Victor aka sketchyAnalogiesDecember 28, 2022 / 7:38 pm
Was the new logo with the “my mammoth” program launch. Some see an M crown, but I always remember the “my mammoth” program and see the “crown” logo as an MY. I agree with you 100%, I love the tusks M over the crown MY
I think Heimo’s Platter may have been removed this past summer because on the new trail map for the 2018-19 season, there is the Canyon Carpet in the same alignment that Heimo’s was originally in.
the 1a platter ski lift was actually next to canyon express and the platter on the 1972 trail next to McCoy station was a different platter compared to 1a so 1a platter was right next to canyon express and I think it came from the platter lift by McCoy station.
here is a picture of the 1982 trail map but the platter at McCoy is not there but there is a platter but canyon express
Chair 2 is the busiest. The detachables that need upgrade are 1 and 16, because they’re Yan/Doppelmayr hybrids that are getting old, and can be busy on peak days. 2 and 10 could also use upgrading because they each have a capacity of 2,800 pp/h, but they serve as the only way for intermediates to get from one side of the mountain to the other. There’s also some fixed grips that need to be upgraded. 12 and 14 really need to become detachable to make it easier to use the backside of the mountain. 25 is also planned to be upgraded to serve the side of Lincoln Mountain, but I’m not sure that there’s enough terrain to make it a high priority. One thing that I’d like to see done is upgrades of 2 and 10, and then relocations of the old quads to replace the backside lifts. Currently, the plan is to replace 16 next summer with a six pack. They’re considering a bunch of high-end features, including bubbles, heated seats, and a loading carpet. Maybe Alterra will feel brave enough to buy their first D-Line.
1 Definitely doesn’t need it. It has chair 6 and the gondola to supplement it, and the lines are usually shorter. 2 definitely needs a capacity of 3,600 pp/h, and it wouldn’t hurt at 16, either. I think that in general, eight packs shouldn’t be built. Grouping eventually becomes enough of a problem that wider seats aren’t justified. Mammoth, in particular, struggles to fill seats on its two six packs, and unless they improve operations, there’s going to be more inefficiency than some other mountains. The 2007 plan dealt with this problem by constructing lifts to supplement the demand for cross-mountain transportation. They have plans to extend the village gondola to the top of 15. 15 will be converted and extended to the top of 5. Eventually, a tram will run from there to the summit. At 2, there’s plans to build a beginner-ish detachable quad to mirror 6.
Coincidentally, they announced today. They had previously said they were announcing in March when they originally announced the Steamboat gondola project earlier this season.
The best way to understand it is that the tops of 1, 3, 5, 22, and 23 (and kinda 9 and 10 as well) are all sub-peaks of the mountain, meaning that you can ski down from them in any direction. Google Earth would help you understand it.
As a 12 year Mammoth veteran, here’s my analysis on what needs to be upgraded.
(A lot of this is based off the 2007 Ecosign master plan.)
Chair 1/Broadway Express: Upgrade to a D6C, capacity between 2800-3600ish pph.
Chair 2/Stump Alley Express: Upgrade to D6C, capacity also between 2800-3600ish pph.
Chair 7: Upgrade to a D4C, maybe call it Wonderland Express??? Capacity between 1800-2400 pph.
Chair 8: Upgrade to D4C, call maybe Bluejay Express? Move to where Eagle Express (current) top teminal is. Capacity between 1800 to 2400 pph.
Chair 9/Cloud Nine Express: Downgrade to a D4C. Most of the time the lift chairs aren’t even half full and they could reuse the 6-person chairs at Broadway or somewhere else.
Chair 10/Gold Rush Express: Upgrade to a D6C, capacity between 2800-3600ish pph.
Chairs 12, 13 and 14: Definitely upgrade 12 and 14 to D4C, maybe upgrade 13??? Capacity would be 2400 pph.
Chair 15/Eagle Express: Upgrade to a D8G or to a D12G (if there is such a thing). Extend to top of Summit. First midstation at current upper terminal (where there would be a ski school), and second midstation at the top of High Five. To save costs, second mid station could possibly be a one way mid station, like Orange Bubble at Park City.
Chair 16/Canyon Express: Upgrade to D6C, capacity also between 2800-3600ish pph.
Chair 25: Upgrade to D4C, maybe call Lincoln Express? Capacity between 1800-2400 pph. Move base terminal to where Cloud Nine is.
Additionally, fixed grip lifts will be located to the east of The Mill, at Eagle Lodge, at Canyon Lodge, at the proposed Eagle Express Gondola midstation, and at the top of Cloud Nine. See the link below for details.
I think Cloud Nine is a six pack on account of needing heavier chairs for wind tolerance.
Considering WB’s reuse of Emerald 4 to upgrade Catskinner, I’d say that the proposed new high speed quads would be possible by relocating the ones getting replaced with high speed six packs.
Hard for me to imagine Mammoth redeploying the relic Yan Frankenlifts to anywhere else on the mountain, particularly chairs like 1 and 16 with a lot of hours on them..
@Trevor – Some interesting ideas here, though I’m not sure I understand a few of them.
– Upgrades to D6C for Ch 1 and 2 are no brainers
– Ch 7 makes sense more from a ease of loading perspective than capacity, but it looks like Mammoth is really focused on expanding their beginner terrain/ski school presence at Canyon and Eagle
– Don’t understand why you’d want to upgrade Ch 8 to a DC4. The Ecosign plan already contemplates adding a 2nd stage to the Village Gondola to complete its originally intended route terminating at the top of Eagle/15. That will siphon a fair bit of traffic away from 8, which is pretty uncrowded as it is. Biggest issue with 8 for me is that it’s always stopping due to the large number of beginners taking it to navigate around the Canyon/Eagle area. Don’t see any need to double down on capacity with a detatchable lift when the line is only 3800 ft long. Leaving 8 as is would make for a really nice gem for experienced Mammoth skiers to exploit as traffic funnels to the sexier detatchable lifts on either side.
– Downgrade Ch 9 from D6C to D4C? No. Not gonna happen both for wind reasons as Donald Reif mentioned and practical cost considerations.
