This is going to be my long answer to this. I’ll start with a timeline of the Challenger detachable system.
The prototype Challengers made their debut in 1990 (While the Competition Terminal was still in production) on Zephyr at Winter Park, and Mystic at Mount Norquay. They looked kind of wonky, were very short, and only go 800 feet per minute. They had Competition chairs.
In 1991, the first production model 1st-gen Challenger installed on High Lonesome at Winter Park when the fixed grip was converted to detachable. It was the shorter version that could only go 800 feet per minute. This one had Falcon chairs that were reused from the fixed grip. They also built a one-of-a-kind gondola at Stowe based on the 1st-gen Challenger product.
In 1992, more 1st-gen Challengers were installed. They were Silver Queen at Crested Butte, Magic Mile at Timberline, Northstar at Okemo, and South Ridge Express at Sunday River. These were all the full length version that could go 1100 feet per minute (South Ridge can only go 800 feet per minute due to close chair spacing). These all had Competition chairs.
In 1993, three 2nd-gen prototypes were installed with two at Snowmass and Gemini at Winter Park. Snowmass had the full length terminals and Winter Park had the shorter terminals that this time allowed for a speed of 900 feet per minute. The last 1st-gen Challengers were also built this year, which were Summit Express at Buttermilk, Cascade Express at Mount Hood Meadows, and TGV and Expo at Tremblant. They switched back to the Falcon chair this year and the Competition chair was discontinued.
In 1994, the 1st-gen was discontinued and the 2nd-gen took over. There were two lengths. The full length version allowed for speeds of up to 1100 feet per minute, and the shorter version 900 feet per minute. The shorter version kept the 1st-gen skin, but uses 2nd gen technology. They also changed the tower heads and line gear this year, and those stuck around for 18 years, until the new LPA design took over in 2012. The gondola version of the 2nd-Gen made it’s debut on the Skyeship at Killington, ironically called the Competition Gondola Terminal with a speed of 1200 feet per minute.
In 1996, the Omega chair made it’s debut on fixed grip lifts, and the last Falcon chairs were used on detachables.
In 1997, the Omega chair made it’s way onto the 2nd-gen Challengers and the Falcon chair was discontinued. Three gondolas were also installed this year with a new shortened version of the Competition Gondola Terminal with a speed of 1000 feet per minute going in at Killington and The Canyons, and the same terminals as Skyeship went on the Bridger Gondola at Jackson Hole.
In 1998, the first Omega terminals made their debut and the final Challengers were installed.
Notice how I mentioned the thing about the line gear and tower heads changing in 1994. Well, Needle’s Eye is the only exception to that. Needle’s Eye and Ramshead are both 2nd-gen Challengers. Ramshead has the full length terminals and Needle’s Eye has the shorter ones. Ramshead also has the proper 2nd-gen line gear, while Needle’s for whatever reason has first gen line gear. My guess is that Poma had some extra inventory of first-gen line gear and they offered it to Les Otten for a good price. He often cut costs where he could.
Zephyr at Winter Park is a completely unique design. Why did they go for it if it is less reliable (being a prototype) and if it can only run at 800 fpm?
There were two prototype Challengers built, and Peter happens to have pictures of both. Zephyr Express at Winter Park and Mystic at Mount Norquay, Alberta. I don’t really know why these two decided to get them over the Competition, but they did. Maybe Poma offered them a good price to test out their new detachable product. The two Competitions installed that year were to my knowledge the last new detachables ever built with chain-driven contours.
The distinguishing feature of the prototype Challengers is that they don’t have a “porch” on the inside end of the terminal (where the chairs come in and out). All other Challengers have them. The support on the inside end of the terminal is also straight up and down like on the Falcon and Competition terminals, while the outside support is slanted just like on all Challengers (except the gondolas). Note that the top of Zephyr reused the support column from the Yan triple and that’s why it really looks off for a Poma. There will only be one prototype Challenger after this season as Zephyr is being replaced by an LPA gondola and will be scrapped, not relocated.
Some corrections/additions for the removed lifts: The Snowdon Quad replaced the Snowdon Double in 1992, not 1987. The 1991 trail map shows the Snowdon Double, and the Snowdon Quad never appears on the map without the Canyon Quad also being there, which first happens with the 1992 map. However, the Double Dipper trail which the Canyon Quad follows was cut in 1987. It took them 5 years to actually build the lift. The Lower Snowdon Poma is missing from this list, but operated from 1958 to 1978. The 1978 map shows it operating concurrently with the Snowdon Triple, and then it’s gone in the 1979 map. Snowshed 2 was removed in 2016 and not 2017.
