PDA

View Full Version : Sugarbush Lift System



BushMogulMaster
12-28-2006, 01:25 PM
I'm curious as to what you all think of the lift system at the Bush. Satisfied or not? Why?

I'll start.

I'm generally satisfied with the Bush's lift system, especially at Mt Ellen. But I do see room for improvement.

Things I like:

-ME lift layout is great for keeping lines down, with all of the mid-to-base and summit-to-mid and top of Northridge-bottom of Northridge options. Rarely more than 5-10 minute lines at any of the main lifts.
-5 detachable quads for speedy travel (but remember, a high speed detachable quad does not put any more people on the mountain than a fixed grip quad. A quad is a quad, and puts 2400 people per hour up the hill no matter whether it's fixed grip or detach. No one seems to understand that. The chair spacing on a detachable chairlift is about twice that of a fixed grip quad, and therefore the uphill capacity is equal.).
-Northridge Express. That is quite possibly the best chairlift in the east. A quick ride with easy access to some of the best terrain at the Bush.
-Relatively wide chair spacing on the Summit quad which helps to keep the crowds down at the unload on the summit.
-Castlerock double, Sunny D, and Valley House double have character and are neat lifts.
-Slidebrook is a unique ride, and the longest chairlift in the world.

Things I don't like:

-LP lift layout is illogical and difficult to get to the summit. No matter how you look at it, you have to ski a trail or two to get to Heaven's Gate. Not a big deal, but it would be nice if it were a little easier.
-No top to bottom lift. C'mon... the liftline is already there (Organgrinder). Even though lines at T2B lifts are usually longer, one T2B option at the Bush would certainly be nice.
-No gondola. If we want to rank among the best, we need a gondola. Even a four person would suffice.
-Slidebrook express can be a very cold and windy ride (on the 1 or 2 days it actually runs :roll: ). Why not alternate every third chair with gondola cabins? The terminals, towers, and sheave trains were originally designed to gondola specs. Just grab a few gondola cabins and you've solved the cold/wind issues. It would be much more comfortable and much safer in the event of a breakdown.
-Lack of real surface lifts. I'm a huge proponent of the old detachable Poma F-12 platters. They would pick you right up off the ground and provide quick access to great terrain. They're cheaper than dirt to buy and install (comparatively speaking) and could open up some great intermediate/expert areas. Also, when installed properly, they are completely unaffected by wind. Say goodbye to windhold and hello to fast access to great terrain.
-Inverness. I hate it. Slow...slow...slow...slow. 'Nuff said. Those fixed grip quads can spin up to 550-600 ft/min. I would guess that chair spins a max of 350-400 ft/min. 10+ minutes to go 1250' vertical. That's pretty rough.
-Summit could spin a bit faster too.

I'm sure I'll think of more later, but that's enough to get started :wink: .

What do you guys think about it?

Tin Woodsman
12-28-2006, 02:47 PM
I'm curious as to what you all think of the lift system at the Bush. Satisfied or not? Why?

-ME lift layout is great for keeping lines down, with all of the mid-to-base and summit-to-mid and top of Northridge-bottom of Northridge options. Rarely more than 5-10 minute lines at any of the main lifts.
-5 detachable quads for speedy travel (but remember, a high speed detachable quad does not put any more people on the mountain than a fixed grip quad. A quad is a quad, and puts 2400 people per hour up the hill no matter whether it's fixed grip or detach. No one seems to understand that. The chair spacing on a detachable chairlift is about twice that of a fixed grip quad, and therefore the uphill capacity is equal.).
-Northridge Express. That is quite possibly the best chairlift in the east. A quick ride with easy access to some of the best terrain at the Bush.
-Relatively wide chair spacing on the Summit quad which helps to keep the crowds down at the unload on the summit.
-Castlerock double, Sunny D, and Valley House double have character and are neat lifts.
-Slidebrook is a unique ride, and the longest chairlift in the world.

Things I don't like:

-LP lift layout is illogical and difficult to get to the summit. No matter how you look at it, you have to ski a trail or two to get to Heaven's Gate. Not a big deal, but it would be nice if it were a little easier.
-No top to bottom lift. C'mon... the liftline is already there (Organgrinder). Even though lines at T2B lifts are usually longer, one T2B option at the Bush would certainly be nice.
-No gondola. If we want to rank among the best, we need a gondola. Even a four person would suffice.
-Slidebrook express can be a very cold and windy ride (on the 1 or 2 days it actually runs :roll: ). Why not alternate every third chair with gondola cabins? The terminals, towers, and sheave trains were originally designed to gondola specs. Just grab a few gondola cabins and you've solved the cold/wind issues. It would be much more comfortable and much safer in the event of a breakdown.
-Lack of real surface lifts. I'm a huge proponent of the old detachable Poma F-12 platters. They would pick you right up off the ground and provide quick access to great terrain. They're cheaper than dirt to buy and install (comparatively speaking) and could open up some great intermediate/expert areas. Also, when installed properly, they are completely unaffected by wind. Say goodbye to windhold and hello to fast access to great terrain.
-Inverness. I hate it. Slow...slow...slow...slow. 'Nuff said. Those fixed grip quads can spin up to 550-600 ft/min. I would guess that chair spins a max of 350-400 ft/min. 10+ minutes to go 1250' vertical. That's pretty rough.
-Summit could spin a bit faster too.

I'm sure I'll think of more later, but that's enough to get started :wink: .

What do you guys think about it?

Interesting thread.

1) I echo your thoughts on the good things about the system. That said, I think you don't give LP nearly enough credit. The system at LP is, IMHO, the most efficient I've seen in New Engladn w/r/t speading crowds out. Even on the busiest of days, you're rarely going to have a >10 minute liftline outside of Castlerock. The topography and lift system really help to spread everyone out.

2) Among the bigger mountains in VT (Stratton, Okemo, Mt. Snow, K-Mart, SB, MRG, Bolton, Stowe, Smuggs, Burke, Jay) only 6/11 have a T2B lift. I don't think it's a necessity if the topography suggests an alternative layout, which is most certainly the case at SB. The more important factor for me is skiable verticle off your core lifts. With Super Bravo, Heaven's Gate, Castlerock, North Ridge, Valley House, and the GMX all providing more than 1300' each, I'm pretty happy with the bang for the buck.

3) The layout at LP is unfortunate not b/c it's confusing to get to the top, but rather b/c the topography and most tourists' lack of routefinding skills and imagination means that Downspout = Deathspout by 10:45 most busy days. IIRC, ASC had a permitted plan to cut an additional run in the current location of Egan's Woods that they never followed through on. While this would have destroyed a nice stash, it would have eased the pressure on Downspout. For some reason, people are too stupid to take Lower OG or Jester to HG Traverse. No sweat off my back. This is an issue that won't quickly go away. Perhaps better signage is part of the solution. Have some sort of sign with an arrow pointing to the "Easiest Way Down to HG" or some such. Might take a lot of gapers off Downspout.

4) The upgrade to VH will help a lot here, IMHO. It's a niche lift right now b/c of the hike to get to it. Tourists no likey. If it's brought down to the base and doesn't have those "scary" erector set towers (which I love), it will draw more people to the VH pod for doing laps, alleviating a bit of the pressure on Downspout.

5) You are dead on with the criticism of the Inverness lift. I'd spend a lot more time over there if that thing wasn't so bloody slow. No reason for it to be this way that I can think of. The quad is anyway overkill for the miniscule crowds that pod gets.

6) I LOVE the suggestion for SBX. Have every third or fourth carrier be a gondola cabin and you solve your problem on cold/windy days, though I suspect it would now cost more to run b/c it takes more people to deal with a gondi than a chair. Like so many things in a business - a trade-off between cost and customer service.

7) As for the poma lifts - where would you suggest they place them? No obvious locations jump out at me that would serve the on-map trails system.

Strat
12-28-2006, 04:23 PM
I agree in so many places... other thoughts...

The Downspout issue is one that is raised again and again, and the problem is that there's no easy solution... I mean watching today I could see that half of the people propelling themselves down the trail (yes, that includes the guy in the baseball cap and jeans carrying his daughter's skis down while she walks... *shudder*...) aren't even planning to go to Heaven's Gate... they stand around the lift line, taking up space before eventually deciding just to head down to the lodge for soda... It seems that people have some preoccupation to head down that big wide trail that they don't have to read a sign to get to... "Hey let's get off the lift, go straight, oh look here we are!" Of course there's also all the traffic funneling off of Upper Organgrinder as well, and it just adds to the chaos. Heaven's Gate Traverse is not a great alternative though... it was getting used heavily from what I saw while taking it today, and frankly any more traffic on that trail would completely overload it, and you'd see accidents/injuries/people falling down the bank on skier's right, and other issues. I think the best solution would be to cut a nice wide trail down directly from the flat at the Super Bravo terminus that would end up at the mid-Organgrinder flat... that would definitely open up that area a bit and provide another direction for people to go instead of pushing them all down towards Downspout... this would probably create some additional traffic concerns in that area, which can also get a bit hectic, but I think providing another route for people to take right off the top would ease the Downspout pressure...

Though it would hurt the woods stash, cutting a trail through Lew's Line would also alleviate a lot of the Downspout congestion... the trail map is deceiving but there's actually a huge swath of terrain in there... if a trail paralleling Downspout was cut through there, also emptying out at the base of Heaven's Gate, traffic would certainly spread out... it wouldn't even have to impact Lew's, if I recall correctly the cleared glade area of Lew's is very close to the entrance to Domino, and the trail I'm proposing would start across Organgrinder from the tiny piece of Lower Jester that parallels Domino Chute through that area... yes, there are some nice glades in this area as well, but I think even the biggest treelovers would appreciate a safer, better-skiing Downspout...

Tin, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying in one regard here though; are you saying there needs to be an alternative for those heading to Heaven's Gate via Downspout, or just that we need more trail work in general to spread people out? Obviously a trail through Egan's Woods (one of which there actually was a while ago, as I'm sure you know) wouldn't help the Heaven's Gate situation at all... did you mean Lew's Line?

BushMogulMaster
12-28-2006, 04:36 PM
Tin:

You make some good points. I didn't want to quote your whole post because it would take up several pages!

To some extent, I agree with your thoughts on the T2B lift, but still think that it would make sense, especially if it was a gondola. What you said about vertical is true. However, a T2B gondola on Organgrinder (where the old one was) would provide quite a few quality vertical feet, and would solve the problem of being the only significant resort in the area without a gondola.

While I agree with your comments about "tourists' lack of routefinding skills and imagination," I'm forced to remind you that those unimaginative tourists are how the ski industry makes money. As much as I hate to admit it, we locals and regulars (pass holders) are not the only revenue-makers for the resort. The tourists have to be catered to enough that they are happy. If I were the only person skiing the mountain I wouldn't worry about the lift layout. However, I try to think of the entire market instead of my own microcosm.

Regarding pomas... one thought would be between Cliffs and Tumbler, terminating near the Glen House. It would provide access to 900-1000 vertical feet of solid expert terrain. Then there would be no need for a) skiing the runout (Straight Shot) to the base of GMX or b) riding Northridge and skiing something up there that you don't want to just to get to the aforementioned terrain. I just might quit riding all of the other lifts. I would be satisfied skiing on Tumbler, Cliffs, Hammerhead, and Encore all day long. I have a few other thoughts as well, and some thoughts of where surface lifts could fit into some simple and quick terrain expansion at Mt. Ellen. But I'll leave it at that for now.

random_ski_guy
12-28-2006, 04:48 PM
Maestro, with this post/poll I see you are clearly more than a musician. Perhaps we add part critic, part rabblerouser too. :)

I have some thoughts on the lift system and downspout to toss about. I just can't do it now. I will start with this, I think the lift system, for the most part, is perfectly fine as it is. Money needs to be spent on increased snowmaking power first, a couple trail adjustments second and then perhaps some lifts.

More to come.

BushMogulMaster
12-28-2006, 04:52 PM
Maestro, with this post/poll I see you are clearly more than a musician. Perhaps we add part critic, part rabblerouser too. :)


I do a little bit of everything :wink:

Tin Woodsman
12-28-2006, 06:05 PM
I agree in so many places... other thoughts...

The Downspout issue is one that is raised again and again, and the problem is that there's no easy solution... I mean watching today I could see that half of the people propelling themselves down the trail (yes, that includes the guy in the baseball cap and jeans carrying his daughter's skis down while she walks... *shudder*...) aren't even planning to go to Heaven's Gate... they stand around the lift line, taking up space before eventually deciding just to head down to the lodge for soda... It seems that people have some preoccupation to head down that big wide trail that they don't have to read a sign to get to... "Hey let's get off the lift, go straight, oh look here we are!" Of course there's also all the traffic funneling off of Upper Organgrinder as well, and it just adds to the chaos. Heaven's Gate Traverse is not a great alternative though... it was getting used heavily from what I saw while taking it today, and frankly any more traffic on that trail would completely overload it, and you'd see accidents/injuries/people falling down the bank on skier's right, and other issues.

Really? I've traveled that run a lot and never thought it was really close to its carrying capacity. Could stand to be re-graded a bit between the big left turn and Domino. I wans't there so I can't attest to what you saw. In my experience, crowding on this trail is a rare phenomenon.



I think the best solution would be to cut a nice wide trail down directly from the flat at the Super Bravo terminus that would end up at the mid-Organgrinder flat... that would definitely open up that area a bit and provide another direction for people to go instead of pushing them all down towards Downspout... this would probably create some additional traffic concerns in that area, which can also get a bit hectic, but I think providing another route for people to take right off the top would ease the Downspout pressure...

IMHO, this trail already exists, and it's called Domino Chute. Between Domino Chute and that small portion fo Lower Jester, there are two opportunities to add increased signage pointing the easiest way towards A) the base or B) Heaven's Gate. Right now, they are afterthoughts that most people ski by on the way to something less interesting - their loss.



Though it would hurt the woods stash, cutting a trail through Lew's Line would also alleviate a lot of the Downspout congestion... the trail map is deceiving but there's actually a huge swath of terrain in there... if a trail paralleling Downspout was cut through there, also emptying out at the base of Heaven's Gate, traffic would certainly spread out... it wouldn't even have to impact Lew's, if I recall correctly the cleared glade area of Lew's is very close to the entrance to Domino, and the trail I'm proposing would start across Organgrinder from the tiny piece of Lower Jester that parallels Domino Chute through that area... yes, there are some nice glades in this area as well, but I think even the biggest treelovers would appreciate a safer, better-skiing Downspout...

There's definitely plenty of room in there, though no matter where you cut, you'll probably be destroying a stash. You're specifically talking about that little basin/streambed/depression just skier's right of Downspout, right?



Tin, I'm not sure exactly what you're saying in one regard here though; are you saying there needs to be an alternative for those heading to Heaven's Gate via Downspout, or just that we need more trail work in general to spread people out? Obviously a trail through Egan's Woods (one of which there actually was a while ago, as I'm sure you know) wouldn't help the Heaven's Gate situation at all... did you mean Lew's Line?

At the end of the day, there are two primary choices. Either cut a run into that area or use a combination of other tactics to achieve the same result. Cutting a run is the most simple solution, but where do you cut it and what stash do you destroy? My preference would be to use better signage (at top of the Bravo, near Allyn's, and at the entrance to Domino chute and Lower Jester), perhaps start grooming Domino again, and wait to see what happens when the new VH chair goes in.

Oh yeah, I butchered the Egan's vs Lew's Line thing. Tough day at work.

Tin Woodsman
12-28-2006, 06:05 PM
I have some thoughts on the lift system and downspout to toss about. I just can't do it now. I will start with this, I think the lift system, for the most part, is perfectly fine as it is. Money needs to be spent on increased snowmaking power first, a couple trail adjustments second and then perhaps some lifts.

More to come.
Agreed 100%

Tin Woodsman
12-28-2006, 06:25 PM
Tin:

To some extent, I agree with your thoughts on the T2B lift, but still think that it would make sense, especially if it was a gondola. What you said about vertical is true. However, a T2B gondola on Organgrinder (where the old one was) would provide quite a few quality vertical feet, and would solve the problem of being the only significant resort in the area without a gondola. [quote]

True, but think about the downside - you would completely overload that trail pod with people coming off HG and the new Gondi. Most busy days, Jester and OG are crowded as it is. Paradise and Spills can't handle much more in the way of crowds b/c they are natural snow and are anyway too tough for most people to handle. Ripcord is one of the last snowmaking trails to get attention and is already an ice sheet most days. Win has consistently stated that he and the Ops team are kenly aware of the balance between uphill and downhill capacity in any single area of the mountain. When you consider that many people taking the gondola would be intermediates, you quickly runout of options for where to put them. Unless they want to cut some nice, winding trails into the Bradley Brook basin, I don't think that's happening any time soon. It's not like the area between Paradise and Castlerock offers much hope for downhill carrying capacity.

Of course you could always just remove the HG triple to "solve" that problem, but that would be folly, IMHO. An upper elevation triple helps keep the skier numbers appropriate via self selection - no pansies need apply for a ride on an exposed upper mountain lift. It also helps for early and late season when conditions aren't great down low. In sum, I just down see the gondi being an option from a plain ops perspective, to say nothing of the $8-10MM it would take to install - that's a lot of coin for a single resort ownership group.

[quote]
While I agree with your comments about "tourists' lack of routefinding skills and imagination," I'm forced to remind you that those unimaginative tourists are how the ski industry makes money. As much as I hate to admit it, we locals and regulars (pass holders) are not the only revenue-makers for the resort. The tourists have to be catered to enough that they are happy. If I were the only person skiing the mountain I wouldn't worry about the lift layout. However, I try to think of the entire market instead of my own microcosm.
Very good point. It's not the locals buying units in Clay Brook. Still, I think better signage could help alleviate this issue. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, the VH lift extension will be a big bonus.



Regarding pomas... one thought would be between Cliffs and Tumbler, terminating near the Glen House. It would provide access to 900-1000 vertical feet of solid expert terrain. Then there would be no need for a) skiing the runout (Straight Shot) to the base of GMX or b) riding Northridge and skiing something up there that you don't want to just to get to the aforementioned terrain. I just might quit riding all of the other lifts. I would be satisfied skiing on Tumbler, Cliffs, Hammerhead, and Encore all day long. I have a few other thoughts as well, and some thoughts of where surface lifts could fit into some simple and quick terrain expansion at Mt. Ellen. But I'll leave it at that for now.

I don't see it for the Cliffs pod. The way I look at it, when your ridge NRX for the Cliffs pod, you get 700 vertical feet of some of the best cruising in VT for free. Heck, they don't always run NRX when the whole mtn could be covered by just Summit and GMX, so how often do you think this poma would be open. OTOH, your more cryptic second comment leads me to an obvious answer - a poma out of Lockwood Brook drainage where Lower FIS flattens out back up to the ridge somewhere between where SBX comes in and the mid-flats. If you could hop back on NRX or go directly to mid-flats (that would be one hell of a poma lift), you could start to do laps into that area in a much more effective way than you can now. Again, it would be logistically difficult - the base and possibly summit of the poma wouldn't new places to create and get to = more $$.

Strat
12-28-2006, 06:26 PM
Not going to quote because it would take up too much space, but I will respond to everything....

Heaven's Gate Traverse is a narrow, flat trail... today it was heavily in use, by skiers and riders of many different abilities... quickly it turned into a traffic jam as a few little skiers on leashes took up the entire trail, while snowboarders with only their front foot strapped in had to deal with the more advanced, faster-traveling people coming up behind them... when the trail's clear it's a good idea to obtain some speed on Organgrinder and shoot in, trying to hold the velocity so you don't have to start propelling yourself manually, but while the trail is clogged it's really rather tough... the first section (before crossing Domino) is the narrower and worse section that I'm really referring to here, the section approaching Heaven's Gate isn't too bad...

I agree that Domino Chute already exists for that purpose, and it's a heavily-used access way towards Lower Jester/Organgrinder, I just think that a chute right off the top of Super Bravo would even further alleviate this traffic...

As for cutting near Lew's Line, I don't think it needs to go in that little depression/ravine thing, I think a bit more up the hill would be better, starting actually farther down Organgrinder... I can't 100% remember how the terrain looks there though...

Yeah I mean really the easiest solution here would be to just make Domino a more accessible trail, and make the alternative way through Heaven's Gate be Domino > Heaven's Gate Traverse... obviously at this point in a season like this that isn't feasible, what with Domino being a natural snow trail, but that would probably be the most practical solution, in addition to increased signage...

I mean I guess the crowds in all of these places won't be so severe when more of the mountain's open, just from what I saw today it feels like sudden action needs to be undertaken...

BushMogulMaster
12-28-2006, 06:38 PM
True, but think about the downside - you would completely overload that trail pod with people coming off HG and the new Gondi. Most busy days, Jester and OG are crowded as it is. Paradise and Spills can't handle much more in the way of crowds b/c they are natural snow and are anyway too tough for most people to handle. Ripcord is one of the last snowmaking trails to get attention and is already an ice sheet most days. Win has consistently stated that he and the Ops team are kenly aware of the balance between uphill and downhill capacity in any single area of the mountain. When you consider that many people taking the gondola would be intermediates, you quickly runout of options for where to put them. Unless they want to cut some nice, winding trails into the Bradley Brook basin, I don't think that's happening any time soon. It's not like the area between Paradise and Castlerock offers much hope for downhill carrying capacity.

Of course you could always just remove the HG triple to "solve" that problem, but that would be folly, IMHO. An upper elevation triple helps keep the skier numbers appropriate via self selection - no pansies need apply for a ride on an exposed upper mountain lift. It also helps for early and late season when conditions aren't great down low. In sum, I just down see the gondi being an option from a plain ops perspective, to say nothing of the $8-10MM it would take to install - that's a lot of coin for a single resort ownership group.


You've almost got me convinced :wink:


I don't see it for the Cliffs pod. The way I look at it, when your ridge NRX for the Cliffs pod, you get 700 vertical feet of some of the best cruising in VT for free. Heck, they don't always run NRX when the whole mtn could be covered by just Summit and GMX, so how often do you think this poma would be open. OTOH, your more cryptic second comment leads me to an obvious answer - a poma out of Lockwood Brook drainage where Lower FIS flattens out back up to the ridge somewhere between where SBX comes in and the mid-flats. If you could hop back on NRX or go directly to mid-flats (that would be one hell of a poma lift), you could start to do laps into that area in a much more effective way than you can now. Again, it would be logistically difficult - the base and possibly summit of the poma wouldn't new places to create and get to = more $$.

The only time NRX doesn't run sometimes is midweek, when no one is around. Even then it's a relatively rare occassion. It takes significantly less man power and money to operate a pomalift than it does a detach quad. I think, conditions permitting, it would run as much if not more than NRX.

As for other thoughts on placement and expansion... someday I'll enlighten you all as to my ideas. This isn't the time yet. I'll remain cryptic and let you keep guessin. :lol:

Tin Woodsman
12-28-2006, 07:20 PM
Strat -

I haven't seen HG traverse that bad, but if it's like you said, then that's obviously not a good thing. Still, that's rare in my experience. That run could probably do with a bit of widening and re-grading between OG and Domino, if only to make that part as wide as the part between Domino and HG.