– Not sure I understand the impetus for upgrading 10/Gold Rush. It’s basically a transfer lift, albeit an important one. Lines are pretty modest every time I’ve been there. My biggest gripe with that lift is the exposure and I’d actually prefer that they replace Ch 21 with a D4C that starts next to 10. It would provide quicker access to Canyon and allow beginners/intermediates to avoid the mess of Solitude and/or Spook at the top of 10 in trying to get down and across to the Ch 16/4 area. Also would allow quicker access to the expanded skier services they apparently planning to put in at Ch 4 base.
– Upgrades to Ch 12 and 14 to D4C are also no brainers for me for different reasons. 14 is a fossil and a new lift could help spread traffic around to the backside a little better. 12 is a necessity assuming the summit terminal is moved uphill toward White Bark Bowl. If you could easily return to Main w/o having to deal with the pain of skiing down 203, that would make that area a lot more attractive IMO. Plus again, the upgrade itself is likely to draw traffic to a highly underutilized area. Not sure Ch 13 needs detatchable technology given its short length (2300 ft) but maybe this is where a cut down version of 25 ends up if that’s upgraded.
– Eagle/15 will need more capacity if the plans they have for Eagle base and the new beginner pod near the top are even partially executed. Extending it to the saddle at the top of 10 where the new restaurant is planned makes a huge amount of sense to me as well (either as a separate lift or a two-stager with midstation at current summit of 15). That would fundamentally transform access from Eagle and would take pressure of 16 to get people further West. But I can’t subscribe to the idea that the summit of Mammoth, with precisely 1 intermediate route down (and a narrow, hairy cat track at that) should be looking to double capacity up there. That’s a recipe for disaster, especially if 14 gets upgraded and they install the surface lift from the top of 9 up to Dave’s.
– Ch 16 to D6C is also a no brainer
– Ch 25 upgrade and realignment is a great idea, though I hope Mammoth takes a look at trail flow and re-grading opportunities feeding down to it. There’s so much terrain back there that is under-utilized and the flow or at least the signage is suboptimal.
– You didn’t mention it but I love the idea of a shorter lift out of Mill to help get you over to Main w/o having to take Ch 2.
I dont think the Village Gondola extension would be feasible, as it is already free and they would have to put up lift gates at the Village to prevent fare evaders skiing down from the top of 8 and 15. A fixed grip or detach for 8 makes more sense.
From personal experience, it’s actually pretty hard to get to Main from White Bark, as there’s a ridge above 11 that cuts across the fall line. I’d also imagine that people below advanced intermediates wouldn’t enjoy a run as steep as White Bark.
On a different note, I’d add that 15b is supposed to end at the top of 5. From there, there’s going to be a Big Sky/Snowbasin style tram running to the summit. I don’t think that it’ll add much capacity to the upper mountain.
I get it regarding 11. It’s just an unfortunate layout b/c that slog back to Main really, really sucks. Maybe some creative grading can help? Either way, I think the plan in the Ecosign version was to offer advanced intermediates a new lappable option with the expectation that most people would first go skiers left down a wide new run on the ridge for 100 vertical before re-entering the existing trail network under 11
If they’re going to put a 4-person beer can up to the summit from the top of 5, that’s a different animal. Capacity below 500 pph doesn’t change the equation much.
Surprised though that they’d run 15b up to that spot though. I think the saddle near the top of 10 is the better spot for it with the ability to go completely separate directions and disperse traffic. Also puts anyone below an intermediate skier in a tough spot with few options to get down – upper Solitude will be a bigger junk show.
You have skied Mammoth more than I have, but my thoughts:
Agree with the Broadway upgrade, although I think capacity should be closer to 3600, given its already at 2800 and can have long lines. I might even say an eight pack would be a good fit here. The same goes for Gold Rush and Stump Alley (although no eight pack).
Instead of upgrading 7, I would simply remove it and replace Schoolyard with a higher capacity lift (six or eight pack with high spacing for easy loading and high capacity). Install a Magic Carpet if traversing the couple hundred feet from the base of 7 to Schoolyard is too difficult.
I like the idea of replacing 8 and 22 with a single lift (8’s bottom terminal, 22’s top terminal). I do not know if it would be a detachable quad or six, but either way, it would really alleviate Canyon traffic.
Not a huge fan of downgrading lifts in general unless there is a significant financial reason, so I am not a fan of your idea for 9.
I agree 12/14 should be upgraded to detachable quads. 13 is really redundant and can be removed or delegated to weekends/holidays. Maybe realign it to have it instead serve the Hemlocks.
I understand the argument for an Eagle base-to-summit gondola, but I really do not think it is necessary if the lifts around it are upgraded to make it easier to get around the mountain.
There is an existing plan to upgrade Canyon either this summer or in 2021.
I agree with your 25 assessment.
On a separate note, I do not believe this plan is being followed anymore, although many elements are surely still going to eventually occur, and I would personally love a detachable 23 with a bottom terminal located farther downhill to allow for easier Monument and Scotty’s laps.
Replace 8 and 22 with one lift? No thanks. It kills the ability to lap the sweet intermediate terrain under 8, eliminates the only direct access between Canyon and Eagle, puts way too many people on top of Mt. Lincoln. Aside from that it’s a great idea. If Village Gondola 2 isn’t happening, then I suppose 8 turns into a DC4, hopefully not with the summit next to 15 though.
And eliminating 13 isn’t redundant IMO. Not a high priority lift but it will likely need to handle more traffic if both 12 and 14 are upgraded around it, and I don’t think it’s reasonable for the only non expert egress from the back side to be the pain that is Lower Road Runner
I think that they need 8 with its fixed grip lift for the stormiest/windiest of days, when the rest of the mountain is closed, and they want to have some uphill capacity (it happened this past weekend, when at the end of the day, only 7 and 8 were running).
I think for Eagle Express, I think DC8BH, with bubble, footrests, and heated seats. Built by Doppelmayr, bring back the spacejet design terminal using D-Line equipment and Technology. or Detachable 8 with all that, but HYBRIDIZED with an 8-12 capacity gondola.
