Following my two posts on the proposed Mountain Coaster (see here) and (here) , I will take a look at the financial and environmental aspects of the proposed new uplift at Cairngorm as outlined in the SE Group report of November 2018 (see here). I will use the same kind of format as the Mountain Coaster posts, the idea being that if it is written by an ordinary person for ordinary people, without the fancy words and phrases used by the marketing industry, it may make the whole idea clearer. For example, how many of you know or knew what a “millennial” is until it was explained by the SE Group – a fancy word for the younger generation!
I re-read the SE Group report several times picking out key features, making notes etc until I suddenly realised that it was a waste of time. This is because there are two major unknown facts;-
(1) We do not know whether or not the Funicular is to be removed or repaired, despite Charlotte Wright, the Chief Executive Officer of Highlands and Islands Enterprises, telling me that the COWI engineers report would be released by the end of May – the month not the Prime Minister.
If the Funicular is to be repaired rumours are that estimates range from £4.5m to over £10m. Considering that it originally cost about £26m to build, then taking into account the rising cost of materials, labour etc, over the last 20 years, if half needs replacing, it could cost as much. Even at the time of construction, which was over two years, the costs rose from about £9m to that final figure of £26m, an increase of almost 300%.
If the funicular is to be removed completely there are two options:
- The first would be to leave it as it is for now and remove it as and when money is available, thereby spreading the cost over a period of time. That, however, could be contrary to the Section 50 agreement which required the funicular to be removed if out of use and the ground completely restored.
- The second is to demolish it immediately in one complete operation. If anyone would like to have a guess at that cost, please do, but it could put a considerable dent in HIE’s budget leaving very little for new uplift.
(2) HIE’s budget for Cairn Gorm is not known. What we do know is that when the Executive Summary of the SE Group report was released a press statement by HIE said it would be nice if a philanthropic entrepreneur brought in much of the £27m investment, implying that they did not have nearly that amount.
The main aim of the SE Group report was to show a way forward including new uplift. Phase 1 was proposed to include a new gondola from the Base station to the top of Coire Cas, into the avalanche zone according to the maps. Phase 2 was a gondola from the mid-station, the Shieling as used to be, to the re-vamped Ptarmigan (another £2.5m). That, however, was the vision with a working Funicular.
If the Funicular is irreparable then the only sensible option is for new uplift to the Ptarmigan. This could run from either the Daylodge or the Ciste, which would help to mitigate winter road closures or even, more ambitiously from Glenmore. Either way all other uplift in Coire Cas and Coire na Ciste would need to be retained. This would need a whole reworking of the report by the SE Group, which is maybe why they have been back to Cairn Gorm.
In my opinion the evidence suggests the Funicular is beyond economical repair. My reasoning behind that is if it could be repaired then why would the SE Group be re-engaged as they have already compiled a report about the future uplift?
We now have the updated SE Group report (see here – Cairngorm+Feasibility+Assessment_Addend) and people are already commenting and expressing concern about its content and conclusions.
The proposal, which avoids addressing the funicular question, is that the main new lift will only carry skiers to the top of the Cas, with no mention of skiing in Coire na Ciste, should be of great concern to everyone. It appears driven by increased operational efficiencies, i.e. a smaller ski area, fewer staff. Can you imagine 6 skiers/boarders at a time being dropped off at the top of the Cas, all racing down the gunbarrel to get to the M1 poma, a one person at a time lift? Talk about chaos and queues. Or is the M1 poma not going to be used? To cope with all the people, various new runs are proposed without any consideration of the environmental impacts (I will deal with this in my next post):
Add to that a Mountain Coaster on the Fiacaill ridge, well you have all seen my opinions on that idea, a beginner’s ski area and some environmental improvements, all at a cost of an estimated £15m:
We all know how good such estimates were when the Funicular was constructed. Is this really the best way to spend such money, wherever it comes from?
What should happen.
I suspect that HIE know full well what is going to happen with the Funicular considering the number of engineers reports that they have had. The only course of action they should have taken was, and is, to proceed with new lift infrastructure as soon as possible. We are now 6 months on and still the majority of us are in the dark as to the future of skiing on Cairngorm. “The need to elevate the guest experience at the resort” is nowhere in sight.
Conclusion.
At the present time there are too many variables to have any kind of sensible discussion about the future for uplift and therefore skiing on Cairngorm, for the reasons explained above, and that doesn’t take account of the legal aspects related to the Section 50 Agreement or other impacts on the environment. The only certain conclusion is that for the coming winter (2019/20), and even possibly one or two winters (2020/21 or 2021/22) after that, skiing may be very limited. After all the original Executive Summary released by HIE was for a 1 – 5 year vision (2023/24) and the SE Group Addendum is short on either timescales or where the money will come from.
