Project 2020 (MMXX/Madrid): Intamin Multi-Launch Coaster

Login or Register to Hide This Ad
Aug 13, 2011
267
448
63
Virginia
I didn't get a chance to expand on my thoughts last night given the hour... so here's what I came up with when looking at the diagram:

1. I now highly doubt the structures in the Rhine are for a bridge.

2. The JPA states that the structures, assumingly those in the Rhine as there are separate and inconsistent construction details for the sediment pond, are "Structures to be wood piles capped with concrete."

3. I've worked with a few bridges in the past--and a rail trestle (which already exists not far away--can't think of any reason to move it) or a high pedestrian bridge, really wouldn't use pilings like that as abutments for many reasons (and indeed, neither Ponte de San Marco nor the rail trestle on either side do).

4. What could possibly use such construction would be a pedestrian (not vehicular) bridge low to the water (like the one by Nessie). However, numerous issues with that: a) the Rhine cruise, b) the very steep slopes on either side of the Rhine complicating sediment control and accessibility issues, c) the fact that when you egress the bridge on the north bank, you are walking literally into the Madrid attraction (as then conceived), d) and who knows what happens on the south bank--the sediment basin only tells me they may wish to develop Festhaus Park more in the future--not that it has anything to do with Madrid necessarily, e) and that according to the Madrid layout in the CBPA filing, it appears the vegetation between the attraction and the Rhine is being impacted only to allow safe clearance of the attraction, etc. (you'll see where they drew the tree line on that diagram--and if they intended to clear the bank for other projects like access to a bridge, it's material to the CBPA and thus they may have wanted to include it then).

So what fairly low load bearing and low to the water application would concrete topped wood piling structures serve if not a bridge?

My "theory" now is that it is somehow for themeing of the Madrid attraction. I can't really theorize exactly how yet, and it is perpendicular to what appears to be the "track" path of the attraction. Maybe illuminating Madrid over the Rhine, especially the high point of the attraction, which is roughly at the top of the swale just inside the redacted area? We know JCC has some issues with lighting, but if they are "minimizing lighting on the attraction above 60 feet" in a way that focuses on the "lattice" like construction that doesn't conflict with the waiver? Maybe it is for water cannons like Maverick? Maverick's I'm pretty sure are below the water line, but with boat traffic, it's probably best to mount those on concrete pads on concrete piers--or perhaps wooden piles driven into the lake bed. Arguably, such theming "in" the Rhine would be much easier than on the vegetated steep north slope of the Rhine.

edit: Looking at the scale on the JPA diagram, there's plenty of navigable channel water in between impact areas 3 & 4 for the cruise. I really think these pads are for mounting something, not for a crossing.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Joe and Zimmy
Mar 16, 2016
1,636
3,203
113
I didn't get a chance to expand on my thoughts last night given the hour... so here's what I came up with when looking at the diagram:

1. I now highly doubt the structures in the Rhine are for a bridge.

2. The JPA states that the structures, assumingly those in the Rhine as there are separate and inconsistent construction details for the sediment pond, are "Structures to be wood piles capped with concrete."

3. I've worked with a few bridges in the past--and a rail trestle (which already exists not far away--can't think of any reason to move it) or a high pedestrian bridge, really wouldn't use pilings like that as abutments for many reasons (and indeed, neither Ponte de San Marco nor the rail trestle on either side do).

4. What could possibly use such construction would be a pedestrian (not vehicular) bridge low to the water (like the one by Nessie). However, numerous issues with that: a) the Rhine cruise, b) the very steep slopes on either side of the Rhine complicating sediment control and accessibility issues, c) the fact that when you egress the bridge on the north bank, you are walking literally into the Madrid attraction (as then conceived), d) and who knows what happens on the south bank--the sediment basin only tells me they may wish to develop Festhaus Park more in the future--not that it has anything to do with Madrid necessarily, e) and that according to the Madrid layout in the CBPA filing, it appears the vegetation between the attraction and the Rhine is being impacted only to allow safe clearance of the attraction, etc. (you'll see where they drew the tree line on that diagram--and if they intended to clear the bank for other projects like access to a bridge, it's material to the CBPA and thus they may have wanted to include it then).

So what fairly low load bearing and low to the water application would concrete topped wood piling structures serve if not a bridge?

My "theory" now is that it is somehow for themeing of the Madrid attraction. I can't really theorize exactly how yet, and it is perpendicular to what appears to be the "track" path of the attraction. Maybe illuminating Madrid over the Rhine, especially the high point of the attraction, which is roughly at the top of the swale just inside the redacted area? We know JCC has some issues with lighting, but if they are "minimizing lighting on the attraction above 60 feet" in a way that focuses on the "lattice" like construction that doesn't conflict with the waiver? Maybe it is for water cannons like Maverick? Maverick's I'm pretty sure are below the water line, but with boat traffic, it's probably best to mount those on concrete pads on concrete piers--or perhaps wooden piles driven into the lake bed. Arguably, such theming "in" the Rhine would be much easier than on the vegetated steep north slope of the Rhine.

edit: Looking at the scale on the JPA diagram, there's plenty of navigable channel water in between impact areas 3 & 4 for the cruise. I really think these pads are for mounting something, not for a crossing.
FWIW, Cement/Stone capped logs is how the Brooklyn Bridge was built.
 