Also, the Needle’s Eye Double was removed in 1996 when the detachable quad was installed, not in 1997. The Killington Peak double was removed in 1997 when K-1 was installed, not 1998. The Glades Poma operated from 1958-72, not 1959-73. The original Killington Gondola also opened in 1969, not 1968, as construction was delayed and took an extra summer.
They would have had to use the Snowdon Triple, which may not even be able to handle downloading. Plus, it is much more comfortable and convenient to use a gondola for pure transportation without skis. Additionally, it is roughly twice as far of a walk from the bottom of North Ridge to the top of Snowdon as it is from the top of K-1 to the top of North Ridge.
The Snowdon Double was actually a Poma modified by Yan, not a Hall. That explains why the Snowdon Quad had 60’s Poma towers, with two Yan towers added later, a Yan return, and Yan hanger arms. I assume the drive was never upgraded until the lift was changed to a quad.
Two spreadsheet corrections: Superstar’s line speed is 800 and Bear Mountain’s is 450. Additionally, Canyon’s is 450. Killington states each lift’s line speed at its respective bottom terminal.
There was a Poma-Telecar double installed here for the 1959/60 season with a capacity of 700, length of 6000, and vertical of 1590. Could it have been the original Killington Peak double.
Telecar installations spreadsheet on skilifts.org forum.
It was Killington Peak. For early high capacity Poma doubles, C&S towers and drives were used. Hunter’s A Double was another example. I’m pretty sure this brand-mixing ended around the mid-60s
(Replying to Utah) I thought they worked with Pomalift Inc (Owned by same guy as Telecar, Larry Jump) until the merge with Heron. Hunter’s A Double was a Poma-C&S combo and that was built in 1962 if I’m not mistaken
Why is there almost no trails between K1 and Superstar? That whole face is north facing and fairly high elevation and is huge, it’s odd that there’s only glades between Ovation and Flume/Escapade. It could maybe even justify its own pod/lifts if it got some new trails cut on it.
There’s a bunch of glades in there and there’d be a revolt if they cut trails through them. Also the bottom of that ridge is steep and incredibly rocky. Whatever trail they’d cut would absolutely need snowmaking. Then that’d spit you out on Flume which is a natural trail, narrow, and can’t be widened due to the topography.
Oddly enough, Superstar was Killington’s last major expansion pod (the canyon quad came a bit later, but it’s arguably an infill lift). So they already sort of did exactly what you’re suggesting. That lift created present-day upper Superstar, Ovation, and SkyeHawk, and allowed people to lap Skyelark, Bittersweet, and the woods further west.
Killington has no shortage of steep, punchy terrain with good northern/eastern exposures. What it could use a lot more of are long, flowing intermediate groomers. That’s where their efforts have been focused lately (with the bridge-building) and in the past (Parker’s Gore, the Pico interconnect).
Honestly, the ability to have 1500’+ vertical laps is the most underrated part of the Pico interconnect (the massive overall acreage gets the most attention). Killington has great snowfall, good elevation, and a ton of terrain, but it really lacks in lap-able terrain north of 1200′ vert. If the interconnect ever occurs, I really believe Pico would see a massive increase in traffic due to the availability of this terrain, likely freeing up space at the rest of Killington (Skye Peak comes to mine as a place that could be partially cannibalized).
Killington is the only resort I know of that has all 4 lengths of Challenger terminals. Needle’s Eye has the 48-foot version, Ramshead has the 60-foot version, K1 has the 72-foot version, and Skyeship has the 100-foot version.
Is there a reason the Snowdon Six replaced the quad instead of the triple? I would think it would be better to have that extra capacity straight out of the K-1 lodge. But maybe the quad was a better candidate to keep and move.
A) They wanted to move traffic away from K-1.
B) They wanted to create a better intermediate pod on Snowdon, and the intermediate trails flow more naturally into the area where the quad was.
Killington and Tremblant appear to be tied for the most detachable lifts east of the Mississippi (at 9). This is counting the Cabrilet and Casino gondola, and not counting Pico. I wonder which resort will be first to crack double digits …
Well that would put it in a rather rare club, by my count (and one dominated by just three ownership structures):
Whistler BC 21 Vail Resorts
Vail CO 20 Vail Resorts
Park City UT 19 Vail Resorts
Palisades Tahoe CA 16 KSL/Crown
Beaver Creek CO 15 Vail Resorts
Deer Valley UT 15 KSL/Crown
Mammoth CA 15 KSL/Crown
Breckenridge CO 13 Vail Resorts
Heavenly CA 11 Vail Resorts
Steamboat CO 11 KSL/Crown
Telluride CO 11 Independent
Winterpark CO 11 KSL/Crown
Snowmass CO 10 KSL/Crown
9 counts both stages of Skyeskip as separate lifts, which is true from a technical perspective but a little less so in actuality. Tremblant will get to 10 when Timber is (finally) constructed.
