PDA

View Full Version : New Lifts?



Localsmoker
01-31-2011, 03:02 PM
What about a couple new lifts? Can't they be a part of the build-out? For 10% of the budget we could have at least 2.

HowieT2
01-31-2011, 04:10 PM
What about a couple new lifts? Can't they be a part of the build-out? For 10% of the budget we could have at least 2.

couple? from previous discussions, IIRC, the next to be replaced is the VH double, but Win indicated that was not on the horizon.

Fourwide
01-31-2011, 04:13 PM
I vote for a "bubble" lift to replace HG!

Hawk
01-31-2011, 04:19 PM
The lifts at SB are fine. You have no idea how good we have it. If they are going to spend money upgrade the snowmaking.

HowieT2
01-31-2011, 04:40 PM
The lifts at SB are fine. You have no idea how good we have it. If they are going to spend money upgrade the snowmaking.

I think, quietly, they have upgraded the snowmaking. It seems they have made more snow than I recall previously. Sunrise and Moonshine at LP are in much better shape than past seasons.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think the VH double should be replaced. It's rickety, old, slow and the terminus is an accident waiting to happen. I'm all for nostalgia, but safety comes first. Furthermore, having a legitimate modern triple would add capacity reducing the peak hour load on the super bravo.

Fourwide
01-31-2011, 04:53 PM
Valley House terminus--the most exciting 30 yards in NE skiing!

djd66
01-31-2011, 05:58 PM
Not sure why anyone would think the VHD is unsafe - unless you are qualified to make this kind of judgment. If they were to replace it - why not go with some kind of detachable? Yeah, I know people are going to say no way b/c of too much capacity in that area - BUT - there are already a ton of people skiing there via the traverse. why not just make it easier for people to get there directly? I think it would be a great way to take some traffic off of SB. Replacing the lift with another fixed grip with not do much. Presently the line at the VHD is minimal and changing it to some other kind of fixed grip lift is not going to change anything.

shadyjay
01-31-2011, 06:04 PM
I do believe that Village will be the next to be replaced.

HowieT2
01-31-2011, 06:08 PM
Not sure why anyone would think the VHD is unsafe - unless you are qualified to make this kind of judgment. If they were to replace it - why not go with some kind of detachable? Yeah, I know people are going to say no way b/c of too much capacity in that area - BUT - there are already a ton of people skiing there via the traverse. why not just make it easier for people to get there directly? I think it would be a great way to take some traffic off of SB. Replacing the lift with another fixed grip with not do much. Presently the line at the VHD is minimal and changing it to some other kind of fixed grip lift is not going to change anything.

I didn't say the lift was unsafe, but getting off the lift and merging onto the traverse is not safe for anyone. I trust they wouldn't run the lift if there was any question of its safety. That being said, it is a mechanical device and it's lifespan is finite. There will come a time when it must be replaced.
Win has said in the past that, they would not put a detachable lift there, so I think it's safe to assume a faster triple is the most likely replacement.

Brew Ski
01-31-2011, 06:47 PM
Take the lift from Castlerock and use it to replace the VHD. This way SB doesn't have to buy a new lift, just move one. Faster and newer and it could reach down to the actual base area. Castlerock gets access from hiking and skinning and becomes the best natural terrain in the east! Sure would limit my competition for the Castlerock Extreme!

Moreover, we don't get questions in the Castlerock lift line like I heard this past weekend of:
Q:" Is that sign serious? Are there really rocks?"
A: Yea, dude, that is the only absolute truth in advertising you'll ever see!

Q:"What is the easiest way down for my intermediate 7 year old son?"
A: Shuffle across that bridge over there and head down the traverse before you injure your son and he loses you as his hero. What kind of father are you?

Q:"Do all the trails have bumps?"
A: No, just the ones on the trail map.

