Why did they close their entire mountain because they couldn’t afford to replace rangely, when you can ski the whole mountain with the T-bar and Kennebago?
Those of us on Snowjournal.com have wondered about this. The Berry family announced in early summer, if they didn’t get $3 million (about) to replace the Rangeley, they weren’t going to be opening for the next season. Why such a sudden announcement? Shouldn’t they have known the lift was going the previous season? No way could anyone, fund, remove the old and install a new (even used) lift in time for the next season. But they didn’t open, and it’s been quite a saga. There was never a reference from them about the T-bar or even renting cats with passenger cabins to get people up the mountain.
It was losing money before, and I imagine it would’ve been quite a bit worse without the Rangeley. It’s the backbone of the lift system, and without it you wouldn’t be able to get weekend/vacation crowds out of the base or even ski the main trail pod without taking 3 lifts and a traverse
@Teddy’s lift world, I know this is one year later, but the T-bar wasn’t too redundant. The trail complex it used to serve was clearly designed with it in mind, and to get there from the rest of the mountain requires traversers on both ends and passing through a few somewhat confusing junctions.
My question would be, why are they replacing it with another T-bar? there don’t seem to be any wind problems and that complex is large and varied enough for a double or triple.
Why exactly did they urgently need to replace Rangely and when they didn’t have the funds to, they shut down? It had a new drive and controls so mechanically I assume it was fine.
Sandy Quad replaces the 1967 vintage Sandy Double, which was mothballed in 2015 when the hill shut down, and recertified and made operational when the Hill was reborn.
I know they have been mostly following the blueprint of the mountain pre-closing, but I think it would have made sense to instead put a quad on Cupsuptic and a t-bar on Sandy. Sandy serves the park, whose skiers/riders can likely handle a t-bar, while Cupsuptic serves intermediate terrain, whose skiers/riders may be a little less capable.
Do the new owners have any future plans to add new lifts to access new terrain? I know there was a very ambitious masterplan under the old owners about 15 years ago that would have probably doubled the size of the resort. It would be fantastic skiing I’m sure but it always seemed like too much for a place that makes Sugarloaf look downright accessible.
I normally don’t comment directly on other people’s comments ( I live in Ontario far from Maine) however if I decided to do a road trip from Ontario to Maine to go ski either Sugarloaf or Saddleback, the distance by car is pretty much the same to either one. A quick check of Google Maps makes the trip from Augusta ME (from Interstate 95) to either Sugarloaf or Saddleback also pretty much the same time and distance. I guess your comment of will Saddleback grow in size comes down to will the new owners of Saddleback (The Arctaris Income Fund) get their money invested back in a timely way when total yearly skiers visits rise at Saddleback or will the place be a money pit going forward. Cheers to Arctaris I hope you succeed and can make Saddleback bigger than it currently is.
Lift Blog 
Why did they close their entire mountain because they couldn’t afford to replace rangely, when you can ski the whole mountain with the T-bar and Kennebago?
LikeLike
I know, but good news coming from Boston/Rangeley!!!
LikeLike
Those of us on Snowjournal.com have wondered about this. The Berry family announced in early summer, if they didn’t get $3 million (about) to replace the Rangeley, they weren’t going to be opening for the next season. Why such a sudden announcement? Shouldn’t they have known the lift was going the previous season? No way could anyone, fund, remove the old and install a new (even used) lift in time for the next season. But they didn’t open, and it’s been quite a saga. There was never a reference from them about the T-bar or even renting cats with passenger cabins to get people up the mountain.
LikeLike
Damn, I thought this comment was made today, but then I realized that It wasent 8pm yet. LOL
LikeLike
It was losing money before, and I imagine it would’ve been quite a bit worse without the Rangeley. It’s the backbone of the lift system, and without it you wouldn’t be able to get weekend/vacation crowds out of the base or even ski the main trail pod without taking 3 lifts and a traverse
LikeLike
You sure the T-bar got removed? Never saw that anywhere until now.
LikeLike
It is being removed this spring.
LikeLike
Why isnt it being replaced?
LikeLike
It’s very redundant, especially with the new detachable.
LikeLike
I think it is scheduled to be replaced, just not immediately.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Teddy’s lift world, I know this is one year later, but the T-bar wasn’t too redundant. The trail complex it used to serve was clearly designed with it in mind, and to get there from the rest of the mountain requires traversers on both ends and passing through a few somewhat confusing junctions.
My question would be, why are they replacing it with another T-bar? there don’t seem to be any wind problems and that complex is large and varied enough for a double or triple.
LikeLike
Why exactly did they urgently need to replace Rangely and when they didn’t have the funds to, they shut down? It had a new drive and controls so mechanically I assume it was fine.
LikeLike
Don’t quote me on this, but if I recall correctly the lift was deemed unsafe due to foundation concerns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see “Sandy Quad” on here under construction as a partek quad. Would that replace the rope tow? I haven’t heard anything else about this yet.
LikeLike
Sandy Quad replaces the 1967 vintage Sandy Double, which was mothballed in 2015 when the hill shut down, and recertified and made operational when the Hill was reborn.
LikeLike
meant to say that the Sandy Double was NOT recertified and made operational when the hill was reborn. :)
LikeLike
Which is a shame. What a lovely old lift.
LikeLike
I know they have been mostly following the blueprint of the mountain pre-closing, but I think it would have made sense to instead put a quad on Cupsuptic and a t-bar on Sandy. Sandy serves the park, whose skiers/riders can likely handle a t-bar, while Cupsuptic serves intermediate terrain, whose skiers/riders may be a little less capable.
LikeLike
Do the new owners have any future plans to add new lifts to access new terrain? I know there was a very ambitious masterplan under the old owners about 15 years ago that would have probably doubled the size of the resort. It would be fantastic skiing I’m sure but it always seemed like too much for a place that makes Sugarloaf look downright accessible.
LikeLike
I normally don’t comment directly on other people’s comments ( I live in Ontario far from Maine) however if I decided to do a road trip from Ontario to Maine to go ski either Sugarloaf or Saddleback, the distance by car is pretty much the same to either one. A quick check of Google Maps makes the trip from Augusta ME (from Interstate 95) to either Sugarloaf or Saddleback also pretty much the same time and distance. I guess your comment of will Saddleback grow in size comes down to will the new owners of Saddleback (The Arctaris Income Fund) get their money invested back in a timely way when total yearly skiers visits rise at Saddleback or will the place be a money pit going forward. Cheers to Arctaris I hope you succeed and can make Saddleback bigger than it currently is.
LikeLike
I believe the GM will be speaking on the Storm Skiing podcast in the coming weeks, so maybe we’ll hear something….
LikeLike