Bad news – the carriers on the Snowdon Triple are in need of replacement. However, Doppelmayr and Leitner-Poma want nothing to do with it. We shall see what happens next.
Hmm, could it end up with Skytrac Chairs? Parteks? LPOA has already done an enormous amount of work on that lift. Odd that they want no part of additional work.
I heard this from a mechanic at Killington, and I am hoping that it is one of the little manufacturers. I have no idea of any plans, seeing as I have not been to Killington since Memorial Day Sunday (spring mogul skiing on the Superstar Glacier!).
looking at the trail map, it looks like skiing here in the 70’s and 80’s must have been a quite the ordeal with most of the main lifts being 5000 foot plus fixed grips lifts. Still wish i could have been around during that era of skiing though.
I’d slot a Snowshed replacement 6 or 8 in that list. It’s the same Yan vintage as Superstar, and I’d imagine with the Village that Snowshed and Ramshead will become even busier base areas than they already are. OTOH, Snowdon Triple is basically a backup lift now, and I wonder if the aforementioned construction will take some of the heat off of K-1 base.
Hard to figure out the future of Bear Mountain. It’s less crowded than the rest of the bases but that’s also because it’s such a long remote drive to get to. I could imagine a future with the Village in place where that and the Access Road are the centers for people staying a while, and Bear and/or a renovated Skyeship base handle more of the day-skier entries than they already do. But all of that seems like far-ahead thinking at this point.
I assume this is just some early concept art to drum up interest/investors. But what I find both hilarious and concerning:
None of the lifts appear to have bottom terminals (?!) or mazes or milling areas
The “ski beach” seems to be intersected by the access road, not actually connecting ramshead and snowshed
the two massive base parking areas are gone, and a much smaller one appears below the village … no rendering of a transport system for day skiers … are they expected to park elsewhere? (K1? Skyeship?)
The various artistic renderings of the new offerings include all sorts of *private* spaces … spas, gyms, restaurants. there’s not a single rendering of a new day lodge, the purported “skier beach”, bus or dropoff staging … or even basic things a village usually has like … store fronts …
I get it’s just concept art. But the fact that it starts from a place of “cram in as many condos as luxury amenities as possible” without even attempting to highlight things like, improved skier flow, public squares, transit … like, things any real base village actually needs, and what probably turns out to be like half the total construction expense.
The area around the base of the lifts, the two existing lodges, and Killington Road is going to be entirely regraded. The Ramshead lift is going to be extended downhill to roughly where the current Ramshead Lodge is, and the Snowshed Express lift is going to be realigned to load closer to where the Snowshed Double currently does. Given the age of these lifts, it is likely that the Snowshed Double will be removed and the other two lifts will be replaced with detachable sixes. The Snowshed Lodge and Ramshead Lodge are going to be replaced with a single, larger lodge between the two lifts. Killington Road is going to be rerouted around what is currently the edge of the Ramshead Lot and then go under this new lodge (with room for ski beach in front of the lodge for an on-snow connection). Effectively, this will unify Ramshead and Snowshed as a single base area, with the regrading and road relocation making this possible.
The Ramshead Lot will be removed, and the Snowshed Lot will be reduced by ~75%, but there are a few important things to note about parking. First, the village will have underground parking for those staying there, and having a village is projected to reduce day parking demand by hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles at full build. Second, Killington actually has an excess of parking capacity at the moment, with it most noticeable at Bear and Skyeship. Third, the developers have committed to building an additional ski-in (not out) lot just down the access road should demand warrant it.
And to clarify, the lifts will have mazes and bottom terminals, the village will have many publicly accessible stores, and the existing Killington bus network will be expanded to some degree.
You’re operating based on three assumptions that will not always hold true:
People actually want to park at Skyeship or Bear
Skyeship and Bear Mountain lifts will be open on any crowded days
The clientele on any given day will be staying in the village
This proposal has them getting rid of about half of what I will refer to as “Upper Mountain” parking (K1, Vale Rd, Snowshed, Ramshead) for reference.
#1:
Even midwinter, Skyeship is a pretty bad place to park if you’re coming from Rutland, Killington Road or anywhere from the west since you end up driving the same amount to start your day 15 minutes further from real skiing. Conditions are often bad down to Skyeship and people just don’t necessarily want to start their day out on a long gondola, and be really far from their car the entire day.
As for Bear, that’s 5 minutes further than the Upper Mountain lots from that direction and involves you driving on East Mountain Road which is a bit of a shitshow whenever it snows.
#2:
Skyeship and Bear are realistically only reliably open January-March. I’ve skied early season days when every Upper Mountain lot filled by 11am. I’ve skied late season days when having the entirety of Snowshed was essential. Cutting December and April parking in half will have some impact on the skier experience.
#3:
Most skiers who come to Killington (outside of 10 Saturdays from Dec 15th-March 1st) aren’t really the type who are going to pay for the village and use the underground parking. I realize that those dates and tourist crowds are the overflow problem days now, but if you get rid of half of the Upper Mountain parking then it’ll introduce complications in other parts of the season and the village parking won’t help at all.
The proposed ski-in lot doesn’t inspire tons of confidence in me as someone who has waited in bad shuttle lines at Killington before. It’s seems obvious that the solution is more Vale Road/Killington Road parking above the village. But I’m admittedly not sure how feasible that actually is.
All of this. But maybe most important of all: Snowshed/Ramshorn is where ski school operates. Snowshed is the bunny slope. So any redesign that forces families with young kids to park remotely is just a huge step down in terms of convenience. If you’ve got a bunch of never-ever skiers or toddlers in tow, you’re not gonna ride skyeship and ski down to drop them off. You’re gonna ride a bus.
The two most popular lots are K-1 and Vale. Those are remaining intact. Skyeship is actually their third most popular lot, and it is important to remember that the majority of their clientele is coming from NYC, CT, & Boston, all of which come from the east.
Skyeship is reliably open 12/26 to mid-March every year, even if it requires downloading Stage 1. Bear is reliably open from the weekend before Christmas to the end of March every year. These schedules are both driven by demand. Days in early December or April when parking exceeds K-1 and Vale are rare, and it is foolish to not build a village over the issue of having to run parking shuttles on rare early or late season days.
The village will not be full every day, but it will almost certainly be quite full on weekends and peak days. This is quite similar to the parking itself, where it will continue to be easy to get a spot in K-1 or Vale lot on midweek.
I do understand the point about beginners, but I will note that there will be a drop-off spot adjacent to the new Snowshed/Ramshead lodge. Frankly, having skied with toddlers, I would rather drop them off adjacent to the lodge with another parent/guardian or park somewhere with them and take an easy shuttle than walk uphill through the entire Snowshed lot.
The area at a ski resort with the most convenient parking will always be the best location for a village, since it is the best real estate at the resort. Here, Killington is actually leaving the best area (K-1 Lot) for parking, and I would argue they are also leaving the second-best area (Vale Lot) for parking. Killington loses more by not having a village than it does by making a minority of its parking less convenient.
1. I don’t buy that Vale is more popular than Snowshed, but even then just so much of the good parking is being eliminated. Also apparently Vale Rd parking will be eliminated in a later stage of the plan which will just compound these problems. Skyeship is popular situationally but often sits pretty empty.
Half of the NY metro area filters in from the west and anyone staying on Killington Road or in Rutland has to come from that direction.
2. Downloading Skyeship to get back to your car just means you lost 20 minutes of your life riding shuttle lifts to access the ski area. I might buy that K1 and Vale filling in April is a once a year type event but in December it’s much more common, particularly when Killington has a more competitive offering than nearby resorts. A few years ago I showed up at 10:30 in November (not WC) and got parked in Snowshed.
3. Frankly having seen the Stratton village, I’m skeptical the village will be over 50% capacity for more than 10 days a year. Which makes the whole project questionable.
I realize that Killington will theoretically make more money with a village but that wasn’t the problem, the issue is that it’s wasteful development that ruins the experience of the people who actually call the resort home. Which is hypocritical given the new independent owners who have preached authenticity.
Prioritizing parking over real estate is a big mistake, Killington is moving in the right direction with this project. Also keep in mind the development will have parking for each of its dwellings that would not need resort parking since they are at the slopes already. Use european resorts as an example, most people do not drive to the mountain to park, and instead stay in the villages nearby and use the bus or walk to a lift, and because of that getting to the slopes is a lot more pleasant. As long as Killington implements a more robust shuttle system it will do great
Lift Blog 
Is there a reason why Needles Eye and Ramshead, though installed in the same year, have differing designs in the tower heads and terminals?
LikeLike
This is going to be my long answer to this. I’ll start with a timeline of the Challenger detachable system.