As for a potential new run, if it's not in that ravine, then it's either in Lew's Line (which is right in the middle of that woods area) or the woods between Lew's Line and Domino. No thanks on either of those two counts.

I never saw Domino Chute as being particularly heavily used. If they slightly widened the skier's right side of the entrance, you'd probably draw more people that way - right now you can zip right by unless you're looking for it.

As for grooming Domino, even when I mentioned it, it was with mixed feelings. They used to do it, and it wasn't as fun. And it's anyway difficult to do being a natural trail that always gets scrapy in spots as it is. Unless you install snowmaking on it, which is never a good solution IMHO, it's carrying capacity is pretty limited.

In short, really no good solutions here.

HowieT2
12-28-2006, 09:23 PM
In terms of lifts I think the replacement of the VH double is the biggest improvement that can be made. The base is poorly located, it's slow and getting off is a nightmare. There is a lot of load to take off of Bravo with a new VH (quad?) that extends to base elevation.

As for the downspout issue: I think the crowding is prominent now because of the dearth of open trails and no woods skiing. When there finally is some snow, it will be fine.

Isn't the next lift expansion "dream" above Inverness?

Mike451
12-29-2006, 03:45 AM
Gondola would be fun, but completly retarded, at LP, besides just what we need at Sugarbush is a chairlift running up every freaking trail. I personaly like taking laps off of HG, provides good vertical, no runout, and alot of trail options. HG is slow, but isn't to bad, A faster lift would be a great thing, how about a custom detachable triple chair.

Deathspout, belive it or not can be a nice trail when things aren't crowded, I think however, the solution is to replace and extend the VH lift, to put more traffic onto Snowball, Spring Fling, and Racers Edge, and with Snowball beeing so danm wide, I think that would work out nicley. But with the current VH lift only beeing run on weekends, and beeing an intimidating lift for intermediate skiers, its route isn't getting as much use as it should.

I think there needs to be a second intermediate trail coming down from LP, I guess through the braddly brook basin. The state of Vermont is already 90% forested so cutting down a few hundred trees won't end the world. A long narrow winding cruiser (heh did somebody say jester?) just wide enogugh for snowmaking would be Ideal. This would also take alot of trafic off of jester, as it would be strait downhill of off HG, and wouldn't require crows footing to get to it. And did, I mention the possible tree skiing this trail could open up 8)

An Intermediate trail connecting Castlerock with North Lynx, might also incourage more upper intermediate, and advanced skiiers to make use of the Castlerock chair, giving them a route to chicken out on if they don't like what they see when they get to the top.

How about having all gondola cars on Slidebrook, then Sugarbush could advertise Slidebrook as beeing a High Speed interconnecting Gondola 8) At least having gondola cars, would make that chair every bit as nice of a ride as the Mad Bus (if only it went by my house 8( ) That Idea could be what would make the Slidebrook Chair sucessfull, and actualy worth the bother.

I see a nice hill comming down off of the Gatehouse area down to the Castlerock Chair with no trails on it other than the castlerock connection. How about at least another gladed crusier like sleeper. I don't know what the pitch is, but possibly even a black, have some expert offerings off of Gatehouse? I am talking about Steep, Narrow, Old School, Just wide enough for a Cat.

Mount Ellen,

The inveness chair is ridiculous, I think they could run it alot faster but they just don't have the balls to do so.

I think M/E would be the place for a T2B gondola if you were to have one at Sugarbush, and a Two Stage Gonola would allow for Downloading. Then you could put the GMX on the Inverness, Use the Invernes to add a lift on the potential Pod Above that are. Although it would just be an f!@$ waste of money.

How about adding Old FIS aka Airliner (the trail between FIS and Rimrun) to the map, and maintaining it. This could be Sugarbush's one triple black?

I think a few surface lifts would be sick, it would also be cool to have something arround the glen house flats, and possibly a carpet (I hear they have 5 in storage at the golf course) that could be set up when they are downloading, to make it a bit easier to get back to the chair. (This could also be used as makeshift begining terrain early on)



Snowmaking.

Sugarbush makes almost enough snow overall, but they just don't have the capicity to open the mountain up. I think their should at least be a system that is capible of opening both mountains top to bottom 2 routes provided a week or so of good temps. That beeing jester and organgrinder t2b, and Rimrun, Elbow, with Cruiser, and The Cliffs, to Strait Shot.

Overall power completly out of the picture, there needs to be much greater pumping capacity, and the two systems need to be interconected. The pumping capicity needs to be raised enough that at least an extra compressor (with hookup for rentals) could be added at Mt Ellen, and that low E guns could be used in the temps were good, and possibly perminantly installed on FIS and Exterminator, as well as extra hyrdands on Rimrun and Elbow, to allow more guns to be run durring a shorter window on those first priority trails.

I know Win has said that they won't buy more Polecats, but how about about a sled mounted poleclat up arround the Glen House, and a sled mounted Viking arround times square as they have such a trow that they can cover those wide open spaces. And as they have their own compressors all they would need is the extra pumping capicity, and that would free up at least 5 or six guns to be used elsewhere.

And agian how abou some Automation, I was talking to a snowmaker at M/E who had said that on the night shift they were short staffed and actaly running below capicity and having to take the guns off at the bottom because they could only manage the ones up top, and at that on less terrain then they could have potentialy covered. Is this possibly why things were T2B so late?

Sugarbush needs more capicity, just look at the fact that we only opened on Rimrun and Elbow, closed the tueday after TG weekend, with horrible cover, and then thawed out completly, having to reopen a week later after 4 days of 24/7 snowmaking, again just on Rimrun and Elbow.

K-Mart, that tuesday from what I hear was open T2B, with multible legitimate trails, nicly groomed. They made it through that week, and only had to close 1 day untill they could resurface. The truth is is that Sugarbush needs yet another major snowmaking expansion, this time not in terms of % of trails covered, but in terms of the ammount of trails that can be covered at any given time. It is time for Sugarbush to compelte their snowmaking system, and that will have to be a halmark of SV'S ownership.

And, well somebody allwayse says, we didn't have all this new fangled snowmaking stuff back in the day, why do we need it now? Quite simpily, people expect it, people demand it, and people go online, go to Alpinezone.com and find out who has the best conditions, best coverege, and most terrain, and go there. Downloading in Mid december, provided a lack of natural snow is a bad thing, and supposedly from what I hear they were short of labor, and couln't run at full capicity durring the evening......

Now to be polliticly incorrect.

As much as Slidebrook is environmentally a sensitive area, I think at some point that bowl needs to be developed for skiing, the ammount of acreage is huge, and there is the potential for some sick sick terrain. If Sugarbush could cut trails in Slidebrook, Sugarbush would be, hands down the largest ski resort in the East, and one of the larger ones in the country. SV'S goal is to make SB VT'S ski destination again? As sensitive as the issue of cutting trails in Slidebrook is, I think the skiing it would offer would far out weigh the enviromental impacts. Afterall the state of Vermont is something like 90% forested, and would be 100% if everybody let their farm ovegrow in about 15 years, so its not like there are a shortage of forested areas. In addition impacts on Global Warming etc...., Its not like your cutting down the trees to make room for more cows and their flatus which the U.N now says is is more responible for Global Warming than Man. And, anyway there is plenty of room for bears on the other side of the mountain.

I know going as far as to even pluck one tree branch from Slidebrook is completly off of the table to some people, but I think it is something that should be carefully looked at, and studied, and I think would have less of an impact on character of the area, than the monstrosity that is Claybrook.

Anyway it is 3:43 or something, I have to crash for the night.......

Strat
12-29-2006, 09:24 AM
I know going as far as to even pluck one tree branch from Slidebrook is completly off of the table to some people, but I think it is something that should be carefully looked at, and studied, and I think would have less of an impact on character of the area, than the monstrosity that is Claybrook.

I don't want to get into this debate, but I do want to mention that it has been carefully looked and and studied... really, if the state and the environmentalists were ever going to let that through, it was during the ASC era, and it didn't happen then... the Slide Brook lift was a compromise...

WWF-VT
12-29-2006, 09:43 AM
Lots of thought and analysis so far! I would only hope for a faster ride at Inverness and waiting for improved Valley House lift.

ski_resort_observer
12-29-2006, 12:40 PM
I think some are forgetting that with the completion of the base area phase of the Lincoln Peak Village no one expected that it would match up pefectly with the lift system. Once the dust settles, this will take some time, then adjusting the lift system would make sense and plans for that are well known and already in place.

Also, don't forget that the Bush had another lift(Spring Fling) but it was removed a few years ago. Not using it except for busy times and finally removing it was one of those damn if you do, damn if you don't situations.

As far as the Inverness lift I for one don't mind a few slow lifts. If I am using Inverness to access just the few trails like Brambles or Semi-tough I like the fact that I know the trails will be uncrowded vs having a faster lift putting alot more people on the few trails there.

Downspout has always been a problem area and IMHO alot of the problem is caused by skiers stopping along that one short section. BTW they are blowing snow on it today so perhaps it won't get as skied out as it might on a busy day.

Tin Woodsman
12-29-2006, 12:52 PM
As far as the Inverness lift I for one don't mind a few slow lifts. If I am using Inverness to access just the few trails like Brambles or Semi-tough I like the fact that I know the trails will be uncrowded vs having a faster lift putting alot more people on the few trails there.

I would agree with you if Inverness consistently had liftlines. But you can almost always ski right onto the chair even on busy weekends. The slow line speed might discourage some people, but it's mostly just frustrating. Inverness could be a valuable tool to spread traffic a bit better away from the core. Walt's is, for my money, the best beginner trail on the mountain. Semi-Tough is, IMHO, the best trail in VT. Inverness and Brambles have perfect pitches for fast cruising (even though the butchery inflicted upon lower Brambles makes the baby Jesus cry). That pod could be much better utilized, though the ultimate answer (way, way, WAY far off into the nebulous future), is to add that terrain pod above it so people have a real T2B choice on two primary aspects.



Downspout has always been a problem area and IMHO alot of the problem is caused by skiers stopping along that one short section. BTW they are blowing snow on it today so perhaps it won't get as skied out as it might on a busy day.

SRO - you really think it's b/c people are stopping in a certain spot? I think it's pretty clear that it's due to too much traffic, plain and simple. Perhaps blowing snow more often to resurface would help, but the ultimate solution is to drive/attract traffic elsewhere.

random_ski_guy
12-29-2006, 02:12 PM
SRO, what do you mean by "well known plans already in place?" What lift upgrade plans are already in place. Aside from bringing the Valley House double down to the base area and possibly upgrading that chair to a triple, I don't think I know.

ski_resort_observer
12-29-2006, 02:52 PM
SRO - you really think it's b/c people are stopping in a certain spot? I think it's pretty clear that it's due to too much traffic, plain and simple. Perhaps blowing snow more often to resurface would help, but the ultimate solution is to drive/attract traffic elsewhere.

I meant to say one of the problems. Everytime I ski it I notice that between that first lefthand curve to where OG comes down there are always alot of people stopped on the upside(leftside) of that section which forces people to ski the lower part which then gets skied off. I assume they do that cause they are unsure where they want to go.

To be honest I have never had much a problem but I realize alot of people do. I have always thought another part of the problem was skiing downhill across the fall line is hard for some and excavating it alittle wider and flatter along that troublespot might help. Just a thought, not sure if that would be possible.

random_ski_guy
12-30-2006, 11:58 AM
Thoughts on the lift system:

For the most part I am satisfied with the lift system. Just imagine where sugarbush would be in Otten had not dumped so much into the mtn back in 1994 (hard to believe it’s been 12 years already).

