[Closed] AIMUp - Action for the Innerleithen Mechanical Uplift

313 racers turned up at Inners last month

For a race out of [i]2.5 million regular trail riders and "enthusiasts" + 3 million casual cyclists[/i] that's not many.

2 million skiers with limits to where you can ski in the UK, there's virtually no limits to where you cycle.

Hmmm! Alps or one hill in Scotland, I wonder what they'll choose?

there's only one hill (to ride) in whistler, but I'd rate the riding above what the alps has to offer. Likewise, the other BC resorts (silverstar and sun peaks) are on a smaller scale than whistler (probably 20-30 trails each) but still have enough variety to keep you going. Personally I get bored of the alps after a couple of years there. I expect most DHers in Europe do. If there was another option that didn't involve the costs of whistler (its easily £1500 for travel and accomodation for 2 weeks) I expect it'd be packed. Sure, a wet november weekday wouldn't see that many riders (you could even close the lift midweek on the offseason), but on a summer weekend its not unfeasable that you could have 500 people on a hill - and that would pay for a lot of miserable weekends

there's only one hill (to ride) in whistler, but I'd rate the riding above what the alps has to offer

I've not been to Whistler but I'd imagine like the Alps it's a bit bigger than Inners.

The Alps, Whistler and to a certain extent Fort Bill all have the infrastructure in place they just needed to attract bikers. Inners has some bikes and none of the infrastructure, they need to build and maintain the lift and attract enough riders. You may get 500 on a summer weekends but is that really going to pay for the rest of year, I doubt it. The costs are huge and with very little attraction over the winter there'll be no real income.

Whistler has a large hill, but the base lift (providing access to 48 trails) only rises 350m, which is probably a similar scale to inners. There is another lift above that, accessing another ~20 trails, but its only open for ~1/2 the season

[very little attraction over the winter

i disagree with that - there are no other lift-accessed trails in the northern hemisphere open before June or after September. If this was open year-round, it'd become the only destination to go to for bikers throughout europe, even america, during the winter. I know of bunches of riders who go out to New Zealand for off-season riding (such is the gap in the market) - I think a year-round bike park would be as busy, if not busier, in the winter as in the summer

I don't think counting racers is the same as counting bikers (I wish !). To continue the ski analogy, loads of folk ski - how many race ??

I also think all this talk of costs/benefits is missing something - the huge benefit to Scotland in general, not just in tourism but the social benefits in encouraging healthy outdoor living and exercise in general.

Health stats in Scotland are apalling for a developed country, and not going to improve without huge change to the accepted norms - this kind of thing would get some folk out of the shopping malls and onto the hills !! And in the long term out of the hospitals...

I was at Lac Blanc in the vosge this summer. Small bike park, 6 trails, probably less vertical than Inners YET it sells more summer pass tickets than any where other than Deuz Alpes and the whole Portes du Soleil area. It was absolutely rammed due to its relative easy access and it was renting out over 100 bikes each weekend and all these had to be reserved at least a week in advance.
I think Lac Blanc is a good case study as to what could happen at Inners if done properly and that you would be amazed at the numbers that would use a chairlift if the trail network was democratised a bit. Not only hard core downhillers but their kids and partners, XC riders looking for a change, kids/adults trying riding without the hassle of of getting sweaty. I think 500 a day on a summer weekend (maybe half that mid week) could be easily achieved and even winter weekend would still see a fair amount of action.
If the lift and trails could be done for reasonable money then I am pretty sure it would be sustainable and good for the local economy.

If thousands can flock to the Scottish ski resorts to ride boiler plate ice in between horrendous lift queues on antiquated ski lifts, I'm sure there must be enough riders out there to support a lift at Innerleithen.

This.

Disappointing but not surprising to see the usual 'can't do' attitude in this country reflected on STW.

This.

Disappointing but not surprising to see the usual 'can't do' attitude in this country reflected on STW.

Come on then convince me otherwise? Let's see you rough ideas of outlay, annual running costs, fees and number of riders.

Come on then convince me otherwise? Let's see you rough ideas of outlay, annual running costs, fees and number of riders.

Very roughly - if you averaged 35 riders a day (based on pure guesswork but not unrealistic imo) paying £35 each you would get £450k a year. Say it was £100k a year for staffing, maintenance and running costs (again pure guesswork), that would still mean if you could do it for £4-5 million it would pay for itself in 10-15 years, assuming no subsidy/grant. If the plans included bike hire/cafe this would generate more income.

