Improvements

[riderossi]

Just a note you can't run high speed chair with a haul line that short, every other day you would have to be spraying and re spacing the chairs. If you ever done a chair spacing you know a small lift can take a few days so I highly doubt Sno is ever picking up a high speed chair for a 500 vert lift.

 

Why are you saying it would have to be respaced every other day?

 

The teewinot quad at jhole is only 400 vert and also boyne has a sixpack. They should make the long haul a high speed quad or sox pack so you can ski top to bottom runs fast!!! Sno charges 2010 prices for 1980 lifts.

So you expect them to charge 1980 prices, make 1980's profits, and install a 2010 high speed lift? Am I understanding that correctly?

[Brian]

1, Sno's prices are probably some of the lowest in PA. On top of that, there are some ridiculous discounts to be had if you're willing to look (the family deal, Scranton Ski Club's deal, etc.)

 

2, Why the hell are we still arguing over a high speed lift? Didn't all those who call Sno their home mountain all agree that a HSQ would be overkill for this mountain? There's no such thing as a lift line at Sno..... so a HSQ is simply not needed.

 

3, I get disappointed when I see everyone take the best of one mountain, and try to compare it to Sno. Yeah Blue's high speed lifts rock, but how's their snow quality? Yeah Boulder's park kicks ass... how's their crowd? Sno isn't Blue, it isn't Boulder, it isn't Camelback. All mountains have pros and cons.. to take a pro from one mountain and be dumbfounded when that specific quality is a con here Sno, is unfair. Everyone that skis here do so for a reason. Sure proximity is a major factor... but there are still qualities that make Sno a pretty nice place to call home.

[Johnny Law]

Why are you saying it would have to be respaced every other day?

 

I don't do lift ops for a living so if I butchered this my fault but this is the way it was described to me by my cousin who ran a hill and a buddy who works for Mad River lifts, the company not the ski hill.

 

Most lifts are respaced yearly look up at the haul line next time your on a lift and most of the time you'll see a little marker of spray paint. That mark is where that chair started at, there are a number of different factors but slowly over time even fixed grip chairs move their position on the haul line. Obviously you can't run a lift with all the chairs in a big mass unless the chair was designed to be run that way, so every once in a while you have to get out there and move the chairs into proper spacing.

 

If the haul line is too short(I don't know what the exact figure is) on a detachable lift the chairs will start to bunch on the haul line because of the delay in the loading and unloading obviously this leads to the lift being unbalanced which is a big no no. The time the chair has to spend in the lift house is fixed because people can only load and unload at a certain speed, move too fast and your shutting the lift down all the time. Therefore you either run the haul line at reduced speed which kinda defeats the purpose of highspeed or you space the chairs so far apart that overall uphill capacity is actually lower than with the fixed grip.

 

Gondolas bunch at the lift house because the time they need to spend there is substantial but the hangers on a gondy are pretty advanced as are the control systems and they are respaced every time they get back on the haul line. Snowbasin actually removes each gondy from the lift every night to store them in an underground facility, its been awhile but I believe k1 at Killy stores each carriage at the bottom as well. Clearly the same could be done for a quad or sixpack but you could just build 3 lifts for what that would cost.

 

Most fixed grips actually have the ability to run as fast as highspeeds but because they don't detach at the lift house mad people would be crashing on the load so some resorts have installed conveyor systems. Alta's supreme has one and since the conveyor is doing all the work you can run the lift at a much higher speed. These systems are popular in Europe but expensive. I know there is a youtube video of the conveyor in action but it was named something weird and I can't find it.

 

edit: apparently the put one in at snow

Edited January 28, 2010 by Johnny Law

[rummy]

Don't laugh. Is a HSL really quicker? Both a HSL and a fixed grip chair are spaced to load/unload at 6 second intervals. That's 10 sets/minute and 600/hour (assuming no stops). My conclusion: on a completely goofy crowded day there's no difference, only more waiting in line. What really makes a difference is the actual number of seats heading to the top in a given hour. Follow?

[riderossi]

Chair "A" leaves the station and chair "B" gets say 20 feet behind while in the station, chair "C" gets in station and leaves 20 feet behind chair "B" they should all stay the same distance apart? Or am I going at it wrong

[KCSKI]

Don't know if this will help put to rest this topic, but the lift capacity at Sno, with all lifts running at 100%, which for the most part they have done this season, esp on weekends, is 8,000 people an hour up the mountain. I think that is safe to say fast enough.

 

My honest opinion, again, not speaking for the mountain in any official capacity here, a HSL would be a waste of time & $$ for the size of the mountain. I think we could all agree there are more, better investments that would make the mountain more exciting than a HSL.

