The Cog is now selling a $10/day pass for any use of the railway property, including hiking on trails that cross the tracks.
Cog claims you need to pay to cross the tracks
- Thread starter jniehof
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Tom_Murphy
Member
Does the Jewell Trail starting the the Ammo Ravine Trailhead cross Cog Property?
I would gladly pay the $10 if I needed to bail from a winter ascent of Washington by following the tracks out.
Last edited:
torn&frayed
New member
They might need to build a toll booth on The Gulfside Trail.
JoshandBaron
Well-known member
Note that this is winter only... for now.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
The AMC lot was built expressly to get the trails off the Cog property. At one point the Jewell trail bridge from the AMC parking lot washed out and I don't know if it was rebuilt. It was non issue until the FS started plowing the AMC lot last year after the cog starting charging a parking fee. I expect there are some folks who do climb up the cog tracks or use them for descent in an emergency.
The current owner of the cog has decided not to play well with others on the mountain and has decided that since the hiking public seems to be against his proposed hotel and other potential expansion plans that he might as well try to make a buck off those folks too lazy or uneducated to use the alternatives to putting money in his pocket. The cog is going to attempt to have crews replacing rails on the mountain this winter and expect he really doesn't want spectators. The only potentially impacted trail on the summit is the West Side trail unless he elects to continue his disputed claim that his company and only his company has rights to the summit. I guess if he really wants to push it he could set up a turnstile and charge visitors to stand in line to have their picture taken at the summit sign. I expect if he did so, he would open a can of worms that he will regret.
The current owner of the cog has decided not to play well with others on the mountain and has decided that since the hiking public seems to be against his proposed hotel and other potential expansion plans that he might as well try to make a buck off those folks too lazy or uneducated to use the alternatives to putting money in his pocket. The cog is going to attempt to have crews replacing rails on the mountain this winter and expect he really doesn't want spectators. The only potentially impacted trail on the summit is the West Side trail unless he elects to continue his disputed claim that his company and only his company has rights to the summit. I guess if he really wants to push it he could set up a turnstile and charge visitors to stand in line to have their picture taken at the summit sign. I expect if he did so, he would open a can of worms that he will regret.
Bob Kittredge
Active member
Yep. It was rebuilt.
ChrisB
Well-known member
From the above link, the intent of the Cog is pretty clear. And it does not seem to be an attempt to charge for upper mountain track crossings. The website says:
Looking to experience Mount Washington in the winter? Whether it be skiing Mount Washington or hiking Mount Washington in the winter, the best way to experience Mount Washington in the winter is to start your journey from the base station of the Mount Washington Cog Railway!
Starting in the Winter of 2018, on holidays and weekends, Marshfield Base Station will remain open for food and drinks (including alcohol) and select apparel and other items for sale to ensure the best winter experience you can have on Mount Washington!
The building will be open on weekends and holidays throughout the winter season. So take a exhilarating ski run down Mount Washington and finish it off with a warm hot chocolate or a nice alcoholic beverage from Peppersass Kitchen!
Access to Marshfield Base Station is free to visitors, however there is a paid permit required to use the land for activities such as hiking, skiing, snowboarding and snowshoeing. These can be purchased at the Guard Station located at the entrance to the Mount Washington Cog Railway or at select retail locations.
The Cog of late has become an alternate route to Ammo and Jewell, and since it is private land I suppose there are liability issues. Requiring a permit to use this land is not that radical a move IMHO. But rather a recognition that the expanded path is a popular venue for climbing the Hill. And I'd rather pay ten bucks than have him be a pain-in-the-a** about access.
If Marshfield Base provides "food and drinks (including alcohol) and select apparel " let's just call it Pinkham West.
cb
Last edited:
egilbe
Member
The cog has an easement up to the summit. They don't own the land, from what I read. They can use that 99 foot swath for the railroad.
Raven
Well-known member
Gee, let me see how fast I can get my wallet.
If the goal in the past year has been to piss off nearly the entire mountain community, then well done.
I won't be paying anyone to cross hiking trails in the Whites.
CaptCaper
Active member
Cog has a right and should
Why should they give there service away for free? I wouldn't .. They plow it. Insurance and monitor it for many reasons.. No wonder why locals don't like hikers and say they want everything free. They come up with a tank of cheap gas from Ma.. etc ..bring lunch.. hike free.. rescue free..don't pay taxes with AMC then go home.
People have always tried to pit the Cog against hikers. Don't believe it. Go talk to them and you'll find out different. Great folks actually. They have run up and rescued many hikers over the years.
