Project 2019: Finnegan's Flyer (S&S Screamin' Swing)

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Status
Not open for further replies.
warfelg said:
I dunno, with this new information, of going down to 40 feet above sea level; max height from there of 155'; 90 feet above grade.

So total height of 155, you take off the 90 feet for the height above grade: you are left with starting grade of 65 feet.  40 feet above sealevel being the lowest point means is going about 15 feet into the ground.
Click to expand...

As a point of clarification, and I could be wrong about this, but the height waiver application is for a 90 foot waiver to the 60 foot zoning ordinance, not necessarily that the attraction is 90 feet above grade.  You apply for a waiver in the measurement you want to go above the ordinance, not the grade.  So with a 90 foot waiver, on top of the allowed 60 feet, the total height above grade could be 150 feet.  This is similar to the Madrid waiver, which was actually for a 255 foot waiver to allow building a 315 foot attraction (60+255).  In general, this matches with the information that the structure will be 115 feet tall, on a foundation that is 40 feet above sea level (40+115=155) Not sure what this means though as there is not clarity on what grade we are starting from here, of course.  Its confusing because the ordinance specifies height above grade and this application just refers to heights above sea level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bring Back Questor 87 and Nicole
It could be that JCC does height waivers different from the locality I worked in. But in my experience typically you are filing to the height you want to build to, not the extra you want on top of what you get. For example:
There was a limit in the township I worked for of 40 feet. A new shopping canter wanted a roadside lighted sign that was 55 feet. They applied for a waiver to build up to 55 feet above grade.

But in this case your showing, foundation at 40 feet, structure 115 feet, total height of 155, would mean that BGW didn’t apply for enough height unless the tallest point isn’t at that 40 foot elevation.

But like you said, we don’t know what grade we are starting from. If the structure is starting at a higher grade then it won’t be as tall as you might think.

If I had to put my best educated guess as to what this means: the foundation starts at 40 feet, the height waiver means 90 above where the cutout is, and the “ground floor” of the structure is lower than the current elevation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole
Here is some way out of the box speculation: What if this is not a building, nor a ride, but a modification to the sky buckets? The heights within the application seem to be above the treeline, which would be at about the right height for the support towers. What if BG is thinking about a slight re-alignment of the cable from Scotland to France? I'm not sure why they would want to do this, but the area in question is reasonably close to the current alignment.
 
Celticdog said:
Here is some way out of the box speculation: What if this is not a building, nor a ride, but a modification to the sky buckets? The heights within the application seem to be above the treeline, which would be at about the right height for the support towers. What if BG is thinking about a slight re-alignment of the cable from Scotland to France? I'm not sure why they would want to do this, but the area in question is reasonably close to the current alignment.
Click to expand...

We would be seeing a few more of these if that was the case.

I'm thinking it's going to see a smaller scale enclosed ride with some type of tower attached. It's a smallish area back there and they didn't test a huge area back there.

I can really see it being something like this:
image


But with much more elaborate theme elements around it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SukaUniFl
Celticdog said:
Here is some way out of the box speculation: What if this is not a building, nor a ride, but a modification to the sky buckets? The heights within the application seem to be above the treeline, which would be at about the right height for the support towers. What if BG is thinking about a slight re-alignment of the cable from Scotland to France? I'm not sure why they would want to do this, but the area in question is reasonably close to the current alignment.
Click to expand...
Fun idea. I'll play devil's advocate, but only to explore it -- not to discourage creative thought.

I think the issue there would be that the skyride buildings themselves are aligned to give the cable a straight shot from points A to B, for very important engineering reasons. And the towers follow that alignment as well.  Red line below:

6A7eOxQ.jpg


Moving the cable by even a few degrees out of line between stations (yellow line above) would require:
  • Asking some serious questions about configuration of the cable guide system at station entry/exit, when the cable is coming in at a different angle and possibly placing lateral loads on the structure; and/or
  • Moving most/all existing Scotland-to-France towers out of their current line to accommodate a changed alignment; and
  • Questioning whether or not it is even practical to have a single continuous-cable skyride system that safely and reliably conducts a lateral turn mid-run. Magic Kingdom's Skyway accomplished that by using two separate cable segments, with neither making any turns while carrying passengers. (Vid below.)  That was a bigger turn than BGW's skyride would make, but I suspect the principle would be the same at BGW -- requiring major reconstruction of the entire skyride system at each station.
 



Seems like a lot of work for not a lot of gain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mushroom, Zachary, warfelg and 3 others
halfabee said:
Fun idea.  I'll play devil's advocate, but only to explore it -- not to discourage creative thought.  

I think the issue there would be that the skyride buildings themselves are aligned to give the cable a straight shot from points A to B, for very important engineering reasons. And the towers follow that alignment as well.  Red line below:

Moving the cable by even a few degrees out of line between stations (yellow line above) would require:
  • Asking some serious questions about configuration of the cable guide system at station entry/exit, when the cable is coming in at a different angle and possibly placing lateral loads on the structure; and/or
  • Moving most/all existing Scotland-to-France towers out of their current line to accommodate a changed alignment; and
  • Questioning whether or not it is even practical to have a single continuous-cable skyride system that safely and reliably conducts a lateral turn mid-run. Magic Kingdom's Skyway accomplished that by using two separate cable segments, with neither making any turns while carrying passengers. (Vid below.)  That was a bigger turn than BGW's skyride would make, but I suspect the principle would be the same at BGW -- requiring major reconstruction of the entire skyride system at each station.
 
Seems like a lot of work for not a lot of gain.
Click to expand...

I agree it would be a significant effort, hence the "way out of the box speculation". I was thinking more of  a modification as such:
 

Attachments

  • 6A7eOxQ.jpg
    6A7eOxQ.jpg
    466.8 KB · Views: 62
If this project is indeed a coaster I hope it’s an RMC woodie (they’ve shown they can make amazing compact rides like Outlaw Run)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLC Headache
mdb07 said:
It looks like this is on the agenda for the Board of Supervisors this evening, as well as the Chesapeake Bay Board meeting tomorrow: https://www.jamescitycountyva.gov/129/Agendas-Minutes
Click to expand...

Just throwing this out there but I know the park has a project unrelated to the height waver that was up before the Chesapeake Bay board so the notes on that are likely related to that project which is a simple maintenance related project and not any substantial building project.
 
Well, well, well. It looks like Busch Gardens Williamsburg is getting a Screamin' Swing in 2019. Link

Huge thanks to @kingadam for alerting me about the documents! He was also a great help in trying to figure out what exactly we were looking at.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jornor, Mushroom, lightninlady and 11 others
These things are a goldmine of fun. The surrounding area it’s going in will look beautiful. Glad the park is finally doing a flat ride expansion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole
Love that they are gonna be getting a flat ride like the S&S Swing. I got to be a crash test dummy at CP when they opened Skyhawk. I wonder what type of Irish theme the ride will have. When I worked at BGW, I use to always thing there needed something in Kilarny called "LORE". I can't wait to see the process of this. Plus, be a great way to bring more people over that way. I always sit near Grogan's and people watch, and with this swing ride be a very nice photo shot to get of it swinging over the area. I am excited.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole
What's with the second are impacted to the left of the main area? Is that support buildings for the ride or something else?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad