Project 2022: Pantheon

[thopping]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Interesting points.  There is also an unused cove on the other side of the water there, affording ample space to climb out from a massive drop.  (Rhine cruise boats are tied up in a different cove when not in use, I believe.)

Yeah, I saw and thought the same thing, assuming a Rhine crossing.  Down one ravine, up the other/tributary, just need to leave enough clearance for the Rhine River Cruise... though I've been wondering about how much of a business case they have for that too (I personally haven't been on them in maybe 30 years--but we do need something between kiddie & coaster).

Some thoughts:

• What does it cost annually to operate Roman Rapids?  How much money would be saved each year by no longer operating and maintaining that attraction?  What is its design life?  It opened 29 years ago. Operating beyond the ride's design lifetime likely requires additional and regular engagement with the manufacturer... Intamin.
  .
• Building a tower in that spot largely would preclude using that V-notched hillside for any other major attraction, like a righteous coaster dropping into that space. Does BGW factor in lost future opportunity when locating an attraction?  They must, right?  
  .
• When applying for a height waiver, does the park have to float a test balloon for EVERY portion of the attraction that will be above 60 feet tall?  Or just the tallest portion of the structure?  How many balloons were floated for Griffon?  (Imperfect example as all tall portions of that ride are within a 200' radius of the top of the lift, but still...)

Yes, all good questions.  

• I like Rapids and hope they stay... but I understand cost & seasonality constraints.  If they net add rides (I hate 1:1 replacements or eliminating rides...) I may understand the trade off between a world-class coaster, hamlet, year-round dark ride, a couple flats, etc. versus Rapids.  Building rides should ADD extra park capacity, not just increased draw that has to be spread out over the same number of rides, i.e. longer lines everywhere.
  
• As for the other two, I would think they have some form of multi-year master plan showing all of the target expansion areas, infill areas, etc. but would never share it.  The interaction with the Rhine is perfect for a coaster plan, so I would think they'd have to realize what they'd lose if they take away the ravine and put a large tower in the way of anything that may cross thru that area.
  
• I think it's just the highest point, not all.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but all prior height waivers sited the highest point only.

 

[jornor]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Wow we should have hit RR yesterday- really hoping it's not leaving. This wouldn't be its' last season would it be? They would at least have it going next year I hope?

 

[halfabee]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Wow we should have hit RR yesterday- really hoping it's not leaving. This wouldn't be its' last season would it be? They would at least have it going next year I hope?

For the record, I am just speculating idly and irresponsibly about the Rapids' future. I truly have no clue what the park's plans are.

 

[halfabee]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I think it's just the highest point, not all.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but all prior height waivers sited the highest point only.

If that's the requirement, then it leaves open the possibility that there could be any number of other ride sections/peaks taller than 60' elsewhere in that general area of the park. ...As long as they are structurally a part of that specific attraction.

Other peaks within the current pastures? In play.
Other peaks on the other side side of the Rhine? In play, maybe.

I do wonder whether they would have to float another balloon for, say, a 200' tall structure on the far side of the Rhine. The line-of-sight rules probably date from a time when the idea of spanning huge horizontal distances with such massive hills was not even on the radar. But still, it may pay to continue to "play nice" with surrounding communities. Dunno.

 

[thopping]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

If that's the requirement, then it leaves open the possibility that there could be any number of other ride sections/peaks taller than 60' elsewhere in that general area of the park.  ...As long as they are structurally a part of that specific attraction.

BGW is zoned M-1, Limited Business/Industrial, per James City County.   Here are the height ordinance requirements for M-1:

https://library.municode.com/va/james_city_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CD_ORD_CH24ZO_ARTVDI_DIV11LIBUINDIM-_S24-418HEST

Basically, they speak of a "structure" and how it is limited to 60' (from grade) for M-1, hence the need for the waiver.  Anything on top, chimney, flagpole, etc. is part of the structure.  There isn't otherwise much that defines what a "structure" is or special rules based on intended purpose, aside from a special use case that relates to communication facilities.  So anything that is constructed is a structure, and the structure is the overall attraction.   The ordinance is more on what's permitted for the structure's maximum height based on how it would impact other property owners/community. Each of the requirements you'll also see in the staff report with their analysis, e.g.:

Such structure will not obstruct light from adjacent property.
Staff Comment: Given that the attraction is proposed as an
open, lattice-type structure and that it is not in close proximity
to adjacent properties, staff finds that the proposed structure
will not obstruct light from adjacent property.

Given all of that, and that coaster hills are always open/lattice-like, they can probably build as many hills as they want as long as the maximum height of the "structure" is approved and the overall impact to other properties/community is addressed.  As far as I know, that's what they've done in the past, and only applied for the waiver for the highest point since the whole attraction is part of the same structure...

