Jump to content


Future resort Expansions-Your Ideas


174 replies to this topic

#41 RibStaThiok

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,057 Posts:

Posted 02 April 2015 - 11:17 AM

Most likely next... but again this is just rumors from a lift tech that is related to a friend of mine. Also- it's been some time since I was there, but I don't seem to recall Twilight being all that slow except for the summer I was there a few years back for some mountain biking.
Ryan

#42 DonaldMReif

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,980 Posts:

Posted 03 April 2015 - 04:32 PM

Well, the lift being upgraded this summer will be Legends, not Twilight.
YouTube channel for chairlift POV videos and other random stuff:
https://www.youtube....TimeQueenOfRome

#43 boardski

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 760 Posts:

Posted 03 April 2015 - 06:36 PM

Is the upgrade on for sure this summer?
Skiing since 1977, snowboarding since 1989

#44 DonaldMReif

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,980 Posts:

Posted 03 April 2015 - 08:29 PM

View Postboardski, on 03 April 2015 - 06:36 PM, said:

Is the upgrade on for sure this summer?


Purgatory posted the following on their Facebook page this afternoon. It doesn't say if the USFS has already approved of it.

Quote

Head to Purg this weekend for the Lift 8 Retirement Party! Enjoy 1 last ride on a chair that moves slow enough to hand feed the birds. Purg will have a NEW high-speed quad on the backside next winter!

Join us Saturday for Gaper Day with Ska Brewing -- beach games, costume contest & live music! Bring the kids on Sunday for the Easter Eggstravaganza with kids’ egg hunt & costume contest at 10:30am, and music by DJ Aiko Aiko, 1-4pm. See you there!


If Purgatory builds the lift according to the proposal on the master plan, the Legends Express will not have a mid-load station, although it will start and end in the same locations as the current lift. On the current lift, the mid-load is for intermediates doing laps on Sally's Run, Chet's, Vincent's and Cathedral Tree Way, so that they don't have to ski down the moguls of Blackburn Bash, Ray's Ridge, Bottom's Chute or Siegele Street to get to the bottom terminal. Furthermore, the mid-load is only about four towers up from the bottom. Because the Legends Express, at least on the master plan, is not slated to have a mid-load, I think Purgatory also plans to regrade the lower section of Blackburn Bash so that intermediates can use it.

This post has been edited by DonaldMReif: 03 April 2015 - 08:37 PM

YouTube channel for chairlift POV videos and other random stuff:
https://www.youtube....TimeQueenOfRome

#45 alexboesen

    Established User

  • Member
  • 59 Posts:

Posted 04 April 2015 - 03:35 PM

For Breckenridge I think they need to consider a few upgrades:

1) Replacement of the T-bar by moving the Rocky Mountain chair base uphill to the merger point of Little Johnny, Duke's and Northstar and then using the same lift line make the current top station a mid unload with an extension up to the top of the T-bar.

2) Six pack on Falcon chair with a possible extension of the top terminal uphill to enable more vertical drop

3) Remove A Chair and realign the Quicksilver chair from current base terminal to top of current A chair.

4) Remove E chair and replace with a HSQ from currrent C Chair base to top of E-chairlift

Lastly I would like Breckenridge to find a way to build a lift to the top of Peak 9. This could be a lift from the top of the current Peak 9 lift, or a possibly a Tram from current E lift base to top of the peak.

#46 NHskier13

    Established User

  • Member
  • 567 Posts:
  • Interests:Yes

Posted 04 April 2015 - 04:28 PM

I am not expert, but isn't the top of Peak 9 mostly private owned land?

#47 snoloco

    Established User

  • Member
  • 444 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing
    Ski lifts
    Ski areas

Posted 04 April 2015 - 04:56 PM

My plan for Whiteface, NY.

Upgrade Facelift HSQ to bubble 6-pack.

Move Facelift to Summit alignment.

Split the fixed grip Summit Quad into two lifts. One to replace the Riblet Triple at Bear Den Mountain and the other to replace the Bear Hall Double chair. Since there are beginner lifts, add loading carpets to them so they run with less stops.

Upgrade the Little Whiteface Double and Lookout Mountain Triple to HSQ's with a capacity of 2,000 pph vs 2,400 pph. There isn't enough trail acreage for full capacity.

Relocate Lookout Mountain Triple to replace Freeway Hall Double. Add a loading carpet to it so it can run faster. (Not enough people for HSQ, but it is long enough for a slight boost in speed. With a speed of 550 fpm, it could go it's distance in just under 8 minutes vs almost 10 on the current double chair.