Now you want to use Cog's property and service's free. This isn't Woodstock.
Gee, let me see how fast I can get my wallet.
If the goal in the past year has been to piss off nearly the entire mountain community, then well done.
I won't be paying anyone to cross hiking trails in the Whites.
Why should they give there service away for free? I wouldn't .. They plow it. Insurance and monitor it for many reasons.. No wonder why locals don't like hikers and say they want everything free. They come up with a tank of cheap gas from Ma.. etc ..bring lunch.. hike free.. rescue free..don't pay taxes with AMC then go home.
People have always tried to pit the Cog against hikers. Don't believe it. Go talk to them and you'll find out different. Great folks actually. They have run up and rescued many hikers over the years.
Now you want to use Cog's property and service's free. This isn't Woodstock.
Last edited:
I hope this is what you had in mind: https://youtu.be/SbWg-mozGsU
Warning: There are some curse words in clip.
I always gas up in NH because it's cheaper. Where is this cheap MA gas you speak of?
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
There are the folks who work for the Cog and the owner of the Cog, Wayne Presby. Some of the employees are relatives of the Cog owner and Wayne's publicly stated ambitions is to grow the Cog business into a much larger operation. No doubt his employees are going to support Wayne's efforts or they probably will not be employees for long if they didn't. There allegedly some proof that at least one of his employees under his direction set up a fake account opposing some FS permit action for the AMC.
There was an attempt at one point to open the cog for winter use when Wayne was partner of the Cog, the Mt Washington Hotel and Bretton Woods. He was stymied as the State DOT resisted opening the base station road for the Cog's use. They attempted to use snowcats from the ski area but a warm winter and economics doomed it. At some point he convinced politicians to overrule the DOT and the road got plowed. I have been unable to determine what entity initially plowed the road. My guess is DOT now plows the road and the Cog plows the lot but haven't wasted the time to ask DOT.
The Cog has stated that they plan to run snow trains and offer skiing options on the right of way. Despite The Cog's contention that they own many exclusive rights to the mountain, the recent attorney general synopsis of the entire Mt Washington chain of title indicates that is suspect at best and therefore any claims tied to various past owners is possibly questionable. Nevertheless the cog has been asserting these supposed rights for many years and until proven otherwise in what I expect would be a long drawn out legal battle I expect that if they call the state police to have someone removed for trespassing, the state police are going to bust the violator if they persist and let the violator go to court and use the questionable title as a defense. Therefore for all intents the Cog has the rights to enforce their presumed rights until such time as they are proven to be invalid.
If the cog opens for recreation and charges a fee, they need to have insurance, as the second they charge for services, the states recreational liability waiver regulations do not apply to them. The owners of Wildcat elected to start charging hikers and backcountry skiers a few years ago for access under the guise of insurance liability. I expect it was a control issue as much as cost of insurance issue but that's another debate. Insurance on this scale is not standardized, the insurer looks at its exposure and names a price. I expect that adding hikers into the mix just expands the risk and thus the cost. I have no issue with them charging hikers to access their property if skiers and other recreational users are paying for the privilege. Note they do graciously allow the public to go visit the base station for free and it is nice place to visit on a sunny winters day for someone who is not an outdoors enthusiast. There is a need for insurance for the general public as they may slip and fall on some ice but its a far lower exposure then a recreational user.
There is a potential issue with respect to the cog supplying winter access to the mountain's snow fields and Tuckerman's. It was never fully resolved under the prior ownership. The real world is that few folks paying to ski the cog right of way are going to want to just stay in the right of way. The cog can just look away as folks just head off onto FS lands. No doubt there will be some illicit cutting of FS property to make access better and no doubt there will be plenty of folks who care less about the semantics and pay the fee to access the new backcountry runs. The FS may complain about this cutting but they don't have the time or the resources to actively enforce it. Heck maybe the Cog will elect to try to lease some adjacent FS land and build a ski area. I expect its a very poor possibility but there are several ski areas in the region that lease FS land so why not the Cog?
The Cog had its most successful year ever and expect the vast majority of its users don't even know or care about the controversies with the hiking public. Therefore until such time that there is blowback to the Cog that they are going to continue to expand. In the meantime those philosophically opposed have the FS lot and extra 1 mile of trail to use. Meanwhile the commercial guide services and the vast majority of recreational hikers will be the sheep they are and gladly pay the fee.