The prototype Challengers made their debut in 1990 (While the Competition Terminal was still in production) on Zephyr at Winter Park, and Mystic at Mount Norquay. They looked kind of wonky, were very short, and only go 800 feet per minute. They had Competition chairs.
In 1991, the first production model 1st-gen Challenger installed on High Lonesome at Winter Park when the fixed grip was converted to detachable. It was the shorter version that could only go 800 feet per minute. This one had Falcon chairs that were reused from the fixed grip. They also built a one-of-a-kind gondola at Stowe based on the 1st-gen Challenger product.
In 1992, more 1st-gen Challengers were installed. They were Silver Queen at Crested Butte, Magic Mile at Timberline, Northstar at Okemo, and South Ridge Express at Sunday River. These were all the full length version that could go 1100 feet per minute (South Ridge can only go 800 feet per minute due to close chair spacing). These all had Competition chairs.
In 1993, three 2nd-gen prototypes were installed with two at Snowmass and Gemini at Winter Park. Snowmass had the full length terminals and Winter Park had the shorter terminals that this time allowed for a speed of 900 feet per minute. The last 1st-gen Challengers were also built this year, which were Summit Express at Buttermilk, Cascade Express at Mount Hood Meadows, and TGV and Expo at Tremblant. They switched back to the Falcon chair this year and the Competition chair was discontinued.
In 1994, the 1st-gen was discontinued and the 2nd-gen took over. There were two lengths. The full length version allowed for speeds of up to 1100 feet per minute, and the shorter version 900 feet per minute. The shorter version kept the 1st-gen skin, but uses 2nd gen technology. They also changed the tower heads and line gear this year, and those stuck around for 18 years, until the new LPA design took over in 2012. The gondola version of the 2nd-Gen made it’s debut on the Skyeship at Killington, ironically called the Competition Gondola Terminal with a speed of 1200 feet per minute.
In 1996, the Omega chair made it’s debut on fixed grip lifts, and the last Falcon chairs were used on detachables.
In 1997, the Omega chair made it’s way onto the 2nd-gen Challengers and the Falcon chair was discontinued. Three gondolas were also installed this year with a new shortened version of the Competition Gondola Terminal with a speed of 1000 feet per minute going in at Killington and The Canyons, and the same terminals as Skyeship went on the Bridger Gondola at Jackson Hole.
In 1998, the first Omega terminals made their debut and the final Challengers were installed.
Notice how I mentioned the thing about the line gear and tower heads changing in 1994. Well, Needle’s Eye is the only exception to that. Needle’s Eye and Ramshead are both 2nd-gen Challengers. Ramshead has the full length terminals and Needle’s Eye has the shorter ones. Ramshead also has the proper 2nd-gen line gear, while Needle’s for whatever reason has first gen line gear. My guess is that Poma had some extra inventory of first-gen line gear and they offered it to Les Otten for a good price. He often cut costs where he could.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Zephyr at Winter Park is a completely unique design. Why did they go for it if it is less reliable (being a prototype) and if it can only run at 800 fpm?
LikeLike
There were two prototype Challengers built, and Peter happens to have pictures of both. Zephyr Express at Winter Park and Mystic at Mount Norquay, Alberta. I don’t really know why these two decided to get them over the Competition, but they did. Maybe Poma offered them a good price to test out their new detachable product. The two Competitions installed that year were to my knowledge the last new detachables ever built with chain-driven contours.
The distinguishing feature of the prototype Challengers is that they don’t have a “porch” on the inside end of the terminal (where the chairs come in and out). All other Challengers have them. The support on the inside end of the terminal is also straight up and down like on the Falcon and Competition terminals, while the outside support is slanted just like on all Challengers (except the gondolas). Note that the top of Zephyr reused the support column from the Yan triple and that’s why it really looks off for a Poma. There will only be one prototype Challenger after this season as Zephyr is being replaced by an LPA gondola and will be scrapped, not relocated.
LikeLike
Some corrections/additions for the removed lifts: The Snowdon Quad replaced the Snowdon Double in 1992, not 1987. The 1991 trail map shows the Snowdon Double, and the Snowdon Quad never appears on the map without the Canyon Quad also being there, which first happens with the 1992 map. However, the Double Dipper trail which the Canyon Quad follows was cut in 1987. It took them 5 years to actually build the lift. The Lower Snowdon Poma is missing from this list, but operated from 1958 to 1978. The 1978 map shows it operating concurrently with the Snowdon Triple, and then it’s gone in the 1979 map. Snowshed 2 was removed in 2016 and not 2017.
