Barnstormer – Hermitage Club, VT

This heated seat, bubble six-pack replaced a Poma triple shortly after Haystack became the private Hermitage Club.
The chairs are stored inside when not in use.
Retractable bubble closing rail.
Top terminal and breakover towers.
View down the top section of the line.
Depression towers.
More towers.
Upper line overview.
Middle section.
Lower part of the line.
Bottom drive terminal and T1/2.
Side view of the Uni-G drive.
90-degree loading and cabin storage building.
Lift overview.

19 thoughts on “Barnstormer – Hermitage Club, VT

  1. themav May 3, 2019 / 1:25 pm

    And this lift is one of the reasons Hermitage Club failed…

    Like

    • bobby smith January 4, 2020 / 6:43 am

      Nope. This was purchased by several members completely separate from the Hermatage Club.

      Like

      • sethgoldman January 27, 2020 / 9:14 am

        This is correct. Hard to understand how membership didn’t grow wary the minute management came asking them to fund a chairlift.

        Like

        • Andy January 27, 2020 / 11:28 am

          As i have read the material on this site and on media sites about how the Hermitage Club financials were done, a group of members funded the Barnstormer Quad at the Hermitage Club. Then management muddied the waters by using the lift as an asset to borrow money. So the lift as an asset has been funded several times by various lenders and the legal arguments now are who is the original funder of the lift, and who was the first to place a lean on it. Those two (first funder and first leaner may be different in law). That’s my understanding of the situation as a party not involved in this mess. it’s why a whole of people had to pay wealthy lawyers to work for them. Time will tell who gets money from the sale of the Barnstormer lift..

          Like

  2. Benjamin Edwards January 19, 2020 / 7:19 pm

    Can you add some pictures of the chairs?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Tijsen January 22, 2020 / 7:27 pm

      Now the bubbles are stored I believe but the bubbles are gray and the seats are alternating blue and black.

      Like

      • Teddy's Lift World January 23, 2020 / 4:46 am

        Yep. Grey bubbles with blue and black seats. I rode this lift back in 2018 on President’s Weekend. This was about a week before they went under and you could definitely tell. One of the main issues with this lift is wind. There’s a spot about halfway up the line where the carriers are very exposed. When I went this lift was running at about 700-800 ft/min which was clearly an effort to save costs. Witches wasn’t even opened on a holiday weekend even though there was sufficient snow cover and Hayfever only ran for about 30 minutes (I did catch a ride on it).

        Like

        • Thomas Carroll March 14, 2020 / 1:20 pm

          A friend of mine worked as ski patrol there and invited my family, when we went I think the barnstormer triple was still there I can’t remember the wind problem though

          Like

    • Utah Powder January 23, 2020 / 8:30 am

      Here are some I found online

      Liked by 1 person

  3. vons3 January 29, 2020 / 9:34 pm

    I read today that the sale of this lift looks to be going through so anyone have a guess where Boyne is going to take it?

    Like

    • skier72 January 29, 2020 / 9:55 pm

      Sunday River? Maybe to replace Barker…

      Like

    • skitheeast January 30, 2020 / 12:06 am

      Barker at Sunday River is probably the favorite, although I think there are some dark horse candidates. This is because while this is a six-pack, it has a capacity lower than Barker currently has and Barker really should get a new lift with higher capacity given its heavy workload. Loon seems unrealistic given this does not really fit in their 10-year plan/timeline they just unveiled. Personally, I think replacing Timberline at Sugarloaf would be fantastic, as the lift is long enough where they could lower the base to allow access from West Mountain. The same could be done with King Pine, although this would allow the top terminal to be moved up to the summit and the bottom could stay where it is. The one setback is that I am not sure how this lift would fare in general above the treeline. Elsewhere at Sunday River, I think replacing Locke would be a good idea (I know it is more of a Barker reliever, but it has unique terrain and could really help mitigate the existing crowds and it has a similar profile). Leadership has also hinted at a ninth peak, being the one above Ridge Run. A lift from the bottom terminal of South Ridge Express to the top of the aforementioned peak would have a similar profile to Barnstormer as well.

      Part of me wants to see Boyne relocate it out west just because everyone is so sold on the whole “Boyne only cares about Big Sky” attitude even though they simply couldn’t invest in their east coast resorts until very recently because of contracts and deals. Crest at Brighton has a really similar profile, is getting up there in age, and has been receiving longer lines the past two years with Ikon drawing more people to BCC. Big Sky really has few options for lifts of similar profiles, but Lone Moose is due for an upgrade in the 2025 plan so that is a possibility.