There was an attempt at one point to open the cog for winter use when Wayne was partner of the Cog, the Mt Washington Hotel and Bretton Woods. He was stymied as the State DOT resisted opening the base station road for the Cog's use. They attempted to use snowcats from the ski area but a warm winter and economics doomed it. At some point he convinced politicians to overrule the DOT and the road got plowed. I have been unable to determine what entity initially plowed the road. My guess is DOT now plows the road and the Cog plows the lot but haven't wasted the time to ask DOT.
The Cog has stated that they plan to run snow trains and offer skiing options on the right of way. Despite The Cog's contention that they own many exclusive rights to the mountain, the recent attorney general synopsis of the entire Mt Washington chain of title indicates that is suspect at best and therefore any claims tied to various past owners is possibly questionable. Nevertheless the cog has been asserting these supposed rights for many years and until proven otherwise in what I expect would be a long drawn out legal battle I expect that if they call the state police to have someone removed for trespassing, the state police are going to bust the violator if they persist and let the violator go to court and use the questionable title as a defense. Therefore for all intents the Cog has the rights to enforce their presumed rights until such time as they are proven to be invalid.
If the cog opens for recreation and charges a fee, they need to have insurance, as the second they charge for services, the states recreational liability waiver regulations do not apply to them. The owners of Wildcat elected to start charging hikers and backcountry skiers a few years ago for access under the guise of insurance liability. I expect it was a control issue as much as cost of insurance issue but that's another debate. Insurance on this scale is not standardized, the insurer looks at its exposure and names a price. I expect that adding hikers into the mix just expands the risk and thus the cost. I have no issue with them charging hikers to access their property if skiers and other recreational users are paying for the privilege. Note they do graciously allow the public to go visit the base station for free and it is nice place to visit on a sunny winters day for someone who is not an outdoors enthusiast. There is a need for insurance for the general public as they may slip and fall on some ice but its a far lower exposure then a recreational user.
There is a potential issue with respect to the cog supplying winter access to the mountain's snow fields and Tuckerman's. It was never fully resolved under the prior ownership. The real world is that few folks paying to ski the cog right of way are going to want to just stay in the right of way. The cog can just look away as folks just head off onto FS lands. No doubt there will be some illicit cutting of FS property to make access better and no doubt there will be plenty of folks who care less about the semantics and pay the fee to access the new backcountry runs. The FS may complain about this cutting but they don't have the time or the resources to actively enforce it. Heck maybe the Cog will elect to try to lease some adjacent FS land and build a ski area
. I expect its a very poor possibility but there are several ski areas in the region that lease FS land so why not the Cog? The Cog had its most successful year ever and expect the vast majority of its users don't even know or care about the controversies with the hiking public. Therefore until such time that there is blowback to the Cog that they are going to continue to expand. In the meantime those philosophically opposed have the FS lot and extra 1 mile of trail to use. Meanwhile the commercial guide services and the vast majority of recreational hikers will be the sheep they are and gladly pay the fee.
Last edited:
CaptCaper
Active member
There are the folks who work for the Cog and the owner of the Cog, Wayne Presby. Some of the employees are relatives of the Cog owner and Wayne's publicly stated ambitions is to grow the Cog business into a much larger operation. No doubt his employees are going to support Wayne's efforts or they probably will not be employees for long if they didn't. There allegedly some proof that at least one of his employees under his direction set up a fake account opposing some FS permit action for the AMC.
There was an attempt at one point to open the cog for winter use when Wayne was partner of the Cog, the Mt Washington Hotel and Bretton Woods. He was stymied as the State DOT resisted opening the base station road for the Cog's use. They attempted to use snowcats from the ski area but a warm winter and economics doomed it. At some point he convinced politicians to overrule the DOT and the road got plowed. I have been unable to determine what entity initially plowed the road. My guess is DOT now plows the road and the Cog plows the lot but haven't wasted the time to ask DOT.
The Cog has stated that they plan to run snow trains and offer skiing options on the right of way. Despite The Cog's contention that they own many exclusive rights to the mountain, the recent attorney general synopsis of the entire Mt Washington chain of title indicates that is suspect at best and therefore any claims tied to various past owners is possibly questionable. Nevertheless the cog has been asserting these supposed rights for many years and until proven otherwise in what I expect would be a long drawn out legal battle I expect that if they call the state police to have someone removed for trespassing, the state police are going to bust the violator if they persist and let the violator go to court and use the questionable title as a defense. Therefore for all intents the Cog has the rights to enforce their presumed rights until such time as they are proven to be invalid.
