74 replies to this topic

[floridaskier]

They've done that before, using old Yan towers again with bolts at DV (Homestake lift, another 1981, they bolted down some towers, left some cemented in, and replaced others with CTEC ones. All of them have CTEC crossarms and lifting frames now). But the new Homestake used the same line as the old one. Another example, Wasatch lift was from 1981 too, they replaced all the towers when they cut the new line for it

[Kicking Horse]

Crested Butte has put in a lic request for a lift Called West Wall. Any ideas? is it the new quad that is replaceing the tbar or what?

[liftmech]

Probably, since that's on the far west side of the area.

[boardski]

Has anyone heard whether or not Steamboat, CO is forging ahead with the "Christie 6" HSS lift?? The lift would replace Headwall, Southface and both current Christie Chairs. Preview is supposed to be realligned to unload near the current Headwall lift and originate in its current location.

[SkiBachelor]

Even though Steamboat is one of ASC's big money makers, I don't think ASC has the money to do it any time soon. ASC had to install a new lift at The Canyons this summer to aviod a lawsuit with the home owners.

[floridaskier]

formerliftforeman, on Jun 12 2005, 07:04 PM, said:

They will retro fit the  Sultan towers with  DoppleCtec parts.  FLskier is correct,it has been done before, and i'm thinking another time as well, but i can't remebr just what lift.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They did that with the Quincy triple, removed the towers from Wasatch, left them for a year, and then reinstalled them in the Quincy line with CTEC towerheads (they looked strange without the front catwalks, where they still stand today as the Quincy HSQ). Those towerheads without the front catwalks (I don't know where the masts came from, all the Quincy HSQ towers are old Yans, and there couldn't have been too many left after 22 were used on Quincy) are at The Canyons on the useless Day Break lift. Also on Little Chief, they took a few towers (I think 4) from Homestake, added old Yan Y towers (not CTEC ones), and put them back on the hill for Little Chief.

formerliftforeman, on Jun 12 2005, 07:04 PM, said:

then when and if DV ever installs the lift(rumored for years) to access the Quincy Knoll area(dv employees know what iam talking about)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Never heard of this one, is that the open, treeless meadow by the snowmaking pond they built a few years ago above Ontario?

formerliftforeman, on Jun 12 2005, 07:04 PM, said:

I would put money on the fact that the old Sultan towers will be put in storge, somewhere in the meadow at the top of Redcloud
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought they were building houses up there (like they need more). No more forest with wooden cutouts of cartoon animals

formerliftforeman, on Jun 12 2005, 07:04 PM, said:

MC, you say they are moving the lift line of Sultan so it crosses Finis,, i would of thought they would of followed the same line,, and taking the termenal to the top of the hill , that over looks Wasatch and Sultan Tops stations.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was hoping they would put it up on top of the hill too, like they did with Silver Strike. Maybe they could have re-graded the way over to Mayflower so you don't have to pole as far. That would make for the best photo spot on the mountain too. I guess they need to pull the line over Finis to line it up with wherever the bottom will be

[skier2]

I think that one of the best parts about the new Sultan Express will be the sheer V ERTICAL that it will serve. No more high- speed quads with verticals of 800 feet like Ruby... now it's more like 1800 feet...

[boardski]

SkiBachelor, on Jun 11 2005, 08:05 PM, said:

Even though Steamboat is one of ASC's big money makers, I don't think ASC has the money to do it any time soon. ASC had to install a new lift at The Canyons this summer to aviod a lawsuit with the home owners.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's just as well. I actually like the lift configuration at the bottom anyway. I think a HSQ Sunshine lift is a higher priority since it serves vast intermediate terrain but has an excrutiatingly long lift ride with many slows and stops. I actually think, however, they should convert the current triple into a High speed triple to save $$ since the high speed is more necessary than the added capacity on that lift. As for the "Christie 6" lift. I like the idea of realigning Preveiw and removing Headwall. I wish, however, they would leave Southface there, realign Preview to unload at the top of current Headwall (after removing Headwall) and change it into a FGQ or FGT and build the Christie 4 HSQ replacing Christie 3 (since it has the most hours on it) and leave Christie 2 for a back-up and "overflow" lift as it has been used as for years. This way nothing would have to be done to the Thunderhead (capacity upgrade is also proposed) and there would not be near as many stops and slows as there will be on the new Christie lift as there will be if the build it in the line they are proposing with a midway unload for beginners. Meanwhile, I will continue to ride the Southface, Christie 3, Thunderhead configuration to access the mountain when there are crowds on the Gondola. The ride time is a bit longer until you get to Thunderhead but at least there are seldom lines.