 

[Jpineda96]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I believe open lattice structures signify roller coaster supports. Closed lattice structure signify more of a starflyer tower. There's a chance that this could be a giga. Tempesto is an example of an open lattice structure. When they filed for tempesto they also used the same terminology in the plans.

 

[warfelg]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I think it's just the highest point, not all.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but all prior height waivers sited the highest point only.

If that's the requirement, then it leaves open the possibility that there could be any number of other ride sections/peaks taller than 60' elsewhere in that general area of the park. ...As long as they are structurally a part of that specific attraction.

Other peaks within the current pastures? In play.
Other peaks on the other side side of the Rhine? In play, maybe.

I do wonder whether they would have to float another balloon for, say, a 200' tall structure on the far side of the Rhine. The line-of-sight rules probably date from a time when the idea of spanning huge horizontal distances with such massive hills was not even on the radar. But still, it may pay to continue to "play nice" with surrounding communities. Dunno.

Well, Apollo needed a height waiver, how many of it's other hills are over 60 feet and how far away from the peak height are they?

 

[Unagi]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

[*]When applying for a height waiver, does the park have to float a test balloon for EVERY portion of the attraction that will be above 60 feet tall?  Or just the tallest portion of the structure?  How many balloons were floated for Griffon?  (Imperfect example as all tall portions of that ride are within a 200' radius of the top of the lift, but still...)
[/list]

All the B&Ms had one balloon test done and they were all located where the apex of each lift hill is. Despite towering over the treeline, no balloon tests were done for AC's second and third hills, and Griffon's and Alp's massive inversions.

 

[James]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Here's the question I want to see someone answer. If this is a giga, please show me where the space is for a lift to go 300ft given the highest point of the ride if no other rides are being taken out.

 

[Ghost of Pretzel Kaiser]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

(This is all hypothetical, of course)

Let's assume we're not getting a new hamlet. We know from the filing that it isn't 300 feet from that point on the ground, only 250-ish. We also saw the park file for soil samples on the other side of the Rhine at Festhaus Park. Using that trajectory, I could easily a station where Roman Rapids is. If it crosses the Rhine, does a couple elements over there, then comes back and do a few more, that would be enough of a footprint for a large coaster.

 

[halfabee]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I thought the filing was for 315' max above existing grade, meaning above ground level under the balloon.  No?  I could have missed something.

Related note -- if the ride were to use some part of Festhaus Park, there is no need at this time for an external party to mark utilities in an area that was already fully mapped as part of the Drachen Fire build, correct?

I ask because when looking at even the twisty layout of Intimidator 305, it is clear that such a ride's footprint at BGW would consume not only the majority of the BGW pasture area, but much of the opposite bank of the Rhine as well, with a big 180 RIGHT ABOVE the lake ("river").  And that's with that high-G banked turn, which I'm gonna go ahead and assume BGW isn't so enthused about replicating.

Any lankier B&M style layouts, notably including a somewhat straight drop and pullout, could easily land the far end of the ride in Festhaus Park unless the ride was pretty dramatically folded back on itself.  Fury 325, superimposed on that area with its dogleg straightened to fit, runs from the Rapids area clear to the far side of Festhaus Park and back again!

So I wonder if a roller coaster that size would spend most of its time and length on the pasture side or the Festhaus side.  A Milennium Force style layout with a bit more drama in the hairpins could easily cross the Rhine twice in each direction.

Who would supply the ride system?  Intamin, B&M, or S&S as a dark horse (a third launched ride? and exploding pneumatics are a real drag). That's the full list of proven ride suppliers at that speed and/or height.  So it would be either a newcomer to the giga scene like Mack, or, otherwise ...B&M.

If they want a ride without overly wild maneuvers, reliable and proven, in return for a major investment...

Or maybe it's a Star Flyer and some new walkways.

 

[cdchen83]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I thought the filing was for 315' max above existing grade, meaning above ground level under the balloon.  No?  I could have missed something.

Related note -- if the ride were to use some part of Festhaus Park, there is no need at this time for an external party to mark utilities in an area that was already fully mapped as part of the Drachen Fire build, correct?

I ask because when looking at even the twisty layout of Intimidator 305, it is clear that such a ride's footprint at BGW would consume not only the majority of the BGW pasture area, but much of the opposite bank of the Rhine as well, with a big 180 RIGHT ABOVE the lake ("river").  And that's with that high-G banked turn, which I'm gonna go ahead and assume BGW isn't so enthused about replicating.