[trackbiker]

Blue has a great view..you can see like 30 miles from the peak..

Don't forget the quarry scarred hills and the trailer park.

 

Good points on the HSQ by Brian, Schif, KCSKI, and Johnny Law. Sno needs alot of other things first. Like better LIGHTS. Just a few points on High Speed Lifts:

• 
  -The chairs detach from the haul line at the loading and unloading stations. If they don't get re-attached at exacty the same speed the chairs eventually become unspaced and the lift can become unbalanced. Wind is a big factor in spacing the chairs when they reattach. That's why High Speed Lifts have more wind holds than fixed grip lifts.
  -It's the loading speed that is regulated not the line speed. IIRC, in PA you can load a double at 500ft/min, a triple at 450 ft./min, and a quad at 400 ft./min. The second a line forms, a fixed grip and a HSQ have the same uphill capacity. You can only load/unload the same amount of people. The difference is that you spend more time in line for a HSQ and more time on the chair on a fixed grip.
  -A HSQ is easier for beginners to load because of the slow loading speed and theoretically stops less often. Although I'm not sure that is true at Blue.
  -A loading conveyor helps beginners to load as well so theoretically the lift stops less often and they can run it at max speed but you still can't run it over the design speed. Ever notice how beginner lifts run slower. That's to help with the loading and to avoid stopping and starting the lift. Blue could use one on the Burma chair for all the newbies who make it down Burma Road.
  -You can get a lot of "mad steezy runs" on a HSQ but only if there isn't a line. If you're at Blue or Elk on a Saturday and there are the same amount people using their quads, you're going to get the same amount of runs in. The difference is at Blue you will be standing longer and at Elk you would be sitting longer. (Just a tip; there's less people at Elk and the terrain is better and more varied. But don't tell anyone!)
  -Snow doesn't need a HSQ to replace the Long Haul until they get some more trails on that side.
  -I'm always amazed that people will stand in line for a HSQ when there is a fixed gripped lift with no line that will get them to the top faster. I was at Snow Mountain, VT last weekend and that was the case. (Don't tell anyone that secret either. Let them stand in line while I'm getting to the top faster by sitting on a fixed grip lift while they're standing in line!)
  Just my two cents worth...
  

[Brian]

Here ya go.

[Melissa]

Blue has great views..quarrys and trailor parks are nearby but also mountains, valleys, streams and blue sky!!!!

 

Blue puts the superfun in superfunD.

 

I really like the view of the valley at night from Sno. Now if I only had time to get there!

 

The lights could be better, but they don't bother me.

[Johnny Law]

Chair "A" leaves the station and chair "B" gets say 20 feet behind while in the station, chair "C" gets in station and leaves 20 feet behind chair "B" they should all stay the same distance apart? Or am I going at it wrong

 

That is certainly possible but for the vast vast majority of lifts the lift itself has no idea where the chair is on the line. Instead some smart guy sat down and did a bunch of math that says if the haul line moves this fast and the detach/loading line runs at this speed how far do we need space the chairs so that we don't overload the detach line.

 

What your talking about is kinda a smart lift where a computer would tell the chair when to depart the lift house, while I'm sure its possible it would probably be very expensive and suffer increased shut downs as all that equipment would be outside in some pretty poor weather.

 

Bear Creek actually looked into putting a HSQ in and my recollection is they faced the same problem of not having a long enough haul line. If you pm BC-Mark I would bet he can give you some more information.

 

In general I don't understand some skiers obsession with high speed lifts, I'll take 10 quality runs on a slow fixed grip double over 20 shitty runs of a six pack. I can think of very few mtns that have the acreage to handle that kind of uphill capacity even on the deepest pow days.

[Johnny Law]

I'll take 20 quality runs off a six pack....I can ski as much vert at Blue in 2 hours as at Sno in 5 hours.

 

In pa it really doesn't matter because we are all skiing the same hard pack but anywhere that actually gets snow the opposite is actually better. The snow simply sticks around longer because the double can't put as many people on the hill as a six pack. Old school hills with lots of slow chairs actually limit the total number of riders by default, MRG will never see the same numbers as the Bush because if they did nobody would ever get up the hill. People would say fuck MRG its too crowded and simply not come back.

 

There are few hills that were the riding remains good even on a full capacity day. Vail may have the acerage, maybe Pow Mow but that place never sees a full house anyways.

[Johnny Law]

 

In my opinion a top to bottom high speed lift would bring more skiers and riders to

Sno...what good is 1,000 vert if you mainly ski only half of it at a time.

