105 replies to this topic

[snoloco]

What lifts does everyone think are not in the place they should be, or are not the type of lift suited to their location. Here are my examples.

Although I have never skied Keystone, it seems odd that the Ruby Express, which serves only three runs, 2 of which are black diamonds is a 6-pack. It seems hard to justify a 6-pack there based on the map, but maybe crowds during the afternoon when everyone is coming from the North Peak and Outback back to the main mountain justifies it.

The Shooting Star Express at Stratton is definitely underutilized, but I think that they wanted a 6-pack because it would equal the capacity of the Sunrise Express which ends where it begins.

The Zephyr Express at Hunter is located on an inconvenient line where you need to skate to in at the bottom and from it at the top. It replaced 2 double chairs. I wonder why they didn't put it on the line that was more convenient for skiers.

[SkiDaBird]

The obvious one is McConkey's at PCMR, but they use it for spare parts for the other 6 packs, so it makes a little sense.

[skier2]

SkiDaBird, on 15 May 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

The obvious one is McConkey's at PCMR, but they use it for spare parts for the other 6 packs, so it makes a little sense.

That was pre-Olympics overzealousness. Great lift, though!

I'd add:

(1) Super Bee at Copper could probably have been a HSQ, though I'm sure the added weight of 6-pack chairs is helpful on windy days;
(2) I really don't like the configuration of Christie Express at Steamboat. I think a HSQ running up the original Christie II lifeline and a separate beginner HSQ would have better served the area;
(3) The majority of the lifts near the Park City terrain at Canyons as configured under ASC.

Re: Ruby Express, it serves as a "wayback" lift (not to be confused with the actual Wayback Lift) for anyone skiing the backside of Keystone so that one definitely makes sense.

[Peter]

I'll nominate the six pack at Ragged Mountain, NH. The area averages only 80,000 skier visits per year and they have 3 other lifts.

[SkiDaBird]

skier2, on 15 May 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

That was pre-Olympics overzealousness. Great lift, though!

I'd add:

(1) Super Bee at Copper could probably have been a HSQ, though I'm sure the added weight of 6-pack chairs is helpful on windy days;
(2) I really don't like the configuration of Christie Express at Steamboat. I think a HSQ running up the original Christie II lifeline and a separate beginner HSQ would have better served the area;
(3) The majority of the lifts near the Park City terrain at Canyons as configured under ASC.

Re: Ruby Express, it serves as a "wayback" lift (not to be confused with the actual Wayback Lift) for anyone skiing the backside of Keystone so that one definitely makes sense.

It's a great lift to ski off of, I'm just saying a HSQ would have worked fine. Definitely agree with the Canyons lifts though. Might be able to add Honeycomb at Solitude to the list seeing as in years of skiing there, I have never seen a line and it's a quad. Although 4 minutes isn't enough for your legs after a good run back there so a faster double wouldn't be any fun...

[DonaldMReif]

skier2, on 15 May 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

That was pre-Olympics overzealousness. Great lift, though!

I'd add:

(1) Super Bee at Copper could probably have been a HSQ, though I'm sure the added weight of 6-pack chairs is helpful on windy days;
(2) I really don't like the configuration of Christie Express at Steamboat. I think a HSQ running up the original Christie II lifeline and a separate beginner HSQ would have better served the area;
(3) The majority of the lifts near the Park City terrain at Canyons as configured under ASC.

Re: Ruby Express, it serves as a "wayback" lift (not to be confused with the actual Wayback Lift) for anyone skiing the backside of Keystone so that one definitely makes sense.

The Wayback lift does the same thing the Ruby Express lift does. It moves people from the Outback back to North Peak. Arguably it should be a high speed quad instead of a fixed grip quad since the only other two lifts in this area are the Santiago Express and Outback Express lifts, which are high speed quads. That's actually in Keystone's master plan.

I always considered the old Colorado SuperChair at Peak 8, itself a high speed quad, as sometimes inadequate for Breckenridge's crowds, especially after the resort transferred the official center of mountain activity over to Peak 8 from Peak 9. Hopefully the high speed six pack that it is going to be replaced with next ski season will relieve some of those crowds.

The Kensho SuperChair on Peak 6 probably could've been a high speed quad, but I think that, just like the reasons that snoloco states may have been what led Copper Mountain to build the Super Bee lift as a six pack, they went with a high speed six pack because they wanted heavier chairs for windy days. The lines for the most part tend to be somewhat short and never burst out of the queue ropes on the times I went up Peak 6 this season. Since I often went to Peak 6 first thing in the morning when staying at Grand Lodge on Peak 7 (given convenient access to the Independence SuperChair), lines tend to be very short at Peak 6 at 8:50 AM.