I really fail to see how this is less sustainable than some of the ski 'resorts' in Scotland which let's face it often only have a few good weekends a year, and have far more infrastructure to maintain/support.

It's very hard to estimate numbers as nothing like this currently exists in the UK, but it could really take off.

Back of envelope calculation: Doing a bit of googling it seems that average prices for a 4/5 seater lift in the alps is 6m Euros (£5m) a lift that is not designed for the alpine elements might come in cheaper maybe? so @ 5% interest that would need £250,000 to service borrowing.

Lets say there is an average of 300 riders paying £20 a time and the lift is open 150 days a year. Turnover would be £900,000.

Should leave more than enough to pay the overheads I would have thought and that is with pretty conservative user figures. Other profit streams would then also open up, bike school, bike hire, cafe etc and there would be increased spending along the tweed valley which would help all the locals.

Sorry grum, but this is the fundamental problem. You're essentially making it up.

It's fine to criticise negativity, but this could end up being a massive white elephant, which could jeopardize funding for the rest of the Tweed valley for the next 30 years. It needs to based on actual figures, not invented ones, and needs to be sustainable.

Would you be happy to go back there in 20 years time and say to the people who live there that a chairlift to take mountainbikers up a hill was the very best thing you could do with all that money?

Grum - the numbers were done for the previous proposal. they simply did not add up in any way nor does what you say. Interest payments alone on a loan of several million would be a few hundred thousand a year.

If you want the facility to exist it would need a capital grant of millions and many hundreds of thousands of pounds of subsidy a year. More than all of mountainbiking in the UK gets now. No new trails anywhere else ever again?

If every MTBer that currently goes to the tweed valley paid for a £10 lift every trip instead of riding for free they still would not have enough income.

The previous financial case made for it by the enthusiasts was laughable in its hopeless overoptimism. Do you really think Innerleithan would get an average of more people on it than Nevis range gets on a busy summers weekend?

Its nothing to do with

the usual 'can't do' attitude

I would love to see this but...

I rode the Fort Bill uplift one sunny wednesday this June, I reckon there were 6 other riders on it. Maybe 10 at most. There were considerably more walkers but I'm guessing the Nevis range might be of more significance for the average tourist?

back to the question earlier then - how do the scottish ski resorts manage to run? They are busy for incredably short seasons, without huge numbers of visitors..

I'm not saying its viable without a grant, but I don't think that matters. If someone can find £8m for a cafe/center, why not £8m for a lift?

Visitor numbers for Glentress average almost 1,000 per day and are projected to increase by around 50%. That's the sort of numbers needed. And given the FCS investment at GT, do you think they'd want a competing facility just along the road? It would make more sense to improve the cycle links between the two.

Not sure Fort William is a good indicator of what could happen in the tweed valley. It is miles away from any decent population densities, is a ballache to get to and has only two runs.

Very roughly - if you averaged 35 riders a day (based on pure guesswork but not unrealistic imo)

As i said earlier, until you have current, accurate market research that can reasonably predict actual numbers that are not based on finger-in-the-air calculations nobody will touch this with a barge pole.

its nothing to do with a "can't do" attitude (but i'm sure STW will thank you for the moniker) its all to do with commercial risk.

Personally i feel that these folk who expect it to be done just because someone created a facebook page about it are a little naieve - full of good intentions but nobody is putting their money where their mouth is for a reason. If it was a valid commercial idea it would be running by now and making lots of money for the investors. The idea has been around long enough and i think that speaks volumes.

edit -

back to the question earlier then - how do the scottish ski resorts manage to run? They are busy for incredably short seasons

exactly - incredibly short seasons, people are willing to pay for scottish skiing because when its good its good and its local. but if we had year round cover do you think these same skiers would return [i]every[/i] weekend spanking 35 quid a pop? I dont think so...

5 lab - generally they are not viable - making losses and the infrastructure has been in place many years - and when it is good skiing they get thousands and thousands of people there not dozens

Its not just the capital costs - its the running costs as well.

When the financial case was done for the previous proposal (in 2007 when money was more easily available) they were assuming more people on average every day of the week paying to sightsee and ride a bike down than Nevis range gets on its busiest summer days.