Cloud 9 should be kept a six pack, perhaps upgrade with under the hood equipment, heated seats, footrests and bubble.
Those that are mentioned to be upgraded to detachable quad, should be by Doppelmayr using D-line equipment, but with the same UNI original style designed terminal, with Exposed Bullwheels at both terminals. Chairs should have heated seats, footrests, and bubble.
Myles,IMO I think the Spacejet looks way too cool, thats why I think they should bring it back. Could look very modern, space age like. Also lets add solar panels to the roof of ALL detachable terminals so they can rely on solar energy when the sun is out instead of just relying on pure electricity which could be better used when the weather isn’t that friendly.
Yes, the D-line could use another terminal skin like the Uni-G does, but it is just not going to be the Uni-Spacejet. I could see a variant of the tunnel (Agamatic) design being used on D-line but the Spacejet is obsolete, just like the Uni and the CLD-260. The Uni and the Uni-Spacejet are designed for two completely different grips. There has only been one instance of a DS grip in a Spacejet terminal and that was in 1994. I don’t know of any ski area who ordered a lift because of a space age looking terminal. Jackson Hole only made that terminal variant to match other terminals nearby, not to “look more space age.”
I prefer the Spacejet terminals from an aesthetic perspective but they will never bring them back. While the things he previously stated are never going to happen I am pretty sure he is referring to a newer terminal structure for the UNI-G that looks like the spacejet. I really don’t like the look of the D-Line it is too big and boxy and I wish they had alternatives. I highly doubt that anyone thinks resurrecting old tech is something anyone thinks is a good idea, rather a terminal skin like the one at Jackson.
Do you realize that resurrecting the exposed bullwheel designs comes with resurrecting the DS series? Doppelmayr doesn’t want to be reminded about the DS series bubble lifts and how they didn’t do very well. The Uni terminal was supposed to be compact and 8 packs need a large terminal with D-line grips. It would probably be more more expensive to put an 8 pack in a Uni skin and make an even heaver duty DS-108 than to do a regular D-line 8 pack. ‘
Alterra is just like Vail in that they don’t like bubble lifts. They’d rather stick to gondolas
What kind of problem do you think the DS series bubbles had? They are still running all over here, although the oldest ones have obviously been replaced. 8 packs obviously don’t need D-line grips as many of them long predate the D-line introduction. Not that I think that the idea to resurrect old designs for new lifts make any sense whatsoever.
I personally definitely prefer the Spacejet terminal designs but it would make no sense to re-use the internals. However, I feel like it would be nice to offer various terminal skins to better fit the resorts aesthetic. Something kind of like Jackson Holes Sweetwater. They still probably could fabricate a custom terminal skin for you if you were willing to pay the price.
All the DS series bubble lifts had at at least a few bubbles that looked to be worn and opaque. I’ve seen some lifts that had indoor matienence facilities and the bubbles would still get scratched up. The DT series bubble lifts looked fine if they had an indoor matienence facility, some lifts didn’t have a single bubble that looked worn. It must have been a better bubble design. The American ski resorts still didn’t build indoor matienence facilities and Doppelmayr changed the bubble design to the current one.
Custom skins do happen but they’re rare. There’s definitely a few interesting ones out there, like the high speed quads in Blue Sky Basin having their terminals designed to look like farmhouses (with the Skyline Express and Earl’s Express having their upper terminals inside barns)…
or the Sweetwater example, where JHMR wanted the bottom terminal to resemble the Challenger terminals on the adjacent Teewinot lift and Bridger Gondola.
I think the Sweetwater custom example is a bit more plausible and within budget for most resorts.
The DS lifts are all 30 years old or older. If the bubbles have not been properly maintained or replaced they’ll obviously look worn. Around here in Austria there are a few that do look pretty worn, but most are in great shape.
Jules, I prefer spacejet design of terminal too, except with the latest internal tech of Ramcharger tricking down into it. Also solar panels on the roof of the spacejet..additionally retractable parking rails so that part of its panel will electrically rise to insert the parking rail into the terminal when chairs are removed, and respectively the panel of terminal closed flush into the terminal when parking rail is not in use, along with that their should be a service/parking mode for it.
Alex, do you realize that the D-line looks the way it looks to make it easier for mechanics and allow for that large screen in the front of the terminals?
While what you’re proposing for solar would be nice in all, snow comes from storms (or fan guns) and storms would accumulate snow on the solar panels, allowing for limited use. The only practical use for them would be in the summer and you must remember that this Alterra.
I’d think wind energy is a better choice than solar panels because they don’t get covered with snow as easily and a lot of ski resorts have high winds so when lifts are shut down they are making electricity.
Ok maybe let’s clarify it a bit, heated solar panel, although solar panel would be used when not snowing, wind power is great to have at the posts.
Spacejet and D Line? I was mainly referring to the D Line internals, D line grips and chairlift, the Doppelmayr direct drive system, doesn’t have to be exactly like the overall internal structure of ram Charger with the screens. I can care less about the screens(can always put the screens on top the operator house.) We just need to enlarge the spacejet terminal so it’s at least the size of Zirmbahn in Austria or larger.
If Doppelmayr really liked the Spacejet design, they would have kept it like they kept the EJ carrier, or how Poma kept the Alpha. Most skiers aren’t picky about a terminal design. “As long as it gets me up the mountain” is good enough for most skiers. The only reason for terminal skins is to try to create a theme for the mountain. Is it worth the money to build a one of a kind custom skin that won’t bring any more money than before?
Doppelmayr does offer a variety of terminal skins for the D-Line. They have the Ramcharger 8 style standard skin, the box skin being used on the new Big Ski Gondola, and a pancake terminal that looks like the spacejet terminal with the top cut off. I dont know to attach a photo here of the pancake terminal for reference, but its on one of the Doppelmayr threads on Remontees Mechanique
With regard to the two Yan doubles that should have been installed in 1976: could this be an error? Chairs 15/16 were built in 1974 and chairs 17-19 in 1979, so there is no gap in the numbering. The old maps do also not show any expansion in 1976. Chair 5 and lift 1a were installed in 1975.
Chairs 7 and 8 both have the bails that are not welded to the seat that are indicative of them having plastic chairs at some point. You can see at the bottom of them that they have round corners and the pipe goes all the way under the seat, rather than them ending at the corners and being welded to the seat. The same as the old Arrowhead chair at Sundance that got converted from plastic to metal.
Now I never rode a chair at Mammoth when they had plastic seats so I may be wrong, but that’s what it looks like to me.
It probably wasn’t 8, the chair in the video I think Connor is referencing showed the lift running clockwise (8 runs counterclockwise). The model of the drive terminal on 8 is from post 1985 and considering it had its hangar arms replaced, it probably used type 6 grips. Seeing that Mammoth ordered type 6 grips for 26 and most likely 27 (that could explain its very short life), there’s a good chance 8 also had type 6 grips originally.
As for which lift had plastic chairs, it had to have been a lift installed from 1983-1985. That would leave 7 as the only option. The video with the plastic chairs showed beginners riding it and 7 would make sense for beginners.
It was built a Western Lift & Crane but at some point it was upgraded with Yan parts. That’s probably why it had different chairs in 1980s. The lift got relocated to Aspen lift at Pebble Creek, Idaho and that lift may give some clues to what lift 7 looked like.
The chair 5 double was made by brandle the other brandle double was at crystal moutain MI and they were both made in 1963 and the crystal moutain brandle was removed in 2016 while the chair 5 brandle was removed in 1975 and there are only 2 brandle lifts I have found
Utah Lost Ski Area ProjectDecember 14, 2021 / 6:33 pm
What issues exactly occurred with the Yan type 6? Loveland still operates a Type 6 triple and it appears to be working just fine. I believe there’s Type 6 quad still operating in Canada.
Hope that the old Yan carrier chairs (1 – Broadway and 16 – Canyon Express) are made available for sale. How cool would it be to have one of those in the yard?
Intrawest didn’t seem to do much of anything lift-wise at Copper. Not even a Cabriolet! Alpine lot sure could use one of those to justify paid parking. I assume they did a lot of village building?
True, Powdr has invested revenue back into Copper much more consistently. Interwest built a large portion of the village and B and E lifts early on but their reinvestment into the resort definitely lagged after 98′.
Chuck beat me to it, but yeah. Two lifts and a metric ton of real estate, then nothing. Powdr came in, took a couple of years to get a handle on things, then we did projects in ’11, ’13, ’17, ’18, and ’19.
Lift Blog 
Does anyone know why Mammoth came out with new logos and re-wrapped the gondola cabins twice circa 2014?
Take 1:
Take 2:
I like the first logo way better but it only lasted one year.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I know that the second logo was used before 2014. It was always way bigger than the first.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The same goes for Squaws Logo, I much prefered the original purple oval. I wonder what they will do with the upcoming name change.
LikeLike
sorry Peter I like the second logo of the mountain crown better
LikeLike
Was the new logo with the “my mammoth” program launch. Some see an M crown, but I always remember the “my mammoth” program and see the “crown” logo as an MY. I agree with you 100%, I love the tusks M over the crown MY
LikeLike
A riblet t-bar sounds interesting
LikeLiked by 7 people
here is a picture of the riblet t-bar look closely in the picture
https://external-preview.redd.it/1snVtOxkCsTlxOarDrIV3Zpxp7BFOjQt80Ion4WknLM.jpg?auto=webp&s=0cf6c9fc51b21b72272a4fb7e791e28b873fe860
LikeLiked by 1 person
These logos suck. Bring back the ORIGINAL WOOLLY on skis!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think Heimo’s Platter may have been removed this past summer because on the new trail map for the 2018-19 season, there is the Canyon Carpet in the same alignment that Heimo’s was originally in.
LikeLiked by 2 people
the 1a platter ski lift was actually next to canyon express and the platter on the 1972 trail next to McCoy station was a different platter compared to 1a so 1a platter was right next to canyon express and I think it came from the platter lift by McCoy station.
here is a picture of the 1982 trail map but the platter at McCoy is not there but there is a platter but canyon express
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is the busiest lift at mammoth and the one that needs to be upgraded the most?
LikeLike
Chair 2 is the busiest. The detachables that need upgrade are 1 and 16, because they’re Yan/Doppelmayr hybrids that are getting old, and can be busy on peak days. 2 and 10 could also use upgrading because they each have a capacity of 2,800 pp/h, but they serve as the only way for intermediates to get from one side of the mountain to the other. There’s also some fixed grips that need to be upgraded. 12 and 14 really need to become detachable to make it easier to use the backside of the mountain. 25 is also planned to be upgraded to serve the side of Lincoln Mountain, but I’m not sure that there’s enough terrain to make it a high priority. One thing that I’d like to see done is upgrades of 2 and 10, and then relocations of the old quads to replace the backside lifts. Currently, the plan is to replace 16 next summer with a six pack. They’re considering a bunch of high-end features, including bubbles, heated seats, and a loading carpet. Maybe Alterra will feel brave enough to buy their first D-Line.
LikeLike
DO you think they need the capacity of an 8 person on 1, 2 or 16?
LikeLiked by 1 person
1 Definitely doesn’t need it. It has chair 6 and the gondola to supplement it, and the lines are usually shorter. 2 definitely needs a capacity of 3,600 pp/h, and it wouldn’t hurt at 16, either. I think that in general, eight packs shouldn’t be built. Grouping eventually becomes enough of a problem that wider seats aren’t justified. Mammoth, in particular, struggles to fill seats on its two six packs, and unless they improve operations, there’s going to be more inefficiency than some other mountains. The 2007 plan dealt with this problem by constructing lifts to supplement the demand for cross-mountain transportation. They have plans to extend the village gondola to the top of 15. 15 will be converted and extended to the top of 5. Eventually, a tram will run from there to the summit. At 2, there’s plans to build a beginner-ish detachable quad to mirror 6.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Any word on Mammoth’s plans for lift projects in the 2019 build season?
LikeLike
Alterra said they are announcing their projects for next season later this month.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you have a source on that?