Zendo's okay for its location. The only thing I sometimes wish had been done for it on the master plan would have been for it to be a high speed quad, starting at the bottom of the Independence SuperChair, have a turn and midway station where the real fixed grip quad begins, then have a final leg to the actual unload area. This would have allowed for direct access from Peak 7 base to the Kensho SuperChair in a single lift ride without needing to use the Independence SuperChair, while allowing people to travel from the Rocky Mountain SuperChair directly to Peak 6 without having to go to Peak 7 base. At the very least, Breckenridge should have had another lift that ran from the bottom of Wirepatch to about the junction of Wirepatch and Peak 6 Parkway to provide access to the Peak 7 Road, an alternate cutoff to get to Claimjumper and Peak 8 base, and relieve traffic on that icy last hill.

[machskier]

True but I think it was put in to attract attention as it remains NH's only 6 pack. I recall when it was originally installed, they only bought half the normal compliment of chairs to save $$ and because of the low numbers. Though the new owners added chairs as it could actually get crowded on busy days with the super low chair count.

Peter, on 15 May 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

I'll nominate the six pack at Ragged Mountain, NH. The area averages only 80,000 skier visits per year and they have 3 other lifts.

[snoloco]

The Needle's Eye Express at Killington was one of the first lifts that ASC built. They made a really weird decision as to where to place it. They made it shorter than the double that it replaced and it cut off access to some of the best terrain on the mountain. Now you need to take your skis off to ride the Skyeship Gondola Stage 2 to access that terrain, never mind the fact that it has horrible capacity because they have filled up most of the cabins at Skyeship Base. They could have really cut down on lines at Skyeship if they built that thing on the double's original line. I would never ride Skyeship to that terrain if the quad was better placed except if I was coming out of Skyeship Base. That would also reduce lines at Skyeship Base because they could fill up the cabins more down there as less people would get on at midstation.

You can tell that the Needle's Eye lift was built as cheaply as possible. They shortened the route, used compact Challenger terminals instead of full length ones which results in 900 fpm vs. 1,100 fpm, and it is a bottom drive while the lift it replaced was a top drive (although that doesn't affect the lift ride itself).

The Ramshead Express installed the same year is also a bottom drive although the lift it replaced was too. It was also shorter than the double which abandoned a bunch of terrain at the top of the mountain. It has full length terminals (unlike Needle's Eye) and is rated for 1,100 fpm although they only run it at 800 fpm due to high volumes of beginners.

This post has been edited by snoloco: 16 May 2014 - 05:57 AM

[Backbowlsbilly]

I think Breck made the right choice with Zendo, especially given that a high speed quad from the base of Peak 7 all the way up to Peak 6 would have been long and kind of unnecessary, you can also get to Peak 6 directly from the top of Independence via Wanderlust and from Peak 7 Bowl using The Dunes. It's only use is as a transfer lift so a fixed quad does the job just fine. The Purgatory Village Express at Durango probably didn't need to be a six pack, I have never waited in a line ever on that lift and if lines did get long on the lift if it was a high speed quad, then they could just use the Needles Lift which runs parallel to it. New lifts on the Mary Jane side at Winter Park have made the High Lonesome Express quite irrelevant and uncrowded but I guess it serves some good beginner runs so it's ok. (Tip: If Super Gauge is crowded, use the High Lonesome Express to get over to Mary Jane/Panoramic instead of Outhouse, it's a good way to beat the crowds) Last would be Village Express and Promised Land Express at Northstar, I have no idea why either of these were built. Promised Land only runs on weekends and Village Express seems to only run on really busy days so it seems like just replacing the Backside Express with a new six pack would have been just fine.

[DonaldMReif]

Outhouse is also moguls, and the High Lonesome Express therefore makes it possible to avoid going to Mary Jane base (since the only alternate to Outhouse other than the High Lonesome Express is to go down March Hare or White Rabbit, ride the Olympia Express lift, and catch the Mary Jane trail there).

I guess Zendo is very practical for its location because its uphill capacity is lower than that of the Independence SuperChair and the Kensho SuperChair (Zendo is 1,800 pph, and the Kensho SuperChair has a 3,000 pph capacity), meaning Zendo controls the rate at which newcomers are fed into the Kensho SuperChair.

I think the Purgatory Village Express was really just built as a six pack for show purposes.

[teachme]

OK, I will probably generate lots of flack, but sorry, Peak to Peak at Whistler has got to be the most useless lift from any ski perspective. It is great as a signature project for the resort and gives beautiful views, but really was a total waste of money and effort from a ski perspective. Basically, why would anyone use it? The only reasonable possibility is someone in Creekside or driving up from Vancouver who wants to ski Blackcomb. Sure that happens, but not much, and the Creekside person could just as easily have stayed in the main village or taken the Creekside gondola up and then come down to Whistler village and go up Blackcomb from there. That would take maybe 30 minutes extra to get to the top of Blackcomb and gotten a run in also.

Also, spending so much on it seems to have taken money away from other lifts that could have added significant terrain. It would be a much better mountain now if the money had been spent developing the new base near Function Junction (dealing better with Vancouver traffic) or putting lifts from Creekside up to West Bowl. Even putting a three stage chair down, across and up the same route as the P2P would have cost much less, opened terrain and added lift capacity.

Basically it is pretty, but pretty useless also.

TME

This post has been edited by teachme: 23 May 2014 - 10:23 AM

[Backbowlsbilly]

Has the Peak 2 Peak significantly lowered lines at any of the lifts on the mountain, like the Excalibur or Whistler Village Gondolas? Also, how bad are the lines on the Peak 2 Peak itself? I've never skied Whistler (but I have always wanted to) but it seems like that even a lift like the Peak 2 Peak with a huge capacity would get big crowds as well, especially at a ski resort as large and with as many skiers as Whistler. A three stage chairlift instead would have been one really long lift all the way across.

[DonaldMReif]

It would actually take two high speed quads to do the distance of the Peak to Peak Gondola, one on the Whistler side of Fitzsimmons Creek, and one on the Blackcomb side.

[missouriskier]

teachme, on 23 May 2014 - 10:22 AM, said:

OK, I will probably generate lots of flack, but sorry, Peak to Peak at Whistler has got to be the most useless lift from any ski perspective. It is great as a signature project for the resort and gives beautiful views, but really was a total waste of money and effort from a ski perspective. Basically, why would anyone use it? The only reasonable possibility is someone in Creekside or driving up from Vancouver who wants to ski Blackcomb. Sure that happens, but not much, and the Creekside person could just as easily have stayed in the main village or taken the Creekside gondola up and then come down to Whistler village and go up Blackcomb from there. That would take maybe 30 minutes extra to get to the top of Blackcomb and gotten a run in also.

Also, spending so much on it seems to have taken money away from other lifts that could have added significant terrain. It would be a much better mountain now if the money had been spent developing the new base near Function Junction (dealing better with Vancouver traffic) or putting lifts from Creekside up to West Bowl. Even putting a three stage chair down, across and up the same route as the P2P would have cost much less, opened terrain and added lift capacity.

Basically it is pretty, but pretty useless also.

TME

Personally, I found Peak 2 Peak to be a really useful lift when I skied W-B in 2009. I was staying in a hotel just above the bottom of Wizard Express, and so usually I would ride up on Blackcomb and then transfer to Whistler Mountain on Peak 2 Peak. Also, at the end of the day, I would ride it back to Blackcomb and just ski right down to the hotel. I do remember thinking how much harder transferring between the mountains would have been had it not been built. The other thing to keep in mind is that the weather and snow is not always great on the lower 1,500 feet, so by staying up higher the skiers can avoid the sometimes poor snow at the bottom.

[SkiDaBird]

I went to Whistler when I was 4 so I'm no expert, but I remember large lines on Wiz and the Village Gondola and I expect Fitzsimmons to Garbanzo wouldn't be short either. P2P in theory helps alleviate some of that. Plus it's marketing having one of, if not the most advanced lift on the continent.

[liftmech]

missouriskier has the right idea. Every single time I've been to Whistler it's been rainy and sloppy at the base but nice up top. P2P lets you stay in the alpine zone but still ski both mountains if you want.

Probably shouldn't be slagging my own mountain, but I'm not a fan of our new Celebrity Ridge platter. Many thousands of dollars to eliminate a 3-minute hike. If we had put that lift down where we're currently rebuilding the old Storm King, it would have been money well spent. $0.02

[boardski]

I like the general idea of the Celebrity Ridge platter, It would have been better to have it start farther down the hill though, that traverse (over to the bottom of it) is ugly on a snowboard.

[SkiDaBird]

liftmech, on 24 May 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:

missouriskier has the right idea. Every single time I've been to Whistler it's been rainy and sloppy at the base but nice up top. P2P lets you stay in the alpine zone but still ski both mountains if you want.

Probably shouldn't be slagging my own mountain, but I'm not a fan of our new Celebrity Ridge platter. Many thousands of dollars to eliminate a 3-minute hike. If we had put that lift down where we're currently rebuilding the old Storm King, it would have been money well spent. $0.02

Was it just to make the area more appealing for tourists? I'v noticed that hike to terrain and long traverses are pretty much used exclusively by locals.

[teachme]

Interesting points on P2P, but still think it was a poor choice as 1) the money could have been much better spent on opening new terrain with new lifts, and 2) before P2P people would just stick to one mountain for the day. Each mountain is so big that there was not usually any need to change mountains during a single ski day. It certainly makes getting between mountains easier, but usually, why bother?

The only real benefit I can see in it is for marketing.

TME

[liftmech]

SkiDaBird, on 24 May 2014 - 11:43 PM, said:

Was it just to make the area more appealing for tourists? I've noticed that hike to terrain and long traverses are pretty much used exclusively by locals.

Your guess is as good as mine.