Tin Woodsman
01-31-2011, 07:17 PM
Not sure why anyone would think the VHD is unsafe - unless you are qualified to make this kind of judgment. If they were to replace it - why not go with some kind of detachable? Yeah, I know people are going to say no way b/c of too much capacity in that area - BUT - there are already a ton of people skiing there via the traverse. why not just make it easier for people to get there directly? I think it would be a great way to take some traffic off of SB. Replacing the lift with another fixed grip with not do much. Presently the line at the VHD is minimal and changing it to some other kind of fixed grip lift is not going to change anything.
There are two reasons that the lift line at VH is minimal. For one, the trails are already served by the "sexier" Bravo HSQ. Second, and likely far more important, is that fact that the base terminal is far up the hill from where most skiers actually congregate at the base. If you are coming from the GH side or from CR, there's no way to get up there w/o a hike, and unless you have the foresight to take Coffee Run when you're skiing in the Bravo pod, you're going to have a hike as well. I know that when I'm skiing in a group, we like to discuss what's next at the bottom of the run. I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard. In sum, the hike uphill acts as a big disincentive to ridership for that chair.

Simply bringing the base terminal down to a location adjacent to Bravo would increase ridership substantially. Upgrading to a new, nicely padded fixed grip chair w/o erector set towers would probably help a bit as well - tourists scare easily. Installing a high speed lift is both unnecessary (it's not a long ride to begin with and there isn't a huge need from a traffic perspective) and fiscally unsound.

win
01-31-2011, 08:38 PM
Tin,

You have the insight! Forget the new lift talk. Just get up here for the POWDER these next few days! Just what we have been waiting for.

HowieT2
01-31-2011, 09:18 PM
Not sure why anyone would think the VHD is unsafe - unless you are qualified to make this kind of judgment. If they were to replace it - why not go with some kind of detachable? Yeah, I know people are going to say no way b/c of too much capacity in that area - BUT - there are already a ton of people skiing there via the traverse. why not just make it easier for people to get there directly? I think it would be a great way to take some traffic off of SB. Replacing the lift with another fixed grip with not do much. Presently the line at the VHD is minimal and changing it to some other kind of fixed grip lift is not going to change anything.
There are two reasons that the lift line at VH is minimal. For one, the trails are already served by the "sexier" Bravo HSQ. Second, and likely far more important, is that fact that the base terminal is far up the hill from where most skiers actually congregate at the base. If you are coming from the GH side or from CR, there's no way to get up there w/o a hike, and unless you have the foresight to take Coffee Run when you're skiing in the Bravo pod, you're going to have a hike as well. I know that when I'm skiing in a group, we like to discuss what's next at the bottom of the run. I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard. In sum, the hike uphill acts as a big disincentive to ridership for that chair.

Simply bringing the base terminal down to a location adjacent to Bravo would increase ridership substantially. Upgrading to a new, nicely padded fixed grip chair w/o erector set towers would probably help a bit as well - tourists scare easily. Installing a high speed lift is both unnecessary (it's not a long ride to begin with and there isn't a huge need from a traffic perspective) and fiscally unsound.

bringing the base next to the bravo, would be ideal, but i think it would entail removing at least a portion of th valley house.

Tin Woodsman
01-31-2011, 11:10 PM
Tin,

You have the insight! Forget the new lift talk. Just get up here for the POWDER these next few days! Just what we have been waiting for.

Amen!

Tin Woodsman
01-31-2011, 11:13 PM
bringing the base next to the bravo, would be ideal, but i think it would entail removing at least a portion of th valley house.

No question. And possibly a portion of the mtn ops bldg and/or the Mushroom as well. Not sure how that would work when the existing VH lodge/Mushroom are sorely needed on weekends and holidays. I don't know how that's going to play out in the future. They spent money repainting the VH two summers ago, so it's not going anywhere soon. I would imagine we won't have a clear read on that until they figure out what they're going to do with the next phase of LP Village development. My guess is they were anticipating that the new GH lodge and Timbers would eliminate the needs for VH lodge. That's clearly not the case. Maybe it's different this year with the two new buildings? I haven't been up to VH lodge to check.

HowieT2
02-01-2011, 07:11 AM
bringing the base next to the bravo, would be ideal, but i think it would entail removing at least a portion of th valley house.

No question. And possibly a portion of the mtn ops bldg and/or the Mushroom as well. Not sure how that would work when the existing VH lodge/Mushroom are sorely needed on weekends and holidays. I don't know how that's going to play out in the future. They spent money repainting the VH two summers ago, so it's not going anywhere soon. I would imagine we won't have a clear read on that until they figure out what they're going to do with the next phase of LP Village development. My guess is they were anticipating that the new GH lodge and Timbers would eliminate the needs for VH lodge. That's clearly not the case. Maybe it's different this year with the two new buildings? I haven't been up to VH lodge to check.

agreed. its a good thing they didnt remove the vh. its capacity is needed even on none holiday weekends. i think the blazer program has grown so much that they can fill the gatehouse themselves during their lunch time. these are good problems to have. but the vh isnt going anywhere unless something is built to replace it.