LikeLike
Coincidentally, they announced today. They had previously said they were announcing in March when they originally announced the Steamboat gondola project earlier this season.
https://www.alterramtnco.com/news/2019/03/04/capital-improvements
LikeLike
So, they’re not getting a new lift.
LikeLike
So many lifts! Is this joint just confusing af or do the folds in the volcano make it all make sense?
LikeLike
The best way to understand it is that the tops of 1, 3, 5, 22, and 23 (and kinda 9 and 10 as well) are all sub-peaks of the mountain, meaning that you can ski down from them in any direction. Google Earth would help you understand it.
LikeLike
Look at Google Maps in terrain mode. That should help you understand the topography of the mountain.
LikeLike
Anybody know anything about that Riblet T-Bar?
LikeLike
As a 12 year Mammoth veteran, here’s my analysis on what needs to be upgraded.
(A lot of this is based off the 2007 Ecosign master plan.)
Chair 1/Broadway Express: Upgrade to a D6C, capacity between 2800-3600ish pph.
Chair 2/Stump Alley Express: Upgrade to D6C, capacity also between 2800-3600ish pph.
Chair 7: Upgrade to a D4C, maybe call it Wonderland Express??? Capacity between 1800-2400 pph.
Chair 8: Upgrade to D4C, call maybe Bluejay Express? Move to where Eagle Express (current) top teminal is. Capacity between 1800 to 2400 pph.
Chair 9/Cloud Nine Express: Downgrade to a D4C. Most of the time the lift chairs aren’t even half full and they could reuse the 6-person chairs at Broadway or somewhere else.
Chair 10/Gold Rush Express: Upgrade to a D6C, capacity between 2800-3600ish pph.
Chairs 12, 13 and 14: Definitely upgrade 12 and 14 to D4C, maybe upgrade 13??? Capacity would be 2400 pph.
Chair 15/Eagle Express: Upgrade to a D8G or to a D12G (if there is such a thing). Extend to top of Summit. First midstation at current upper terminal (where there would be a ski school), and second midstation at the top of High Five. To save costs, second mid station could possibly be a one way mid station, like Orange Bubble at Park City.
Chair 16/Canyon Express: Upgrade to D6C, capacity also between 2800-3600ish pph.
Chair 25: Upgrade to D4C, maybe call Lincoln Express? Capacity between 1800-2400 pph. Move base terminal to where Cloud Nine is.
Additionally, fixed grip lifts will be located to the east of The Mill, at Eagle Lodge, at Canyon Lodge, at the proposed Eagle Express Gondola midstation, and at the top of Cloud Nine. See the link below for details.
Any thoughts?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Cloud Nine is a six pack on account of needing heavier chairs for wind tolerance.
Considering WB’s reuse of Emerald 4 to upgrade Catskinner, I’d say that the proposed new high speed quads would be possible by relocating the ones getting replaced with high speed six packs.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hard for me to imagine Mammoth redeploying the relic Yan Frankenlifts to anywhere else on the mountain, particularly chairs like 1 and 16 with a lot of hours on them..
LikeLike
I mean the ones that are UNI Spacejets. The Spacejet lifts would certainly be able to have their terminals reused, as Catskinner demonstrated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Trevor – Some interesting ideas here, though I’m not sure I understand a few of them.
– Upgrades to D6C for Ch 1 and 2 are no brainers
– Ch 7 makes sense more from a ease of loading perspective than capacity, but it looks like Mammoth is really focused on expanding their beginner terrain/ski school presence at Canyon and Eagle
– Don’t understand why you’d want to upgrade Ch 8 to a DC4. The Ecosign plan already contemplates adding a 2nd stage to the Village Gondola to complete its originally intended route terminating at the top of Eagle/15. That will siphon a fair bit of traffic away from 8, which is pretty uncrowded as it is. Biggest issue with 8 for me is that it’s always stopping due to the large number of beginners taking it to navigate around the Canyon/Eagle area. Don’t see any need to double down on capacity with a detatchable lift when the line is only 3800 ft long. Leaving 8 as is would make for a really nice gem for experienced Mammoth skiers to exploit as traffic funnels to the sexier detatchable lifts on either side.
– Downgrade Ch 9 from D6C to D4C? No. Not gonna happen both for wind reasons as Donald Reif mentioned and practical cost considerations.
– Not sure I understand the impetus for upgrading 10/Gold Rush. It’s basically a transfer lift, albeit an important one. Lines are pretty modest every time I’ve been there. My biggest gripe with that lift is the exposure and I’d actually prefer that they replace Ch 21 with a D4C that starts next to 10. It would provide quicker access to Canyon and allow beginners/intermediates to avoid the mess of Solitude and/or Spook at the top of 10 in trying to get down and across to the Ch 16/4 area. Also would allow quicker access to the expanded skier services they apparently planning to put in at Ch 4 base.
– Upgrades to Ch 12 and 14 to D4C are also no brainers for me for different reasons. 14 is a fossil and a new lift could help spread traffic around to the backside a little better. 12 is a necessity assuming the summit terminal is moved uphill toward White Bark Bowl. If you could easily return to Main w/o having to deal with the pain of skiing down 203, that would make that area a lot more attractive IMO. Plus again, the upgrade itself is likely to draw traffic to a highly underutilized area. Not sure Ch 13 needs detatchable technology given its short length (2300 ft) but maybe this is where a cut down version of 25 ends up if that’s upgraded.
– Eagle/15 will need more capacity if the plans they have for Eagle base and the new beginner pod near the top are even partially executed. Extending it to the saddle at the top of 10 where the new restaurant is planned makes a huge amount of sense to me as well (either as a separate lift or a two-stager with midstation at current summit of 15). That would fundamentally transform access from Eagle and would take pressure of 16 to get people further West. But I can’t subscribe to the idea that the summit of Mammoth, with precisely 1 intermediate route down (and a narrow, hairy cat track at that) should be looking to double capacity up there. That’s a recipe for disaster, especially if 14 gets upgraded and they install the surface lift from the top of 9 up to Dave’s.
– Ch 16 to D6C is also a no brainer
– Ch 25 upgrade and realignment is a great idea, though I hope Mammoth takes a look at trail flow and re-grading opportunities feeding down to it. There’s so much terrain back there that is under-utilized and the flow or at least the signage is suboptimal.