Gondola: Sure, a gondola somewhere on the mtn would be sweet, but I think the liklehood that it would overwhelm the skier per acre carrying capacity is just too great. With a gondola, the mtn would need more trails and snowmaking in order to disperse all these skiers...unless some lifts are removed at the same time. While its pure fantasy, perhaps you could replace the GMX and Summit chairs at Mt Ellen with a gondola, but I see two significant hurdles, the upper mtn has very limited skier capacity and a relatively small summit area on which to construct a gondola terminal footprint (good luck with that permit). You would also need a mid mtn unload, off loading station so skiers could continue to do laps on the upper mtn or lower mtn. With no real estate to be developed anytime soon at Mt Ellen, I don't see this happening....ever. Real estate development is what pays for gondolas. Lift tickets alone can never do it.

At Lincoln, I see two ways to go about it. First, the obvious, the old gondola line or second, run a gondola up the clay brook valley to a point a little lower than the current HGate chair, then make a left to follow the HGate chair line up the mtn. I would then remove the HGate chair all together. I see a number of benefits in this proposal; i), by removing the HGate chair, you keep the Lincoln Peak skier density at an enjoyable level ii) you would be able to run the upper gondola indepentently for early/late season or slower periods and iii) skiers could do laps at the upper mtn Hgate trail pod like they always have. Your probably going to want to build a facility at the top of lincoln peak too (like k-ton or stowe) to take full advantage of the year round/all weather possibilities that a gondola provides. Good luck getting that special permit though. Other draw backs with a gondola; installation costs and increased operating costs from maintenance, fuel (electric) and personnel. As for leaving HGate in place and using the old gondola line, I would strongly object. I think both lifts together would overwhelm the summit. And while it is fun a couple times a day to ski, nobody really skis the lincoln top to bottom, it skis much better as two lift pods (Super Bravo and HGate) as currently configured. Bottomline, I think a gondola is a big reach for Sugarbush financially. The Mad River Valley will need to permit much more residential development at the Lincoln Peak base before the economics would support the gondola. Just my opinion.

Gadd Peak:
I love the Super Bravo, it's a great ride. Perhaps a parallel trail to the skier's right of Downspout (but the left of Lew's) could be constructed to help alleviate the crowding on Downspout (btw, they should rename Downspout “Confluence” as that is what is really is, the confluence of the upper organgrinder/ upper jester skiers with the super bravo skiers). I think the problem with cutting a trail exactly in the place of Lew's is pitch. I think its a bit too steep to be an intermediate run. I would leave Domino a natural trail, its too cool as it is. Increased signage and some recontouring might help get the intermediate Super Bravo skier to take lower jester and lower organgrinder more often (is lower OG really a diamond? doesn't feel like it to me). Its possible that there is room to cut another chute from the Super Bravo terminus to lower Jester, but I think the pitch might warrant a diamond designation. I also would also want to be cognizant of the wind exposure here. I don't want this new chute funneling wind up into the Super Bravo terminus. The best solution here is more snowmaking. Once you have all the trails open, the traffic problem is generally abated. So I vote for more snowmaking.

VH Chair:
Sometime soon I would move the VH double down to same base as the Super Bravo. I would also reconfigure the summit terminus so skiers could exit left. I am not sure whether it would be worth while to make this a triple chair or leave it as a double. I would probably leave it as is, but look into increasing the rope speed (might be maxed out already, I don't know). If you convert the chair to a triple then you have to replace all the towers ($$), I'm not sure that is really needed. As it is, the VH chair rarely has a line (am I wrong?)

Gatehouse Chair:
I like this chair too. I think there is room to create a nice cruiser, probably a green, to the skier's right of Sleeper. The bottom of the run would have to merge with Sleeper. This would be a nice way to alleviate the overcrowding that can occur on Pushover (ie run-me-over). This trail would have a fair amount of southern exposure at the top, so you might want to look into an automated snow making system on this stretch like they have at Spruce Peak at Stowe (because you might need to redust it every night, even in a good snow year).

Village Double:
Time to replace this with a nice slow triple or quad and perhaps reallign the chair a bit (per the LP village site plan). Make this new lift extra slow. All great destination mtns have great family programs and so engineering a fine beginners area is key to long term success.

North Lynx:
Can I get a HS six pack here? Just kidding. Leave this as is. There is no urgency to change anything for now. I would like to see them blow some snow on Sunrise once in a while, that would be nice. Probably won't happen this year however which makes sense.

Castlerock:
Nothing to change with the lift, its perfect. If there are long lines, thats fine, we'll all just have to wait. I wouldn't mind seeing a couple more trails, but I'll save that for another thread. I would make new snowmaking on Castlerock connection (from end to end) a high priority. Its a shame to have a crown jewel like Castlerock go unskied when the lower mtn has too little snow.

Back to Mt Ellen.
I have no qualms with the current lift system. Sure, Inverness is ridiculously slow (did anyone check the brake, maybe the brake is on :roll: ). But with all the other fish to fry, I wouldn't get to worked up upgrading this lift. Not until VH double is extended, the LP beginner area is upgraded and more snowmaking capacity is added (including to castle rock connection).

Okay, that's enough useless opinion from me. I actually have more thoughts, but I'll save them for another rainy day.

sugarboarder
12-30-2006, 08:40 PM
Wow - do you guys really think about all this that much?? What do you do in your spare time?

random_ski_guy
12-30-2006, 08:44 PM
it's a supremely valid point

spare time...i dunno...this stuff i guess. :roll:

sugarboarder
12-30-2006, 09:35 PM
Don\'t get me wrong - I\'m glad people are thinking about this stuff...and it must say something about MY free time that I am sitiing here reading it, but if I thought that hard about the mountain I\'m riding on I wouldn\'t enjoy the ride as much. I\'m completely a ski area \"consumer\". In fact, it is a source of great joy this year to no longer be working for Sugarbush in ANY capacity and just going there to ride and relax and then leave...no gossip, no complaints, no listing to other people\'s complaints. But still, I\'m glad there are people who are trying to come up with ideas to make the \'bush better - I\'m all for that!

BushMogulMaster
12-30-2006, 11:06 PM
Wow - do you guys really think about all this that much?? What do you do in your spare time?

Don\'t get me wrong - I\'m glad people are thinking about this stuff...and it must say something about MY free time that I am sitiing here reading it, but if I thought that hard about the mountain I\'m riding on I wouldn\'t enjoy the ride as much. I\'m completely a ski area \"consumer\". In fact, it is a source of great joy this year to no longer be working for Sugarbush in ANY capacity and just going there to ride and relax and then leave...no gossip, no complaints, no listing to other people\'s complaints. But still, I\'m glad there are people who are trying to come up with ideas to make the \'bush better - I\'m all for that!


It's simply that I have such a deep fascination for the ski industry, not just the skiing. I love thinking about, discussing, and debating anything related to the industry, be it skiing/riding, lifts, snowmaking, grooming, you name it.

Yeah, I know... I have no life. Oh well! :lol:

Mike451
12-31-2006, 04:49 AM
I think a Gondola is completely out of the picture for at least another decade, and will probably never happen. I like the idea of running it up a route to the left of lower Downspout, and then up the HG route, and it would make lower downspout/jester to coffee run or gondolier accessible to advanced beginners. Another possibility would be to run it down the backside of the mountain, devolop another bowl on that side, and have a second base area, and access. If the permiting for this could even be possible it could be a good Idea, as it would cut the trip from the Midlebury, and Rutland areas by upwards of an hour or more in wintery weather and could atract more buisness from Southern VT, that might ordinarily go to K-Mart, or Okemo or whatever.

Valley house, how about restoring this lift, as Mad River is restoring the single?, adding a carpet lift just upslope of it would make it easy to get to, without extending it back to the base, including a new replica base drive of the original. This could be prety sweet, because of the fact hhis lift has so much character, to bad something like this couldn't have been done with Castlerock, as the footings were shot.

Spring Fling Tripple, heh, dang, this chair only covered about 800 fet of vertical or so, served 2 trails. It would be nice to have something there, to dedicate to race events, possibly for ski school etc... I think otherwise, adding a lift here would just dump to many people up onto these trails, which get a steady stream from Bravo anyway. Replacing VH with a more reliable lift which is cheaper to run and slightly faster, would make up for any capacity lost by removing that lift, and would cover more vert.

I really like the thought of the Gondola Cars on Slidebrook, I think this is about the only way SB will ever have a gondola again.

Inverness, I just don't think they have the balls to run this chair as fast as they could. If the terrain above the Inverness is ever devoloped, possibly the current chair could be moved up to cover that terrain, and a new Detachible Quad with = or less capicity could be added.


I think Sugarbush could really benefit from some Automated Snowmaking, as it would really cut labor costs, and from what I hear they have a hard time even getting enough people to work the graveyard shift anyway.


Anyway if anymore trails are cut, personaly, I would only like to see trails that really fit the charicter of Sugarbush, and that they are narrow, and or gladed, milder slopes have steeps, and tricky spots, and that they be barley wide enough for snowmaking and grooming. Trails like this are what make Sugarbush so great, and elswhere you have some completely charicterless, slope, engineered for ease of grooming, snowmaking, and traffic flow.

kcyanks1
01-01-2007, 11:58 AM
3) The layout at LP is unfortunate not b/c it's confusing to get to the top, but rather b/c the topography and most tourists' lack of routefinding skills and imagination means that Downspout = Deathspout by 10:45 most busy days. IIRC, ASC had a permitted plan to cut an additional run in the current location of Egan's Woods that they never followed through on. While this would have destroyed a nice stash, it would have eased the pressure on Downspout. For some reason, people are too stupid to take Lower OG or Jester to HG Traverse. No sweat off my back. This is an issue that won't quickly go away. Perhaps better signage is part of the solution. Have some sort of sign with an arrow pointing to the "Easiest Way Down to HG" or some such. Might take a lot of gapers off Downspout.

I thought they've had those signs for years?

Lostone
01-01-2007, 12:41 PM
They have. They still do. They point to Lower Jester. :wink:

kcyanks1
01-01-2007, 01:49 PM
They have. They still do. They point to Lower Jester. :wink:

And from Lower Jester to the Heaven's Gate Traverse, right? Or am I remembering things incorrectly? I thought the signs point away from Downspout? When it's open I generally just take Domino to the traverse as I figure most people here too. That's not an option for non-experts though, and it can't withstand much higher traffic as it often seems to be scratched up as is.

ski_resort_observer
01-01-2007, 04:10 PM
This should help. This is what Tin and Lostone are talking about. BTW, I think Tin's sign idea would be great!

http://forums.skimrv.com/albums/album14/heavGate.jpg

Lostone
01-01-2007, 05:06 PM
I would run that loop to the left along Lower Jester, as opposed to going down Lower Organgrinder. To many of us, that is a lame diamond, but I've seen the looks on people, looking down it.

And as stated above, there really are signs that say "Easiest Way To"... As I know the trails real well, I don't look at the signs as often as I should, but I think the to is Heaven's Gate. There are a lot of them around. They are the red signs, which I refer to as informational.

Mike451
01-01-2007, 05:15 PM
Lower OG, isn't much steeper than downspout, although it wants to be skied like a blue, if you do, it will stab you in the back.

ski_resort_observer
01-01-2007, 05:17 PM
I would run that loop to the left along Lower Jester, as opposed to going down Lower Organgrinder. To many of us, that is a lame diamond, but I've seen the looks on people, looking down it.

And as stated above, there really are signs that say "Easiest Way To"... As I know the trails real well, I don't look at the signs as often as I should, but I think the to is Heaven's Gate. There are a lot of them around. They are the red signs, which I refer to as informational.

