I can't believe this...

[kfarrar]

Can anybody validate the source of this information? This is not good news a it could dramatically increase skier traffic. Along with that will come more accidents and deaths.

http://www.telemarkskier.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000335

[el-bagr]

Nope, unfortunately that's pretty much true. This guy Wayne Presby, owner of all sorts of things (Bretton Woods, Mt Wash Grand Hotel &c), also owns the cog and is developing it for this use.

I think he may also have been involved in the '80s with a project to develop heliskiing the Ravines, which never got off the ground. Not sure if it was the same guy, but somebody tried it.

[skicdave]

Hey kfarrar,

Yup we heard about this last year. Skiing the western slopes of Mt Washington via the cog. mind you the highest the cog will go will be the Waumbek Tank...

http://timefortuckerman.com/gifs/snowtrain.jpg

For more read this thread...
http://timefortuckerman.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000393#000000

For the latest new on skiing via the cog visit
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/111603cog_railway_2003.shtml

Now considering all the pollution let off by the cog, I suspect the neighbour slopes will be just black. So if there is a wind at all, you could well look like these miners...

http://www.earldotter.com/images/miner.jpg

Sort of like skiing past real dirty snowmaking equipment.

:skismile: :cog:

[ski&ride]

This is NOT good. Now inexperienced skiers & riders who may underestimate the harsh conditions have an easy access to disaster. Not to mention those without Avi training. This is a very unsafe way to make a buck. I'm also sad to think that now Mt Washington is going to be more comercialized. It should remain solely for backcountry use in the winter. I wonder if there is a petition or appeal filed to try & prevent this?

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[skicdave]

Note ski&ride, they are only skiing the lower area of the cog below Waumbek which is intermediate level terrain and below tree line.

[ski&ride]

Ahhh, yes, I didn't see that post as I was writing my previous one....Ok, yeah, it's a safer route, with the Waumbek Tank being the end of the line. I just hope that it doesn't get too commercialized. We'll see how much it grows from here.

ski&ride

[M@]

I'm trying to figure out how much of an impact on Tuckerman Ravine this will have, in terms of the number of people who are there in the spring. I don't have the topo maps in front of me, but it looks like taking the railroad up and then hiking to tuckerman is not easier than hiking from pinkham. Anyone have any info on this?

M@

[RR]

Most of the BC folks I know won't be paying the price of admission. Skinning up the J-Notch Road and the Ridge of Caps is a tad slow, but way cheaper. Two days on the cog is the price of an new pair of skins and gloves combined. Being a cheapskate, I vote for the durable goods!

[Freebird]

Skidave: Are you sure they're only planning to ski from the Waumbek Tank down? The link to Couloir said they were planning on making two stops for skiers, one at the tank and another at the summit. That would definitely be no good, AT ALL.

If however they are just planning on reaching the Waumbek tank, then it's somewhat less terrible... Although I'm still not very warm to the idea.

Now, they say it'll be the first railway used for skiing in North America. I've seen lots of skiers use the one on Pike's Peak in the spring. Granted the railway there probably is not used strictly for skiing, rather that skiers take advantage of its service. Does anybody know if the one on PP runs into parts of the winter (for skiing purposes)?

I agree that this will cause too many inexperienced skiers to possibly venture further from the Waumbek Tank and into dangerous territory. Having inexperienced adventurers on the mountain in the summer is enough work for the rangers and forrest service. I think the winter would be too much than they can deal with. One last question for anyone, do they plan on running the railway ALL winter long or just until the frozen monsoon season hits? (ie- when it really starts to dump)

Don't get me wrong, it's altogether a bad idea, but I'm not sure I've heard enough about how they plan to keep safety in mind to be a supporter at this point.

[RR]

If this is all they plan....

"Skiers would buy half-day or full-day tickets ("We haven't decided on the prices yet," he said). The heated train cars would lets skiers off at two points on the mountain - one at the base of Cold Spring Hill for beginner runs and another at the Waumbek water tower (at 3,800 feet) for intermediate runs."

....then it will go bust real quick. There's no way they can charge the same for the skiers as for the summer. There will be too few customers for that. The rates will have to be dreadfully high. A summertime run up the Cog is over 50USD, and that's for just one run!

Don't fret...it can't succeed except as a curiosity, so the traffic will be slight, at best/worst.

[Freebird]

RR: I couldn't agee more. Sometimes it's about the journey, and part of that journey is in the uphill battle as well as the downhill victory! Glad to see most backcountry travellers still value keeping it real. Cheers mate! :beermug:

[skicdave]

Freebird,

From what I can see the post on Couloir was an interpretation of the Burlington Free Press article. I have not seen this article, but assume the author missinterpreted the article...