– You didn’t mention it but I love the idea of a shorter lift out of Mill to help get you over to Main w/o having to take Ch 2.
And thus ends my Ted Talk.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I dont think the Village Gondola extension would be feasible, as it is already free and they would have to put up lift gates at the Village to prevent fare evaders skiing down from the top of 8 and 15. A fixed grip or detach for 8 makes more sense.
LikeLike
From personal experience, it’s actually pretty hard to get to Main from White Bark, as there’s a ridge above 11 that cuts across the fall line. I’d also imagine that people below advanced intermediates wouldn’t enjoy a run as steep as White Bark.
On a different note, I’d add that 15b is supposed to end at the top of 5. From there, there’s going to be a Big Sky/Snowbasin style tram running to the summit. I don’t think that it’ll add much capacity to the upper mountain.
LikeLike
I get it regarding 11. It’s just an unfortunate layout b/c that slog back to Main really, really sucks. Maybe some creative grading can help? Either way, I think the plan in the Ecosign version was to offer advanced intermediates a new lappable option with the expectation that most people would first go skiers left down a wide new run on the ridge for 100 vertical before re-entering the existing trail network under 11
If they’re going to put a 4-person beer can up to the summit from the top of 5, that’s a different animal. Capacity below 500 pph doesn’t change the equation much.
Surprised though that they’d run 15b up to that spot though. I think the saddle near the top of 10 is the better spot for it with the ability to go completely separate directions and disperse traffic. Also puts anyone below an intermediate skier in a tough spot with few options to get down – upper Solitude will be a bigger junk show.
LikeLike
You have skied Mammoth more than I have, but my thoughts:
Agree with the Broadway upgrade, although I think capacity should be closer to 3600, given its already at 2800 and can have long lines. I might even say an eight pack would be a good fit here. The same goes for Gold Rush and Stump Alley (although no eight pack).
Instead of upgrading 7, I would simply remove it and replace Schoolyard with a higher capacity lift (six or eight pack with high spacing for easy loading and high capacity). Install a Magic Carpet if traversing the couple hundred feet from the base of 7 to Schoolyard is too difficult.
I like the idea of replacing 8 and 22 with a single lift (8’s bottom terminal, 22’s top terminal). I do not know if it would be a detachable quad or six, but either way, it would really alleviate Canyon traffic.
Not a huge fan of downgrading lifts in general unless there is a significant financial reason, so I am not a fan of your idea for 9.
I agree 12/14 should be upgraded to detachable quads. 13 is really redundant and can be removed or delegated to weekends/holidays. Maybe realign it to have it instead serve the Hemlocks.
I understand the argument for an Eagle base-to-summit gondola, but I really do not think it is necessary if the lifts around it are upgraded to make it easier to get around the mountain.
There is an existing plan to upgrade Canyon either this summer or in 2021.
I agree with your 25 assessment.
On a separate note, I do not believe this plan is being followed anymore, although many elements are surely still going to eventually occur, and I would personally love a detachable 23 with a bottom terminal located farther downhill to allow for easier Monument and Scotty’s laps.
LikeLike
Replace 8 and 22 with one lift? No thanks. It kills the ability to lap the sweet intermediate terrain under 8, eliminates the only direct access between Canyon and Eagle, puts way too many people on top of Mt. Lincoln. Aside from that it’s a great idea. If Village Gondola 2 isn’t happening, then I suppose 8 turns into a DC4, hopefully not with the summit next to 15 though.
And eliminating 13 isn’t redundant IMO. Not a high priority lift but it will likely need to handle more traffic if both 12 and 14 are upgraded around it, and I don’t think it’s reasonable for the only non expert egress from the back side to be the pain that is Lower Road Runner
LikeLike
I think that they need 8 with its fixed grip lift for the stormiest/windiest of days, when the rest of the mountain is closed, and they want to have some uphill capacity (it happened this past weekend, when at the end of the day, only 7 and 8 were running).
LikeLike
I think for Eagle Express, I think DC8BH, with bubble, footrests, and heated seats. Built by Doppelmayr, bring back the spacejet design terminal using D-Line equipment and Technology. or Detachable 8 with all that, but HYBRIDIZED with an 8-12 capacity gondola.
Cloud 9 should be kept a six pack, perhaps upgrade with under the hood equipment, heated seats, footrests and bubble.
Those that are mentioned to be upgraded to detachable quad, should be by Doppelmayr using D-line equipment, but with the same UNI original style designed terminal, with Exposed Bullwheels at both terminals. Chairs should have heated seats, footrests, and bubble.
LikeLike
That seems too ambitious of Alterra to do and why bring back the Uni Spacejet terminal when you can have the better looking d line ones?
LikeLiked by 4 people
Myles,IMO I think the Spacejet looks way too cool, thats why I think they should bring it back. Could look very modern, space age like. Also lets add solar panels to the roof of ALL detachable terminals so they can rely on solar energy when the sun is out instead of just relying on pure electricity which could be better used when the weather isn’t that friendly.
LikeLike
Yes, the D-line could use another terminal skin like the Uni-G does, but it is just not going to be the Uni-Spacejet. I could see a variant of the tunnel (Agamatic) design being used on D-line but the Spacejet is obsolete, just like the Uni and the CLD-260. The Uni and the Uni-Spacejet are designed for two completely different grips. There has only been one instance of a DS grip in a Spacejet terminal and that was in 1994. I don’t know of any ski area who ordered a lift because of a space age looking terminal. Jackson Hole only made that terminal variant to match other terminals nearby, not to “look more space age.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I prefer the Spacejet terminals from an aesthetic perspective but they will never bring them back. While the things he previously stated are never going to happen I am pretty sure he is referring to a newer terminal structure for the UNI-G that looks like the spacejet. I really don’t like the look of the D-Line it is too big and boxy and I wish they had alternatives. I highly doubt that anyone thinks resurrecting old tech is something anyone thinks is a good idea, rather a terminal skin like the one at Jackson.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you realize that resurrecting the exposed bullwheel designs comes with resurrecting the DS series? Doppelmayr doesn’t want to be reminded about the DS series bubble lifts and how they didn’t do very well. The Uni terminal was supposed to be compact and 8 packs need a large terminal with D-line grips. It would probably be more more expensive to put an 8 pack in a Uni skin and make an even heaver duty DS-108 than to do a regular D-line 8 pack. ‘
Alterra is just like Vail in that they don’t like bubble lifts. They’d rather stick to gondolas
LikeLiked by 2 people
What kind of problem do you think the DS series bubbles had? They are still running all over here, although the oldest ones have obviously been replaced. 8 packs obviously don’t need D-line grips as many of them long predate the D-line introduction. Not that I think that the idea to resurrect old designs for new lifts make any sense whatsoever.