HowieT2
02-01-2011, 07:27 AM
bringing the base next to the bravo, would be ideal, but i think it would entail removing at least a portion of th valley house.

No question. And possibly a portion of the mtn ops bldg and/or the Mushroom as well. Not sure how that would work when the existing VH lodge/Mushroom are sorely needed on weekends and holidays. I don't know how that's going to play out in the future. They spent money repainting the VH two summers ago, so it's not going anywhere soon. I would imagine we won't have a clear read on that until they figure out what they're going to do with the next phase of LP Village development. My guess is they were anticipating that the new GH lodge and Timbers would eliminate the needs for VH lodge. That's clearly not the case. Maybe it's different this year with the two new buildings? I haven't been up to VH lodge to check.

agreed. its a good thing they didnt remove the vh. its capacity is needed even on none holiday weekends. i think the blazer program has grown so much that they can fill the gatehouse themselves during their lunch time. these are good problems to have. but the vh isnt going anywhere unless something is built to replace it.

Hawk
02-01-2011, 07:56 AM
bringing the base next to the bravo, would be ideal, but i think it would entail removing at least a portion of th valley house.

No question. And possibly a portion of the mtn ops bldg and/or the Mushroom as well. Not sure how that would work when the existing VH lodge/Mushroom are sorely needed on weekends and holidays. I don't know how that's going to play out in the future. They spent money repainting the VH two summers ago, so it's not going anywhere soon. I would imagine we won't have a clear read on that until they figure out what they're going to do with the next phase of LP Village development. My guess is they were anticipating that the new GH lodge and Timbers would eliminate the needs for VH lodge. That's clearly not the case. Maybe it's different this year with the two new buildings? I haven't been up to VH lodge to check.

Funny, a couple of us were talk about this standing at the bottom waiting for people. We all agareed on the capacity part and fixing the top of the lift. A Fixed gip double or even a triple is the call. The top is an easy fix with just a little bit of clearing, pushing the lift back about 10-20 yards and reconfiguring the exit.

When the bottom came up we actually skied over and looked up at the alignment. When building a new lift you can do all kinds of things. With just a little adjustment of the lift line the lift could come down past the mushroom and land at the old base of the gondola. They would obviously have to remove the mainenence building but the mushroom and lodge could stay. The biggest problem would be traffic flow with the 2 lifts in close proximity. Dealing with the two lift lines and the people coming down gondolier to the skiers right to get in line the Bravo will be hard to manage.

MntMan4Bush
02-01-2011, 08:17 AM
I like the VH Double and it's old antiquated towers. Brings a feeling of nostalgia. The only issue as has been pointed out is the off ramp. If riders had the option to exit to the left that might create a little less havoc, but of course might make making it to Steins a bit tougher if they didn't plan ahead.

As far as reliability though I can't remember seeing that chair ever go down. Orange tape across some chairs. Yes. But go down. No. If we're talking about replacing a chair why don't we look at Ole Faithful, the North Ridge Chair. I've watched that thing be maintained by a broom handle more times than makes me happy.

Or since we've got a little extra quid in our pockets evidently and want to spend on a lift let's bring up everyone's favorite subject. Expanding above Inverness.

Localsmoker
02-01-2011, 11:49 AM
What about the 2 summit lifts? I don't mind VH as much as dealing with summit weather conditions while the lift barely crawls up the hill.

HowieT2
02-01-2011, 11:59 AM
I like the VH Double and it's old antiquated towers. Brings a feeling of nostalgia. The only issue as has been pointed out is the off ramp. If riders had the option to exit to the left that might create a little less havoc, but of course might make making it to Steins a bit tougher if they didn't plan ahead.

As far as reliability though I can't remember seeing that chair ever go down. Orange tape across some chairs. Yes. But go down. No. If we're talking about replacing a chair why don't we look at Ole Faithful, the North Ridge Chair. I've watched that thing be maintained by a broom handle more times than makes me happy.

Or since we've got a little extra quid in our pockets evidently and want to spend on a lift let's bring up everyone's favorite subject. Expanding above Inverness.