Factoid for you: there are 1.5 million people living within 86 miles of Innerleithen. Not sure what the figure would be for Fort Bill ??

back to the question earlier then - how do the scottish ski resorts manage to run? They are busy for incredably short seasons, without huge numbers of visitors..

I'm not saying its viable without a grant, but I don't think that matters. If someone can find £8m for a cafe/center, why not £8m for a lift?

None of the naysayers are answering this.

edit:

when it is good skiing they get thousands and thousands of people there not dozens

On how many days a year does this happen?

When the financial case was done for the previous proposal (in 2007 when money was more easily available) they were assuming more people on average every day of the week paying to sightsee and ride a bike down than Nevis range gets on its busiest summer days.

Why do you keep banging on about this when it's a different proposal?

Talking about what's commercially viable in Scotland - ok, if they only did what's commercially viable there would be no ferries along the west coast and to the islands.

Different proposals? Show us the new detail then that has suddenly changed this from a pipedream to a valid business idea.

Poor analogy about west coast ferries - people rely on them to survive. a bloody chairlift is not necessary for survival

Grum - why do I keep banging on about this - because it shows how ridiculous the proposal is.

Somehow this new proposal for a miniature funicular is going to cost half what a chairlift would do and generate twice as many visitors - when the visitor number for the previous proposal were shown to be completely ridiculous.

Lets see you come up with some numbers that make any sort of sense

and before you go wheeling out the local tourism angle for inners "needing" a chairlift to survive the area is pretty well compensated with the existing facilities.

I'm sure the community would thank you though for lumbering them with a hefty ongoing bill for a chairlift that will fall out of use soon due to lack of numbers.

It doesn't have to cost £5 million though. I've been searching for the article but I can't find it, however it stated that the new chairlift at Glenshee cost £1 million.

It doesn't need to be an all singing and dancing 5 seater super chair. The 5 seaters are effectively a waste in the alps as the ones I saw could only take two bikes at once anyway.

Boardingbob - 5 million is the number that the enthusiasts for this are using - it would be 10 million for a basic chairlift, 5 million for this miniature funicular ( that does not look at all suitable IMO)

Remember access roads would need to be built, power brought onto site etc - all in place at glenshee

As above - pure 'can't do' attitude. Pathetic.

Scotland I believe markets itself as a world class biking destination, has won awards etc in the past - something like this could really help to make that a reality.

As a nation we can waste vast amounts of money on expensive foreign wars, the olympics which only benefit the area of the country which is already economically most developed, Wembley stadium @ £800m or whatever it was, but it's completely impossible to build a small chairlift/funicular up a hill in Scotland? OK then, let's just have a negative, moany, defeatist attitude.

Just skimmed this thread, but I think that as things stand, what the proposers want to be doing is looking for grant funding to help with the capital outlay, for example from the Scottish equivalent of a Rural Development Agency. This is the way that the FC build trail centres. Purely privately funded centres exist too, but judging by the likes of UK Bike Park, Esher Shore etc. they are on a much smaller scale.

The pay-to-ride bike park industry is still in its infancy and it's also possible that this could be picked up a few years down the line by someone who can afford to foot the capital costs.

Grum - I ask you again. Produce some realistic figures then and find a viable case. I have looked at all the proposals for this - have you?

Do you want all the money available for mountainbiking development for the next couple of decades in the UK to be spent on this one small project?

Its not a negative moany attitude - its realism.

This has been talked about for a long time - no private investors have come along - why - because it simply is not viable in any form. Its simply too expensive for too little benefit

Allow the renewable mob to put turbines up there on the condition that they put in the chair lift and provide the energy to power it. Job jobbed.

Do you want all the money available for mountainbiking development in the UK to be spent on this one small project?

Can you produce some realistic figures about what "all the money available" amounts to please?

As above - pure 'can't do' attitude. Pathetic.

Lead the charge then grum, we're all right behind you. In fact i'll personally guarantee i'll be there 53 weekends a year and spent £100 a time on the chairlift. I promise.

grum - Member
As above - pure 'can't do' attitude. Pathetic.

Scotland I believe markets itself as a world class biking destination, [b]has won awards[/b] etc in the past - something like this could really help to make that a reality.

TBH, if I had that amount of money to spend on bike trails and facilities, I'd be looking at building something nearer Edinburgh or Glasgow. However, I suspect that there would be too much conflict with other land users.