Yes they mention two stops, but the first is at the Cold Spring Hill (for beginners) which I believe is the first rise visible from the Cog base station. The 2nd stop is at Waumbek at 3,800 ft for intermediate skiers.

View of the Cold Water Hill

http://www.mountwashington.com/cog/route/pictures/base-station.jpg

http://www.mountwashington.com/cog/route/pictures/coldspring-hill.jpg

Photos from From http://www.mountwashington.com


Other sources jib with what I heard in the past, that the cog will only ascend to the Waumbek Tank for skiing.

Again see the Concord article at
http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/111603cog_railway_2003.shtml

Marshfield station is at an elevation of 2,700 ft and Waumbek at 3,800 so this would offer a 1,100 ft vertical.

[Mumster]

Will it drop off skiers near the Gulf? :eek:

[skicdave]

Mumster:
Will it drop off skiers near the Gulf? :eek: Ha ha Mumster! No they are going to leave that task to your feet like last year. Your going to try again next year for the Gulf right? :p

[Castlerock]

Don't jump on the alarmist bandwagon for this one. The west side of the Presi's gets brutally wind scoured and doesn't load up with snow except in exceptional circumstances. In addition, the terrain is lower angle stuff except the headwall of the Ammo ravine.

Besides 3800 feet is below HoJos!

This is absolutely not a big deal. Mumster, your best bet for Great gulf is the first couple of weekends the Auto road opens to the summit. (Of course depending on the weather. Just start checking their web site early May.

[RR]

In the summer (sticking to trails) it's around an hour and a half to hike to an overlook of the Gulf from the water tank on the Cog, maybe another 20 min to Airplane Gully.

BTW don't do that hike near the Cog in the summer without keeping an eye out for the train crews throwing coal at hikers. Thru-hikers have a tradition of mooning the Cog, the crews have the response I mentioned.

[skicdave]

RR:

BTW don't do that hike near the Cog in the summer without keeping an eye out for the train crews throwing coal at hikers. Thru-hikers have a tradition of mooning the Cog, the crews have the response I mentioned. No need to throw coal at us. I've been smoked to death a few times and have had to hide behind rocks till the cog past. Cougharama! :cog:

[Mumster]

skicdave:
Mumster:
Will it drop off skiers near the Gulf? :eek: Ha ha Mumster! No they are going to leave that task to your feet like last year. Your going to try again next year for the Gulf right? :p Yes, but this time I'm hoping it will have snow. Maybe I'll take castlerock's advise and wait for the autoroad.

[NtrentT]

I also heard about this a year ago too, Im surprised to hear that they are going to go through with it.

[skidude]

That is an acident waiting to happen...So long nice quite beautiful :tucks:
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Castlerock]

The Waumbek Tank is nowhere near Tucks. It would be harder to get to Tucks from the proposed end point than to walk it from Pinkham.

There are no additional safety issues added here. This is just a way for the Bretton Woods folks to try to make more money, which they have every right to do.

Castlerock@ :sugarbush:

[M@]

Castlerock: Thanks kind of what I was thinking. This doesn't really affect much more than the area around the already unpleasent rail road tracks.

M@

[Castlerock]

Exactly! And the sun crusted windblown sastrugi at 4K feet on that side, will basically suck from a skiing point of view....

[RR]

that's: soot fouled, sun crusted, windblown sastrugi

what a mess..thank goodness it can't make any money!

[Castlerock]

Actually, they will probably have a nice groomed intermediate path down, and sell it as "extreme" skiing on the highest mountain in the NE, (with an extra $50 surcharge for a guide)

[skidude]

I wonder how many people will end up dieing or getting really hurt (dave how about a cast grem) before they relize that this is a bad idea, and stop letting you go up.

Anyway what are you guys going to do now? Ride or hike up if it goes threw?
still in like :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: mood

[Castlerock]

Dude, the west side of Mt. Washington below 4000'is far from extreme. In addition it doesn't get one much closer to the goods than any of the typical trail heads. The only way one could die there would be to get run over by the Cog.

[NH_tele]

I don't care too much about it, as long as it only goes to 3800'; although I think it's an awful idea, it doesn't affect me too much, and I can't see it making much money with Wildcat, Attitash, and Bretton Woods all within close range. Go a little further and you have Cranmore, Cannon, Waterville, Loon, and Tenney, all within an hour. Everyone of those mountains has a high-speed quad (or two or three), has a lot more than 1 trail, and probably costs less as well. To me that basically spells death to the idea of running the cog... UNLESS it goes to the summit (which would be popular for posers & people who don't have the balls to hike up...). This would get lots of novility credit, but then they would run into HUGE liability issues, with the amazing potential for people to kill themselves up there... Avalanches, exposure, etc, etc.

