The "Sugarbush Thread"

[MorningWoods]

The Gate House quad could profitably be a six pack since lines there are a nightmare on most winter Saturdays. The existing quad could be repurposed elsewhere on the mountain.

I would rather wait in that line that deal with more skier traffic on that side by increasing uphill capacity. Those trails are already packed as it is. North Lynx makes its slightly better. But still gets busy on a Saturday. I don’t find the lines bad when there is more accessible terrain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Slidebrook87]

Keep in mind that upgrading to a six pack doesn’t nescessarily mean an increase in capacity. Gate House’s design capacity is technically 3,000 p/h, but that is unrealistic since chairs have been removed. If it runs at its design speed of 1,000 ft/min, the capacity would be 2,800 p/h which is high for a detachable quad. Its spec sheet says 2,400 p/h @ 1,000 ft/min, but looking at its loading interval, it’s closer to 2,800. Since it is a beginner lift it usually runs at 830 ft/min but is sometimes sped up to around 900 on holiday weekends. This means capacity is closer to 2,400.

A six pack could be built with a design capacity of 2,800 and have a larger loading interval, but due to that loading interval, it could run at its design speed and keep capacity at 2,800 without causing issues with beginners. It would most likely have a standard design speed of 1,000 ft/min.

Gate House is more of a core lift than one might realize. It provides access to all of Lincoln’s only beginner terrain, it is the go-to lift for ski school programs, and families love it due to the lapability of it, said factors being the reason it often gets long lines. An often overlooked factor is back in 1995 when Otten built it, one of its main duties was to access Slide Brook. This is why it was built with a higher capacity than Bravo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[slatham]

The Gate House quad could profitably be a six pack since lines there are a nightmare on most winter Saturdays. The existing quad could be repurposed elsewhere on the mountain.

Unless GH has heavy usage to get to Slidebrook and North Linx (which I believe not), I don't think there's enough terrain to warrant a 6 pack.

 

[cdskier]

Unless GH has heavy usage to get to Slidebrook and North Linx (which I believe not), I don't think there's enough terrain to warrant a 6 pack.

Like Sb87 said, you can design a 6 pack that doesn't increase capacity, but then it seems like you're spending money for no real advantage (and there's enough times now that quad chairs go up empty because people have problems at the RFID gates because they refuse to read and/or follow instructions...we don't need 6-pack chairs going up empty). I agree that the existing terrain on GH really shouldn't have more people added to it. Those trails can already feel crowded and for beginners you really don't want to overwhelm them with even more people. I also think that the lift line at GH often looks worse than it is. The lines at one point this weekend when Super Bravo went on hold were well past the end of the corrals, yet I still made it through the line in only about 5 minutes.

 

[1dog]

Do wonder if the new owners will add any terrain to any of the complex - and, if they do, will it take years of governmental red tape?

When I started skiing in the '80s, the lure of the areas to newer skiers was adding terrain and lift capacity. Since growth is limited in the sport, maybe terrain would be something to draw more numbers.

Looks like Vail is attempting that at Sunapee - what was the last major terrain expansion in the NE? Bretton Woods maybe? Have not been there in years - and look how long it took Loon to access the South Peak area.

If I could pick (for business purposes) a second blue off Heavens Gate, and another blue/black off Jester down fall line. And of course some larger full service mid or summit lodge. That would bring more customers who ski 8-12 days a year.

North - blue south route off Summit circling back to lower Rim or crossing Tumbler to NR chair, and of course a tree'd lift access above Inverness because its southern exposure.

Christmas Wish List -

 

[Slidebrook87]

I would love to see an Inverness expansion especially since the two groomed runs are often closed for racing. Maybe convert Inverness to a detachable and relocate the quad to serve terrain higher up on the mountain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Howitzer]

I would love to see an Inverness expansion especially since the two groomed runs are often closed for racing. Maybe convert Inverness to a detachable and relocate the quad to serve terrain higher up on the mountain.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The experts are really good at spending other people's money. Hard to justify a HSQ on Inverness when the lift only operates on weekends and holidays from late December-March. North has plenty of uphill capacity as built. One would have to think Sugarbush's near term cap ex plan does not include any lift replacements given what they have done the last few years. On the other hand, it's pretty cool that GMVS is installing a full length T Bar that will run at 700 ft/min even if it will not be open to the public. Merry Christmas to all and let it snow.

 

[Slidebrook87]

My point being that if there were to be an Inverness expansion, a new detachable would probably be the anchor of it. In its current state, the quad is fine, although it should operate more frequently as it’s a pain to lap the terrain via Northway. I highly doubt that the T-Bar will operate at its design speed of 700 ft/min. It will most likely be slowed down for easier loading. I would really like to ride (and film) the Poma before it leaves, but it’s a challenge to load those pomas that come swinging around the bullwheel. The current T-Bar will become essentially useless with the new one being installed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cdskier]

My point being that if there were to be an Inverness expansion, a new detachable would probably be the anchor of it.