#48 DonaldMReif

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,980 Posts:

Posted 04 April 2015 - 05:03 PM

View Postalexboesen, on 04 April 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

For Breckenridge I think they need to consider a few upgrades:

1) Replacement of the T-bar by moving the Rocky Mountain chair base uphill to the merger point of Little Johnny, Duke's and Northstar and then using the same lift line make the current top station a mid unload with an extension up to the top of the T-bar.

2) Six pack on Falcon chair with a possible extension of the top terminal uphill to enable more vertical drop

3) Remove A Chair and realign the Quicksilver chair from current base terminal to top of current A chair.

4) Remove E chair and replace with a HSQ from currrent C Chair base to top of E-chairlift

Lastly I would like Breckenridge to find a way to build a lift to the top of Peak 9. This could be a lift from the top of the current Peak 9 lift, or a possibly a Tram from current E lift base to top of the peak.


I have to disagree on all four:
1. The Rocky Mountain SuperChair is fine as is. Moving its starting location uphill would be a big mistake as it would just put more traffic on the Colorado SuperChair. Also, the Rocky Mountain SuperChair is in a very crucial location, since, from Peak 8 base, it provides direct access to Peak 7 and Peak 6 via the Columbine catwalk. As for the T-Bar, that lift line gets a lot of wind.

2. The geography of Peak 10 means it would be impossible to extend the Falcon SuperChair higher up.

3. Quicksilver Super6 is fine as is. Furthermore, it offloads at Ten Mile Station, and Ten Mile Station gets a lot of foot traffic during the winter.

4. Upgrading Lift C to a high speed quad has been on some master plans, but removing Lift E would mean traffic skiing the Peak 9 North Face would have to take a lengthy traverse via Sawmill to return to the lift after each run. Furthermore, Lift E is only a five to six minute ride without stops.

Another reason why there will likely never be a lift built into that area above where the Mercury SuperChair offloads is that that area gets a lot of wind.

This post has been edited by DonaldMReif: 04 April 2015 - 05:03 PM

YouTube channel for chairlift POV videos and other random stuff:
https://www.youtube....TimeQueenOfRome

#49 Snowy Ferries

    Established User

  • Member
  • 154 Posts:
  • Interests:Skilifts, Ferryboats, Skiing

Posted 04 April 2015 - 05:37 PM

View PostDonaldMReif, on 04 April 2015 - 05:03 PM, said:

2. The geography of Peak 10 means it would be impossible to extend the Falcon SuperChair higher up.


I've never skied Breck before, but from what I can see, Falcon could be extended a ways uphill. It would have to cross that valley and go up to the other side, but it may be a worthwhile expansion. Would definitely open a lot of new expert terrain.

Posted Image

This post has been edited by Snowy Ferries: 04 April 2015 - 07:37 PM


#50 SkiDaBird

    Established User

  • Member
  • 509 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing

Posted 04 April 2015 - 05:47 PM

Ferries some of the stuff of that looks wicked steep. Also, photo left looks like it would become quite the poach spot, making it difficult to approve the extension.

#51 DonaldMReif

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,980 Posts:

Posted 04 April 2015 - 06:30 PM

View PostSkiDaBird, on 04 April 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

Ferries some of the stuff of that looks wicked steep. Also, photo left looks like it would become quite the poach spot, making it difficult to approve the extension.


These attachments, taken in Google Earth, show proof that those slopes are wicked steep.
Attached File  Falcon1.jpg (170.71K)
Number of downloads: 35Attached File  Falcon2.jpg (177.66K)
Number of downloads: 61Attached File  Falcon3.jpg (174.78K)
Number of downloads: 55

Furthermore, the Falcon SuperChair, as it exists currently, is about 5,700 feet long. Ferries, your extension would be about 5,800 feet long, AKA result in a lift about two miles long. I'm not sure a two mile long lift would be a lift one would make laps on. And, high winds above timberline would be something else to account for.
YouTube channel for chairlift POV videos and other random stuff:
https://www.youtube....TimeQueenOfRome

#52 liftmech

    lift mechanic

  • Administrator II
  • 5,916 Posts:
  • Interests:Many.

Posted 04 April 2015 - 07:38 PM

View PostNHskier13, on 04 April 2015 - 04:28 PM, said:

I am not expert, but isn't the top of Peak 9 mostly private owned land?

The entire Tenmile range, north to south, is a hodgepodge of public and private land. 9 is further west than the others as well, making it more difficult to connect to the existing area.
For those unfamiliar with this area, much of the above-timberline terrain here is raked by wind. 8 and 6 are slightly more sheltered.
Member, Department of Ancient Technology, Colorado chapter.

