To get back to the original question: I’m betting that in 2024 they discover more issues and we descend into unusable again.

Its the conflict between conservation and tourism that has led to this ridiculous situation

Interesting. I totally agree with this bit.

with various groups not wanting to compromise properly leading to this absurd situation

But completely disagree with this bit. In my view it is precisely because of the compromises that we are in this situation.

The skier lobby wanted to build a train. The anti lobby didn’t want them to, largely on environmental grounds. The two sides were at loggerheads.
The train goes through a completely stupid, pointless and expensive tunnel at the top due to a daft compromise between the groups. The tunnel was hideously expensive which contributes to the financial problems. The tunnel was hard to build. The tunnel is a **** PITA for skiing as the **** thing fills up with snow and takes days to dig out after a storm. As a consequence it is shit as a means of transporting skiers. Massive compromise for skiers. The railway is there and is patently a complete eyesore. Massive compromise complete fail for environmentalists.

As a sop to the envos, they agreed to map out the position of every rock where the tunnel was dug, and replace it in the same place. This cost a fortune and contributed to the huge cost. Result was less money for other Scottish ski infra and closures every now and again when they run out of money. Do the envos benefit from these rocks being put back? I guess so but not a huge amount.

The compromise on summit lockdown… mountain bikers lose, climbers lose, I guess ramblers lose a bit. The local community loses huge income stream of not getting a world class MTB facility. See problems with income, debt and cash diversion above. The Envos do gain a bit from this but in my view the damage to the area is miniscule compared to the damage caused by building the damn thing, and the journeys people make.

Etc etc.

They made loads of stupid compromises like the above, which actually don’t really benefit anyone significantly ( except Aonach Mor 🙂 )
They still have some ghastly buttugly concrete monstrosity scarring the landscape. It sucks in nearly all the Scotland ski budget just to limp along. It doesn’t work for days after it dumps and various activity and revenue streams that could offset its shitness in some form are all banned.

They should have either:
* Not built it at all. Rebuilt the White Lady chair at a fraction of the cost. Kept the Ciste Chair and the upper Fiachail ridge Poma and the other lifts. Skiers would have been happy as they would have had much more uplift capacity. MTBers would have been happy as they’d have been able to take bikes to the top. Envos would habe been happy, no concrete elephant.
OR
* Build the **** thing properly so it could be used by all. It would have cost loads less money. Bikers, climbers and touroids would benefit. Other ski areas would benefit. The planet* would benefit because less Avies would drive to Nevis Range for their DH fix and less people would drive to the alps for their lift assist mtb fix. OK, there would defo be more erosion on the plateau, but TBH would the Envos be any better off than they are now…?

* appreciate this bit of my argument is pretty weak 🙂

Basically what I was saying – it was the wrong compromises I agree. Not helped by politicians love of big infrastucture projects.

So its ended up with this huge white elephant.  The whole ” you cannot get out at the top” thing is utter nonsense – surely there was a better compromise to be had on this.  NOt having a summer usage ie for MTBers is utterly daft.  too much dogmatic digging of heels in from both sides.  to me -( but I didn’t look at all the detail) bringing the top station down the mountain a bit would have been sensible along with removing the road up and having the bottom station much lower.  That removes 90%of the issues with unfettered access to the top and makes MTB uplift much better as you actually have more height gain between the top and bottom stations

Whatever tho – its was clearly never going to be satisfactory as is. Both sides needed some more broader give and take.  Instead of “this is what we want – how do we buy off the other side.” it should have been ” these are our aims – how can we make this work for both sides”

Co operative and collaborative planning not adversorial

Cairngorm Mountain needs to be allowed to die. It’s clearly not any sort of viable business and that’s only going to get worse.

bringing the top station down the mountain a bit would have been sensible along with removing the road up and having the bottom station much lower.

The top station needs to be where it is to give access to the Ptarmigan bowl. This is the area most likely to be guaranteed snow and is also the most popular with the majority of skiers. For the non-skiers this is also the point at which the views open up – back to the point about building infrastructure for Summer use too.

The bottom station can’t be lower because there would be a lack of snow and the lower land is all owned by FCS.

It’s true that modern chairlift systems are much more capable of operating at higher wind speeds but that wasn’t really the case when the funicular was originally built.

As far as I have been able to determine there is nothing unique about Course Cas, hence my absolute willingness to sacrifice it 😁 The environmentalist lobby won their battle against the Lurchers extension and should have been happy with that. Unfortunately they are joined by some of the more elitist of the outdoor “community” who now want to remove all infrastructure past Glenmore, including the current road, so that folk get to experience the long walk in. 

As for the current state of the funicular, I’m happy to let a few weeks of beta testing to take place before I place my trust in it.

Cairngorm Mountain needs to be allowed to die.

But but but…. that would be admitting that they **** up massively. That cannot be allowed to happen.

I’m sure a couple of elastoplast will hold the concrete plinths together for a few more months.

Fair enough Scotroutes.

As far as I have been able to determine there is nothing unique about Course Cas, hence my absolute willingness to sacrifice it 😁 The environmentalist lobby won their battle against the Lurchers extension and should have been happy with that.

This sort of thing should be a key point.  NO development in one area – the pay off is much greater development in another. Rather thanpiecemeal and not fit for purpose

As above – permission for the ski centre on that mountain would not be given now – but we are where we are, so need to make the best of it.  Its utterly daft to think of removing all the infrastructure now.  Trying to be all things to all folk means no one is happy and nowt works properly.  A “you get 100% in this area you get 0% in this area” ( land area or policy area) works.  To do 50% in each area makes a mess.

I cannot believe the conflicting interests are really irreconcilable apart from perhaps ultras on each side

Unfortunately they are joined by some of the more elitist of the outdoor “community” who now want to remove all infrastructure past Glenmore, including the current road, so that folk get to experience the long walk in.

Really? *shakes head*

The balance here of course is that Cairngorm area /mountain / call it what you will, should be a strong tourist draw and all the benefits of employment and income which that brings.
Yes there are downsides, particularly environmentally, but the local community benefits need to be balanced in my view.
Aside from if or how the railway was born and ongoing issues, the need for a successful business up there is clear – not the current shambolic line up of oddness who currently absorb huge sums of money and seem to deliver less than many would hope…

Found some figures I was looking for earlier…

At just 5.98 Km2 the Cairngorm Ski Area occupies just 0.13% of the Cairngorms National Park Area. Scottish Natural Heritage classify 1572 Km2 of land in the National Park as Wild Land and 15197Km2 of Scotland as a whole.