Cog Railway Ski Train

NHpowderhound

New member
CARROLL, N.H. (AP) — For the first time, New Hampshire’s Cog Railway is staying open on Mount Washington through the end of November. But the owners have even bigger plans for next year. <BR> <BR>If all goes well, the cog will be the first ski train in North America, says its president, Wayne Presby said. <BR> <BR>Under the plan, skiers would buy half-day or full-day tickets and heated train cars would let them off at two points for runs down Mount Washington. <BR> <BR>Presby says more work is needed before skiers ride the rails. They’ll run the train in the dead of winter this season to make sure the engines can handle it. Also, the land along the tracks will have to be cleared of boulders, logs and old water pipes. <BR> <BR>Last winter, workers successfully tested the ability to clear the tracks using a custom-made snow blower. They also groomed the snow next to the tracks with a groomer machine borrowed from the Bretton Woods Mountain Resort. <BR> <BR>"We’ll make history," said Doug Waites, the railway’s marketing manager. "It’ll be the first and only ski train in North America." <BR> <BR>Presby envisions the Cog Railway’s newest attraction as being "run just like you would a normal ski area," complete with ski patrollers and a base area open for food and drinks. <BR> <BR>"We think the novelty will be something that will drive tourists to New Hampshire," Presby said. <BR> <BR>For now, the Snow Flake Express, running through the end of this month, is reserved for tourists bridging the gap between leaf-peeping season and ski season. <BR> <BR>The train takes passengers to the Waumbek tank, one-third of the way up the mountain, in a one-hour round trip. At the tank, passengers are able to get off the train and check out the views from a platform. <BR> <BR>"It gives you a whole new perspective of what the White Mountains are," Waites said. "You’re leaving fall conditions in the valley and going into winter conditions. You’re seeing Mount Washington like no other way you’ve seen it before." <BR> <BR>The above is an Associated Press story. <BR>Bad idea,period.Dropping off tourists on the flanks of Mt. Washington in winter will result in lost/dead skiers and it will put more stress on an already fragile environment.More Clog trains means more carcinogens and less ozone.More Powerbar wrappers on the ground and less alpine flowers.I know lots of people look at the Cog as a staple of the NH tourism industry but I look at it as an antiquated end to a means.A scar running around the Ammonusic Ravine.There are better ways to get tourists to the summit with less of an impact.People will also use the Clog to access terrain not owned by the Cog,ie;Great Gulf,Tucks ,Oakes Gulf,Snowfields etc.Skiing these areas you will need knowledge of snowpack stability and coverage and route finding.Most of these variables are addressed as one climbs up through the desired run.The physical condition of the skier also dictates which run they do.If they just drop in from the top,they will have no idea where they are going or if they can even handle it,unless they have local knowledge.Some chutes are so steep,you cant see much more than 10 feet below your skis.A fall in one of those chutes will turn a skier into a 50mph bowling ball,taking out unsuspecting skiers climbing up from below.I can also forsee tourists leaving the track area and getting lost in whiteouts.The cog better have a good rescue team at the ready if they decide to go ahead with this venture.I dont want my tax dollar used to rescue thier patrons(that doesnt mean I want people left on the mountain).They put them in a dangerous situation,they should be prepared to get them out. <BR>The best way up and down Mt. Washington remains foot/ski travel IMO.It filters out the people who arent qualified to be in the area.Education and conservation is in the best interest of MW.Not overloading the mountain just to make a buck.Just because you CAN do something doesnt mean you should. <BR>((* <BR>*))NHPH
 
The idea of a ski train on Mount Washington is plain and simple a bad idea for all the reason NHPH pointed out plus it takes away from the idea of earning your turns up there. If you have a way to the top besides lugging your gear people will be more apt to try and probabally fail at skiing tuckerman and the other areas on the mountain. People will think of it as a novelty not a something that should be respects and taken with a grain of salt.
 
I don't think it's a good idea, BUT, it's not that big of a deal. Fourtanetly, they've decided (according to the article in the Concord Monitor) to only run the cog to the first water tank at 3800'. Skiers will be allowed to ski down on the groomed clear area on the sides of the cog. So we won't have to worry about the cog or tourists up on the upper mountain or summit. Tourists won't be skiing the ravine or chutes, or anything over their heads. I don't think I'll be affected by it at all. <BR> <BR>Personally, I can't see the idea working that well in the first place. There's Wildcat, Attitash, Bretton & some others all in the area...
 