      Like

      • Max Hart January 30, 2020 / 4:58 am

        That’s a stretch saying that Barnstormer has a lower capacity than the current Barker chair. BMX’s design capacity was 3000 riders/hr, but it typically runs 700fpm instead of 1000fpm, bringing the normal operating capacity down to about 2100 riders/hr.

        Like

        • Doppelmayr FTW January 30, 2020 / 5:15 am

          Barnstormer would loose quite a bit of capacity if it was on Barker because Barker has more vert.

          As an example the old ramcharger went from 2400 an hour to 1600 an hour because of 200 extra vertical feet

          Liked by 1 person

        • Max Hart January 30, 2020 / 9:34 am

          I just did everything out: should Barnstormer be relocated to BMX’s general alignment (~4900 ft long x 1400 vert. ft) and retained its 700hp motor and gearbox, capacity would have to drop from 2725 r/hr as it is to 2057 r/hr, a 25% decrease, dropping it below the normal operating capacity of the quad.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Donald Reif January 30, 2020 / 10:52 am

          Shedhorn 4 lost capacity in the move from Ramcharger 4 because of the different profile.

          Like

        • Max Hart January 30, 2020 / 1:25 pm

          @Donald Reif that’s what I mean. The Ramcharger->Shedhorn relocation lost 33% of its capacity due to 28.2% more vertical footage, and a 3.5% increase in length, while being limited to 500 hp. Ramcharger was capable of 2400r/h (though I think the design capacity was higher, but not all of the chairs were added) covering 1160 vertical feet with a maximum of 44 loaded chairs at any given time. With the 28.2% increase in vertical, the same 500hp motor couldn’t move as much uphill in terms of passenger weight; instead it was dropped to 32 chairs. The 3.5% increase in length means that those 32 chairs had to be put on a longer line, further increasing spacing in terms of distance and time (although the design speed did not change). This dropped capacity down to 1600r/h with 32 loaded chairs at any given time.

          Barnstormer to Barker would be similar, but not quite the same. Barnstormer’s maximum amount of fully loaded chairs was 41 chairs, covering 1181 vertical feet over a length of 5450 feet. Barker covers about 1400 vertical feet, so immediately that drops the amount of fully loaded chairs on the line at any given time to 28 using the same 700 hp motor. However Barker is about 550 feet shorter in length than Barnstormer, so those same 28 loaded chairs wouldn’t be as far apart (in terms of both distance and time) as they would be if both lifts were the same length. They would be about 175 feet apart, which at 1000 fpm yields a capacity of 2057 riders/hr with a spacing of 10.5 seconds. The current quad moves 2100r/h on a good day.

          I doubt that Boyne would want to re-power a 5 year old relocated lift or replace a key lift without an upgrade in capacity, so it’s probably not going to Barker.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Tom White January 30, 2020 / 6:46 am

    I also think Barker replacement is most likely. I look at Sunday River’s report almost daily. The current lift continues to be down for mechanical problems from time to time. It was yesterday. While the Barker lift line is 200’ more vertical, Barnstormer is simply newer and more modern. Here’s some stats:
    Yr pph Ver Len Hp ffp
    Barn 2015 2725 1181 5450 700 1000
    Bark 1987 3000 1396 4902 800 1000

    The horsepower seems to be a significant difference. I don’t know engineering details, but I presume vertical rise is a big factor for determined necessary horsepower. While the carriers are heavier, does a more modern design require less hp?

    Like

    • Donald Reif January 30, 2020 / 11:08 am

      It’s a bit of both horizontal distance and vertical rise. (Using Breck as an example, the Mercury and Rocky Mountain SuperChairs are 1997 Challengers, but the Mercury SuperChair’s motor has 800 hp whereas the Rocky Mountain SuperChair has 600 hp. The Mercury SuperChair’s motor needs more horsepower because it’s for a lift that’s 2,100 feet longer than the Rocky Mountain SuperChair. That shows how horizontal distance can matter. When it comes to vertical rise, the Kensho SuperChair has 900 hp which is the same as the Independence SuperChair, since while 1,500 feet shorter than the Independence SuperChair, it is significantly steeper)

      Some have also noted how Ramcharger 4 lost chairs in its move to become Shedhorn 4, due to the motor having enough horsepower to pull that many chairs on the mellow profile of Ramcharger, but not for the steeper profile that Shedhorn 4 has (plus Shedhorn 4 needing less capacity than Ramcharger needed).

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s