LikeLike
Also, the Needle’s Eye Double was removed in 1996 when the detachable quad was installed, not in 1997. The Killington Peak double was removed in 1997 when K-1 was installed, not 1998. The Glades Poma operated from 1958-72, not 1959-73. The original Killington Gondola also opened in 1969, not 1968, as construction was delayed and took an extra summer.
LikeLike
Why did they build the Peak walkway across such steep terrain when they could just run one of the Snowdon lifts instead?
LikeLike
They would have had to use the Snowdon Triple, which may not even be able to handle downloading. Plus, it is much more comfortable and convenient to use a gondola for pure transportation without skis. Additionally, it is roughly twice as far of a walk from the bottom of North Ridge to the top of Snowdon as it is from the top of K-1 to the top of North Ridge.
LikeLike
The Snowdon Double was actually a Poma modified by Yan, not a Hall. That explains why the Snowdon Quad had 60’s Poma towers, with two Yan towers added later, a Yan return, and Yan hanger arms. I assume the drive was never upgraded until the lift was changed to a quad.
LikeLike
Two spreadsheet corrections: Superstar’s line speed is 800 and Bear Mountain’s is 450. Additionally, Canyon’s is 450. Killington states each lift’s line speed at its respective bottom terminal.
LikeLike
There was a Poma-Telecar double installed here for the 1959/60 season with a capacity of 700, length of 6000, and vertical of 1590. Could it have been the original Killington Peak double.
Telecar installations spreadsheet on skilifts.org forum.
http://www.skilifts.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=11169
LikeLike
It was Killington Peak. For early high capacity Poma doubles, C&S towers and drives were used. Hunter’s A Double was another example. I’m pretty sure this brand-mixing ended around the mid-60s
LikeLike
Wouldn’t the double be classified as Telecar because telecar sold early Poma and C&S stuff in one lift?
LikeLike
1960 was the year Poma and Telecar split off. I agree, it should be listed as Telecar.
LikeLike
(Replying to Utah) I thought they worked with Pomalift Inc (Owned by same guy as Telecar, Larry Jump) until the merge with Heron. Hunter’s A Double was a Poma-C&S combo and that was built in 1962 if I’m not mistaken
LikeLike
Why is there almost no trails between K1 and Superstar? That whole face is north facing and fairly high elevation and is huge, it’s odd that there’s only glades between Ovation and Flume/Escapade. It could maybe even justify its own pod/lifts if it got some new trails cut on it.
LikeLike
There’s a bunch of glades in there and there’d be a revolt if they cut trails through them. Also the bottom of that ridge is steep and incredibly rocky. Whatever trail they’d cut would absolutely need snowmaking. Then that’d spit you out on Flume which is a natural trail, narrow, and can’t be widened due to the topography.
LikeLike
Oddly enough, Superstar was Killington’s last major expansion pod (the canyon quad came a bit later, but it’s arguably an infill lift). So they already sort of did exactly what you’re suggesting. That lift created present-day upper Superstar, Ovation, and SkyeHawk, and allowed people to lap Skyelark, Bittersweet, and the woods further west.
Killington has no shortage of steep, punchy terrain with good northern/eastern exposures. What it could use a lot more of are long, flowing intermediate groomers. That’s where their efforts have been focused lately (with the bridge-building) and in the past (Parker’s Gore, the Pico interconnect).
LikeLike
Honestly, the ability to have 1500’+ vertical laps is the most underrated part of the Pico interconnect (the massive overall acreage gets the most attention). Killington has great snowfall, good elevation, and a ton of terrain, but it really lacks in lap-able terrain north of 1200′ vert. If the interconnect ever occurs, I really believe Pico would see a massive increase in traffic due to the availability of this terrain, likely freeing up space at the rest of Killington (Skye Peak comes to mine as a place that could be partially cannibalized).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Killington is the only resort I know of that has all 4 lengths of Challenger terminals. Needle’s Eye has the 48-foot version, Ramshead has the 60-foot version, K1 has the 72-foot version, and Skyeship has the 100-foot version.
LikeLike
Is there a reason the Snowdon Six replaced the quad instead of the triple? I would think it would be better to have that extra capacity straight out of the K-1 lodge. But maybe the quad was a better candidate to keep and move.
LikeLike
Two reasons.
A) They wanted to move traffic away from K-1.
