Nice article on this project in Maine Outdoor Journal :

http://maineoutdoorjournal.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=301532&a...

Opinions on whether this is going to happen seem split right down the middle...folks either think it's a slam dunk and others think it'll never happen. All I know is that if they do it, this baby better run in very high winds.

Views: 116

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thats an understatement

jerryg said:
I am one who hopes the gondola happens and think the mountain needs it. SL hasn't been the same without the Gondi, IMHO, but I grew up with it.
The projected cost likely takes into account a couple things; Doppelmayr's US installs are WAY down and I've heard that the SL price is a discount. Given the price of the much shorter and perhaps easier to install, chondola, it would have to be a discount. The second reason for the cheaper price and also one of the reasons for the low skiers per hour has to do with the projected spacing of gondola cars.
As for lift speed, I've heard the proposed lift would run at 1100 feet per minute in optimal conditions. The chondola runs at 1000 ...sometimes.
The issue I have isnt with the the gondi going in per say but the ski traffic increase it would have on the mountain. I rode sugarloaf heavily when I was up at school due to the travel time and what I found was the area surrounding the current lift (spillway east and west) was skiied off by about 10am, that is weekend traffic mind you at about 1200 people per hour. Now the say at least a quad goes in, you are talking about doubling that traffic which means it gets skiied off that much faster..

a little out of place but still something to consider I feel....
Disclaimer: By no means am I an expert when it comes to aerial tramways.

I don't know how Sugarloaf could get a lift like this installed for $8M USD. We're talking about an installation with over 8,000 linear feet that can withstand 60+mph winds. Immediately, I assume that it will be a two-stage lift with a midstation so you can run the lower portion independently during periods of "inclement" weather. Also you might as well make the assumption that you're going to need off-line cabin storage at the base and midstation. Has anyone ever been to Mammoth? Think a lift install along those lines (without the gigantic span towards the top) for Sugarloaf.

I'm not sure if CWA Omega IV's are the best bet for cabins. They are rather universal when you're talking about short-medium length gondolas. As far as the uphill capacity, that can be adjusted in realtime by bringing additional chairs/cabins online.

I'd love to see Sugarloaf get a base-summit gondola. I just don't know if it is an economically viable project for a mountain of their size, and by size I mean their annual skier visits. The other argument is that they could remove the Boardwalk and Spillway chairs.

Discuss.
From the reports/rumors I have heard, the gondola would not have a midstation. Each cabin would weigh about 3200 pounds. The loading area would move a degree or two (left or right, I can't remember), so it doesn't end up in the stream again. Quoted cost is down because demand for lift installations are down (oh boy, lowest bidder! eek). I keep hearing the town has $10M in reserves, but maybe that is false from the town report posted, I have no idea. The gondola would run occasionally in the Summer/Fall.

Do I think it is a good idea? Sure. Spending other people's money is always fun. haha. Would it rejuvenate the mountain? Obviously. Will the financials work out in the end for both the town and Boyne/CNL? Ummm, the jury is still out. I don't like the idea of having to pay extra just to ride it, instead spread it across all revenue sources. As mentioned, people have many different views of the proposed gondi and once Seth has some time after going for gold, maybe he can put his full attention back onto it.

I'd rather have a new gondi go up Burnt, thus crushing two birds with one stone, that is, new glade mountain and a new gondi......but that's not going to happen. Yet, just imagine the Spring days of full vert at SL and just one lift to get there (yes, I realize someone will post about the SL runout being boring, but I happen to like it).
"I'd rather have a new gondi go up Burnt, thus crushing two birds with one stone, that is, new glade mountain and a new gondi......but that's not going to happen. Yet, just imagine the Spring days of full vert at SL and just one lift to get there (yes, I realize someone will post about the SL runout being boring, but I happen to like it)."

I'd also love to see Burnt get developed for glade skiing, but my preference for lift configuration would be the bottom to top gondola plus access to Burnt via a t-bar. That would make a pretty compelling argument about where the best ski terrain in the East is.
That would be a sweet set up too.