LikeLike
I personally definitely prefer the Spacejet terminal designs but it would make no sense to re-use the internals. However, I feel like it would be nice to offer various terminal skins to better fit the resorts aesthetic. Something kind of like Jackson Holes Sweetwater. They still probably could fabricate a custom terminal skin for you if you were willing to pay the price.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All the DS series bubble lifts had at at least a few bubbles that looked to be worn and opaque. I’ve seen some lifts that had indoor matienence facilities and the bubbles would still get scratched up. The DT series bubble lifts looked fine if they had an indoor matienence facility, some lifts didn’t have a single bubble that looked worn. It must have been a better bubble design. The American ski resorts still didn’t build indoor matienence facilities and Doppelmayr changed the bubble design to the current one.
LikeLike
Custom skins do happen but they’re rare. There’s definitely a few interesting ones out there, like the high speed quads in Blue Sky Basin having their terminals designed to look like farmhouses (with the Skyline Express and Earl’s Express having their upper terminals inside barns)…
or the Sweetwater example, where JHMR wanted the bottom terminal to resemble the Challenger terminals on the adjacent Teewinot lift and Bridger Gondola.
I think the Sweetwater custom example is a bit more plausible and within budget for most resorts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The DS lifts are all 30 years old or older. If the bubbles have not been properly maintained or replaced they’ll obviously look worn. Around here in Austria there are a few that do look pretty worn, but most are in great shape.
LikeLike
Jules, I prefer spacejet design of terminal too, except with the latest internal tech of Ramcharger tricking down into it. Also solar panels on the roof of the spacejet..additionally retractable parking rails so that part of its panel will electrically rise to insert the parking rail into the terminal when chairs are removed, and respectively the panel of terminal closed flush into the terminal when parking rail is not in use, along with that their should be a service/parking mode for it.
LikeLike
Alex, do you realize that the D-line looks the way it looks to make it easier for mechanics and allow for that large screen in the front of the terminals?
While what you’re proposing for solar would be nice in all, snow comes from storms (or fan guns) and storms would accumulate snow on the solar panels, allowing for limited use. The only practical use for them would be in the summer and you must remember that this Alterra.
LikeLike
I’d think wind energy is a better choice than solar panels because they don’t get covered with snow as easily and a lot of ski resorts have high winds so when lifts are shut down they are making electricity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some kind of active wind energy device between tower spans would be super effective.
LikeLike
Also, wind turbines don’t take up that much space either. No more than any type of snowmaker.
LikeLike
or this https://inhabitat.com/tiny-swiss-ski-town-unveals-worlds-first-solar-wing-powered-ski-lift/
LikeLike
Ok maybe let’s clarify it a bit, heated solar panel, although solar panel would be used when not snowing, wind power is great to have at the posts.
Spacejet and D Line? I was mainly referring to the D Line internals, D line grips and chairlift, the Doppelmayr direct drive system, doesn’t have to be exactly like the overall internal structure of ram Charger with the screens. I can care less about the screens(can always put the screens on top the operator house.) We just need to enlarge the spacejet terminal so it’s at least the size of Zirmbahn in Austria or larger.
LikeLike
If Doppelmayr really liked the Spacejet design, they would have kept it like they kept the EJ carrier, or how Poma kept the Alpha. Most skiers aren’t picky about a terminal design. “As long as it gets me up the mountain” is good enough for most skiers. The only reason for terminal skins is to try to create a theme for the mountain. Is it worth the money to build a one of a kind custom skin that won’t bring any more money than before?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I despise the EJ it is an awfully uncomfortable chair and I will never get over how they ditched the nice comfortable Garaventa chairs in favor of it.
LikeLike
Doppelmayr does offer a variety of terminal skins for the D-Line. They have the Ramcharger 8 style standard skin, the box skin being used on the new Big Ski Gondola, and a pancake terminal that looks like the spacejet terminal with the top cut off. I dont know to attach a photo here of the pancake terminal for reference, but its on one of the Doppelmayr threads on Remontees Mechanique
LikeLike
With regard to the two Yan doubles that should have been installed in 1976: could this be an error? Chairs 15/16 were built in 1974 and chairs 17-19 in 1979, so there is no gap in the numbering. The old maps do also not show any expansion in 1976. Chair 5 and lift 1a were installed in 1975.
LikeLike
Does anyone know what happened at Mammoth yesterday?
https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMe6s2EV9/
LikeLike
Saw this too and I was just as confused, anyone know?
LikeLike
The reason was the lifts all got shut down because of wind and Eagle Express was open so they were hiking there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Some info regarding the removed Chair 7 double
It was manufactured by Western Lift & Crane and was their only lift ever built.
LikeLike
Anyone know which lift had plastic chairs? I know that it is a mid-80s triple with bottom tension and top drive, but can’t figure out which one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chairs 7 and 8 both have the bails that are not welded to the seat that are indicative of them having plastic chairs at some point. You can see at the bottom of them that they have round corners and the pipe goes all the way under the seat, rather than them ending at the corners and being welded to the seat. The same as the old Arrowhead chair at Sundance that got converted from plastic to metal.
Now I never rode a chair at Mammoth when they had plastic seats so I may be wrong, but that’s what it looks like to me.