B) They wanted to create a better intermediate pod on Snowdon, and the intermediate trails flow more naturally into the area where the quad was.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Killington and Tremblant appear to be tied for the most detachable lifts east of the Mississippi (at 9). This is counting the Cabrilet and Casino gondola, and not counting Pico. I wonder which resort will be first to crack double digits …
LikeLike
If you count the Ramshead detachable platter, Killington would be in the double digits for detachable lifts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well that would put it in a rather rare club, by my count (and one dominated by just three ownership structures):
Whistler BC 21 Vail Resorts
Vail CO 20 Vail Resorts
Park City UT 19 Vail Resorts
Palisades Tahoe CA 16 KSL/Crown
Beaver Creek CO 15 Vail Resorts
Deer Valley UT 15 KSL/Crown
Mammoth CA 15 KSL/Crown
Breckenridge CO 13 Vail Resorts
Heavenly CA 11 Vail Resorts
Steamboat CO 11 KSL/Crown
Telluride CO 11 Independent
Winterpark CO 11 KSL/Crown
Snowmass CO 10 KSL/Crown
LikeLike
9 counts both stages of Skyeskip as separate lifts, which is true from a technical perspective but a little less so in actuality. Tremblant will get to 10 when Timber is (finally) constructed.
LikeLike
Lots of footage of the old K-double and original gondola:
LikeLiked by 2 people
really good looks at superstar’s grips!
LikeLike
The Snowshed double with it’s awesome drive terminal sound (2:18)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Snowshed 2 still has its APU up there….
LikeLike
Superstar has an 850 HP locomotive motor:
https://liftnerd.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/111_0306.jpg?resize=450,450
LikeLike
Bad news – the carriers on the Snowdon Triple are in need of replacement. However, Doppelmayr and Leitner-Poma want nothing to do with it. We shall see what happens next.
LikeLike
Hmm, could it end up with Skytrac Chairs? Parteks? LPOA has already done an enormous amount of work on that lift. Odd that they want no part of additional work.
LikeLike
I heard this from a mechanic at Killington, and I am hoping that it is one of the little manufacturers. I have no idea of any plans, seeing as I have not been to Killington since Memorial Day Sunday (spring mogul skiing on the Superstar Glacier!).
LikeLike
The Yan detachables have dual tensioning.
liftnerd.wordpress.com/superstar/
LikeLike
liftnerd.wordpress.com/superstar/
LikeLike
looking at the trail map, it looks like skiing here in the 70’s and 80’s must have been a quite the ordeal with most of the main lifts being 5000 foot plus fixed grips lifts. Still wish i could have been around during that era of skiing though.
LikeLike
Peter, there was a triple chair named the northwest passage. I don’t know any of the stats but here it is on the trail map.
https://files.skimap.org/f6dilluxp6oumr9o7m20gz15dvka
LikeLike
Seems like some of the priorities for the new ownership group would be replacement of these lifts:
Also, a replacement or refurbishment of Bear Mountain Lodge. Ramshead/Snowshed will be part of the village construction.
LikeLike
I’d slot a Snowshed replacement 6 or 8 in that list. It’s the same Yan vintage as Superstar, and I’d imagine with the Village that Snowshed and Ramshead will become even busier base areas than they already are. OTOH, Snowdon Triple is basically a backup lift now, and I wonder if the aforementioned construction will take some of the heat off of K-1 base.
Hard to figure out the future of Bear Mountain. It’s less crowded than the rest of the bases but that’s also because it’s such a long remote drive to get to. I could imagine a future with the Village in place where that and the Access Road are the centers for people staying a while, and Bear and/or a renovated Skyeship base handle more of the day-skier entries than they already do. But all of that seems like far-ahead thinking at this point.
LikeLike
superstar’s drive at 8:51.
LikeLike
South Ridge’s Turn: https://youtu.be/OPeqE-a02BE?si=SSkVAS1M8e0tg15l
LikeLike
Peter when are you going to get to superstar??
LikeLike
There was a writeup in the Times today on Killington’s planned base village, and it also linked to the project website.
I assume this is just some early concept art to drum up interest/investors. But what I find both hilarious and concerning:
I get it’s just concept art. But the fact that it starts from a place of “cram in as many condos as luxury amenities as possible” without even attempting to highlight things like, improved skier flow, public squares, transit … like, things any real base village actually needs, and what probably turns out to be like half the total construction expense.
LikeLike
The area around the base of the lifts, the two existing lodges, and Killington Road is going to be entirely regraded. The Ramshead lift is going to be extended downhill to roughly where the current Ramshead Lodge is, and the Snowshed Express lift is going to be realigned to load closer to where the Snowshed Double currently does. Given the age of these lifts, it is likely that the Snowshed Double will be removed and the other two lifts will be replaced with detachable sixes. The Snowshed Lodge and Ramshead Lodge are going to be replaced with a single, larger lodge between the two lifts. Killington Road is going to be rerouted around what is currently the edge of the Ramshead Lot and then go under this new lodge (with room for ski beach in front of the lodge for an on-snow connection). Effectively, this will unify Ramshead and Snowshed as a single base area, with the regrading and road relocation making this possible.