[SkiBachelor]

Sorry, but I'm kind of lost with some of the stuff that you're talking about. You can't really do a capacity upgrade to Sunshine and it would save Steamboat any money by upgrading it to a HSQ. It's not cheap to those things either.

Thunderhead has a capacity of already 2800 I believe with an extra chair to bring it up to 2850 pph.

[boardski]

SkiBachelor, on Jun 12 2005, 09:46 PM, said:

Sorry, but I'm kind of lost with some of the stuff that you're talking about. You can't really do a capacity upgrade to Sunshine and it would save Steamboat any money by upgrading it to a HSQ. It's not cheap to those things either.

Thunderhead has a capacity of already 2800 I believe with an extra chair to bring it up to 2850 pph.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Regarding the Sunshine chair at Steamboat, I thought maybe if they upgraded it to HST (similar to Ruthie's Express at Aspen Mtn or Sunnyside at Alta, UT) it may save $$ since the lift is already a FG triple and appears to be in good condition. (1986 Doppelmayr). Fixed grips were converted to high speeds quite often in the 80's and early 90's at various ski areas. I'm sure it would still be costly but at least the same chairs could be used and possibly the same tower cross-arms and sheaves also.

Regarding the Thunderhead, all I was saying is that if the new Christie chair was HSQ instead of HSS, no capacity upgrade would be needed (ASC is proposing a capacity upgrade to Thunderhead as part of the Christie project) since people would be unloading a HSQ to ski over to and load another HSQ. If the new Christie was a HSS that might "bottle-neck" Thunderhead chair. (The length of the gondola requires 2 lift rides: Christie then Thunderhead)

Hopefully they might re-evaluate the projects before they start it, it's hard to say how long it will be before they are able to afford either of the projects though.

[yetigonecrazy]

Kicking Horse, on Jun 7 2005, 10:15 PM, said:

Crested Butte has put in a lic request for a lift Called West Wall.  Any ideas? is it the new quad that is replaceing the tbar or what?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

if you had read my post from above, i already let everyone know that CB tore out the T-Bar at the base and is replacing it with a FGQ called "West Wall"for next season. Its going to come out of the luxury condos theybe been building at the base since the beginning of last season called none other than..."West Wall". No word on what theyre going to do with the old T-Bar, but the talk around town is that its going to be put in at the bottom of Teocalli Bowl, eliminating the hike out.

This post has been edited by yetigonecrazy: 13 June 2005 - 07:19 AM

[SkiBachelor]

HSTs have a pretty low capacity of only like 1800 to 2000 skiers per hour. It's better to upgrade the lift to a HSQ since carriers arn't that much.

[floridaskier]

The top part of the line is open (Guardsman's Glade) but there's a big orange fence right above the snowmobile track. That doesn't seem to stop people from doing it, you can usually see tracks under there. Ruby wasn't installed for laps, right, just to let people get out of Empire faster. The old fixed quad seemed to take about 10 minutes.

[skier2]

I know... It just seems that people could have been patient with the old one, a HSQ is not really all that necessary... Besides, it just adds to the array of quads that meet at the peak. Also, is the terrain off of the Silver Strike any good, or is it just for access, because I didn't get to DV this year.