If the cog opens for recreation and charges a fee, they need to have insurance, as the second they charge for services, the states recreational liability waiver regulations do not apply to them. The owners of Wildcat elected to start charging hikers and backcountry skiers a few years ago for access under the guise of insurance liability. I expect it was a control issue as much as cost of insurance issue but that's another debate. Insurance on this scale is not standardized, the insurer looks at its exposure and names a price. I expect that adding hikers into the mix just expands the risk and thus the cost. I have no issue with them charging hikers to access their property if skiers and other recreational users are paying for the privilege. Note they do graciously allow the public to go visit the base station for free and it is nice place to visit on a sunny winters day for someone who is not an outdoors enthusiast. There is a need for insurance for the general public as they may slip and fall on some ice but its a far lower exposure then a recreational user.
There is a potential issue with respect to the cog supplying winter access to the mountain's snow fields and Tuckerman's. It was never fully resolved under the prior ownership. The real world is that few folks paying to ski the cog right of way are going to want to just stay in the right of way. The cog can just look away as folks just head off onto FS lands. No doubt there will be some illicit cutting of FS property to make access better and no doubt there will be plenty of folks who care less about the semantics and pay the fee to access the new backcountry runs. The FS may complain about this cutting but they don't have the time or the resources to actively enforce it. Heck maybe the Cog will elect to try to lease some adjacent FS land and build a ski area
The Cog had its most successful year ever and expect the vast majority of its users don't even know or care about the controversies with the hiking public. Therefore until such time that there is blowback to the Cog that they are going to continue to expand. In the meantime those philosophically opposed have the FS lot and extra 1 mile of trail to use. Meanwhile the commercial guide services and the vast majority of recreational hikers will be the sheep they are and gladly pay the fee.
Sounds like a lot of jibber jabber..that hasn't gone anywhere or will go anywhere to me. And totally off the grid.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
And exactly how does to this contribute to the thread ?.
Raven
Well-known member
Don't characterize me. I live in NH. I buy my gas in NH. I pay a ton of property tax in NH. I volunteer in NH. I donate to NH trails and S&R. Are you Wayne's best friend, relative, or employee?
This man can charge riders on his train what he can wants for the time being. That may change as true summit ownership comes into clarity with what looks to be a complicated, drawn out, expensive process.
There are serious questions about summit ownership. It's time to straighten those out. A trespassing arrest would do it.
Let me know exactly where I'm going to be arrested for trespassing. No time like the present.
Hot air. Words.
Jazzbo
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,199
- Reaction score
- 171
I've read and re-read Cog web page and fail to see any reason for all this hot air. Cog is just offering a service not unlike what AMC is doing on east side of mountain at Pinkham Notch. A well plowed large parking lot for outdoor recreation activities with opportunity to get hot drinks and "alcoholic beverages", Oops at AMC it is BYOB. Why shouldn't AMC charge for costly expense of maintaining high altitude parking area clear in sometimes very nasty weather conditions and base camp for possible use by SAR? It appears to me Cog has simply decided to try embracing and promoting use of the parking lot and take advantage of existing buildings kitchens etc to offer additional service to the public and see if they can earn a profit while doing it. From my read I really don't foresee Cog police harassing hikers and skiers at upper elevations crossing tracks or using summit signs for selfies. My read indicates a somewhat veiled invitation to snow shoe and skin service road as route to access the peak.
Had there never been a RR route up the cog ridge, the cog ridge would be the natural location for trail to summit from west side. Last time I was up in winter season March 2017 I encountered many snow shoers and BC skiers who had taken the cog service road to ascend and descend. Cog road has advantages and disadvantages depending on conditions it may be preferable to take the jewel trail for shelter the wooded route offers, but on clear low wind day the cog offers views and shorter quicker route up and down the mountain. The web site takes great pains to utter usual safety cautionary comments most people should be willing to accept when participating in hazardous outdoor recreation in high mountain terrain.
Cog should maybe embrace it further by offering information on summit conditions and area to sell gear like hats and gloves snow shoes and gaiters to the folks who forgot stuff or the clueless who didn't bring snow shoes or gaitors, but might buy some if offered the opportunity to buy some at trail head.
Had there never been a RR route up the cog ridge, the cog ridge would be the natural location for trail to summit from west side. Last time I was up in winter season March 2017 I encountered many snow shoers and BC skiers who had taken the cog service road to ascend and descend. Cog road has advantages and disadvantages depending on conditions it may be preferable to take the jewel trail for shelter the wooded route offers, but on clear low wind day the cog offers views and shorter quicker route up and down the mountain. The web site takes great pains to utter usual safety cautionary comments most people should be willing to accept when participating in hazardous outdoor recreation in high mountain terrain.