Irrespective of cost of repair the funicular is inherently flawed. Tourists (rightly) can’t get out at the top in summer due to VMP – therefore repeat summer custom is limited by design. Fixing the funicular doesn’t address any of the underling issues. A glenmore gondola would be much more sensible, and could be used year round by bikers, skiers and walkers. If the summer aspect of business can break even then winter should look after itself.
Quite agree with you. Unfortunately, for HIE to admit that the Funicular was flawed would take a massive amount of courage by the current CEO, Mrs C. Wright, and the board. That would confirm what the majority have said about the Funicular and it’s economic viability from it’s conception, totally against their strategy for 20 years. Has Mrs C. Wright got that kind of courage? I would like to think so. I also wholeheartedly agree with your aside, but that’s a totally different political argument.
As an aside : paying US based management consultancy a 6 figure sum to publish uplift review is absolute insanity…
The funicular needs to be mothballed until Santa is elected as First Minister. Meanwhile new uplift should be the top priority with phase1 being replacement of the Day Lodge Poma with a chairlift plus cafe at 2,700 ft. That will give Cas/Ciste connectivity, access by tow to the Ptarmigan bowl and access to new routes for walkers and mountain bikers as well as a great, mostly cloud free, viewpoint. Where is that in the SE Group thinking?
The Funicular, not mothballed, removed. CML went bust in 2008, nearly went bust again in 2017, according to administrators, and then bust again in 2018. How much of that was caused by the Funicular and reduction in other ski uplift? The Daylodge Poma is only suitable for access to the Ciste for more experienced skiers as would be a chairlift in its place, although a chairlift would be able to operate on days when there wasn’t enough snow cover on the tow uptrack. I think the only sensible option is a chairlift on the same line as the original chairs. A Shieling mid-station would allow beginner access to the approximately 6 hectare, or 60,000 sq.m.,beginner zone proposed in the SE Group addendum, which was where the beginner classes used to be held, and on the better days beginner access to the Ptarmigan. Everyone has their own ideas on a way forward and amongst them all is a solution, we just need to find that and for people to accept compromise. Then we need to convince HIE!
Some of the highest mountain windspeeds in a temperate region , ever, have been placed on record at the top of Cairngorm. Where – in any assessment of economic viability – is the engineers assessment of how many days per year any gondola would be unsafe for operation.? It appear probable once again that those who oversee HIE may still be looking at dispersing the HIE annual budget once again to a highly visible region for “simplicity’s sake?” and somehow disguise their past mistakes.
Just open it and let the people that have paid for it out on to the plateau.
More users for sure unless your of the hair shirt variety,and we’ll you will have driven there first causing cough cough environmental damage. Go up say the Zugspitz you can walk back down or around whatever, busy hell yeah.
There are plenty of other peaks and hills in the country, some which are rarely visited they can remain pure and pristine. It is not even pristine it looks like a dump.
Of course I would not let folk out when not is say over 50 mph and a wind chill of -10 C.
Just saying like
Thank you for taking the time to read this post and your comments. I agree with some of them and other people will disagree, but one thing that should be at the forefront of everyones’ thoughts is that the Cairngorm ski area is part of a National Park and as such should be treated with a lot more consideration than it has been. Uplift is the most important thing in breathing life back into the skiing, it is how we can achieve this to a degree acceptable to all concerned parties that is the problem. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of a way forward and I welcome all input, but at the end of the day there will have to be compromises.
Oh and why should skiers be considered special to let them onto the plateau?
Just a note Ski/Uplift infrastructure has been insitu longer than the concept of national park….
Yes, you are correct, Graham, there are too many variables to have any kind of sensible discussion about the future for uplift and therefore skiing on Cairn Gorm……and that’s all because HIE has not carried out a professional options study to compare various alternative uplift strategies. HIE says that it will have to (reluctantly) consider the option of not repairing the funicular, yet it has failed to ask their American marketing consultants (S E Group) to propose a ‘vision of the future’ without the funicular. Yet another example to show that HIE is not fit to manage its way out of the mess it has created.
The figures in my original post are not quite correct, so these are the corrected figures as per the Public Audit Committee Report from 2010.
The initial budget approved for HIE by the Secretary of State in November 1997 was subject to a limit of £9.39m.
The consultants engaged estimated the cost to be £14.8m, £9.4m from HIE, £2.5m from CML ( bank loan ) and £2.9m from the E.U.
In May 2001 the total costs had risen to £15.2m but by the time the final payment was made in 2007 these had risen to £19.54m. In addition there were other costs but the breakdown of funding is as follows:-
HIE £19.417m
Bank of Scotland £ 3.618m
E.U. £ 2.613m
Highland Council £ 1.0m.
Cairngorm Trust £ 0.101m
Total from all sources £26.749m
The amount committed by HIE rose from £9.39m to £19.417, an increase of just over 100%.