Ripsaw said:
"I'd rather have a new gondi go up Burnt, thus crushing two birds with one stone, that is, new glade mountain and a new gondi......but that's not going to happen. Yet, just imagine the Spring days of full vert at SL and just one lift to get there (yes, I realize someone will post about the SL runout being boring, but I happen to like it)."

I'd also love to see Burnt get developed for glade skiing, but my preference for lift configuration would be the bottom to top gondola plus access to Burnt via a t-bar. That would make a pretty compelling argument about where the best ski terrain in the East is.
There is definitely some fear thatthey might try to do this project on the cheap and wind up with a lift that won't run in high winds. IMO, that would be a disaster, both from a functional and PR perspective. People won't be too excited to drive 4 hours to find the new signature lift on windhold 65% of the time.

OZSkier (Dave Amirault) said:
Disclaimer: By no means am I an expert when it comes to aerial tramways.

I don't know how Sugarloaf could get a lift like this installed for $8M USD. We're talking about an installation with over 8,000 linear feet that can withstand 60+mph winds. Immediately, I assume that it will be a two-stage lift with a midstation so you can run the lower portion independently during periods of "inclement" weather. Also you might as well make the assumption that you're going to need off-line cabin storage at the base and midstation. Has anyone ever been to Mammoth? Think a lift install along those lines (without the gigantic span towards the top) for Sugarloaf.

I'm not sure if CWA Omega IV's are the best bet for cabins. They are rather universal when you're talking about short-medium length gondolas. As far as the uphill capacity, that can be adjusted in realtime by bringing additional chairs/cabins online.

I'd love to see Sugarloaf get a base-summit gondola. I just don't know if it is an economically viable project for a mountain of their size, and by size I mean their annual skier visits. The other argument is that they could remove the Boardwalk and Spillway chairs.

Discuss.
Someone's dreaming if they think an Omega IV cabin is gonna run in 60 mph winds. It would have to be custom weighted and that isn't in line with their price point. CWA Conus cabins are the best for wind, but again, not in line with the price point.
If they design the lift to have much less download capacity than the chondola, the lift would cost less, pressumably.
In terms of the project going to the lowest bidder, this isn't really a concern as the lift would only be built by either Doppelmayr or Poma. The concern is in line with what Ripsaw mentioned and that would be that they install a bare bones lift that can rarely run due to wind. With no mid-station and the price range being talked about, this is highly likely.

Ripsaw said:
There is definitely some fear thatthey might try to do this project on the cheap and wind up with a lift that won't run in high winds. IMO, that would be a disaster, both from a functional and PR perspective. People won't be too excited to drive 4 hours to find the new signature lift on windhold 65% of the time. OZSkier (Dave Amirault) said:
Disclaimer: By no means am I an expert when it comes to aerial tramways.

I don't know how Sugarloaf could get a lift like this installed for $8M USD. We're talking about an installation with over 8,000 linear feet that can withstand 60+mph winds. Immediately, I assume that it will be a two-stage lift with a midstation so you can run the lower portion independently during periods of "inclement" weather. Also you might as well make the assumption that you're going to need off-line cabin storage at the base and midstation. Has anyone ever been to Mammoth? Think a lift install along those lines (without the gigantic span towards the top) for Sugarloaf.

I'm not sure if CWA Omega IV's are the best bet for cabins. They are rather universal when you're talking about short-medium length gondolas. As far as the uphill capacity, that can be adjusted in realtime by bringing additional chairs/cabins online.

I'd love to see Sugarloaf get a base-summit gondola. I just don't know if it is an economically viable project for a mountain of their size, and by size I mean their annual skier visits. The other argument is that they could remove the Boardwalk and Spillway chairs.

Discuss.
All good points
they are selling it as a four season attraction
with out significant down load what good is it in summer?

The budget does not fit the program.
Rushing in (aka: cheaping out) could have severe consequences

How much to do it right with a funitel?

jerryg said:
Someone's dreaming if they think an Omega IV cabin is gonna run in 60 mph winds. It would have to be custom weighted and that isn't in line with their price point. CWA Conus cabins are the best for wind, but again, not in line with the price point.
If they design the lift to have much less download capacity than the chondola, the lift would cost less, pressumably.
In terms of the project going to the lowest bidder, this isn't really a concern as the lift would only be built by either Doppelmayr or Poma. The concern is in line with what Ripsaw mentioned and that would be that they install a bare bones lift that can rarely run due to wind. With no mid-station and the price range being talked about, this is highly likely.