Yeah, the last point of Ben is really good. I mean, why to operate a lifted ski area in Mt Wash while there is already many ski areas just beside. <BR> <BR>I agree 100% with NHPH too. Just to see the people on the summit, this summer, proud to be on the top of Eastern North America... although they climbed the mountain in car, they were looking like they were some gods. There is surely some people that would take the cog just for the trip and that would really not be in their place to ski down the mountain. At least, if it's only on the lower part of Mt Wash, it's less a problem, cause nobody will access too much easily to the extreme parts of the mountain... <BR> <BR>but once again... hey... c'mon, this mountain should remain a little bit wild, this is our greatest mountain in the east...
 
people wanting to ski tucks won't bother with the cog. as previously pointed out, it's only going up to the water tank. also, terrain served will be intermediate and groomed. who is this attracting? no expert is going to find this a worth while trip. and if you want intermediate groomed, why not ski BW and get a high speed quad. <BR> <BR>think of the wait time for these trains? what is the capacity per train? maybe two running per trip? how fast do you ski down, and how long would you wait for a train back up? people will clearly be waiting a long time to ski fairly easy terrain. <BR> <BR>it's obviously gonna attract people who are interested in saying they "skied mount washington" but are too affraid or not good enough for tucks. people who enjoy "heated cars" and groomed intermediate terrain. i don't think you need worry about losing skiers or skiers getting in over their heads. <BR> <BR>also, as a skier i don't buy into the pollution arguement. how much pollution do other ski areas put into teh air with groomers and snow blowers, and construction equipment building trails and lifts, etc. the skiing industry causes pollution, so i can't fault a skier area for polluting. <BR> <BR>i don't think it's a good idea, but for different reasons. i also doubt thta they will find this to be a profitable venture. but who knows what they will charge for lift tickets.
 
One of my concers is that the uneducated skier/rider will use the 3800' drop off as a staging area to the higher part of the mountain.It's only 200'till treeline.Whiteouts can occur in bluebird skys if the wind picks up.In true whiteouts,you cant tell snow from sky.And wandering a couple hundred feet from the track and then losing your bearing in those conditions can prove to be grave. <BR>Ironically one of my prized possesions is a poster I had mounted and framed from 1987 that shows a beautiful shot of the Center Headwall and Lip area of Tucks,with an overlay of the Cog.It reads "The Cog Railway Ski Trains To Tuckerman's".A program they've tried in the past.The USFS had rangers waiting on the summit ready to arrest anyone who got off the train.So if anyone thinks they are only going to stop at 3800',I think they are going to be mistaken.Perhaps for year one,but they will push to drop skiers and riders off at the summit.Especially after March. <BR>Thanks for your opinions and keep 'em coming! <BR>((* <BR>*))NHPH
 
If the train runs up to 3800', I definitely think it would become a staging area... think about all of the publicity tuckerman gets in mainstream ski magazines (definitely "skiing" & "ski")... they definitely have enough circulation to convince at least a handful of people to ski tucks who might not realize what they were getting into. If some people hear they can get a train ride to ferry them up to fairly high up the mountain I'm sure it could potentially change the minds of those who otherwise would not go. And the constant tooting of the train you hear when you hike up through tuckermans in the summer is incredibly annoying...
 
EXTREMELY BAD IDEA!!! <BR> <BR>Unfortunately, I agree 100% with NHPH that 3800' might just be a start. Why would they bother to stop there if it's successful. The trains are extremely slow and how many runs would someone get? Why would anyone take a slow train to ski a groomed run, at least when LeMassif had school bus as lifts it was to ski ungroomed terrain (4-5 runs a day). <BR> <BR>The USFS pulled the plug on the late 80s Ski train plans and the same should be done now. The idea for rejecting the idea back then was that the skier needed to make an assessment what he was about to ski. Even expert skier need this, can't just ski off Chute if it's boiler-plate conditions. <BR> <BR>I also have that same Cog Ski Train to Tucks poster, I had it wood-laminated years ago. Great picture, a great perpective on how steep is the climb (especially the guy climing above the top of Chute(?). It's a rare item.
 