Lead the charge then grum, we're all right behind you. In fact i'll personally guarantee i'll be there 53 weekends a year and spent £100 a time on the chairlift. I promise.

I don't live locally so it would be hard for me to get involved really. But anyway you're right, moaning and making snidey comments is much more helpful and constructive.

So - it already is a reality.

Hmm, I wonder how many people actually visit Scotland from Europe/further afield to go mountain biking? I bet there's not that many at the moment. As above, there are very few (any?) bike parks in Europe open in winter as they are generally ski resorts too, so one that did could have great appeal.

This has been talked about for a long time - no private investors have come along - why - because it simply is not viable in any form.

So TJ, you think that only things that are viable on a purely commercial basis have any merit and should be considered? Interesting attitude coming from you.

As above - pure 'can't do' attitude. Pathetic.

. But anyway you're right, moaning and making snidey comments is much more helpful and constructive.

Agreed that's why I can't bothered any more. It's been looked at many times and the figures never worked, the cost is far too great. People make up silly figures, such as ooh you'll get 35 a day easily.

Edited - so it makes sense

I wonder how many people actually visit Scotland from Europe/further afield to go mountain biking

not 35 people a day thats for sure.

the trouble is, none of us have accurate figures as to what a chairlift costs to build, and what it costs to maintain. Resorts in france seem to like putting in extra lifts left right and centre for the ski season. Does the one extra lift on the edge of a mountain, in an area which already has 40 lifts make them £500000 in extra income? I'd guess not, but they still do it

How many grand building projects, big engineering works etc in the past have been 100% viable commercially with no subsidy/support? How many of them had thousands of people going 'this will never work' etc etc

And this country has become known for a negative 'can't do' attitude - fairly well typified in this thread.

People make up silly figures, such as ooh you'll get 35 a day easily.

Go on then, what's a realistic figure?

Would like to see an uplift, but as has been said proper research needs done.

I am sure at the right price you could sell a good number of season passes for an uplift which would bring in money upfront each year and generate a number of regular visitors who would want to get value for money nad may bring friends with them on odd days.

However If you look at the problems Hillend ski slope in Edinburgh has had it has been making losses and was in danger of closing before being bailed out by the council (although has now submitted plans for expansion). They had lift a accessed MTB trail for a while but it was little used.

crikey - Member
Sorry grum, but this is the fundamental problem. You're essentially making it up.

Yep, he is, just as much as you're making up that it's rubbish. His figures don't look unreasnoble.

To all those naysayers saying there isn't a proper feasability study done on it, why not put your (well, RBS's) money where you mouth is and vote for the study!

Edited - so it makes sense

I wonder how many people actually visit Scotland from Europe/further afield to go mountain biking
not 35 people a day thats for sure.

It still doesn't make sense.

grum - Member
there are very few (any?) bike parks in Europe open in winter as they are generally ski resorts too, so one that did could have great appeal.

But anyway you're right, moaning and making snidey comments is much more helpful and constructive.

I made quite a few reasoned posts which i can't see any meaningful responses to by you. Yeah my last comment was sarcastic but you labelling the people who disagree with you as "pathetic" is hardly constructive either.

Fundamentally i dont believe its a goer. If you do and you feel that strongly about it get involved. Distance is no object in todays world, we're probably arguing from other ends of the country about it...

I fear we are nearing a closed thread...

How many grand building projects, big engineering works etc in the past have been 100% viable commercially with no subsidy/support?

None, but generally those projects are seen to have a significant benefit to the population at large. Not a wee chairlift in the borders to serve a small group of extreme sports enthusiasts.

People make up silly figures, such as ooh you'll get 35 a day easily.

Go on then, what's a realistic figure?

Thats what we're asking the people who want the thing built to tell us.

You weren't in the Scottish Borders the last two winters, were you?

One swallow does not a summer make.

I made quite a few reasoned posts which i can't see any meaningful responses to by you. Yeah my last comment was sarcastic but you labelling the people who disagree with you as "pathetic" is hardly constructive either.

Aye fair enough. It's actually mainly TJ that massively winds me up with his style of arguing. I do still think we have a generally negative attitude in this country though and even if there was a very strong economic case there would be plenty on here going on about how it will never work.

grum - Member

........

"People make up silly figures, such as ooh you'll get 35 a day easily".

Go on then, what's a realistic figure?

Oh - I think 35 a day is realistic - you need at least ten times that tho.