The Ramshead Lot will be removed, and the Snowshed Lot will be reduced by ~75%, but there are a few important things to note about parking. First, the village will have underground parking for those staying there, and having a village is projected to reduce day parking demand by hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles at full build. Second, Killington actually has an excess of parking capacity at the moment, with it most noticeable at Bear and Skyeship. Third, the developers have committed to building an additional ski-in (not out) lot just down the access road should demand warrant it.
And to clarify, the lifts will have mazes and bottom terminals, the village will have many publicly accessible stores, and the existing Killington bus network will be expanded to some degree.
LikeLike
You’re operating based on three assumptions that will not always hold true:
This proposal has them getting rid of about half of what I will refer to as “Upper Mountain” parking (K1, Vale Rd, Snowshed, Ramshead) for reference.
#1:
Even midwinter, Skyeship is a pretty bad place to park if you’re coming from Rutland, Killington Road or anywhere from the west since you end up driving the same amount to start your day 15 minutes further from real skiing. Conditions are often bad down to Skyeship and people just don’t necessarily want to start their day out on a long gondola, and be really far from their car the entire day.
As for Bear, that’s 5 minutes further than the Upper Mountain lots from that direction and involves you driving on East Mountain Road which is a bit of a shitshow whenever it snows.
#2:
Skyeship and Bear are realistically only reliably open January-March. I’ve skied early season days when every Upper Mountain lot filled by 11am. I’ve skied late season days when having the entirety of Snowshed was essential. Cutting December and April parking in half will have some impact on the skier experience.
#3:
Most skiers who come to Killington (outside of 10 Saturdays from Dec 15th-March 1st) aren’t really the type who are going to pay for the village and use the underground parking. I realize that those dates and tourist crowds are the overflow problem days now, but if you get rid of half of the Upper Mountain parking then it’ll introduce complications in other parts of the season and the village parking won’t help at all.
The proposed ski-in lot doesn’t inspire tons of confidence in me as someone who has waited in bad shuttle lines at Killington before. It’s seems obvious that the solution is more Vale Road/Killington Road parking above the village. But I’m admittedly not sure how feasible that actually is.
LikeLike
All of this. But maybe most important of all: Snowshed/Ramshorn is where ski school operates. Snowshed is the bunny slope. So any redesign that forces families with young kids to park remotely is just a huge step down in terms of convenience. If you’ve got a bunch of never-ever skiers or toddlers in tow, you’re not gonna ride skyeship and ski down to drop them off. You’re gonna ride a bus.
LikeLike
The area at a ski resort with the most convenient parking will always be the best location for a village, since it is the best real estate at the resort. Here, Killington is actually leaving the best area (K-1 Lot) for parking, and I would argue they are also leaving the second-best area (Vale Lot) for parking. Killington loses more by not having a village than it does by making a minority of its parking less convenient.
LikeLiked by 1 person
1. I don’t buy that Vale is more popular than Snowshed, but even then just so much of the good parking is being eliminated. Also apparently Vale Rd parking will be eliminated in a later stage of the plan which will just compound these problems. Skyeship is popular situationally but often sits pretty empty.
Half of the NY metro area filters in from the west and anyone staying on Killington Road or in Rutland has to come from that direction.
2. Downloading Skyeship to get back to your car just means you lost 20 minutes of your life riding shuttle lifts to access the ski area. I might buy that K1 and Vale filling in April is a once a year type event but in December it’s much more common, particularly when Killington has a more competitive offering than nearby resorts. A few years ago I showed up at 10:30 in November (not WC) and got parked in Snowshed.
3. Frankly having seen the Stratton village, I’m skeptical the village will be over 50% capacity for more than 10 days a year. Which makes the whole project questionable.
I realize that Killington will theoretically make more money with a village but that wasn’t the problem, the issue is that it’s wasteful development that ruins the experience of the people who actually call the resort home. Which is hypocritical given the new independent owners who have preached authenticity.
LikeLike
Prioritizing parking over real estate is a big mistake, Killington is moving in the right direction with this project. Also keep in mind the development will have parking for each of its dwellings that would not need resort parking since they are at the slopes already. Use european resorts as an example, most people do not drive to the mountain to park, and instead stay in the villages nearby and use the bus or walk to a lift, and because of that getting to the slopes is a lot more pleasant. As long as Killington implements a more robust shuttle system it will do great
LikeLike