I have to admit that I too don't really pay attention to the signage either. I am just assuming that if the Tinster says there is no sign than there probably isn't one. So if there is one as Lostone thinks, all I can say is....thanks alot Tin, I listen to you and end up with egg on my face.. :wink: :lol:

Lostone
01-01-2007, 05:23 PM
When you hike up the trails... you get a lot more time to look at the signs. :cry:

:lol:

kcyanks1
01-01-2007, 05:37 PM
I would run that loop to the left along Lower Jester, as opposed to going down Lower Organgrinder. To many of us, that is a lame diamond, but I've seen the looks on people, looking down it.

And as stated above, there really are signs that say "Easiest Way To"... As I know the trails real well, I don't look at the signs as often as I should, but I think the to is Heaven's Gate. There are a lot of them around. They are the red signs, which I refer to as informational.

I have to admit that I too don't really pay attention to the signage either. I am just assuming that if the Tinster says there is no sign than there probably isn't one. So if there is one as Lostone thinks, all I can say is....thanks alot Tin, I listen to you and end up with egg on my face.. :wink: :lol:


I think Tin is generally very accurate with these things too. I just remember there being signs, as Lostone confirms, and I *think* the signs already there point to Lower Jester and then to the Heaven's Gate Traverse, which is what I think Tin is suggesting. Perhaps I am mistaken, as I don't pay much attention to the signs either -- I know I'm getting there by Domino, if open.

random_ski_guy
01-01-2007, 06:56 PM
I thought for sure my Gondola alignment idea would incite some commentary, but aside from Mike451 it’s been mum. Anyone care to critique :? , praise :o or lambaste :evil: the claybrook/heaven's gate gondola?

Lostone
01-01-2007, 07:47 PM
Well, first of all, you'd have a heck of a time getting the station back on the top. They don't like things on the ridgetops.

Second, when Sugarbush had its original gondola, I skied here, but never ran the gondola. It always had a giant line, as will all base lifts.

Third, I really like the pod style of South. Heaven's Gate works well, IMNATHO. 8)

That is why I was the first of the votes to say I like the way the lift system works. :wink:

kcyanks1
01-01-2007, 07:57 PM
What about a surface lift (even a magic carpet) going from the top of Heaven's Gate to Jester? There isn't really too much space on that path, but the walk is annoying, especially as all intermediates are forced to do it because Jester is the only non-expert run from the top.

Lostone
01-01-2007, 08:43 PM
So, you think we have room for a liftline, with return path and then a line for people to get to the lift? :shock:

Sorry... This is where I just have to say... "Give me a break!" :lol:

kcyanks1
01-01-2007, 09:10 PM
So, you think we have room for a liftline, with return path and then a line for people to get to the lift? :shock:

Sorry... This is where I just have to say... "Give me a break!" :lol:

No, I really don't, which is why I said there is not much space. I just was saying it would be nice, as in an idealistic sense.

freeheel_skier
01-01-2007, 09:58 PM
I like the quick up hill climb :? Gives that lift a unique touch of character :D

Tin Woodsman
01-01-2007, 11:38 PM
I would run that loop to the left along Lower Jester, as opposed to going down Lower Organgrinder. To many of us, that is a lame diamond, but I've seen the looks on people, looking down it.

And as stated above, there really are signs that say "Easiest Way To"... As I know the trails real well, I don't look at the signs as often as I should, but I think the to is Heaven's Gate. There are a lot of them around. They are the red signs, which I refer to as informational.

I have to admit that I too don't really pay attention to the signage either. I am just assuming that if the Tinster says there is no sign than there probably isn't one. So if there is one as Lostone thinks, all I can say is....thanks alot Tin, I listen to you and end up with egg on my face.. :wink: :lol:


I think Tin is generally very accurate with these things too. I just remember there being signs, as Lostone confirms, and I *think* the signs already there point to Lower Jester and then to the Heaven's Gate Traverse, which is what I think Tin is suggesting. Perhaps I am mistaken, as I don't pay much attention to the signs either -- I know I'm getting there by Domino, if open.
Definitely an error on my part, which I realized while trying to direct my wife this weekend before I even saw this thread. There are the red signs, though I would suggest they need to be more prominent. Moreover, it might help to have some signage at the top of Super Bravo, perhaps even with a trail map - you don't really ever look at the ones at the base of the lift b/c you're too busy trying to get on as fast as possible.

kcyanks1
01-02-2007, 12:14 AM
I would run that loop to the left along Lower Jester, as opposed to going down Lower Organgrinder. To many of us, that is a lame diamond, but I've seen the looks on people, looking down it.

And as stated above, there really are signs that say "Easiest Way To"... As I know the trails real well, I don't look at the signs as often as I should, but I think the to is Heaven's Gate. There are a lot of them around. They are the red signs, which I refer to as informational.

I have to admit that I too don't really pay attention to the signage either. I am just assuming that if the Tinster says there is no sign than there probably isn't one. So if there is one as Lostone thinks, all I can say is....thanks alot Tin, I listen to you and end up with egg on my face.. :wink: :lol:


I think Tin is generally very accurate with these things too. I just remember there being signs, as Lostone confirms, and I *think* the signs already there point to Lower Jester and then to the Heaven's Gate Traverse, which is what I think Tin is suggesting. Perhaps I am mistaken, as I don't pay much attention to the signs either -- I know I'm getting there by Domino, if open.
Definitely an error on my part, which I realized while trying to direct my wife this weekend before I even saw this thread. There are the red signs, though I would suggest they need to be more prominent. Moreover, it might help to have some signage at the top of Super Bravo, perhaps even with a trail map - you don't really ever look at the ones at the base of the lift b/c you're too busy trying to get on as fast as possible.

Trail maps on the mountain always are helpful. As for the signs, they probably can be more prominent. I would think that people not especially familiar with the mountain would seek out the signs though. The people in this group are a bad sample for determining whether these signs are noticeable enough, because almost all of us know where we are going. However it seems that everyone congregates on Downspout anyways, maybe because it is the most obvious route despite the signs, or people have looked at a map and decided to take it before seeing the signs, or maybe because they tried the signed way and Downspout and decided Downspout was more direct.

ski_resort_observer
01-02-2007, 12:23 AM
I thought for sure my Gondola alignment idea would incite some commentary, but aside from Mike451 it’s been mum. Anyone care to critique :? , praise :o or lambaste :evil: the claybrook/heaven's gate gondola?

OK...since you asked. Personally I would prefer that the Bush would spend a couple of hundred bucks on a couple of more Vermont brewery beer taps at the Castlerock Pub than 6 million on a new gondola lift. I have ridden the original gondola, prefered the cabin with the poka dots, it was an awesome lift.

Since I guess we are playing fantesy ski resort here..... wouldn't a lift system made of Star Trek type transporters be the ultimate. I mean, think about it. Six skiers/riders step on the pad and in 2 seconds you can be transported to pretty much any place on the mountain. Now that would be a lift system! :wink:

Strat
01-02-2007, 07:21 AM
[quote=random_ski_guy]
Since I guess we are playing fantesy ski resort here..... wouldn't a lift system made of Star Trek type transporters be the ultimate. I mean, think about it. Six skiers/riders step on the pad and in 2 seconds you can be transported to pretty much any place on the mountain. Now that would be a lift system! :wink:
Well of course that would completely revolutionize the modern transportation infrastructure and industry...

But it would be totally sweet! (*Making the Vulcan symbol with my hands*)

8)

random_ski_guy
01-02-2007, 08:20 AM
i never liked the idea of star trek transporters, they would overcrowd the slopes.....they also don't exist yet, so i guess i need not worry.

Lostone
01-02-2007, 08:56 AM
Now you've tapped into one of of my all-time plans for the (almost) perfect lift systems. :lol:


You ski to the bottom, thru a gate, and are transported to the top, beginning a run.

On minor flaw is people coming down an Organgrinder run would sometimes find themselves starting a run dow the Welcome Mat, while sometimes people completing a run from Pushover will find themselves on Rumble. :shock:

But hey! There are always little kinks in any plan.

And back to Tin... The trail signs are at the beginning of every trail. The informational are on easier routes. This is to keep people from wandering into places they can't handle.

As to the trail map, next time you get off the Bravo lift... look down at Allyn's Lodge. There is a big trail map. And if you want, you can have a small one for yourself. :wink:

Tin Woodsman
01-02-2007, 09:05 AM
And back to Tin... The trail signs are at the beginning of every trail. The informational are on easier routes. This is to keep people from wandering into places they can't handle.

As to the trail map, next time you get off the Bravo lift... look down at Allyn's Lodge. There is a big trail map. And if you want, you can have a small one for yourself. :wink:

It should go without saying at this point that the helmet I wear has been on my head since grade school.

Oh the humanity...

Before I stick my foot in it anymore, b/c I really don't recall, are there any "easiest way down" signs adjacent to that trail map?

Bubba
01-02-2007, 09:09 AM
In terms of lifts I think the replacement of the VH double is the biggest improvement that can be made. The base is poorly located, it's slow and getting off is a nightmare. There is a lot of load to take off of Bravo with a new VH (quad?) that extends to base elevation.





Something will need to be done about the unloading area. Valley House Traverse at the top of the lift is probably the scariest place on the Mt on a busy day.

Bubba
01-02-2007, 09:13 AM
Gondola would be fun, but completly retarded, at LP, besides just what we need at Sugarbush is a chairlift running up every freaking trail. I personaly like taking laps off of HG, provides good vertical, no runout, and alot of trail options. HG is slow, but isn't to bad, A faster lift would be a great thing, how about a custom detachable triple chair...


...As much as Slidebrook is environmentally a sensitive area, I think at some point that bowl needs to be developed for skiing, the ammount of acreage is huge, and there is the potential for some sick sick terrain. If Sugarbush could cut trails in Slidebrook, Sugarbush would be, hands down the largest ski resort in the East, and one of the larger ones in the country. SV'S goal is to make SB VT'S ski destination again? As sensitive as the issue of cutting trails in Slidebrook is, I think the skiing it would offer would far out weigh the enviromental impacts. Afterall the state of Vermont is something like 90% forested, and would be 100% if everybody let their farm ovegrow in about 15 years, so its not like there are a shortage of forested areas. In addition impacts on Global Warming etc...., Its not like your cutting down the trees to make room for more cows and their flatus which the U.N now says is is more responible for Global Warming than Man. And, anyway there is plenty of room for bears on the other side of the mountain.

I know going as far as to even pluck one tree branch from Slidebrook is completly off of the table to some people, but I think it is something that should be carefully looked at, and studied, and I think would have less of an impact on character of the area, than the monstrosity that is Claybrook.

Anyway it is 3:43 or something, I have to crash for the night.......[/list]

Lostone
01-02-2007, 09:14 AM
No... They're by the trails. There might be a notation on the maps, (I think they have had something like that, on the trail maps, ) in the past, but I'm not certain that was the vintage of the map they used for the big ones.

But maybe ( once we start them up for the year ) your wife should take on of our complimentary Meet The Mountain Tours, or even hook up with one of the Mountain Guides? You'll get to see the mountain and get a little extra info about where to be and when. :wink:

Tin Woodsman
01-02-2007, 09:15 AM
In terms of lifts I think the replacement of the VH double is the biggest improvement that can be made. The base is poorly located, it's slow and getting off is a nightmare. There is a lot of load to take off of Bravo with a new VH (quad?) that extends to base elevation.





Something will need to be done about the unloading area. Valley House Traverse at the top of the lift is probably the scariest place on the Mt on a busy day.