Any lankier B&M style layouts, notably including a somewhat straight drop and pullout, could easily land the far end of the ride in Festhaus Park unless the ride was pretty dramatically folded back on itself.  Fury 325, superimposed on that area with its dogleg straightened to fit, runs from the Rapids area clear to the far side of Festhaus Park and back again!

So I wonder if a roller coaster that size would spend most of its time and length on the pasture side or the Festhaus side.  A Milennium Force style layout with a bit more drama in the hairpins could easily cross the Rhine twice in each direction.

Who would supply the ride system?  Intamin, B&M, or S&S as a dark horse (a third launched ride? and exploding pneumatics are a real drag). That's the full list of proven ride suppliers at that speed and/or height.  So it would be either a newcomer to the giga scene like Mack, or, otherwise ...B&M.

If they want a ride without overly wild maneuvers, reliable and proven, in return for a major investment...  

Or maybe it's a Star Flyer and some new walkways.

You are right. its 315 above existing grade. 387 to the river. Think about the possibility of a drop down to the river, could easily top Furys tallest drop by quite a bit. Oh to dream. Im just curious if we will get anything more substantial from the meeting on Tuesday. Hope so.

 

[warfelg]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Here's the question I want to see someone answer. If this is a giga, please show me where the space is for a lift to go 300ft given the highest point of the ride if no other rides are being taken out.

I did it a few pages back, but here's a Google Maps with the measurements of an approximate distance using Fury's lift hill as the distance it would take. Now you can move that in many ways and have the space. They could be doing a steeper lift hill than Fury's to make it work. And the lift hill doesn't need to start right at the station. So the station could be angled off and have a turn before the lift hill. There's a ton of ways to make this work out.

 

[Ghost of Pretzel Kaiser]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Whelp, I was wrong.

 

[metalman]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

387 to the river.

But is the river at sea level?

 

[Zimmy]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

... And the lift hill doesn't need to start right at the station. So the station could be angled off and have a turn before the lift hill...

Just a personal opinion, I really prefer it when a lift hill is NOT directly out of a station, but behind it (think Nessie).  I enjoy the build up to the lift and the sense of separation.

Don't get me wrong I am not going to reject a ride that doesn't do that, (i305, Apollo, et al.)  I just prefer it.

 

[halfabee]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I like that separation as well.  A little "get to know you" stage before hitting the lift or launch.  Loch Ness, BBW, Verbolten, Griffon...

Warfelg's measurements seem to indicate that a lift originating atop Roman Rapids, just on the other side of the train tracks, could easily reach 315 feet above grade at the indicated spot of the balloon test.  And that location would retain the current vehicle access to the pastures under the Festa bridge, while also eliminating the need for a new railroad crossing to reach the new La Grita Ruidosa roller coaster.  

(Stirring the pot again with the rapids ride. Old habits...)

 

[warfelg]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

I like that separation as well.  A little "get to know you" stage before hitting the lift or launch.  Loch Ness, BBW, Verbolten, Griffon...

Warfelg's measurements seem to indicate that a lift originating atop Roman Rapids, just on the other side of the train tracks, could easily reach 315 feet above grade at the indicated spot of the balloon test.  And that location would retain the current vehicle access to the pastures under the Festa bridge, while also eliminating the need for a new railroad crossing to reach the new La Grita Ruidosa roller coaster.  

(Stirring the pot again with the rapids ride. Old habits...)

I actually have it starting in the employee access space between San Marco and Da Vincis Cradle.

The railroad crossing shouldn't need to change unless there's something I don't know.

 

[horsesboy]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Here's the question I want to see someone answer. If this is a giga, please show me where the space is for a lift to go 300ft given the highest point of the ride if no other rides are being taken out.

I did it a few pages back, but here's a Google Maps with the measurements of an approximate distance using Fury's lift hill as the distance it would take.  Now you can move that in many ways and have the space.  They could be doing a steeper lift hill than Fury's to make it work.  And the lift hill doesn't need to start right at the station.  So the station could be angled off and have a turn before the lift hill.  There's a ton of ways to make this work out.

Nice work up but it appears that it would be sitting on or near the pipeline if I am not mistaken. Hard to tell sibce thr google earth shots predate the recent clearing but I think its pretty close to your start location. Still your measurements do show that there are possibilities space wisr. I also wonder ho steap its possible to build a lift hill the steaper the angle the less horizontal space needed. Any idea on what the steapest is?

 

[mtpelepele]

RE: Project Madrid: New Hamlet? Giga Coaster? 315' Tower?

Any idea on what the steepest is?

For a giga, that would be I305's lift, at 45 degrees. For a coaster? There have been quite a few with a 90 degree lift, just nothing approaching that height. Looks like Hollywood Rip, Ride, Rockit is the tallest, at 167'.

Edit: Forgot about Karnan, at 240'.