January 2019 Festhaus Park Height Survey

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh goodie, more mysterious news!

Lemme float this idea -
See if there are any recent revisions to the RPAs. I am only guesstimating that perhaps we might be seeing a relocation from Festa Field to Festhaus Park.

Despite SEAS aggressively adding attractions, I'm sure they're watching every penny. I think the costs of relocating power (my assumption of that river crossing), constructing new paths to alleviate Festa congestion and finding a suitable pasture for the animals (they walk the horses daily to and from the pastures via the Italy back roads) may have caused them to relook the Festa pasture location.

So, maybe they look at repurposing Drachen Fire's buildings for the new coaster. The power is there, the pathways are there. They are familiar with traffic flow from the DF days. There might even be more room to place this coaster with less RPA impact (we've seen the filings but does anyone know if they've been approved...if, in fact, they need approval).

That leaves the Festa pastures available for a full new hamlet down the road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coasterfan94 and Ziva
Well if the balloon was in Festhaus Park area then the robotic deer should definitely know about it. Anyone heard from them yet on this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DolphinzRock and Nicole
My one thought I'll throw out there...

After the first 300' height waiver was filed and the current Madrid Intamin shuttle rumor came about, there was a lot of discussion about how that wasn't going to use the full height waiver and how filing for 300' was completely unnecessary. Maybe Madrid was originally a Giga, they couldn't make it work for whatever reason but knew they wanted a coaster in 2020, pivoted to the current shuttle coaster, and the Giga was shelved for a future project? And this new balloon test is the beginning stages of that project?

That's my rationalization at least. Seems a little ambitious for two huge coasters to be on the horizon, but the Intamin shuttle rumor seemed too far along to not be happening, they wouldn't be completely scrapping or changing their plans for 2020 at this stage of the game, and this would explain the original height waiver and current balloon test in the context of what we know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jornor, SukaUniFl, tursiops and 8 others
PhantomJB93 said:
My one thought I'll throw out there...

After the first 300' height waiver was filed and the current Madrid Intamin shuttle rumor came about, there was a lot of discussion about how that wasn't going to use the full height waiver and how filing for 300' was completely unnecessary. Maybe Madrid was originally a Giga, they couldn't make it work for whatever reason but knew they wanted a coaster in 2020, pivoted to the current shuttle coaster, and the Giga was shelved for a future project? And this new balloon test is the beginning stages of that project?

That's my rationalization at least. Seems a little ambitious for two huge coasters to be on the horizon, but the Intamin shuttle rumor seemed too far along to not be happening, they wouldn't be completely scrapping or changing their plans for 2020 at this stage of the game, and this would explain the original height waiver and current balloon test in the context of what we know.
Click to expand...

I no expert on this but I believe that moving the location even by this little bit starts the whole process over again and that they would be back to getting county and ffa and other approvals so I think that is highly unlikely.
 
horsesboy said:
I no expert on this but I believe that moving the location even by this little bit starts the whole process over again and that they would be back to getting county and ffa and other approvals so I think that is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about the Madrid side of this, yeah? You're saying if that if the highest point of that project was altered since the initial height waiver, they'd need to refile?


As for this height survey, maybe there is a non-ride explanation for it? If the Madrid site is an active construction area throughout 2019, can they launch fireworks from the railroad bridge like normal? Could this be testing sight lines for a new fireworks launch site in Festhaus Park? Maybe this is just a new cell tower or the like?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DolphinzRock, Ziva, SukaUniFl and 6 others
Zachary said:
I assume you are talking about the Madrid side of this, yeah? You're saying if that if the highest point of that project was altered since the initial height waiver, they'd need to refile?


As for this height survey, maybe there is a non-ride explanation for it? If the Madrid site is an active construction area throughout 2019, can they launch fireworks from the railroad bridge like normal? Could this be testing sight lines for a new fireworks launch site in Festhaus Park? Maybe this is just a new cell tower or the like?
Click to expand...

Could be sightline testing for a crane to do the work in the Rhine
 
  • Like
Reactions: ijerngvidsnvk, thopping and Zachary
Could be... but I think "work in the Rhine" would be operative, and separate from Madrid/prior height waiver.

1. JCC doesn't define "structure" in the ordinance section pertaining to height waivers; it may define it elsewhere. Context appears to be permanent structures however.
2. FAA on the other hand is concerned with hazards to air navigation, whether permanent or temporary. FAA's FAQ indicates the crane would require an aeronautical study, but not if for constructing a permanent structure that was previously studied and approved.

So my thoughts are this is something separate than Madrid, or a relocation of Madrid. I assume the former is more likely than the latter, as I assume they did their due diligence prior to submitting any governmental paperwork for Madrid--e.g. whether the notional layout works relative to things like the topography, pipeline, animal pens, etc.
 
Fireworks survey would actually seem the most logical. Both in the possible unavailability of the current site for construction and that they might be able to move them far enough away as to safely operate the ride during the fireworks. They already have to shut down Bolt for them they might not want to shut down a second one. Kings Mill is also highly fussy about fireworks so I can see a new location especially one closer to them requiring a full review process.
 
Re: fireworks--

Fireworks being illegal in JCC, all displays require permits from the fire marshal. The relevant ordinance does reference them being subject to "height limits"--but I do not know where those are defined, nor do I see an online copy of the permit application nor a way to search for fire marshal permits. What I do see is more of a concern about suitable locations and adjacencies to people & structures. The ordinance seems more concerned with the fire hazard (indeed, that's the ordinance section it's in) than whether they are visible or audible. Have they done balloon tests in the past for fireworks?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DolphinzRock and VonDerrick
Generally there is no balloon tests for fireworks. Balloon tests are done for a permanent or long term temporary structures. So they would need them for roller coasters, drop towers, buildings, cranes, etc. When Hershey did Skyrush, they filed for 212’ originally, then when it got out what it was, there was a second 260’ balloon test and waiver for the crane.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RollyCoaster and thopping
Didn't think so. The heights of fireworks are a function of the type, and they can select what makes since given the height limits--whatever those are. My assumption is this is something permanent and separate from Madrid, or a relocation of Madrid (less likely).
 
I think we should be careful to separate height surveys from height waivers.

If we see a height waiver filed following the balloon test from yesterday, that will void the fireworks theory for sure. Until that happens, however, I don't think an internal park use such as judging fireworks visibility can be ruled out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DolphinzRock, Ziva, Adam and 6 others
Zachary said:
I think we should be careful to separate height surveys from height waivers.

If we see a height waiver filed following the balloon test from yesterday, that will void the fireworks theory for sure. Until that happens, however, I don't think an internal park use such as judging fireworks visibility can be ruled out.
Click to expand...
Correct who is to say they weren’t checking visibility inside the park at the max height that they can launch the fireworks?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DolphinzRock and Zachary
Another point on the test for fireworks is just because one is not required doesn't mean that the park might not be wise to do one and to even possibly consult with King's Mill on one. When they had the height waver hearing for Madrid it was brought up that King's Mill was not objecting to the height waver but that did have concerns about the growing noise and nighttime disruption that they were seeing. I would assume that would include fireworks. My understand is that their objections are part of why we haven't and likely will never see a New Years Eve event like KD did. Given that those facts it behooves the park to try to take small steps to ilvaite any concerns or head off any objections to a fireworks move.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad