24 hour golf course!!!

[Txxxxxxx]

OH! And if Thunderbird can do it, other courses can surely afford it for those few hours of hydro they would need to use.

John- What is the upkeep for a light post? Just courious because you seem to think that upkeep and maintenance of this system would be so costly it wouldn't be worth the money.

["Richard"]

Dan, you wanna play our next match at thunderbird?? HAHAHA

As mentioned Thunderbird already does this. They originally planned to be open 24 hrs, but had no customers after 11:00. You can play it under the lights, just not at 3:00 am. I tried it and did not like it at all. Hard to follow the flight of the ball. Very hard to find balls that are just outside the lit areas. Mosquitoes were unbelievably fierce. Never did it again.

[SGH]

I'll disagree with you on that one. I don't know how much of a skier you are or where you've been, but big name mountains do not have night skiing, nor do bigger name hills. For example, Tremblant does not offer it and they are owned by the biggest company in Canada for ski resorts...the same people who own Whistler/Blackcomb.

This pretty much negates the other income factor as Vorlage and Edelweiss do not have huge resorts or nice restaurants to bring in the money. They solely have income from lift passes and poutine.

I’m pretty sure what I'm doing constitutes as a threadjack – sorry thotho.

I’m going to in turn disagree with you regarding night skiing. I’ll compare Whistler/Tremblant with Blue Mountain. All resorts are owned by Intrawest (who was recently purchased by an American private equity firm – expect changes), and provide two ends of a spectrum.

Whister/Tremblant – These two resorts are mega-sized vacation locations. They are able to accommodate large amounts of people on their hills with little crowding. Also, visitors tend to stay at the resort for an extended period of times, thus already using the facilities rented by Intrawest (Chalets, Restaurants and Bars). Also, the hills are huge, and would be very costly to light. The overall marginal profit here is nil to negative.

Blue Mountain – Located just north of Toronto, Blue Mountain is a smaller hill that cannot accommodate many visitors. Also, the resort is very close to Toronto, and an easy drive home for most patrons. By offering night skiing, the resort ensures that a greater number of visitors stay past 5 PM (when the hill would close without lighting). By ensuring they stay later, there’s a better chance they’ll use the restaurants, chalets and bars. Better business means higher rental revenue for Intrawest. This would make the investment economical. The overall marginal profit here is significant.

Just my two cents.

I did a project on Intrawest, so the topic peaks my interest. I realize this post has nothing to do with the original topic, but hopefully it’s okay.

[LobWedge]

A golf course is a living organism. It needs time to recover from the day's activity, just like humans do.

Lights pointing upward at all angles could cause problems for aircraft.

Hydro costs would be astronomical. I crunched a few basic numbers based on electrical usage to light a little league ballpark (which would probably be enough lighting for one hole, give or take) for 2 hours/night. Now you take that and stretch it over 18 holes @ 8 hours per day over 8 months. Conservatively you'd be looking at $500,000/year in hydro costs, and then you need to factor in the initial installation (probably a couple million at least), maintenance, and lost revenue from closing down the course for installation of all these goodies. You think green fees are high now...?

[John]

OH! And if Thunderbird can do it, other courses can surely afford it for those few hours of hydro they would need to use.

John- What is the upkeep for a light post? Just courious because you seem to think that upkeep and maintenance of this system would be so costly it wouldn't be worth the money.

Listen Hoss no need to get sarcastic here, we're having a conversation as ADULTS. I'm saying that installation, upkeek of not just the posts(basically calling me an idiot here) but the whole thing, ie electric, bulbs, wiring and such with wear and tear of weather. And the daily costs. Christ can i not have my opinion without getting hit with sarcasm, just talk to me.

[Txxxxxxx]

Listen Hoss no need to get sarcastic here, we're having a conversation as ADULTS. I'm saying that installation, upkeek of not just the posts(basically calling me an idiot here) but the whole thing, ie electric, bulbs, wiring and such with wear and tear of weather. And the daily costs. Christ can i not have my opinion without getting hit with sarcasm, just talk to me.

LOL!! Don't get your panties in a bunch. I was curious as to what kind of upkeep you thought the light posts(including wiring and bulbs) would need.

I really don't think...wait..let me rephrase that, I KNOW that it's not going to be very expensive on the maintenance side for a lighting system. A buddy of mine is an electrical engineer and he basically designs lighting systems for new city developments that are interested in different styles of lighting. An example would be the lights with different shapes etc. that you sometimes see in markets.

Anyway, wiring is underground and almost fullproof. It's the same stuff they use for street lights in the city. Same goes for the light bulbs. It's not often the bulbs in baseball stadium or footballs stadium lighting systems burn out, and when they do, the cost for someone to go up and change them is their hourly wage plus the cost of the bulb which is minimal.