The problem with using the cog for a staging area for Tucks is, as others have said, the idea that a yahoo who's just gone out & read a ski magazine article is now up in Tucks. And he/she is left with NO choice but to ski it from above the headwall, regardless of the conditions in the bowl. There's no option for a little "to the base of the steep part" run, or even a good warm-up... <BR> <BR>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... <BR> <BR>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. <BR> <BR>I can't see it really being successful either, I know I sure as hell wouldn't pay anything for a bit of soot-covered groomed intermediate slope with all the other ski areas in the area. <BR> <BR>4000' is pretty low for tree line; just guessing, I'd say that treeline on most of the Presidentials is closer to about 4500', possibly higher.
 
You're right about the distance from the Cog to Tucks, however if it would reach the top then some people might just think IT'S ALL DOWNHILL from here. All we need is a few more yahoos on the mountain and the volunteer ski patrol will need a raise and/or more volunteers.
 
NHPH wrote: "One of my concerns is that the uneducated skier/rider will use the 3800' drop off as a staging area to the higher part of the mountain." <BR> <BR>If I read between the lines correctly, NHPH is making a distinction between the "uneducated" newbies on a novelty Cog Ski Train, who I agree should definitely be prevented from ascending from Waumbek Tank or anywhere else; and those of us who are "educated", and have used the Cog right-of-way in the past. <BR> <BR>Wayne Presby and the Mount Washington Partners may indeed make history - by bringing an end to the era of unfettered access for back country skiers from the western slope via the Cog right-of-way. <BR> <BR>I fully expect that the USFS will coerce the BW/Cog operators to actively PREVENT anyone -their passengers or anyone else skinning/hiking up - from accessing the mountain above the Waumbek Tank. I expect the BW/Cog owners will be held to the same standard as Great Glen Trails. That may prevent an increase in the number of rescues on the western slope, but it's still bad news for me. <BR> <BR>The greatest impact will be on the Mt. Washington backcountry skiers who have historically accessed the mountain from the west via the Cog right-of-way. I'm not talking about Tucks - but maybe the less said, the better. <BR> <BR>I am PRAYING that the BW/Cog owners will take a "don't-ask-don't-tell" approach to those of us who would like to continue skinning or hiking up the Cog right-of-way (which is legally theirs). <BR> <BR>I talked to Wayne Presby after I had skied up & down the Cog to access GG a couple years ago, and he told us of his plans for running the Cog to Waumbek Tank in 2005. He has been planning something like this ever since the USFS burned him in 1987, immortalized in that advertising poster for the ski train that never ran. He has done a lot for this area in general, and skiing in particular, so I think he deserves a shot at running the ski train to Waumbek. <BR> <BR>After the USFS told Presby he couldn’t use his ski train to access the mountain in 1987, he told the Forest Service they couldn’t use the right-of-way across the Cog’s land to access the mountain – forcing the USFS to relocate the trailheads of Ammonoosuc Ravine Trail and Jewell Trail ¾ mile downhill. <BR> <BR>Anyone know the inside scope on the Great Glen Trails access policy? When they started running snow cats up the Auto Road, I inquired two years in a row, and was told they did not allow ascending above the end of the cat ride, did not allow accessing any other part of the mountain from the Auto Road, and allowed only cross-country or tele gear (no alpine or AT gear). Anyone know if they've loosened up that policy?
 
Check out the Archives for the report & photos of 3/31/02: <BR><A HREF="http://www.firsttracksonline.com/discus2/messages/2508/1566.html?1017622238" TARGET="_top">http://www.firsttracksonline.com/discus2/messages/2508/1566.html?1017622238</A>
 
Lftgly- Sounds like a great trip! I hope to do more Mt. Washington skiing this year...I'm planning on taking an AMC avy course in late Febuary, and have a friend that has beacons, probes, and shovels, so hopefully I'll be able to ski with him. It looks like a great trip!
 
Yeah, it looks quite interesting... although I will begin to ski Tucks in april/may and get more backcountry experience (and avy skills & all) before to begin some mid-winter trips in the kind !
 
On the note of Mount Washington, I was wondering if anyone had ever herd of the EduTrips the Mount Washington Observatory does. And if you had, what you know about them. <BR>thanks <BR>porter
 
Ive never taken an Edu-Trip but I like the idea.I know it's sponserd by the MWObservatory and guests ride the snowcat in the winter.As far as I know they offer several types of trips from geology to photography.It's a good way for the non-profit observatory to raise money and educate the public.You still need lots of gear.Some of it can be provided with prior arrangement but you need to have most of it(like clothes).You also need to be in good shape in case the snowcat breaks down and hiking is required. <BR>((* <BR>*))NHPH
 
Back
Top