#53 DonaldMReif

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,980 Posts:

Posted 04 April 2015 - 09:23 PM

Even the below-timberline parts of the mountain are partially wind-raked. Regardless, Lift E should stay as is. It's a crucial lift, providing transit from Peak 8 to Peak 9 whilst bypassing the more congested Four O'Clock run, and it's got a short ride time of about 6 minutes on a normal day.
YouTube channel for chairlift POV videos and other random stuff:
https://www.youtube....TimeQueenOfRome

#54 Backbowlsbilly

    Established User

  • Member
  • 259 Posts:

Posted 05 April 2015 - 10:12 AM

I think Breck should expand their skiable terrain to the top of Peak 10, but first as hike to and later maybe as a low capacity double or tram. That's some fun stuff up there but as was mentioned earlier, moving Falcon up would put a lot of people on terrain they shouldn't be on. How about this for Rocky Mountain...
1. Replace Independence with an 8 pack or higher capacity 6 pack to reduce crowds from Peak 6, using the old tower tubes
2. Use the old Independence to replace Rocky Mountain to take some pressure off Colorado, using the old tower tubes.
3. Use the old Rocky to either go from the top of Independence to the top of Peak 7 Bowl or replace 6 chair, both as low capacity high speed quads

Regardless I think Independence might be the must pressing concern, it simply is swamped with traffic from Peak 6 that added to the existing crowds on Peak 7 makes the lines some of the worst at Breck. Also for upper Peak 9, my old ski team were talking about a surface lift for that terrain, maybe a set of t-bars first from the top of E Chair to the Peak 9 Chutes terrain to eliminate that hike and a second from the bottom of the chutes to a saddle on upper Peak 9, where there could be direct lift access terrain and hiking terrain. Lastly, I think a short platter would be nice from the bottom of the Cimmaron trail to just above the bottom of Falcon, eliminating the Flapjack catwalk especially if you're coming from the South Side terrain but that would be just be for added comfort since there is not that many skiers back there.

#55 SkiDaBird

    Established User

  • Member
  • 509 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing

Posted 05 April 2015 - 01:43 PM

Would just adding another HSQ at the bottom of Peak 7 headed either up the Independence line or to near the top of Rocky Mountain/Colorado not be an easier solution?

#56 snoloco

    Established User

  • Member
  • 444 Posts:
  • Interests:Skiing
    Ski lifts
    Ski areas

Posted 05 April 2015 - 02:35 PM

Why not just add chairs to the Independence Superchair and add a loading carpet like the Colorado Superchair has so that it can have a capacity of 3,600pph?

Adding the triple where Donald said to earlier could help, or have an HSQ from the base to where Rocky Mountain ends.

#57 Backbowlsbilly

    Established User

  • Member
  • 259 Posts:

Posted 05 April 2015 - 03:29 PM

There's not much room at the bottom of pPak 7 to make that happen but if they found a way to squeeze it in then yes, that would be a huge help but probably to the top of Rocky, a top station for that lift at Colorado would be a long lift that would have to run diagonal across the mountain over Rocky line. The only reason I brought up a new chair is because they sped up the existing chair to increase capacity but now it has a ton of misloads too, a loading carpet would hopefully help with that but the one on Colorado didn't help too much with that this year at least. I mostly brought that up because I thought a quad up Peak 7 Bowl would be pretty cool. :)

This post has been edited by Backbowlsbilly: 05 April 2015 - 03:29 PM


#58 trj820

    Established User

  • Member
  • 44 Posts:

Posted 05 April 2015 - 04:32 PM

Here's my idea for Vail:
1) Upgrade Riva Bahn to a Gondola, and have it span the gully near the top.
2) Build a HSQ from the Golden Peak Base to the top of Golden Peak, and cut trails.
3) Build a HSQ in the Giant Steps line to provide another way up the mountain.
4) To make east-west movement easier, build a HSQ/HSS from the intersection of Ledges and Minnie's up Old 9 Line to the bottom of the old Minnie's lift, where there would be a mid load. It would then continue up the old minnie's line.
5) Cut trails to the skier's left in the Highline and Earl's pods to make their existence worth while.
6) Build the Sundown HSQ.
7) Maybe expand into Mushroom Bowl with some alignments that make sense?

#59 DonaldMReif

    Established User

  • Member
  • 1,980 Posts:

Posted 05 April 2015 - 04:57 PM

There's no need for a second lift out of Vail Village. Plus, generally, the only time there's a line at Gondola One is during the morning period when everyone's headed up the mountain.
YouTube channel for chairlift POV videos and other random stuff:
https://www.youtube....TimeQueenOfRome

#60 trj820

    Established User

  • Member
  • 44 Posts:

Posted 05 April 2015 - 06:23 PM

View PostDonaldMReif, on 05 April 2015 - 04:57 PM, said:

There's no need for a second lift out of Vail Village. Plus, generally, the only time there's a line at Gondola One is during the morning period when everyone's headed up the mountain.

True, but it would mainly be used in conjunction with Minnie's to get to Lionshead more quickly.





1 User(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users