[floridaskier]

skier2, on Jun 13 2005, 05:37 PM, said:

I know... It just seems that people could have been patient with the old one, a HSQ is not really all that necessary... Besides, it just adds to the array of quads that meet at the peak. Also, is the terrain off of the Silver Strike any good, or is it just for access, because I didn't get to DV this year.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ruby was a pain from the day it was built. It felt like an insanely long ride, even though it might have been 8 minutes or so. The new HSQ is really short but it was definetly worth it. Everyone seems to agree on that one, nobody liked old Ruby. It was the only way out of the Empire area, so the fixed quad only lasted from 1998 to 2001. It's DV, they can do stuff like that. It'll enjoy a nice long life as the new Majestic lift at Brighton where it belongs

Silver Strike, I think the development at the bottom of it paid for it. What might have happened was that DV made them put in a lift as part of the right to build there. It doesn't serve any new terrain, except for the two or three little runs that were built to get to it. I would have thought DV would cut a run from the bottom of Northside to the bottom of Silver Strike, because Northside gets crowded, but they didn't

Homestake, while it's also a fixed quad that doesn't do a very good job of getting people back over to the front side, isn't as important as Ruby. You can ski down to Crown Point (the way I always do it) or download Silver Lake express, both of which are always empty when Homestake gets crowded

[SkiBachelor]

It's kind of weird that DV and Park City Mountain Resort didn't buy the land that their resorts are on from the mine. I don't think it would have been that much if the mine went broke.

[Powdr]

SkiBachelor, on Jun 14 2005, 10:13 AM, said:

It's kind of weird that DV and Park City Mountain Resort didn't buy the land that their resorts are on from the mine. I don't think it would have been that much if the mine went broke.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

United Park City Mines (now Talisker) never offered to sell the land beneath PCMR & DV. They always figured that silver would increase in price again and enable them to restart mining operations. By selling to DV & PCMR, they would have to relinquish their mineral claims to the land as well. Remember that UPCM was first a mining company and second a resort/real estate business. Park City Ski Area was built out of desperation when silver prices dropped, and the company needed revenue. BTW, the Hearst Newpaper fortune comes from the silver out of Park City. UPCM figured that the silver below the surface was worth far more than real estate would ever generate. Only now does the new Talisker company realize what they are sitting on in terms of real estate value and they won't sell the land to the resorts because they are developing it themselves.

[liftmech]

SkiBachelor, on Jun 13 2005, 09:43 AM, said:

HSTs have a pretty low capacity of only like 1800 to 2000 skiers per hour. It's better to upgrade the lift to a HSQ since carriers arn't that much.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but they still cost money and Boardski's point was that the Sunshine area needs capacity less than it needs a lift that won't stop as much. If a lift slows and stops all the time, it will never load its full capacity to begin with. Lift capacities assume full speed all day.

[boardski]

liftmech, on Jun 15 2005, 05:27 AM, said:

True, but they still cost money and Boardski's point was that the Sunshine area needs capacity less than it needs a lift that won't stop as much. If a lift slows and stops all the time, it will never load its full capacity to begin with. Lift capacities assume full speed all day.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is true, Steamboat's Master Development plan available on their website states the reasoning for upgrading Sunshine being "11 minutes is above industry standards for lift riding time". Since you are doing good to ride Sunshine and have it stop less than three times, the ride is almost always well-over 11 min.

Advanced skiers can ride up South Peak (5 min ride) just down the hill from Sunshine and ski down to Sundown Express on a run called "Rolex" (I think there may be a couple of intermediate choices also) and ski all of Sunshine's trails but the line for the Sundown Express is often a mile long. Having Sunshine high speed could reduce some of this and keep the lower-level intermediates along the ridge rather than down in Priest Creek area. It will be nice when they are finally able to afford the project.

[SkiBachelor]

However, by making Sunshine into a HST won't save ASC any money and it would basically just cost more. The reason for this is because the only thing that Steamboat would be able to reuse would be the carriers. Everything else like the tower heads would have to be replaced. However, by making the lift a super low HSQ (1800), it would actually be cheaper since there wouldn't need to be so many detachable grips. I guess each TD-104 grip costs like $5000 and that's more than the actual carrier. Plus, I'm pretty sure that the terminal would already be a HSQ terminal since Garaventa CTEC's last custom triple terminal had some issues.

Sorry for being so picky about something that's not that big of a deal. I just know that a hsq would be cheaper and a better solution since it can easily be upgraded to a higher capacity later.