Ripsaw said:
There is definitely some fear thatthey might try to do this project on the cheap and wind up with a lift that won't run in high winds. IMO, that would be a disaster, both from a functional and PR perspective. People won't be too excited to drive 4 hours to find the new signature lift on windhold 65% of the time. OZSkier (Dave Amirault) said:
Disclaimer: By no means am I an expert when it comes to aerial tramways.

I don't know how Sugarloaf could get a lift like this installed for $8M USD. We're talking about an installation with over 8,000 linear feet that can withstand 60+mph winds. Immediately, I assume that it will be a two-stage lift with a midstation so you can run the lower portion independently during periods of "inclement" weather. Also you might as well make the assumption that you're going to need off-line cabin storage at the base and midstation. Has anyone ever been to Mammoth? Think a lift install along those lines (without the gigantic span towards the top) for Sugarloaf.

I'm not sure if CWA Omega IV's are the best bet for cabins. They are rather universal when you're talking about short-medium length gondolas. As far as the uphill capacity, that can be adjusted in realtime by bringing additional chairs/cabins online.

I'd love to see Sugarloaf get a base-summit gondola. I just don't know if it is an economically viable project for a mountain of their size, and by size I mean their annual skier visits. The other argument is that they could remove the Boardwalk and Spillway chairs.

Discuss.
Funitel would likely cost in the neighborhood of 20 million. The cabins and grips would be super-expensive and the lift design itself is sooo different from a gondola. Just looking at the machinery in the terminals at Squaw was downright confusing. Not to mention the fact that you have two haul ropes that require some pretty nifty tower heads and double the amount of sheaves. They'd be better off building a small tram like Jay's.

GO BU said:
All good points they are selling it as a four season attraction with out significant down load what good is it in summer?

The budget does not fit the program.
Rushing in (aka: cheaping out) could have severe consequences

How much to do it right with a funitel?

jerryg said:
Someone's dreaming if they think an Omega IV cabin is gonna run in 60 mph winds. It would have to be custom weighted and that isn't in line with their price point. CWA Conus cabins are the best for wind, but again, not in line with the price point.
If they design the lift to have much less download capacity than the chondola, the lift would cost less, pressumably.
In terms of the project going to the lowest bidder, this isn't really a concern as the lift would only be built by either Doppelmayr or Poma. The concern is in line with what Ripsaw mentioned and that would be that they install a bare bones lift that can rarely run due to wind. With no mid-station and the price range being talked about, this is highly likely.

Ripsaw said:
There is definitely some fear thatthey might try to do this project on the cheap and wind up with a lift that won't run in high winds. IMO, that would be a disaster, both from a functional and PR perspective. People won't be too excited to drive 4 hours to find the new signature lift on windhold 65% of the time. OZSkier (Dave Amirault) said:
Disclaimer: By no means am I an expert when it comes to aerial tramways.

I don't know how Sugarloaf could get a lift like this installed for $8M USD. We're talking about an installation with over 8,000 linear feet that can withstand 60+mph winds. Immediately, I assume that it will be a two-stage lift with a midstation so you can run the lower portion independently during periods of "inclement" weather. Also you might as well make the assumption that you're going to need off-line cabin storage at the base and midstation. Has anyone ever been to Mammoth? Think a lift install along those lines (without the gigantic span towards the top) for Sugarloaf.

I'm not sure if CWA Omega IV's are the best bet for cabins. They are rather universal when you're talking about short-medium length gondolas. As far as the uphill capacity, that can be adjusted in realtime by bringing additional chairs/cabins online.

I'd love to see Sugarloaf get a base-summit gondola. I just don't know if it is an economically viable project for a mountain of their size, and by size I mean their annual skier visits. The other argument is that they could remove the Boardwalk and Spillway chairs.

Discuss.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

© 2014   Created by Sunday River.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service