I'm mostly at LP, but I thought the NRX has been better last year and this year????

Hawk
02-01-2011, 12:20 PM
What about the 2 summit lifts? I don't mind VH as much as dealing with summit weather conditions while the lift barely crawls up the hill.

Funny you should say that. The very reason these lifts are fixed grip and not high speed is the weather. If the summit quad or the HG triple were anything else but fixed grip and a slow and steady speed, they would never be open when it snows. High speed lifts notoriously fail in wind and weather.

Hawk
02-01-2011, 12:21 PM
Also could you imagine going up HG last weekend if it was a High Spped Quad? BRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

Tin Woodsman
02-01-2011, 12:51 PM
Funny, a couple of us were talk about this standing at the bottom waiting for people. We all agareed on the capacity part and fixing the top of the lift. A Fixed gip double or even a triple is the call. The top is an easy fix with just a little bit of clearing, pushing the lift back about 10-20 yards and reconfiguring the exit.
I was thinking about that exit a bit last night. There is also the issue that you are going slowly on the flat VH Traverse, then you come around the turn and the grade steepens a bit, so people start slamming on the breaks, with predictable consequences for the snow surface there. I think you'd have a problem in that spot irrespective of whether the VH double was there, though having that pinch spot certainly doesn't help. As much as I hate to say it, I wonder if the ultimate solution will involve a lot of blasting to widen and re-grade that last 50 yards or so.


When the bottom came up we actually skied over and looked up at the alignment. When building a new lift you can do all kinds of things. With just a little adjustment of the lift line the lift could come down past the mushroom and land at the old base of the gondola. They would obviously have to remove the mainenence building but the mushroom and lodge could stay. The biggest problem would be traffic flow with the 2 lifts in close proximity. Dealing with the two lift lines and the people coming down gondolier to the skiers right to get in line the Bravo will be hard to manage.

Keep in mind though that for every person standing in line at the base of that new VH lift, that's almost one less person standing in line for Bravo. I think you'd see a modest overall increase in ridership on that side of the base area but the primary impact would be to redistribute traffic from Bravo to VH. Net/net, I don't think there would be too big of a space issue to deal with, especially if they do some re-grading in that area next to and below the VH lodge.

Tin Woodsman
02-01-2011, 12:52 PM
What about the 2 summit lifts? I don't mind VH as much as dealing with summit weather conditions while the lift barely crawls up the hill.

Funny you should say that. The very reason these lifts are fixed grip and not high speed is the weather. If the summit quad or the HG triple were anything else but fixed grip and a slow and steady speed, they would never be open when it snows. High speed lifts notoriously fail in wind and weather.

QFT.

I'd also add that on both ME and LP, there isn't nearly enough trail capacity to handle the amount of people that a high speed quad would be able to discharge on their respective summits. Aren't Jester, OG and Rim Run enough of a junk show already by noon?

Xskier
02-01-2011, 01:50 PM
bringing the base next to the bravo, would be ideal, but i think it would entail removing at least a portion of th valley house.

Just run the new Lift Over the Valley House. That would be kind of cool.

Localsmoker
02-01-2011, 02:08 PM
What about the 2 summit lifts? I don't mind VH as much as dealing with summit weather conditions while the lift barely crawls up the hill.

Funny you should say that. The very reason these lifts are fixed grip and not high speed is the weather. If the summit quad or the HG triple were anything else but fixed grip and a slow and steady speed, they would never be open when it snows. High speed lifts notoriously fail in wind and weather.

MRG's single does 2000 vert in something like 12 minutes and it's pretty much never closed.

Localsmoker
02-01-2011, 02:10 PM
How do you put those boxes around the post you're commenting on?

Plowboy
02-01-2011, 02:17 PM
How about a lift from the bottom of Lower FIS to the Glen House or to the corner on Rim Run.

Plowboy
02-01-2011, 02:19 PM
How do you put those boxes around the post you're commenting on?

:roll: :lol:

HowieT2
02-01-2011, 02:21 PM
bringing the base next to the bravo, would be ideal, but i think it would entail removing at least a portion of th valley house.