Agreed. My sense is that this something will involve a certain amount of TNT destined for that rock face on skier's right of the portion of VH traverse in question.

freeheel_skier
01-02-2007, 10:49 AM
Now to be polliticly incorrect.

As much as Slidebrook is environmentally a sensitive area, I think at some point that bowl needs to be developed for skiing, the ammount of acreage is huge, and there is the potential for some sick sick terrain. If Sugarbush could cut trails in Slidebrook, Sugarbush would be, hands down the largest ski resort in the East, and one of the larger ones in the country. SV'S goal is to make SB VT'S ski destination again? As sensitive as the issue of cutting trails in Slidebrook is, I think the skiing it would offer would far out weigh the enviromental impacts. Afterall the state of Vermont is something like 90% forested, and would be 100% if everybody let their farm ovegrow in about 15 years, so its not like there are a shortage of forested areas. In addition impacts on Global Warming etc...., Its not like your cutting down the trees to make room for more cows and their flatus which the U.N now says is is more responible for Global Warming than Man. And, anyway there is plenty of room for bears on the other side of the mountain.

I know going as far as to even pluck one tree branch from Slidebrook is completly off of the table to some people, but I think it is something that should be carefully looked at, and studied, and I think would have less of an impact on character of the area, than the monstrosity that is Claybrook.

Anyway it is 3:43 or something, I have to crash for the night.......[/list]

:shock:

WHAA? :? I glad you prefaced it with "to be politically incorrect" :oops:

ski_resort_observer
01-02-2007, 01:53 PM
Now to be polliticly incorrect.

As much as Slidebrook is environmentally a sensitive area, I think at some point that bowl needs to be developed for skiing, the ammount of acreage is huge, and there is the potential for some sick sick terrain. If Sugarbush could cut trails in Slidebrook, Sugarbush would be, hands down the largest ski resort in the East, and one of the larger ones in the country. SV'S goal is to make SB VT'S ski destination again? As sensitive as the issue of cutting trails in Slidebrook is, I think the skiing it would offer would far out weigh the enviromental impacts. Afterall the state of Vermont is something like 90% forested, and would be 100% if everybody let their farm ovegrow in about 15 years, so its not like there are a shortage of forested areas. In addition impacts on Global Warming etc...., Its not like your cutting down the trees to make room for more cows and their flatus which the U.N now says is is more responible for Global Warming than Man. And, anyway there is plenty of room for bears on the other side of the mountain.

I know going as far as to even pluck one tree branch from Slidebrook is completly off of the table to some people, but I think it is something that should be carefully looked at, and studied, and I think would have less of an impact on character of the area, than the monstrosity that is Claybrook.

Anyway it is 3:43 or something, I have to crash for the night.......[/list]

To be honest, the same type of thoughts cross my mind too. For just a moment then reality thankfully sets in. Having a couple of wind turbines on top of Mt Ellen to make the resort self sufficient powerwise is just as crazy as putting trails in Slidebrook. Regarding Slidebrook, I think it's more than just being politically correct. The Bush made a promise to the people of Vermont when the state allowed the lift to be built. A promise is a promise no matter what.

I have always looked at all that terrain between Castlerock and HG and know that if we were like Stratton or the Loaf(just check out their trail maps) we could put in a lift and a bunch of trails there but I guess it's one of the things that make the Bush special and diferent plus I know locals would go on a rampage if any new trail came anywhere near off piste areas like the *h*rc*. Tin, I still remember your battle over at EpicSki about the subject a few years ago.... :wink:

Lastly, for a variety of reasons most people are not willing to stop for even 30 seconds to check out the large trail maps. When I am at a resort I am not familar with I always open up the trail map and check it out while on the lift going up so I know exactly where I need to go. I suspect most do not do that.

It's a constant quandry. Where does the line stop on how much info you offer guests if they are not interested in using it.

Tin Woodsman
01-02-2007, 02:21 PM
I have always looked at all that terrain between Castlerock and HG and know that if we were like Stratton or the Loaf(just check out their trail maps) we could put in a lift and a bunch of trails there but I guess it's one of the things that make the Bush special and diferent plus I know locals would go on a rampage if any new trail came anywhere near off piste areas like the *h*rc*. Tin, I still remember your battle over at EpicSki about the subject a few years ago.... :wink:

Ah the good old days. Thankfully, that jamoke was kicked off every Internet message board he visited. Multiple times.

Also thankfully, we need not worry about a lift going in that area. Not in this State with these owners.

sugarboarder
01-02-2007, 03:43 PM
Now to be polliticly incorrect.

As much as Slidebrook is environmentally a sensitive area, I think at some point that bowl needs to be developed for skiing, the ammount of acreage is huge, and there is the potential for some sick sick terrain. If Sugarbush could cut trails in Slidebrook, Sugarbush would be, hands down the largest ski resort in the East, and one of the larger ones in the country. SV'S goal is to make SB VT'S ski destination again? As sensitive as the issue of cutting trails in Slidebrook is, I think the skiing it would offer would far out weigh the enviromental impacts. Afterall the state of Vermont is something like 90% forested, and would be 100% if everybody let their farm ovegrow in about 15 years, so its not like there are a shortage of forested areas. In addition impacts on Global Warming etc...., Its not like your cutting down the trees to make room for more cows and their flatus which the U.N now says is is more responible for Global Warming than Man. And, anyway there is plenty of room for bears on the other side of the mountain.

I know going as far as to even pluck one tree branch from Slidebrook is completly off of the table to some people, but I think it is something that should be carefully looked at, and studied, and I think would have less of an impact on character of the area, than the monstrosity that is Claybrook.

Anyway it is 3:43 or something, I have to crash for the night.......[/list]

:shock:

WHAA? :? I glad you prefaced it with "to be politically incorrect" :oops:

I'm all for developing PART OF Slide Brook for trail/lift skiing...it would be fantastic. That is, if winter ever decides to return to VT! :D

ski_resort_observer
01-02-2007, 05:36 PM
Now to be polliticly incorrect.

As much as Slidebrook is environmentally a sensitive area, I think at some point that bowl needs to be developed for skiing, the ammount of acreage is huge, and there is the potential for some sick sick terrain. If Sugarbush could cut trails in Slidebrook, Sugarbush would be, hands down the largest ski resort in the East, and one of the larger ones in the country. SV'S goal is to make SB VT'S ski destination again? As sensitive as the issue of cutting trails in Slidebrook is, I think the skiing it would offer would far out weigh the enviromental impacts. Afterall the state of Vermont is something like 90% forested, and would be 100% if everybody let their farm ovegrow in about 15 years, so its not like there are a shortage of forested areas. In addition impacts on Global Warming etc...., Its not like your cutting down the trees to make room for more cows and their flatus which the U.N now says is is more responible for Global Warming than Man. And, anyway there is plenty of room for bears on the other side of the mountain.

I know going as far as to even pluck one tree branch from Slidebrook is completly off of the table to some people, but I think it is something that should be carefully looked at, and studied, and I think would have less of an impact on character of the area, than the monstrosity that is Claybrook.

Anyway it is 3:43 or something, I have to crash for the night.......[/list]

:shock:

WHAA? :? I glad you prefaced it with "to be politically incorrect" :oops:

I'm all for developing PART OF Slide Brook for trail/lift skiing...it would be fantastic. That is, if winter ever decides to return to VT! :D

It's not the trees that is the primary environmental issue in Slidebrook but the ever decreasing Black Bear habitat. That is the primary concernn. In additon, the basin is like a big funnel, you really can't develope one part without disaffecting the whole thing. That's why the lift has to be shut down before the season ends, before they wake up and start foraging.

Mike451
01-03-2007, 12:19 AM
I think as prety much the only realistic option now for Trail Dev at Sugarbush is the pod above the Inverness, and even Win said that this it is supposedly a personnel priority of John Egan to dev this terrain...... So, I guess, if they have even publicly discussed this, it is a definite possibility.

I also think they have some Snowmaking Upgrades in the works, as Win has also mentioned that they are looking into adding a remote water source at Mt Ellen, or connecting the systens via Slidebrook.

The only point of adding additional water at Mt Ellen, would be for more pumping capicity, and I don't think they would go to all this trouble just to run a few Low E guns, so at least one additional compressor sounds like its in the works.

The way this season is going, I hope to seem them working on this over the summer, but this sounds like a post Claybrook expenditure.
:x

Gondola is stupid, will never happen, get over it. While it would be a novelty and fun, I am not sure if I wan't to share my mountain, with a bunch of joeys who only come for the gondola ride. Real Skiers care about the quality of the terrain, and as long as there is a reasonible way to get to it, Who Cares! Honestly, if you wan't to take a tram ride, go to Jay, if you wan't to ski Middle Earth, or Rumble, go to Sugarbush 8)

And I guess I am just the latest forum Newb to bring up the whole Slide Brook Thing :x


As far as trail maps, When I was new to Sugarbush, I would carry one in my back pocket and check it every time I merged Trails, (to make sure I didn't accidentally take a plunge down a double black :oops: ) and would also check it every blind pitch I came up to. (ahh the gaper days
:P ) Now, I get strait off the chair, and take some random, spontanious, unplaned rout down, and by the afternoon, find myself taking laps down some random combination of trails.

How about a headcam video, of the sensible routs down, with audio commentary, (video trail guide?) This would let people see, and visualise the terrain they will be skiing, and also show them landmarks etc... which Lower Jester can get a bit confusing in spots.

:roll:


I think, we need to throw together a more complete site of Sugarbush History, I think alot of people have pictures, old maps, tickets, propaganda, and commentary that could be very interesting. In addition, now in this era, we can do a great deal to doccument, Sugarbush as it is now, and events that are happening, for future generations, (perhaps to let them know there was even skiing in VT) I am intested to see what Strat and BushMogulMaster come up with

Now Why does my post coun't only say 14, I think I have had a few more posts than that..... :roll:

smootharc
01-03-2007, 09:47 AM
I think as prety much the only realistic option now for Trail Dev at Sugarbush is the pod above the Inverness, and even Win said that this it is supposedly a personnel priority of John Egan to dev this terrain...... So, I guess, if they have even publicly discussed this, it is a definite possibility.

Please, pretty please.....probably a good priority #1.



I think, we need to throw together a more complete site of Sugarbush History, I think alot of people have pictures, old maps, tickets, propaganda, and commentary that could be very interesting. In addition, now in this era, we can do a great deal to doccument, Sugarbush as it is now, and events that are happening, for future generations, (perhaps to let them know there was even skiing in VT) I am intested to see what Strat and BushMogulMaster come up with.

I imagine there would be some real interest here....and I'm not sure if any mountain has a full bore "History" site that is like an online museum of the place (not to take away from the existing excellent sites mentioned - true labors of love. I'd be personally real interested to see a combo site for SB and MRG - sort of a yin-yang of the valley skiing. Or separate sites, if that wasn't feasible - practical.

I love old photos, grainy old home movies (especially those ones in color that look almost surreal) and the like.

If the ball does get rolling on a wide, organized project like that, I'd be willing to dig into my pocket and throw something into the pot to help.

Strat
01-03-2007, 05:51 PM
Now Why does my post coun't only say 14, I think I have had a few more posts than that..... :roll:

When you came back after your hiatus it appears you made a new account... you were Mike 451 (with a space) and now you are Mike451 (no space)... hence the post count...

8)

ski_resort_observer
01-03-2007, 06:34 PM
I think as prety much the only realistic option now for Trail Dev at Sugarbush is the pod above the Inverness, and even Win said that this it is supposedly a personnel priority of John Egan to dev this terrain...... So, I guess, if they have even publicly discussed this, it is a definite possibility.

Please, pretty please.....probably a good priority #1.



