Hm that’s neat, I wonder if it’ll be launched or have a traditional chain?Yep, and it's not the only one!
The recent rumors about Legoland Deutschland's B&M Wing shuttle coaster reminded me about Chessington's. Figured we should have a thread for it. Leaked plans here: https://www.reddit.com/r/rollercoasters/comments/p113sl/chessington_bm_wing_shuttle_coaster/parkfans.net
Away we go the thunderbird route, but less intense I figure. I wonder if this will use traditional b and m wing trains or a more family friendly version, or maybe even a 2 seater one with one person on each side?It's definitely launched.
Speaking more broadly, I think the days of lift-based shuttle coasters without switch tracks (read: Boomerang-style) are probably behind us.
Probably not the place to say this, but this I would be 1000% fine with CF doing something similar to this KD to replace the Volcano.instead of starting a new thread, I’m posting this here for relevancy. If an admin would like to move this and delete this text as it’s a whole new land and not just a coaster that’s cool.
New for 2023, Chessington Worlds of Adventure will debut World Of Jumanji!
View attachment 27541
Attractions Magazine Article On New Land
I know this will poke some embers most likely but there's a point where B&M hasn't really innovated much in recent years and their coasters are hitting the "Arrow in every park" status (before anyone says it, not many know what surf coaster fully is yet and what the reception will be). With this in mind I'm wondering if B&M is finding a need to supplement their major installations with the smaller ones since it's a different market that isn't already saturated with their product.I doubt this coaster is "inexpensive." That's not a quality B&M is known for. That's my chief concern with these new miniature B&Ms—that parks could probably be purchasing far "better" family coasters for the money.
That said, B&M builds super consistent, reliable, dependable coasters and, reportedly, the company is a joy to work with post-sale. Maybe those aspects are what is driving this recent burst of mini-B&M sales?
It ain't easy being the king.I know this will poke some embers most likely but there's a point where B&M hasn't really innovated much in recent years and their coasters are hitting the "Arrow in every park" status (before anyone says it, not many know what surf coaster fully is yet and what the reception will be). With this in mind I'm wondering if B&M is finding a need to supplement their major installations with the smaller ones since it's a different market that isn't already saturated with their product.
But that financial performance was because of a lack of new ride concepts. They got stagnant and everyone already had a lot of their products.Not to derail this too much (maybe it should go into a new thread?), but my understanding is that Arrow's downfall was more to do with poor financial performance since they didn't profit on their sales as they should have.
Yes, this was a big innovation but it was coming too late. People (not you) tend to look at this as "Arrow was just so outdated" but the people who say that forget that it was a very different time. I think B&M is hitting that same scenario in a different time.... Boundaries are being pushed and B&M are staying overly cautious -- I think Orion is an indication of this where you can tell they tried to get more edgy but it didn't really translate the same way other manufacturers products do. B&M has a similar hurdle to get over that Arrow had that's not about adapting to new engineering but more about adapting to new designs.Tennessee Tornado was their first successful foray into getting away from cookie-cutter elements with janky transitions because they started investing in using CAD programs and getting their fabrication shop to be able to work with those designs.
Yea, SFMM forcing them to build a big version right out of the gate was a very bad move. I agree it would have started small but probably would have eventually got to the scale X was.Then came X, which if SF went with the initial concept design would have been much closer to the 4D FreeSpin model than what was built. And because Arrow was going broke they had to declare bankruptcy in the middle of construction which ultimately finished them off.
I often wonder if a small scale X would have saved the company. It seems clear that the bigger issue was that the fish hook was a signed deal and the resources were going there because of the size (and income) of that project.... when Las Vegas killed that project that's what ultimately did Arrow in but I do wonder if X had been a smoother installation if they would have been able to quickly turn around a viable product that took off in other parks.However, if they were able to sell a small version of the ride and get the concept off the ground, it's conceivable that they'd still exist in some fashion... Pending that they figured out how to make each project profitable.
I think the problem was finding a park that needed an Arrow. At the time nearly every park that was going to get a standard Arrow already had a standard Arrow so they didn't have a lot of opportunity to really display their new CAD skills. On that note, I know I'm in the minority, but TT is no different than any other Arrow Looper because of the train design and ride experience. I honestly liked Vortex a lot more than TT. This isn't to say that I don't recognize the difference and the huge step forward that TT was but I don't think it was different enough to really get the industry excited as if it was something new.Which brings me back to where they would fit in today's industry assuming they kept pushing forward on the updates they used for TT - my best guess is more like Intamin with a wide portfolio of attractions (not just coasters), still pushing for higher thrill but maybe on a lower-end for budget-conscious parks. Which... Could be competitive to what these new small B&M models are doing.
That's also exactly who Arrow was at the time.The main thing with B&M is that they're super reliable, give mostly smooth rides, mostly have tolerable forces for the average guests at most parks, and overall produce solid rides.