Aug 3, 2017
505
960
93
Newport News, VA
Just taking a wild stab, could such a "bridge" be for utilities? As I've read, there are issues with power in the park. Maybe the Festa side is close to peak usage. So, perhaps, this could be the most economically way to bring power from the Drachen Fire "area" to the Madrid area.
 
Reactions: Sly4Good

Sly4Good

Rose up from the dead and all I got was a t-shirt
Apr 25, 2011
212
276
63
I honestly can't see this as being anything more than something related to utilities based on their placement. It's too awkward of a space for another bridge or for themeing elements imo.
 
Reactions: GrandpaD
Oct 7, 2011
599
1,996
93
Maybe it is for water cannons like Maverick? Maverick's I'm pretty sure are below the water line, but with boat traffic, it's probably best to mount those on concrete pads on concrete piers--or perhaps wooden piles driven into the lake bed.
Well, I didn't really want to share everything I know, but since you've basically figured it out... the water blasters on Pompeii have been so successful that the park is mounting 40 more of them on concrete pads in the Rhine.

For a dollar, you can launch a few gallons of laminar liquid misery at your choice of either the new coaster or a Rhine cruise boat.

With pedestrian access being a bit of an issue down there, the customer-facing money eater/big-red-button portions of the system will be located exclusively in sky ride buckets and on the far right-hand seats of the train.

Proceeds from the water blasters will fund replacement headsets for Eire in perpetuity.
 

horsesboy

Silver Donor
Jun 16, 2013
1,092
2,391
113
What about a fireworks launchpad? could be a lot but given recent history justified?
You might be on to something but I would think putting it on the other side on the train bridge in the wider part of the Rhine would make more sence.
 
Reactions: Zachary
Aug 13, 2011
267
448
63
Virginia
Well, I didn't really want to share everything I know, but since you've basically figured it out... the water blasters on Pompeii have been so successful that the park is mounting 40 more of them on concrete pads in the Rhine. ...
With pedestrian access being a bit of an issue down there, the customer-facing money eater/big-red-button portions of the system will be located exclusively in sky ride buckets and on the far right-hand seats of the train.
Hmm.... interesting. Kinda like this?

"Hey kids, here comes the 30 second or so skyride crossing of the Rhine... Look way over there. See Madrid? Make your dollar count! Ready.... fire!"

Cannon from Skyride.png
 
Aug 9, 2017
321
242
43
Well, I didn't really want to share everything I know, but since you've basically figured it out... the water blasters on Pompeii have been so successful that the park is mounting 40 more of them on concrete pads in the Rhine.

For a dollar, you can launch a few gallons of laminar liquid misery at your choice of either the new coaster or a Rhine cruise boat.

With pedestrian access being a bit of an issue down there, the customer-facing money eater/big-red-button portions of the system will be located exclusively in sky ride buckets and on the far right-hand seats of the train.

Proceeds from the water blasters will fund replacement headsets for Eire in perpetuity.
I'd gladly sink hundreds into the blasters if some of them were aimed at Verbolten. 😈
 

lce

The best digger in Cairo
Silver Donor
Jan 5, 2018
783
1,313
93
Frederick, MD
I'd gladly sink hundreds into the blasters if some of them were aimed at Verbolten. 😈
Paying money to essentially rain on an attraction built to endure typical precipitation is an interesting way to let out anger from a personal vendetta.

I'm sure you can find better ways to rain on its parade other than literal rain. Back to the drawing board with you.
 
Aug 9, 2017
321
242
43
Paying money to essentially rain on an attraction built to endure typical precipitation is an interesting way to let out anger from a personal vendetta.

I'm sure you can find better ways to rain on its parade other than literal rain. Back to the drawing board with you.
Hey, it has an outdoor section. That's its weak spot. So long as the water from the blasters helps wear it down further and the funds they raise from me do not go to the "ride's" maintenance, I can reach my goal. If not, then back to the drawing board for me, it's time to build a rogue deer robot.

I'd rather not have Madrid get water blasted and prematurely worn out. On second thought, if it won't be a 315-foot inverted wooden AquaTrax, maybe the blasters are the next best thing.
 
Last edited:

Zimmy

Nessie thinks it is not polite to ask her age!
Sep 28, 2013
4,460
6,555
113
Virginia Beach
Well, I didn't really want to share everything I know, but since you've basically figured it out... the water blasters on Pompeii have been so successful that the park is mounting 40 more of them on concrete pads in the Rhine.

For a dollar, you can launch a few gallons of laminar liquid misery at your choice of either the new coaster or a Rhine cruise boat.

With pedestrian access being a bit of an issue down there, the customer-facing money eater/big-red-button portions of the system will be located exclusively in sky ride buckets and on the far right-hand seats of the train.

Proceeds from the water blasters will fund replacement headsets for Eire in perpetuity.
 
Reactions: RollyCoaster
Login or Register to Hide This Ad