I think, we need to throw together a more complete site of Sugarbush History, I think alot of people have pictures, old maps, tickets, propaganda, and commentary that could be very interesting. In addition, now in this era, we can do a great deal to doccument, Sugarbush as it is now, and events that are happening, for future generations, (perhaps to let them know there was even skiing in VT) I am intested to see what Strat and BushMogulMaster come up with.

I imagine there would be some real interest here....and I'm not sure if any mountain has a full bore "History" site that is like an online museum of the place (not to take away from the existing excellent sites mentioned - true labors of love. I'd be personally real interested to see a combo site for SB and MRG - sort of a yin-yang of the valley skiing. Or separate sites, if that wasn't feasible - practical.

I love old photos, grainy old home movies (especially those ones in color that look almost surreal) and the like.

If the ball does get rolling on a wide, organized project like that, I'd be willing to dig into my pocket and throw something into the pot to help.

In addition to Strat's most excellent site there is another more broad based Sugarbush history site http://bush.daevious.com/. This was listed in the sticky Back in the Day in this forum, which I assume you have already checked out. Not really a bunch of info there, to be honest. For a general history of Sugarbush ownership there is an excellent page on the Sugarbush website for that.

I think what your proposing is a great idea but I'm not sure your aware of the time committment required to do it right. Rather than do your own website you could do it much more easily here. We already have a thread Sugarbush Pics, for example, it's just buried in the past right now so I will bump it and maybe Lostone or Tin could make it a sticky.

You could start a new sticky like maybe Sugarbush History. I actually asked about that one awhile back and somehow it got listed as Old Trail Names. In the first 6 months of this forum or so threads pertaining to alot of the subjects your talking about exist. Again, totally buried and will bump a few of them but that will work only temporarily.

Another point is I don't think many use the seach function of this forum. It really helps to see what had already transpired, not ragging on anyone.....just saying. Strat, I hope you don't mind me stealing that....:lol:

So, what do you guys think about maybe organizing the sticky's or whatever that covers the subjects your talking about. I think most already know that I would love to see people post pics on a regular basis. Any pics, even pics of yourself! What the heck do most of you guys/gals look like anyway's. That would be a great thread or even sticky right there.

I'm not sure of the details on how it would work, you guys can take that on. It's just an idea, what do you think?

BushMogulMaster
01-03-2007, 07:06 PM
SRO -- we split this out to its own topic. http://forums.skimrv.com/viewtopic.php?t=606.

I'll copy your post into that thread.

random_ski_guy
01-03-2007, 10:58 PM
perhaps this is an over generalization, but it seems like a sizable majority are happy with the lift system (i know i am). is it fair to say that with respect to lifts specifically, most would be satisfied with;

i) making the VH double safer at the top and extending the lift to the new base area
ii) accelerating the inverness quad (not that its too important to the flow of the mtn, its just annoyingly slow)

and thats about it when it comes to lifts. there don't appear to be many other comments (bushmogulmaestro's request for a gondola or "pocket" surface lift notwithstanding).

Tin Woodsman
01-03-2007, 11:03 PM
rsg nails it.

On the current footprint, this is the bare minimum general consensus. Though it would be nice to have some way to avoid that Lower FIS runout.

BushMogulMaster
01-03-2007, 11:04 PM
perhaps this is an over generalization, but it seems like a sizable majority are happy with the lift system (i know i am). is it fair to say that with respect to lifts specifically, most would be satisfied with;

i) making the VH double safer at the top and extending the lift to the new base area
ii) accelerating the inverness quad (not that its too important to the flow of the mtn, its just annoyingly slow)

and thats about it when it comes to lifts. there don't appear to be many other comments (bushmogulmaestro's request for a gondola or "pocket" surface lift notwithstanding).

I hereby rescind my request for a gondola, short of puting gondola cabins on Slidebrook. You've got me convinced it's just not worth it!

However, I retain my surface lift request. I'd like to see several of them, actually. 8)

BushMogulMaster
01-03-2007, 11:04 PM
rsg nails it.

On the current footprint, this is the bare minimum general consensus. Though it would be nice to have some way to avoid that Lower FIS runout.

I have several ideas for that. I'll share them at some point.

Tin Woodsman
01-03-2007, 11:31 PM
perhaps this is an over generalization, but it seems like a sizable majority are happy with the lift system (i know i am). is it fair to say that with respect to lifts specifically, most would be satisfied with;

i) making the VH double safer at the top and extending the lift to the new base area
ii) accelerating the inverness quad (not that its too important to the flow of the mtn, its just annoyingly slow)

and thats about it when it comes to lifts. there don't appear to be many other comments (bushmogulmaestro's request for a gondola or "pocket" surface lift notwithstanding).

I hereby rescind my request for a gondola, short of puting gondola cabins on Slidebrook. You've got me convinced it's just not worth it!

However, I retain my surface lift request. I'd like to see several of them, actually. 8)

Forgot about the SBX gondola cabin suggestion. I think that would be in a second wave of priorities if technically feasible, as indicated here.

Tin Woodsman
01-03-2007, 11:47 PM
rsg nails it.

On the current footprint, this is the bare minimum general consensus. Though it would be nice to have some way to avoid that Lower FIS runout.

I have several ideas for that. I'll share them at some point.

I'd think it would have to begin somewhere in the 1600'-1800' elevation range along Lower FIS. It could terminate in one of three locations, point 2185', the mid-Tumbler flats, or the Glen House flats. All of these terminus choices have positives and negatives.

One thing isn't in dispute, it would open up, in a much more dramatic manner than today, a truly staggering amount of terrain. If you were to draw a triangle bounded by Lower FIS on the south, Lower Rim Run/Tumbler/Crackerjack on the north, and a line between point 2185, and Lower FIS at the 1600' elevation, you'd be talking about a truly staggering amount of terrain as these things go in the East. You would be covering nearly as much acreage (not necessarily skiable acreage) as the entire upper mountain from NRX upwards, spread over about 1500 vertical feet. Aspect would range from due E through to SE - probably not all that dissimilar to the Gate House/North Lynx pods combined.

Is this considered part of Slide Brook, and therefore protected, even though it is in the Lockwood Brook drainage and is already surrounded by cut trails on all sides? As an aside, does anyone know the boundaries of the area defined in SB's agreements with the USFS defined as "Slide Brook"?

random_ski_guy
01-04-2007, 12:25 AM
Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

freeheel_skier
01-04-2007, 07:56 AM
rsg nails it.

On the current footprint, this is the bare minimum general consensus. Though it would be nice to have some way to avoid that Lower FIS runout.


Aw the runout isn't that bad..... :lol:

BushMogulMaster
01-04-2007, 08:00 AM
Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

USFS land doesn't begin until past Lower FIS. As far as what is considered the Slide Brook, I'm 99% sure that that land does not start until past Lockwood Brook to the South, and Below Lower FIS to the East. But perhaps someone knows more about it than I do...

smootharc
01-04-2007, 08:31 AM
- Tinny's Lower FIS Pod at North

- Egan's above Inverness Pod at North

- Bush Mogul Master's Surface lifts - both North and South.


All in favor....say Ayyyy ! All opposed....say nayyyyy - then slink off to some other valley and leave this one to true visionaries, ya cretins ! :wink:

ski_resort_observer
01-04-2007, 11:12 AM
Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

USFS land doesn't begin until past Lower FIS. As far as what is considered the Slide Brook, I'm 99% sure that that land does not start until past Lockwood Brook to the South, and Below Lower FIS to the East. But perhaps someone knows more about it than I do...

It's more complicated than you could possible imagine. There is some interesting history about how the Bush originally got the right to go ahead to develope in circa 1956.

I don't remember the details, hopefully someone can interject here but from what I remember the huge chunk of land from Bread Loaf/Middlebury Gap to the Bush was donated to the USFS by a landowner from Middlebury with the intention of keeping it forever wild. Apparently this was a gentleman's agreement, nothing was put down on paper legalwise.

When the Bush started developing the family of this benefactor felt totally dishonored and sued the USFS and lost. When the Bush proposed putting a lift across the basin, this old can of worms reared up again. Slidebrook is definately off-limits for any future developement. If anyone has more info on this historical info please post.

random_ski_guy
01-04-2007, 11:53 AM
Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

USFS land doesn't begin until past Lower FIS. As far as what is considered the Slide Brook, I'm 99% sure that that land does not start until past Lockwood Brook to the South, and Below Lower FIS to the East. But perhaps someone knows more about it than I do...

It's more complicated than you could possible imagine. There is some interesting history about how the Bush originally got the right to go ahead to develope in circa 1956.

I don't remember the details, hopefully someone can interject here but from what I remember the huge chunk of land from Bread Loaf/Middlebury Gap to the Bush was donated to the USFS by a landowner from Middlebury with the intention of keeping it forever wild. Apparently this was a gentleman's agreement, nothing was put down on paper legalwise.

When the Bush started developing the family of this benefactor felt totally dishonored and sued the USFS and lost. When the Bush proposed putting a lift across the basin, this old can of worms reared up again. Slidebrook is definately off-limits for any future developement. If anyone has more info on this historical info please post.

i'm certainly interested to know more about the land donation. fortunately our little project appears to be outside the USFS oversight. from what I can see on the topo maps, the USFS boundary is to the skiers right of lower FIS, so the Tumbler / Lower FIS land mass is on private land....me thinks :)

and by the way, why do you assume i am underestimating the complications of these projects? what i have said that makes you think that its more complicated than i could ever imagine? these fantasy trail creations & lift pods take years to get approved and i'd be the first to tell you that most would never get approved or the approval costs would far out weigh the economic return (unless your AIG; but thats another thread) so there is no point in trying.

BushMogulMaster
01-04-2007, 12:22 PM
i'm certainly interested to know more about the land donation. fortunately our little project appears to be outside the USFS oversight. from what I can see on the topo maps, the USFS boundary is to the skiers right of lower FIS, so the Tumbler / Lower FIS land mass is on private land....me thinks :)

and by the way, why do you assume i am underestimating the complications of these projects? what i have said that makes you think that its more complicated than i could ever imagine? these fantasy trail creations & lift pods take years to get approved and i'd be the first to tell you that most would never get approved or the approval costs would far out weigh the economic return (unless your AIG; but thats another thread) so there is no point in trying.

Yes.

Actually, regarding permitting, many of these projects, including (I think) some development in that Lower FIS area were already permitted by ASC, and would merely require a few minor edits and a renewal of the permit. Yes... it's very complicated, and time consuming; but what major project isn't? It's worth it, and this particular idea is particularly feasible and intriguing. Have a look at the topo for that area... much of the terrain just below the Glen House is measurably steeper and more intense than FIS, etc. Imagine a lift and a handfull of skinny "characterful" trails through there. Serious skiing with no more runout issue. 8)

As far as costs outweighing economic return, I'm not sure I agree. People, especially skiers, get excited when they see something new, and ESPECIALLY when it's visible on-mountain improvement. A new lift, a few new trails might inspire people who haven't skied here in years, or maybe ever, to come and give it a try. If they like it, they'll be back. That's how you make money off of an expansion. Not to mention that it's more fun for those of us who are already here :wink:

ski_resort_observer
01-04-2007, 12:46 PM
Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

USFS land doesn't begin until past Lower FIS. As far as what is considered the Slide Brook, I'm 99% sure that that land does not start until past Lockwood Brook to the South, and Below Lower FIS to the East. But perhaps someone knows more about it than I do...

It's more complicated than you could possible imagine. There is some interesting history about how the Bush originally got the right to go ahead to develope in circa 1956.