 

That's very true, too many places fucked up and oriented everything in a way where you only get to ski half the hill. I don't want to have to ride 4 lifts to ride the whole hill.

[snoskier]

There are still spots where the lighting isn't great, ahhhem whistler ahhhhem... but it has improved a lot. Actually haven't skied U/LFT or U/LRW at night so can't say as to those, but everything else is pretty good.

[riderossi]

That is certainly possible but for the vast vast majority of lifts the lift itself has no idea where the chair is on the line. Instead some smart guy sat down and did a bunch of math that says if the haul line moves this fast and the detach/loading line runs at this speed how far do we need space the chairs so that we don't overload the detach line.

 

What your talking about is kinda a smart lift where a computer would tell the chair when to depart the lift house, while I'm sure its possible it would probably be very expensive and suffer increased shut downs as all that equipment would be outside in some pretty poor weather.

 

Bear Creek actually looked into putting a HSQ in and my recollection is they faced the same problem of not having a long enough haul line. If you pm BC-Mark I would bet he can give you some more information.

 

In general I don't understand some skiers obsession with high speed lifts, I'll take 10 quality runs on a slow fixed grip double over 20 shitty runs of a six pack. I can think of very few mtns that have the acreage to handle that kind of uphill capacity even on the deepest pow days.

 

Actually I'm not talking about a "smart" lift at all. All I'm saying is that every chair will be the same space apart from the one in front of it because the line for loading and unloading will be moving at a constant speed. Therefor every chair will stay evenly spaced as long as someone figures out the correct speed ratio for the haul rope vs the loading/unloading rope. The distances between chairs have to be calculated on fixed grips for the amount of chairs and length of haul rope, detachable lifts would just throw an extra variable into the equation. But like I said, I'm unfamiliar with detachable lifts so I'm just speculating here. Fixed grips are definitely a pain in the ass to respace especially on a long lift, but only once a year so that's nice. I couldn't imagine respacing that double at Smuggs that goes to the top (if it's still there). That must make some guys want to commit suicide.

 

As for the detach vs fixed and run quality... Sure the powder is going to last longer time wise with a fixed grip, but you are only getting a couple runs, the same amount of people are going up the hill in front of you, just at a slower pace. Seems like 6 of one half dozen of the other? Except with a highspeed you are getting more runs in a given time limit. But the same amount of runs on the "untracked" snow.

 

If they were going to put a highspeed in, it would have to go from the bottom of Phoebe or Long Haul, to the top of Iron Horse. That way you could ski most of the mountain off one lift. From the bottom of Long Haul to in between Iron Horse and Shuttle would be idea but that wouldn't happen. Even with a highspeed going up top, you wouldn't be able to get to Smoke, Boomer, or Lightning. That kind of blows. It'd be nice to have one, but obviously it's not "needed". I do think it would bring more skiers though. Enough skiers to make their money back? Doubtful..but I would have rathered them waste money on that then that damn Zip Rider that doesn't bring anybody or any money to the mountain...

[trackbiker]

I don't mind the view at Blue or Sno. I do like the lights in the valley at Sno at night which is when I usually ski there. The case was the same with Blue when I could get there for midweek night skiing. The point is if they put out a good product people will make the extra effort to drive the extra half hour to Sno. I agree with GSS that they charge too much for what they offer and more importantly what the competition offers closer to population centers. Scranton/Wilkes Barre has one of the oldest average populations in the COUNTRY never mind the state. I haven't seen one of those senior citizen center buses in the lot yet. And those people take A LOT of bus trips!

I love High Speed lifts on uncrowded days. But Sno skis like two areas. Flat top. Steep at the bottom. Most of the advanced skiers never leave the North Face and would maybe ride a HSQ once or twice a day. The jib honks stay in the park on the upper mountain. The two trails it would serve wouldn't see much more traffic because they are flat on the top half. And if they did it would be too much capacity for two trails. Until they get more top to bottom trails and a good consistant TTB blue cruiser it would be a waste of money that could be better spent on other things.

The lights are better but still suck. Whistler is still mostly dark as are Upper Runaway and Fast Track. It wouldn't take much to make the lights much better. The North Face has pretty good lights but there are a few spots that need improvement. There's one light you can see going up the quad that shines right into a tree. (onto Boomer.?) That trail needs a light on the other side as well because the dropoff is in a shadow. What would it cost to cut some branches or just move the light? They wouldn't even to buy a new one.

[riderossi]

I don't mind the view at Blue or Sno. I do like the lights in the valley at Sno at night which is when I usually ski there. The case was the same with Blue when I could get there for midweek night skiing. The point is if they put out a good product people will make the extra effort to drive the extra half hour to Sno. I agree with GSS that they charge too much for what they offer and more importantly what the competition offers closer to population centers. Scranton/Wilkes Barre has one of the oldest average populations in the COUNTRY never mind the state. I haven't seen one of those senior citizen center buses in the lot yet. And those people take A LOT of bus trips!