You mention the elements, weather etc..These lights, as I said before, are the same as you see in stadiums and they are also outdoors, so the weather is not going to be a big deal.

[John]

Okay your right edmontongolfer. Let's just get back to how much fun it would be.

[Txxxxxxx]

I’m pretty sure what I'm doing constitutes as a threadjack – sorry thotho.

I’m going to in turn disagree with you regarding night skiing. I’ll compare Whistler/Tremblant with Blue Mountain. All resorts are owned by Intrawest (who was recently purchased by an American private equity firm – expect changes), and provide two ends of a spectrum.

Whister/Tremblant – These two resorts are mega-sized vacation locations. They are able to accommodate large amounts of people on their hills with little crowding. Also, visitors tend to stay at the resort for an extended period of times, thus already using the facilities rented by Intrawest (Chalets, Restaurants and Bars). Also, the hills are huge, and would be very costly to light. The overall marginal profit here is nil to negative.

Blue Mountain – Located just north of Toronto, Blue Mountain is a smaller hill that cannot accommodate many visitors. Also, the resort is very close to Toronto, and an easy drive home for most patrons. By offering night skiing, the resort ensures that a greater number of visitors stay past 5 PM (when the hill would close without lighting). By ensuring they stay later, there’s a better chance they’ll use the restaurants, chalets and bars. Better business means higher rental revenue for Intrawest. This would make the investment economical. The overall marginal profit here is significant.

Just my two cents.

I did a project on Intrawest, so the topic peaks my interest. I realize this post has nothing to do with the original topic, but hopefully it’s okay.

I know you mentioned Blue Mountain. I've been there so I know the hill you're speaking of. I don't think it's accurate to compare two areas owned by the same money because the money is still going/coming out of the same pocket. The company can afford to lose a bit on one location if they make a killing on another.

Why don't we compare Tremblant and Camp Fortune to be more accurate since they are owned by two totally different companies.

Tremblant has the little village, Fortune has a Chalet. Fortune has a large majority of their hill covered for night skiing and it's not a vacation spot with chalets etc. to get revenue out of. No night skiing is offered at Tremblant because as you said, they want their patrons to frequent the restaurants etc. Fortune has night skiing yet no restaurants to get revenue out of. My comparison was if Fortune gets revenue solely from their lift tickets and poutine, and they can still afford to run their lights for 3 or 4 hours a night, a golf course can afford to do the same in my opinion.

We have family friends who own 5 condos in Tremblant and I'm pretty sure they didn't have to go through Intrawest for them. Are you sure they get revenue from condos and places like the Marriott at Tremblant when people stay there? I'm curious now that you mentioned it.

[sharkshooter]

To save on hydro:

20 minutes before your scheduled tee time, the lights on 1 and adjacent holes will come on. Computerized with the tee-off schedule, of course.

When you arrive on a tee, say the first, you push a button. This will turn the lights on for the 2nd hole and adjacent holes, and turn off the lights on 1, giving them a few minutes to warm up. etc. etc.

That way, only the light needed on or near a hole being played need be on at any given time.

[Txxxxxxx]

Okay your right edmontongolfer. Let's just get back to how much fun it would be.

The thread was going towards the economical side, so why can't we discuss that? The whole point of a discussion is to bring up different points. If someone brings up a point(YOU) about upkeep and maintaining the system, why can't we discuss it?

[Txxxxxxx]

To save on hydro:

20 minutes before your scheduled tee time, the lights on 1 and adjacent holes will come on. Computerized with the tee-off schedule, of course.

When you arrive on a tee, say the first, you push a button. This will turn the lights on for the 2nd hole and adjacent holes, and turn off the lights on 1, giving them a few minutes to warm up. etc. etc.

That way, only the light needed on or near a hole being played need be on at any given time.

Interesting idea. I think it might be hard on the lights to go on and off that much though, but it would save on hydro for sure.

[sharkshooter]

Are you sure they get revenue from condos and places like the Marriott at Tremblant when people stay there? I'm curious now that you mentioned it.

Somebody does.

A royalty, equivalent to 2% of the listed or advertised price of the goods and services will be added. This royalty corresponds to the percentage of the contribution determined by the Tremblant Resort Association.

I think you pay this for everything from food to hotel stays there, and I assumed that Intrawest collects it.

[SGH]

EG:

I guess aying 'poor management' isn't a good answer eh? haha.

Regardless, I'll take a stab at it.

In regards to buying condos and Chalets, you wouldn't be going through Inrawest directly, no. Intrawest owns the Mountain, and what that means geographically I'm not 100% certain. However, anything located at the base of he hill would qualify and those hotes and chalets have either purchased the land from Intrawest (unlikely), or are renting it (very likely). I hope that answers that question.