Just run the new Lift Over the Valley House. That would be kind of cool.

or even cooler, from inside the VH. :lol:

southvillager
02-01-2011, 02:54 PM
I ride the double a lot...my wife is a fan. I agree that the unloading zone at the top is an accident waiting to happen. The patch of ice that forms at the end of the traverse, forcing the lift riders to turn right off the chair, and the generally tight quarters create quite a danger zone. Inexperienced riders of the double get off the chair and just hang around at the intersection of the traverse and the Mall, directly in the path of people zipping down the traverse over that patch of ice.

Wouldn't allowing the lift to unload to the left would solve the problem to a degree? I remember unloading left in the past. Don't I, or is my memory fading?

Tin Woodsman
02-01-2011, 04:13 PM
MRG's single does 2000 vert in something like 12 minutes and it's pretty much never closed.

Not sure why your quote boxes aren't working - the code looks right.

Maybe the single moves slightly faster than the Summit lifts, but it would generally be a difference of 10% or less. There isn't much variability between the speeds of fixed grip lifts that aren't used on bunny hills (E.g. Village double is sloooooooooowww).

Fourwide
02-01-2011, 04:23 PM
Where was the old gondola base?

Tin Woodsman
02-01-2011, 04:30 PM
Where was the old gondola base?

Thats' where the mtn ops bldg is today I think. Didn't it used to be the rental bldg for a stretch too?

Plowboy
02-01-2011, 06:18 PM
Where was the old gondola base?

Thats' where the mtn ops bldg is today I think. Didn't it used to be the rental bldg for a stretch too?

Yes the rental shop was there for stretch.

I saw Dowin about a month ago. The champion of loading skis into the Gondola rack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wink:

Ah the good ol' days.

Benski
02-01-2011, 10:36 PM
http://s3.postimage.org/1we3gjn5w/new_vh_lift.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/1we3gjn5w/)


The red is the new vh lift. the white is the new unloading and waiting aria.The yellow lines are the paths used to get to the lift.
click on the picture to to see details

This plan would allow the Vally house lift to extend to the base without going over the vh lodge. You would go under the overhang of the mushroom to get to the lift or ski down on the the left side of the Vh lodge. A bit of the mountain ops building would go and the hallway connecting the mushroom to the main part of the building would become a bridge. it would not go all the way to the base but much closer.

ThinkSno
02-15-2011, 12:25 PM
Wouldn't allowing the lift to unload to the left would solve the problem to a degree? I remember unloading left in the past. Don't I, or is my memory fading?

I recall being able to unload to the left from VHD. Exactly when, I can't say, but I do remember it.

Fourwide
02-15-2011, 01:21 PM
I've seen many interesting exit attempts off the top of VH lift by novice/intermediate skiers (Snowball/Racers' Edge best customers). That's a sharp right turn and, depending on snow depth, sometimes requires a bit if a jump off the chair.

ski_resort_observer
02-16-2011, 11:12 AM
I ride the double a lot...my wife is a fan. I agree that the unloading zone at the top is an accident waiting to happen. The patch of ice that forms at the end of the traverse, forcing the lift riders to turn right off the chair, and the generally tight quarters create quite a danger zone. Inexperienced riders of the double get off the chair and just hang around at the intersection of the traverse and the Mall, directly in the path of people zipping down the traverse over that patch of ice.

Wouldn't allowing the lift to unload to the left would solve the problem to a degree? I remember unloading left in the past. Don't I, or is my memory fading?

In my personal opinion exiting to the right off of the VHD is safer than the left since the folks heading to Stein's and Reverse Traverse are much more visible to skiers/riders coming down the traverse vs exiting left and coming out to the traverse from behind the lift and somewhat hidden.

Hawk
02-16-2011, 12:18 PM
Well the beauty of installing a new lift is that you can configure the top and the bottom any way you like. I would imagine that they would config the new top so that you have the option to exitng left or right...... and if they push it up the hill a little further they might even be able to fix the up hill on the Reverse traverse. It's all specualtion but I am sure all this will work itself out and we will be very pleased with the result.

Tin Woodsman
02-16-2011, 07:33 PM
In my personal opinion exiting to the right off of the VHD is safer than the left since the folks heading to Stein's and Reverse Traverse are much more visible to skiers/riders coming down the traverse vs exiting left and coming out to the traverse from behind the lift and somewhat hidden.
As Howie referred to, it's hard to imagine any replacement of the VH that would neglect to fix the summit area. If it's 30 feet further uphill, and there is some smart re-grading, you're going to have a lot fewer issues with visibility of cross-traffic.