I'm not so sure about that. An old plan was to add another lift that serves terrain on the upper part of Inverness (above where there is currently terrain). The higher elevation of that terrain would allow it to be open more often than anything new lower on Inverness. Any terrain expansion at ME would in all likelihood have to be dependent on natural snow anyway as I believe from what I remember that the current grandfathered permit for the ME snowmaking infrastructure would not allow any additional expansion to add more coverage. As a result, it doesn't make a lot of sense to cut much in the way of new lower elevation terrain.

 

[Slidebrook87]

I'm not so sure about that. An old plan was to add another lift that serves terrain on the upper part of Inverness (above where there is currently terrain). The higher elevation of that terrain would allow it to be open more often than anything new lower on Inverness. Any terrain expansion at ME would in all likelihood have to be dependent on natural snow anyway as I believe from what I remember that the current grandfathered permit for the ME snowmaking infrastructure would not allow any additional expansion to add more coverage. As a result, it doesn't make a lot of sense to cut much in the way of new lower elevation terrain.

I originally mentioned relocating the quad to serve higher elevation terrain. Judging on how Mt. Ellen is treated though, I doubt anything will be happening over there for awhile. I’d love to see a base lodge remodel (not replacement) that is more open. Feels kind of dingy in there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cdskier]

I originally mentioned relocating the quad to serve higher elevation terrain. Judging on how Mt. Ellen is treated though, I doubt anything will be happening over there for awhile. I’d love to see a base lodge remodel (not replacement) that is more open. Feels kind of dingy in there.

Relocating the lift to go higher creates a potential issue as well...since the theoretical upper elevation Inverness terrain would be natural snow only, you now would have no lift serving the Inverness trail itself if you don't have enough snow to open the upper terrain. Sure you'd have the new GMVS T-Bar, and maybe that's enough simply for Inverness since it is closed to the public most of the time anyway. But I'd imagine that lift would be for GMVS use only, so then you'd lose your backup lift to GMX. At least now the current Inverness lift can get you to NRX if GMX isn't open for some reason.

Although I do agree that I wouldn't expect to see anything happening for a while. If there was ever terrain expansion though, I think ME has more possibilities than LP since LP is already fairly well built out (and some of the spots where you could add terrain at LP would probably get a lot of push-back from all the people that currently use the woods in those areas). And if you want to increase usage of ME, adding terrain might be the way to do it. An entire new pod of all natural terrain (maybe a mix of trails and glades) might be pretty enticing...

 

[Slidebrook87]

Sorry for so many comments, but their seems to be a bit of confusion. I suggested a new HSQ to replace the existing quad and to relocate that quad to start at the top of the HSQ and continue up the mountain to serve those natural trails. I do agree with you that there are potential issues with this plan though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[STREETSKIER]

Enough ,no expansion especially Inverness ever


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ducky]

If GMX is down, top of Sunny Q is only a 3 min hike to NRX.

One of my fav lines is skier's left outside the B-net on Inverness, or down the Poma line on skier's right behind the shack. The new cut to Brambles may put a damper on the left side poach.

STREETSKIER, who is older than dirt and has been here for decades, is probably right re expansion.

 

[Slidebrook87]

Enough ,no expansion especially Inverness ever


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m curious why you are against the expansion? Do you want it to happen but just not see it possible?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Newpylong]

Why do you people want expansion? They already have arguably the best terrain in all categories in New England, along with a great lift system to serve it. I don't know how you could get bored but try somewhere else - any more acreage is not only hard to cover with snowmaking but logistically just doesnt make sense.

 

[Slidebrook87]

Why do you people want expansion? They already have arguably the best terrain in all categories in New England, along with a great lift system to serve it. Getting bored? Try somewhere else - too much acreage is not only hard to cover with snowmaking but logistically just doesnt make sense.

Not necessarily saying they need one, but it’s always a fun topic to discuss. At some point, could be another 30 or so years, but an expansion will occur, especially since there really hasn’t been anything since the 1970s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Orca]

Why do you people want expansion? They already have arguably the best terrain in all categories in New England, along with a great lift system to serve it. Getting bored? Try somewhere else - too much acreage is not only hard to cover with snowmaking but logistically just doesnt make sense.

Sidecountry/tree skiing expansion. Low budget: no trails, no snowmaking, no grooming. Just thinning. Think MRG off-piste terrain.

 

[ducky]

This is a topo screenshot of Mt E showing the old planned ski lift above Invermess. If you introduce sidecountry, presumably off the top of Exterm and up the LT north, you have to be careful people don't hike the little ridge spur off the the left/west and drop in on the right side thinking they're inbounds. There is a similar ridge spur on the LT just before Castlerock that has also led people down the back side in error. How do I know this?

 

[Slidebrook87]

View attachment 25853

This is a topo screenshot of Mt E showing the old planned ski lift above Invermess. If you introduce sidecountry, presumably off the top of Exterm and up the LT north, you have to be careful people don't hike the little ridge spur off the the left/west and drop in on the right side thinking they're inbounds. There is a similar ridge spur on the LT just before Castlerock that has also led people down the back side in error. How do I know this?

Wouldn’t this have caused issues on days with racing on Brambles? Seems pretty cool other than that though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk