Skilifts.org / SORT Forum

Peter, on 22 April 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

I believe I heard Sunshine Village, AB acquired it.

Peter, on 22 April 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

I think all Breckenridge lifts built since 1985 have been constructed by Poma, so I'm assuming Poma just because they've been the go-to manufacturer for Breckenridge. And my assumption of the Mountaintop Express replacement being a Leitner-Poma is just because those were the guys who manufactured Gondola One last season and the High Noon Express in 2010.

Peter, on 22 April 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

The Breck lifts are Poma.

JSteigs, on 28 April 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

The Breck lifts are Poma.

That's Leitner-Poma........
Dino
This post has been edited by Lift Dinosaur: 29 April 2013 - 07:19 AM

SkiBachelor, on 22 April 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

For where? I'm unaware of any announcements from Sunshine. Replacing Angel, the oldest HSQ, with a 6 pack has been rumored for a while.

Doug, on 29 April 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

It was the Wildwood lift at Tamarack Idaho. It was repossessed and sold tothe highest bidder.

I always assumed they would use it to replace Tee Pee Town, that seems to be the only really old chair left. I could be wrong though.

jaytrem, on 29 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:

Could be. Tee Pee Town never gets busy because it is so windy and follows largely the same alignment as Angel. I always thought Sunshine could replaced Angel with a 6 Pack and then build a short lift from the current Tee Pee Town bottom terminal up to the ridge:

1) Increase access to some under utilized beginner terrain

2) Provide an easy connection to Angel that would still be way faster (and warmer) than the current Tee Pee Town lift.

The Angel HSQ dates back to 1988. It doesn't back up that often, but a 6 pack would be more wind resistant.

Regarding Jay Peak, the chairs of the Bonaventure Quad are now off and the bottom station has been dismantled and stored on a nearby lot, but all the towers and the top station remain, with the rope still on them. The rope has been unspliced and rolled on the ground at the foot of tower #1 (or is it #2?)

I've heard from two sources so far (and one of them has spoken directly with the mountain's staff) that the six pack project has been scrapped (or, more likely, postponed), and that they're only moving the base station of the Bonaventure to make room for the new lodge and hotel.

Hey welcome back Dr! Good to see you around again! Been a while...

Here's a picture I took either April 13 or 14th, a week after they shut Bonaventure down.

http://www.wtip.org/...-end-news-may-2

"Construction has begun on the new ski lift at Lutsen Mountains. This is a brand new, state-of-the-art, high-speed lift that will whisk six people on each chair to the top of Moose Mountain. It replaces the Caribou lift, for those that are familiar with the Lutsen ski runs.

The old Caribou ski lift is being dismantled right now by Lutsen Mountains staff. Soon, the construction crew from the Leitner Poma Company, the manufacturer of the new lift, will arrive to start their work. Not a single part of the old lift will be used in the new construction. Leitner Poma, one of only two ski lift manufacturers in the world, will provide turnkey construction to Lutsen Mountains, so we’ll all be able to enjoy additional runs on the mountain next winter."

This from Red Mountain's Facebook:

"From Howard Katkov, President of Red Mountain Resort.

'On May 31st, 2013, I will make a formal announcement regarding the installation of the Grey chairlift this summer. Until then, please disregard any rumors or conjecture that may be circulating throughout the community.'"

Does this mean that the quad for Grey has been postponed?

agillskis, on 06 May 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

No it means disregard any rumors or conjecture including YOUR RUMORS AND CONJECTURE. get it :)

Where's Allan when you need him

Just stating "disregard any rumours or conjecture" is an open invitation to do so!! With all respect to Katkov, he is not the brightest light in the shed if he meant that statement seriously.

SuperRat, on 09 April 2013 - 04:20 PM, said:

from_the_nek, on 10 April 2013 - 05:11 AM, said:

Well I guess "highly unlikely" was more likely than I had figured. Sounds like the whole thing is either just put on hold or scrapped entirely. There is so much development going on at the mountain, maybe they just wanted to reduce complication a bit this year?
This post has been edited by from_the_nek: 08 May 2013 - 05:23 AM

from_the_nek, on 08 May 2013 - 05:22 AM, said:

Shortening the Bonnie seems like a reasonable compromise if Jay can't justtify the cost of The Six this year.

Quoting from post earler in April:

This past weekend, Jay Peak officially retired the Stateside lodge and the Bonaventure Quad (originally built by Doppelmayr in 1987). Deconstruction of the quad is starting in preparation for the new Doppelmayr HS6. It remains to be seen if the old quad actually gets reused somewhere else on the mountain (or at Burke Mtn).
The revisions required for the lift plan to pass state regulations included the control hut being moved inside the chair storage building to reduce impermeable surface run-off. They also had to reconfigure a few lift tower positions to keep them further away from streams. Details here: http://www.anr.state...tal-3-22-13.pdf


My new comments May 8:

In view of all the current spectulation going on this forum regarding the current lack of progress in replacing the Bonaventure Quad replacement at Jay Peak, it would be useful for some members of this forum to read the State of Vermnnt Environmental document (referenced above) which sets out all the regulations that Jay Peak
must agree to follow when building the new replacement chair lift. I have read the document referenced above and I just shake my head. Jay Peak Management must be ready to pull their own hair out. The document sets out rules and orders to move new lift tower locations because they are within 50 feet of streambeds , Streambeds that are probably dry all year except for when snow melt runoff is coming down the mountain. My opinion is that Jay Management would not dare come out and criticize the State of Vermont Environment folks because they both have to live in the same town and pass each other in the grocery store, but the Environmental document has probably meant that Jay Peak has been back and forth to the lift profile designers several times for redesign and back to the Environmental folks multiple times. Jay Management will invent some other reason why the project is delayed (if it is) That is my take on having read the State of Vermont approval document regarding the Bonaventure Quad replacement project.

Anyone closer to Jay Peak know any more or care to way in after reading the State document?


Folks in other states might want to read the Vermont Jay Peak document and thank your lucky stars you don't have to dance to the music of State of Vermont Environmental regulations. I believe in Green but some people go too far.
This post has been edited by Andy1962: 08 May 2013 - 05:56 PM

If I was Jay Peak, I would reuse the existing profile of the Bonaventure Quad and hope the majority of towers pass a pull test for a HSS.

So is Breck putting in a HSS instead of HSQ on Peak 6? Thought they originally said a quad on http://www.breckenri...nfo/Peak-6.aspx and I know thats what has been discussed here but now it says a "high speed, six person"...
This post has been edited by silence: 12 May 2013 - 08:46 PM