I love High Speed lifts on uncrowded days. But Sno skis like two areas. Flat top. Steep at the bottom. Most of the advanced skiers never leave the North Face and would maybe ride a HSQ once or twice a day. The jib honks stay in the park on the upper mountain. The two trails it would serve wouldn't see much more traffic because they are flat on the top half. And if they did it would be too much capacity for two trails. Until they get more top to bottom trails and a good consistant TTB blue cruiser it would be a waste of money that could be better spent on other things.

The lights are better but still suck. Whistler is still mostly dark as are Upper Runaway and Fast Track. It wouldn't take much to make the lights much better. The North Face has pretty good lights but there are a few spots that need improvement. There's one light you can see going up the quad that shines right into a tree. (onto Boomer.?) That trail needs a light on the other side as well because the dropoff is in a shadow. What would it cost to cut some branches or just move the light? They wouldn't even to buy a new one.

Ah now a feel people chimed in about a good view and your story changes haha. I'm not saying that the view is spectacular everyone needs to come to Sno and see! I was just pointing out it wasn't bad at all as you suggested. I tend to stay on the Northface because the lift is shorter and you get more bang for your buck(time). I'd much rather get a full top to bottom run over just a run on Northface however, if the trails were serviced by a high speed. It would also service more than two trails. Up top you could have a couple different options depending on where the top station would be put in. If between Long Haul and Iron Horse, you'd be able to ski 5 trails (more if you include the new trails) up top without hiking and a couple down bottom.

Trail options:

Upper runaway to Lower Runaway

Upper runaway to Lower Fast Track

Upper runaway to Rattler, down Cannonbalb

Upper fast track to Lower Fast track

Upper fast track to Lower runaway

Upper runaway to Rattler, down to Cannonball

Upper Fast track to the Snake down to Rattler or Lower Runaway

Switch, Whistler, or Spike to any of the "B" options above

Spike to Cannonball

Spike to Mainline

Spike to Mainline to Bunny to Cannonball

Spike to Mainline to Bunny to Connection down to Iron Horse to Lower Runaway to Lower Fast track (longest run on Mtn maybe?)

You get the idea...there would be plenty of lines to take down the mountain that would sure as hell spice things up a bit, it wouldn't just be a quad that serviced 2 trails. It would definitely change the way you could ride the mountain, and get in a lot more quality runs in a less time. Only thing is you wouldn't be able to do a top run into Smoke, Boomer, or Lightning. But that's just the way the mountain is. Hell they could always put a tow rope in to go up the little connection that comes down from Phoebe to the rest of the mountain and that would make top to bottom runs including the Double Blacks possible . Or maybe another Magic Carpet..they seem to like those. I know "experts" like the doubles , but I think they too would certainly enjoy top to bottoms runs on a lift that doesn't take half an hour to get up (exaggeration I know). It would be totally pointless to replace the quad with a high speed lift, that I agree with. But a Highspeed to where I said would be pretty sweet...I'm sure we will never see it though so I just wasted a lot of time typing this up . Stay warm tomorrow fellas!

[rgrwilco]

Blue puts the superfun in superfunD.

 

 

 

lol. i see what you did there.

 

it does suck though that most of the land from blue over to the lehigh gap is a superfund site, wonder if theres any lines to hit since all the trees are dead. anyways, sno needs to advertise, end of story. you cant be profitable without somewhat of a crowd. i tell people from my area that im thinking of hitting snow up this season, and they say they never heard of it.

[fleaguy]

lol. i see what you did there.

 

it does suck though that most of the land from blue over to the lehigh gap is a superfund site, wonder if theres any lines to hit since all the trees are dead. anyways, sno needs to advertise, end of story. you cant be profitable without somewhat of a crowd. i tell people from my area that im thinking of hitting snow up this season, and they say they never heard of it.

 

I work in the Poconos and it's amazing how many people haven't heard of Sno Mountain!!!!

Do you hear me Snow Mountain????

I counted 18...yes 18, buses from the same bus company pulling off of route 209 into Shawnee Mountain! Shawnee Mountain....who skis there anyway?

If Sno Mountain reps read this forum...do you hear me Dennis Carlson....I.M. me and we''ll talk about boosting your skier visits!

[twkid84]

a top to bottom green trail, i think it's really hard to appeal to the masses when there's like only two green trails in the whole mountain and the longest trail is a blue+black combo.