Cog should maybe embrace it further by offering information on summit conditions and area to sell gear like hats and gloves snow shoes and gaiters to the folks who forgot stuff or the clueless who didn't bring snow shoes or gaitors, but might buy some if offered the opportunity to buy some at trail head.
Last edited:
richard
Member
It must be nice to reach into your pocket and come out with all the cash you need for some of these exorbitant prices. Soon it will be available to the “upper class “ only.
Last edited:
Tom_Murphy
Member
Thank you all for the clarifications. After reading these posts and re-reading the COG's web page, this change to their business seems very appropriate. It is their right of way and their parking lot.
I suspect if this change had been implemented before the hotel announcement our perception of it would be a bit different.
Having the track as a handrail all the way up and down and being able to see the incoming weather to the West are nice advantages to this route and worth the $10. I assume there aren't any features compatible to Lion's Head crux or the waterfall crossing at the top of Ammo.
I suspect if this change had been implemented before the hotel announcement our perception of it would be a bit different.
Having the track as a handrail all the way up and down and being able to see the incoming weather to the West are nice advantages to this route and worth the $10. I assume there aren't any features compatible to Lion's Head crux or the waterfall crossing at the top of Ammo.
Last edited:
There is a fun nugget on that page (https://www.thecog.com/winter-land-usage-at-the-cog-railway/):
"Land Use Policies & Procedures
The Mount Washington Cog Railway owns 39 acres of land at the base of the Western slope of Mt. Washington and a 99 foot wide parcel of land from the base to the summit of Mt. Washington. Although there are several hiking trails that start at the base of the cog railway and that traverse the railway property in a number of locations on and around the summit of Mt. Washington, New Hampshire State Law prohibits the creation of prescriptive easements across railroad property no matter how long such usage has been in existence. "
My first thought was, does the cog own the land to the summit, or is it an easement? One might think I'm nitpicking, but they then state that prescriptive easements don't apply to rail roads (i.e., no matter how long you've been using another property, if there is a railroad, you can't claim an prescriptive easement). Note: I'm not familiar with the legalities of this - someone else is welcome to evaluate that claim's basis in law. Regardless of the legalities, I think it's fair to interpret their position as: This land is ours, and no one can use it for any reason unless you get our permission/give us money. This would include using any trails that cross the easement. The cog could clear this up by specifically permitting crossing on those official trails, but I suspect their strict position is intentional.
My second thought is that their land use goals make no mention for preserving, maintaining, or caring for the environment/ecosystems which they impact. That can be contrasted with the Auto Road: https://mtwashingtonautoroad.com/environmental. I couldn't find anything on the Cog site, but they did switch to bio-diesel for most of their engines, although I am skeptical of how altruistic those intentions were. This isn't to say that they don't take steps to be more efficient, just that they don't tout them if they do. Their use of bio-diesel can also be contrasted their the use of the steam engines that burn coal, and are allowed to exist thanks to an exemption in state law just for them.
"Land Use Policies & Procedures
The Mount Washington Cog Railway owns 39 acres of land at the base of the Western slope of Mt. Washington and a 99 foot wide parcel of land from the base to the summit of Mt. Washington. Although there are several hiking trails that start at the base of the cog railway and that traverse the railway property in a number of locations on and around the summit of Mt. Washington, New Hampshire State Law prohibits the creation of prescriptive easements across railroad property no matter how long such usage has been in existence. "
My first thought was, does the cog own the land to the summit, or is it an easement? One might think I'm nitpicking, but they then state that prescriptive easements don't apply to rail roads (i.e., no matter how long you've been using another property, if there is a railroad, you can't claim an prescriptive easement). Note: I'm not familiar with the legalities of this - someone else is welcome to evaluate that claim's basis in law. Regardless of the legalities, I think it's fair to interpret their position as: This land is ours, and no one can use it for any reason unless you get our permission/give us money. This would include using any trails that cross the easement. The cog could clear this up by specifically permitting crossing on those official trails, but I suspect their strict position is intentional.
My second thought is that their land use goals make no mention for preserving, maintaining, or caring for the environment/ecosystems which they impact. That can be contrasted with the Auto Road: https://mtwashingtonautoroad.com/environmental. I couldn't find anything on the Cog site, but they did switch to bio-diesel for most of their engines, although I am skeptical of how altruistic those intentions were. This isn't to say that they don't take steps to be more efficient, just that they don't tout them if they do. Their use of bio-diesel can also be contrasted their the use of the steam engines that burn coal, and are allowed to exist thanks to an exemption in state law just for them.
Similar threads