LikeLike
It probably wasn’t 8, the chair in the video I think Connor is referencing showed the lift running clockwise (8 runs counterclockwise). The model of the drive terminal on 8 is from post 1985 and considering it had its hangar arms replaced, it probably used type 6 grips. Seeing that Mammoth ordered type 6 grips for 26 and most likely 27 (that could explain its very short life), there’s a good chance 8 also had type 6 grips originally.
As for which lift had plastic chairs, it had to have been a lift installed from 1983-1985. That would leave 7 as the only option. The video with the plastic chairs showed beginners riding it and 7 would make sense for beginners.
LikeLike
I think it’s chair 26
LikeLike
Chair 26 had a bottom drive.
http://www.skilifts.org/old/images/resort_images/ca-mammoth/chair26/chair26.htm
LikeLike
chair 7 had different chairs in the 1980s
LikeLike
It was built a Western Lift & Crane but at some point it was upgraded with Yan parts. That’s probably why it had different chairs in 1980s. The lift got relocated to Aspen lift at Pebble Creek, Idaho and that lift may give some clues to what lift 7 looked like.
LikeLike
Which chair 7 are you referring to? There were 2 in the 1980s. In my comment above I was referring to the removed chair 7.
LikeLike
I’m talking about the triple chair 7
LikeLike
The chair 5 double was made by brandle the other brandle double was at crystal moutain MI and they were both made in 1963 and the crystal moutain brandle was removed in 2016 while the chair 5 brandle was removed in 1975 and there are only 2 brandle lifts I have found
LikeLike
No, there was another double in California. I can’t remember where though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Homewood
@SKI MAN: what’s your source?
LikeLiked by 2 people
look there is no brandle lift at Homewood’s lift blog
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwioo7GH68P0AhXImWoFHeOaAjIQFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fliftblog.com%2Fhomewood-ca%2F&usg=AOvVaw1ui_8C_r8sIQ3BrPGoQJn8
LikeLike
It shows up on lift installation surveys under the entry name Chamber Lodge, which is probably why it doesn’t show up on the Homewood spreadsheet.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Didn’t Edelweiss and Plavada have Brandle T-bars? They show up on the 1963 lift installation survey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, but they were both installed in 1959. By the way, the name was Brandley in the US and Braendle in Europe.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Utah Lost Ski Area Project sorry I found the brandle double at Homewood on ski lifts.org
http://www.skilifts.org/old/ca-homewood.htm
LikeLike
Sure it wasn’t a Hunsinger lift?
MM chair 6 was a Hunsinger.
Spelling ??
LikeLike
A photo of what I believe is the western lift and crane but could be wrong but definitely mammoth mountain https://mountainscholar.org/handle/11124/9387
LikeLike
It is not the western lift and crane. the picture was taken in 1966, 2 years before it was built.
LikeLike
Mountainscholar has made some mistakes in the past regarding a lift at Vail being identified as Steamboat.
LikeLike
That should be Chair 6.
LikeLiked by 2 people
the doppelmayer t-bar looks like it was removed in 1985 or 1988
LikeLike
did you know that chair 26 used to be a 1985 Yan quad till it turned into a 1988 Yan triple anyone know why
LikeLike
Changed grip from a Yan 6 to a Yan T, due to grip issues. Needed different hanger and bail.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What issues exactly occurred with the Yan type 6? Loveland still operates a Type 6 triple and it appears to be working just fine. I believe there’s Type 6 quad still operating in Canada.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The water park gondola that came from Circus Circus has double Type 6 grips as well
LikeLiked by 1 person
that’s interesting I saw an old video of mammoth and it was a quad and on the old 1995 trail map anyone know why
LikeLike
till 1975 to 1985 their used to be another poem lift right next to canyon express go check it out
LikeLiked by 1 person
here is an old video of mammoth mountain the 1980s
LikeLiked by 1 person
At 35:38 You can see the old J7 From June Mountain CA
LikeLike
Anyone know what happened to chair 27? It was the last Yan ever built in 1994.
LikeLiked by 3 people
chair 27 actually used to be right next to the chair 11 double but sadly 27 was removed after discovery chair 11 was built
LikeLiked by 1 person
Old Mammoth Mountain ski videos!!
Here is another old video where you can see the old broadway express and chair 6 riblet lift was upgraded to a Yan Lift!!
In 1993.
LikeLike
At the parking lot you can see broadway for a little bit and later you will see the old chair 6 riblet but it turned into a Yan.
LikeLike
The old gondola https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/11124/8198/R1562.jpg?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
LikeLiked by 1 person
the mammoth ski patrol alumni instagram has a bunch of photos of old lifts on it, pretty rad
LikeLike
Hope that the old Yan carrier chairs (1 – Broadway and 16 – Canyon Express) are made available for sale. How cool would it be to have one of those in the yard?
LikeLike
I would love one of those teardrop chairs, too bad I dont have space for one
LikeLike
Kind of mind-blowing that this place has gone twelve years without a new chairlift (despite a fleet of 26).
LikeLike
Discounting a couple of Magic Carpets, we went from 1998 to 2011 without installing anything- 13 years.
LikeLike
Intrawest didn’t seem to do much of anything lift-wise at Copper. Not even a Cabriolet! Alpine lot sure could use one of those to justify paid parking. I assume they did a lot of village building?
LikeLike
True, Powdr has invested revenue back into Copper much more consistently. Interwest built a large portion of the village and B and E lifts early on but their reinvestment into the resort definitely lagged after 98′.
LikeLike
Chuck beat me to it, but yeah. Two lifts and a metric ton of real estate, then nothing. Powdr came in, took a couple of years to get a handle on things, then we did projects in ’11, ’13, ’17, ’18, and ’19.
LikeLike
I own a center pole from chair 4 and a double from chair 9
LikeLike
He guys is it just me or did the cable fall off the gondola during maintenance https://media.mammothresorts.com/mmsa/mammoth/cams/McCoy_Chair_3_1280x720.jpg?timestamp=1698698205307
LikeLike
Looks like they are shortening the rope so it is off a tower to bring the rig to the ground.
LikeLike
Any other ski areas with Riblet T-bars?
LikeLike
Any news on photographing the new Canyon Express?
LikeLike
I expect get there in March.
LikeLike