should be noted that T-Bars derail due to wind also (I remember Easton closed their T-Bar a few times back when I skied there years ago) - one advantage, of course, is that there's usually no evac procedure needed.

Yeah, I forgot about evac for the moment. That's a reason all in itself (evac being much more risky) to be not be excited about running in high winds. I would imagine the loaf would have to go with a 2 stage gondi. I was just wondering is technology and rope tension had gotten to the point where a running lift stands no less of a chance of derailing as a non-running lift in high winds.

 

[threecy]

That's what I thought. I think a flashy new gondola could drive them back up to 500,000 ish a year. Now, you take those 500,000 visits a year and you see them in the lodge once more per day (because going to the lodge is no longer a pain) = $10 more per skier visit - $3 of cost = $7 net x 3 years x 500,000 = $10.5 million dollars = a new gondola. Granted, that's all a bit of a stretch, but on the same hand not so far fetched and shows how selling just a few more hot chocolates and beers can pay for a new gondola in a place like Sugarloaf in just 3 years. Never mind the added revenue of the extra skier visits . Take those into account and the thing pays for itself in one year.

On a personal note, like yours, even though the loaf is a 7 hour drive for me and Mont Ste. Anne is 10 hours, I tend to go to Mont Ste Anee more due in part to them having a gondola and better lift network. I also know AS A FACT I spend MORE than $10 extra per day in the lodge at Mont. Ste Anne because it seems like less of a pain to get to (mind you the base placement of their lifts is less than perfect as well, but they're atleast not up 100 feet of vert!!!!!)

I know you're just doing this as a rough example, but I doubt you'd see the 150k extra skiers come in the first year - that'd be 50% growth overnight. Even getting up them by the third year would be a stretch in that location, especially just for a lift. Also, a lot of ski areas have a heck of a time with food concessions - some in fact liscense out the operations. An increase of $10 gross revenue on each skier visit just from a lift location might be a bit much too - there are quite a lot of skier visits from regulars who don't necessarily buy much, if anything, from the food courts. In addition, there's also the cost to operate and maintain the gondola - with at least four drive units in theory (1 haul rope, 3 detachment terminals including midstation), which would eat away at any gains rather quickly.

Needless to say, a gondola could certainly pay itself off it its reliable and useful - but not in three years, in my opnion - especially at a place as remote as Sugarloaf, unless there was a significant build up around it to draw the masses in. Too many run on sentences.