As for how Fortune justifies their lighting, I'm guessing it's a matter of size. I have never been to Fortune, nor do I admit to knowing anything about it. As such, I'm going to guess it's small. This would make lighting more economical simply by means of scale. Do I think it's a great idea - I don't know. But I would imagine it's quite expensive, even at such a small scale. An 18 hole golf course would be another story. Especially with the entire course being in play for a hacker such as myself!

[Txxxxxxx]

Somebody does.

I think you pay this for everything from food to hotel stays there, and I assumed that Intrawest collects it.

Good post.

I know it's all profit sharing there. For example, they own two rooms in The Marriott there and no matter if someone is staying in your room or not for one weekend, you still get profit. I'm not sure how that works between Intrawest and Marriott. All I know is they all receive income which goes directly towards their mortgage on them, and then once their mortgage is paid it's a monthly income into their bank accounts.

[John]

I'm all for discussing it by all means but if you have an inside track on the upkeep and such then you definitely know better than me cost wise what it would be like so there's no need for me to discuss my point.

[Txxxxxxx]

EG:

I guess aying 'poor management' isn't a good answer eh? haha.

Regardless, I'll take a stab at it.

In regards to buying condos and Chalets, you wouldn't be going through Inrawest directly, no. Intrawest owns the Mountain, and what that means geographically I'm not 100% certain. However, anything located at the base of he hill would qualify and those hotes and chalets have either purchased the land from Intrawest (unlikely), or are renting it (very likely). I hope that answers that question.

As for how Fortune justifies their lighting, I'm guessing it's a matter of size. I have never been to Fortune, nor do I admit to knowing anything about it. As such, I'm going to guess it's small. This would make lighting more economical simply by means of scale. Do I think it's a great idea - I don't know. But I would imagine it's quite expensive, even at such a small scale. An 18 hole golf course would be another story. Especially with the entire course being in play for a hacker such as myself!

Yeah I'll have to ask them how it works for the condos when I am in Ottawa next month. I was just curious as to how that works.

As for Fortune, it's much smaller than Tremblant, but it covers more area than an 18 hole golf course does for lighting. That's the only reason I guess I used it as an example because we were comparing operation and installation costs.

I think initially it would be expensive of course. I think it would only be economical if you had the patrons for it. I mean I know most people who work during the days dread the log jam of the weekend golf and sometimes only have time to play a quick 9 after work. Perhaps that group of people would be using these lit courses for their twilight play once in a while. Would it be enough to get back the cost of installation? I don't know, maybe, maybe not.

[Txxxxxxx]

I'm all for discussing it by all means but if you have an inside track on the upkeep and such then you definitely know better than me cost wise what it would be like so there's no need for me to discuss my point.

Ok. I just wanted you to know I wasn't attacking you or being sarcastic about it. When I said "posts" I wasn't referring to just the posts themselves as I explained now. I don't think you're an idiot either. I just thought the upkeep and maintaining of the system being a negative was sort of off and I explained why.

[Golfbum]

If my course was lit at night I would be DIVORCED!
There is no need to light a golf course for night play. There are plenty of tee times and courses to go around.
To properly light a course would cost a fortune. Just take a good look at how many lights are needed to properly light a ball diamond.
Then you have light standards in play all the time.
No Thanks, I will stick to playing in daylight. I get enough rounds in during a year that way!

[LobWedge]

I did a visual comparison (god I love Google Earth). The entire turf covered area at Frank Clair stadium is slightly smaller in area than the pond that runs between #1 and #10 at Loch March. Look at the lighting that's required to light up that stadium. I'm not saying that you need as much illumination to light a specific hole, but you get an idea of the scale of this type of project. You're looking at supplying lights over a 200-250 acre area. I can't see anyone taking on this kind of project. The initial outlay would be astronomical. Look at how much lighting they have to use for the last 3 holes at the Battle at Bighorn.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be fun to do, just not practical.

[John]

Ok. I just wanted you to know I wasn't attacking you or being sarcastic about it. When I said "posts" I wasn't referring to just the posts themselves as I explained now. I don't think you're an idiot either. I just thought the upkeep and maintaining of the system being a negative was sort of off and I explained why.

Oh yeah man that's fine, i think i just misread/misunderstood your post and went on the defensive. It's all good baby!!

[LobWedge]

One other idea that could work is the use of mirrored panels (polycarbonate or similar material) to reflect light from fewer sources over the area of the hole. It would be something similar to the installation in the California desert where they use a bunch of mirrors to reflect sunlight to a central point for generating electricity, only in reverse.