Realistically I doubt that it will be used too much for a Tucks staging point, however. Just think about it. The cog railway is on the opposite side of the mountain, at least 20 miles by car I'd guess. That's a pretty long way to hitch-hike... Also, the South Col of Washington is at an elevation of about 5200' +/- (if anything probably on the higher side of that). So it would still be a reasonably substantial hike from the cog, in vertical, but especially in milage...

Considering that the current Tucks access is hardly a trek (2 miles of fairly flat, then .8 of slightly more knargly terrain), I can't see the cog being used too much for skiing Tucks. If anything, it would probably be for some of the West side ravines, or the Great Gulf.

With any luck, the USFS will veto the idea before it even becomes a reality (or is that part not FS property?), or, failing that, it turns out to be an economic failure and they give it up in a year or two.

[pepperdawg]

RR:
that's: soot fouled, sun crusted, windblown sastrugi

what a mess..thank goodness it can't make any money! Sastrugi??? Dawg has never heard that term.... :confused:

[Castlerock]

Dawg: Google it, There is actually a sastrugi.com!

Tele: You are right. It isn't about the backcountry. It is about the overall image of Bretton Woods as a ski area and selling condos and week long packages.....

[RR]

Talk about a loss-leader! Bretton Woods is more or less $ound....but if they invest in this project they'll be bleeding ca$h until they give it up.

[BladeGirl]

Castlerock:
Dawg: Google it, There is actually a sastrugi.com!
Thanks for the new word. Dictionary.com says:

Sastrugi=
A long wavelike ridge of snow, formed by the wind and found on the polar plains.

Apparently it is also a type of ski binding for climbing (but not downhilling)

-BG

[Mumster]

Castlerock:
The only way one could die there would be to get run over by the Cog. You could also choke to death on the smoke.

[Castlerock]

Yes, Mum true!

I imagine you could also suffer burns from the embers.

[kmrnskier]

Has everyone here been on the cog? I really want to know. I'm a native New Hampsterite, and have never been.

[NH_tele]

I've never ridden the :cog: or the :autoroad: for that matter...

The cog because it's too expensive, the autoroad because I STRONGLY disapprove of the whole premise/idea behind it...

[Mumster]

I wouldn't ride the :cog: , on principle, because it's disgusting and it detracts from the environment.

I took the :autoroad: the day I did my snow hunt :happyhiker: in the gulf, and don't think there is anything so awful about it. I'd do it again.

[skicdave]

kmrnskier:
Has everyone here been on the cog? I really want to know. I'm a native New Hampsterite, and have never been. :cog: no
:autoroad: no
:happyhiker: yes
:snowdream: yes
:makeoutonatube: no

[RR]

I took a ride on the Cog about 8 yrs ago. The aged relatives got it in their heads to take the family up. A year later at 73 my mother in-law booked herself and my crew for some rafting on the Nahantahala...lots more fun. Anyway, it's kind of interesting the thing folks will think are fun. The views were okay, but I've been hiking over there and the veiws are better from "shank's mare" than they are from the Cog.

The cog was noisey, bumpy but totally passive and smelly/dirty. Rafting on the Nahantahala was noisey and bumpy but a total body work out. I think my mother in-law liked the rafting better (She did it again with another of her extended brood).

[skidude]

Haven't taken the :autoroad: or the :cog: but I might take the :autoroad: if I am up there. Does the road close when there is too much :snowflakes: on :mtwashington: ??

Anyway I don;t like the whole :cog: thing. It seems like it is about as bad as a :hummer: for the enviorment. Just wondering how much do they rip you for the smokey ride?

[DMC]

skicdave:
:cog: no
:autoroad: no
:happyhiker: yes
:snowdream: yes
:makeoutonatube: no :chicken: YES

[Castlerock]

The cog is impractical as a skier conveyance, but it probably accounts for less pollution than the auto road if you factor in all the costs of petrochemical production (including wars in the middle east).

I actually was a fireman (shoveled coal) for one trip up back arond 1980. It is an interesting piece of 19th century engineering.

Remember it was there before any of us.

As for the auto road folks, When you use it for access to the Great Gulf, you still have to earn all of your turns, as you must return to your car to get out of there. Yes there is the potential to exit via Tucks, but by the time the auto road opens (approx May 15-20) you aren't sking the Sherburne.