I don't remember the details, hopefully someone can interject here but from what I remember the huge chunk of land from Bread Loaf/Middlebury Gap to the Bush was donated to the USFS by a landowner from Middlebury with the intention of keeping it forever wild. Apparently this was a gentleman's agreement, nothing was put down on paper legalwise.

When the Bush started developing the family of this benefactor felt totally dishonored and sued the USFS and lost. When the Bush proposed putting a lift across the basin, this old can of worms reared up again. Slidebrook is definately off-limits for any future developement. If anyone has more info on this historical info please post.

i'm certainly interested to know more about the land donation. fortunately our little project appears to be outside the USFS oversite. from what I can see on the topo maps, the USFS boundary is to the skiers right of lower FIS, so the Tumbler / Lower FIS land mass is on private land....me thinks :)

I bet that John knows about this and has a much better memory than me so hopefully he will chime in. On the USFS thing you have to realize that the issue is nothing like the property lines between two neighbors(human) when your dealing with wildlife issues. The Black Bears in the habitat they are trying to protect do not know anything about topo maps or boundary lines.

random_ski_guy
01-04-2007, 01:01 PM
Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

USFS land doesn't begin until past Lower FIS. As far as what is considered the Slide Brook, I'm 99% sure that that land does not start until past Lockwood Brook to the South, and Below Lower FIS to the East. But perhaps someone knows more about it than I do...

It's more complicated than you could possible imagine. There is some interesting history about how the Bush originally got the right to go ahead to develope in circa 1956.

I don't remember the details, hopefully someone can interject here but from what I remember the huge chunk of land from Bread Loaf/Middlebury Gap to the Bush was donated to the USFS by a landowner from Middlebury with the intention of keeping it forever wild. Apparently this was a gentleman's agreement, nothing was put down on paper legalwise.

When the Bush started developing the family of this benefactor felt totally dishonored and sued the USFS and lost. When the Bush proposed putting a lift across the basin, this old can of worms reared up again. Slidebrook is definately off-limits for any future developement. If anyone has more info on this historical info please post.

i'm certainly interested to know more about the land donation. fortunately our little project appears to be outside the USFS oversite. from what I can see on the topo maps, the USFS boundary is to the skiers right of lower FIS, so the Tumbler / Lower FIS land mass is on private land....me thinks :)

I bet that John knows about this and has a much better memory than me so hopefully he will chime in. On the USFS thing you have to realize that the issue is nothing like the property lines between two neighbors(human) when your dealing with wildlife issues. The Black Bears in the habitat they are trying to protect do not know anything about topo maps or boundary lines.

Black bears eh? Its funny how exotic black bears where 50 years ago and today, no big deal. Black bears moved into my childhood home in Columbia County NY (NY/Mass line) 10-12 years ago. Now they are spreading down towards my current residence in lower CT. Even Wilton CT has had bear sittings this year. And forget CT, what about NJ where they even have subtantial bear hunts now.

ski_resort_observer
01-04-2007, 01:13 PM
Tin, you beat me to a topic I was going to bring up another time. What is the potential for making better use of that zone between Lower FIS and Tumbler.

And where does Sugarbush's special use permit end and the Slide Brook zone begin? Perhaps Atkinson can answer this. Perhaps Lower FIS is indeed in the Slide Brook Area but by grandfather clause. If not, then we have more to dicuss about developing this pocket (with trails & glades, not houses).

Enough with the hypothetical chainsaw for tonight - Random.

USFS land doesn't begin until past Lower FIS. As far as what is considered the Slide Brook, I'm 99% sure that that land does not start until past Lockwood Brook to the South, and Below Lower FIS to the East. But perhaps someone knows more about it than I do...

It's more complicated than you could possible imagine. There is some interesting history about how the Bush originally got the right to go ahead to develope in circa 1956.

I don't remember the details, hopefully someone can interject here but from what I remember the huge chunk of land from Bread Loaf/Middlebury Gap to the Bush was donated to the USFS by a landowner from Middlebury with the intention of keeping it forever wild. Apparently this was a gentleman's agreement, nothing was put down on paper legalwise.

When the Bush started developing the family of this benefactor felt totally dishonored and sued the USFS and lost. When the Bush proposed putting a lift across the basin, this old can of worms reared up again. Slidebrook is definately off-limits for any future developement. If anyone has more info on this historical info please post.

i'm certainly interested to know more about the land donation. fortunately our little project appears to be outside the USFS oversite. from what I can see on the topo maps, the USFS boundary is to the skiers right of lower FIS, so the Tumbler / Lower FIS land mass is on private land....me thinks :)

I bet that John knows about this and has a much better memory than me so hopefully he will chime in. On the USFS thing you have to realize that the issue is nothing like the property lines between two neighbors(human) when your dealing with wildlife issues. The Black Bears in the habitat they are trying to protect do not know anything about topo maps or boundary lines.

Black bears eh? Its funny how exotic black bears where 50 years ago and today, no big deal. Black bears moved into my childhood home in Columbia County NY (NY/Mass line) 10-12 years ago. Now they are spreading down towards my current residence in lower CT. Even Wilton CT has had bear sittings this year. And forget CT, what about NJ where they even have subtantial bear hunts now.

I think you have answered your own question. If you have too many bears than you have to have a hunt to manage them. If the numbers are decreasing, like in parts of Vermont, than you have to protect them, like in Slide Brook.

random_ski_guy
01-04-2007, 02:30 PM
I don't think I've asked a question. I just made an observation with a rhetorical.

But now I will ask, are you sure bears are in decline in VT? any idea why their numbers are decreasing?

ski_resort_observer
01-04-2007, 03:04 PM
I don't think I've asked a question. I just made an observation with a rhetorical.

But now I will ask, are you sure bears are in decline in VT? any idea why their numbers are decreasing?

lol..I was afraid you were going to ask me that. I don't have the numbers but the general reason for any species decline is generally a decrease of habitat, loss/decrease of food source, that kind of thing. As a newspaper photog out west for many years, including covering the re-introduction of wolves in Yellowstone(now that was a huge controversial issue) and a multitude of other wildlife issues, that's where my knowledge base is from.

The experts look at habitats not an entire state. Even if the numbers are stable for Vermont the Slide Basin habitat is considered critical and that's what we are talking about. When I get some time I will Google the Slide Brook lift but remember it was common knowledge and pointed to often in newspapers, tv news, etc that at the time this was the big concern when it was proposed and built. As I mentioned the Bush has to shut down the lift at a certain time in the spring so as to not disturb the bears as they emerge from hibernation.

freeheel_skier
01-04-2007, 03:15 PM
I did read that the population in 2006 was strong.

Here is the link: http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061224/NEWS/612240339/1024/NEWS04

I am speculating but, maybe there is a decline in the beechtree pop in the slidebrook basin? Can anyone answer this?

ski_resort_observer
01-04-2007, 03:58 PM
Cool link...interesting info. Here is a link mentioning the bear thing...just schroll down to the part about the Bush.
http://www.skivermont.com/central/ethics.php?tid=56

RSG...if your interested in more info I just went to Google, typed in Slide Brook Express bears and came up with a ton of info...took all of 15 seconds. I don't mean to rag on you..okay...maybe alittle...but why can't you do this?.... :D

random_ski_guy
01-04-2007, 04:40 PM
SRO, gee wowie on your link. i've read that site already, a while back. i don't recall it having any specifics about a decline in the bear population as you mentioned.

i think i need to learn to tune your posts out and just sit back and soak up your nice photos. i'm not finding this constructive.

Tin Woodsman
01-04-2007, 04:50 PM
Play nice, boys.

ski_resort_observer
01-04-2007, 04:50 PM
That's okay but the link clearly mentions the critical bear habitat which you were questioning. Not a big deal. Do what works for you. :D

"Sugarbush installed signs around the resort that educate skiers on the fragility of high-altitude areas and the effects of human impacts. Lap-maps on the Slide Brook Express chair lift include information on biodiversity and geology of the Slide Brook area, which was designated as critical bear habitat. Access to this area is limited to small guided tours during the winter, when the bears are hibernating"

Glad you like my photos...positive comments are always appreciated.

random_ski_guy
01-04-2007, 04:58 PM
there you go again, i have never questioned the existence of critical bear habitat in slide brook. where did i ever say that?

*****************

i do enjoy your photos. i'm grateful for your early season photo contributions.

sasquatch
01-04-2007, 07:08 PM
I don't think I've asked a question. I just made an observation with a rhetorical.

But now I will ask, are you sure bears are in decline in VT? any idea why their numbers are decreasing?

It's Wal-Mart. It's putting Momma Bear and Poppa Bear out of business. :cry:

Strat
01-04-2007, 07:32 PM
I don't think I've asked a question. I just made an observation with a rhetorical.

But now I will ask, are you sure bears are in decline in VT? any idea why their numbers are decreasing?

It's Wal-Mart. It's putting Momma Bear and Poppa Bear out of business. :cry:
Wal-Mart = Goldilocks?

Lostone
01-04-2007, 08:42 PM
Black bears eh? Its funny how exotic black bears where 50 years ago and today, no big deal.

I think the point is that, tho it might not be a big deal in Ct or NJ, it is a big deal in Vermont.

As to whether that impacts the place you've decided we need a new trail, is yet to be determined.

I'm reminded by this... tiff of when I was young. My family used to collect various stamps and coupons, which you could turn in for various things. They had catalogs of these things and how many stamps you needed for the various things.

My brothers and I would take the catalogs and pick which things we wanted. The arguments would lead to fights. When our mother would find out what we were fighting about, she would be incredulous. She'd tell us neither was getting what we wanted. She had been planning on something entirely different.

Point is... don't fight over where the trail should be, or what it might impact. You don't get to decide what trails go where. :roll:


If you want to ski between Tumbler and Lower FIS... go ahead. Might be a touch bony at the moment, but it is on the resort, and therefore, you can, if you can. And if you can't, maybe you should get a little better. In other words, what I'm suggesting is rather than adjusting the mountain so you can ski it... why not adjust your abilities?

Join the Bush Pilot program. (next year :wink: ) Take one or two of John Egan's adventure clinics. Just drop down to the ALC and tell them you want to be able to ski between the trails, instead of on them.

You don't have to wreck the mountain to ski it.


Note: The above is my own personal opinion 8)

sugarboarder
01-04-2007, 09:12 PM
I don't think I've asked a question. I just made an observation with a rhetorical.

But now I will ask, are you sure bears are in decline in VT? any idea why their numbers are decreasing?

It's Wal-Mart. It's putting Momma Bear and Poppa Bear out of business. :cry:
Wal-Mart = Goldilocks?

Best kept secret at the big "W"...you didn't hear it from me...Goldilocks is the CEO...shhhh! She told me she wants to develop slide Brook and then make it a "discount" ski area.

ski_resort_observer
01-04-2007, 09:26 PM
Best kept secret at the big "W"...you didn't hear it from me...Goldilocks is the CEO...shhhh! She told me she wants to develop slide Brook and then make it a "discount" ski area.

Yikes.....I wonder what the price of a bowl of porridge will cost and will she give the local bears a cheaper season pass or charge the same as the out of town bears. My sense is that the bears are not allowed to ski but the older ones can work as parking lot greeters. :shock:

Lostone
01-04-2007, 09:37 PM
http://forums.skimrv.com/albums/Assorted_Pix/Jan13_06.jpg

:lol:

HowieT2
01-04-2007, 10:18 PM
Wal-Mart would import snow from China.

freeheel_skier
01-04-2007, 10:35 PM
Wal-Mart would import snow from China.

That is because it is cheaper! :roll: Cheaper+profits=Stratton :lol:

MRV+snow=Awesome 8)

Mike451
01-05-2007, 01:09 AM
Ok, heh, enough of this stewpid thread!