Project 2022: Pantheon
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
- Status
I think this is part of their "little bit at a time" marketing strategy. Only enthusiasts would be attuned to the IAPPA goings on. So they show off the cars, which enthusiasts would probably be more excited about than the GP, knowing it would dribble out.
I foresee POVs about the time they start their major season ticket/membership/fun ticket (whatever they can them, I can't keep up) push. "Look what you'll get with your 2020 yada yada yada...."
Then again, since SEAS blew a huge chunk of money on marketing that they can't figure out why/how maybe they're trying to make a deal with someone good at NL2 that can cheaply do them (sarcasm).
Alright so back to the 3 train ops rumors/IAAPA ramblings from Intamin:
I know a few stats have changed throughout the course of Pantheon's marketing, so this seems like it could've lead to a initial incorrect statement in the number of trains. But at the same time, we knew the general size of how long the station, maintenance bay, and final brake run(s) are. If Busch wanted to run 3 trains, wouldn't simple things like the size of the maintenance bay be incorrect per that number of trains?
I know a few stats have changed throughout the course of Pantheon's marketing, so this seems like it could've lead to a initial incorrect statement in the number of trains. But at the same time, we knew the general size of how long the station, maintenance bay, and final brake run(s) are. If Busch wanted to run 3 trains, wouldn't simple things like the size of the maintenance bay be incorrect per that number of trains?
I have no knowledge (degree 
) on the matters, but seems normal operations would call for acquiring an extra train in most every case of a new ride. At best, it can be run for maximum capacity. At worst, can be used as an immediate backup should a primary train have an issue- to avoid any downtime. Also can serve as something of a "parts" vehicle, for maintaining the primary trains (again, with little to no downtime), instead of waiting for the arrival of replacement parts.
) on the matters, but seems normal operations would call for acquiring an extra train in most every case of a new ride. At best, it can be run for maximum capacity. At worst, can be used as an immediate backup should a primary train have an issue- to avoid any downtime. Also can serve as something of a "parts" vehicle, for maintaining the primary trains (again, with little to no downtime), instead of waiting for the arrival of replacement parts.
@Drachenwolf That's exactly what I'm hoping. It would seem odd for a ride with only 20 people per train to only have two trains. The backup train idea is also largely necessary.
Think that question boils down to how many trains was the ride designed to operate (maximum). 3 trains would likely have to have been part of the consideration in the design process- to account for brake runs, "no-turning-back" area elements, etc.- for it to possible. It looks like a 2 train maximum ride to me (with a 3rd in the shed as a backup only), but I haven't looked closely at that aspect.
@GrandpaD i was also referring to the fact that outside of gci’s steel track there wasn’t really anything to come from to manufacturers that was exciting. The trains were pretty much the biggest thing most manufacturers had. And if that’s all it takes, I guess the thought is why do more.
As for 3 trains. Griffon has a double maintainence bay and so does Loch Ness monster. Those are both rides that are designed to operate with more than 2 trains. The ride duration should be such that while the third train wil sit on the blocks for a while, it will still save up to 10-20 seconds per dispatch. Like I mentioned earlier, just look at griffon 3 train ops.
As for 3 trains. Griffon has a double maintainence bay and so does Loch Ness monster. Those are both rides that are designed to operate with more than 2 trains. The ride duration should be such that while the third train wil sit on the blocks for a while, it will still save up to 10-20 seconds per dispatch. Like I mentioned earlier, just look at griffon 3 train ops.
I understand your point, but at this stage of the game (specifically SEAS) it's not the manufacturers that would release POVs, it would be the parks. And, if the Festhaus Park is a prototype as some believe, Intamin may have been restricted as to any type of announcement of a "certain park will have this in 2021" as we saw with the Parc Astrix debut. As I said, I think the SEAS POVs will come when they begin their big annual ticket sales push.
Yes it is the parks that would release the POV. The PA and Walibi Belgium coasters were jointly announced by the park and Intamin at last year's IAAPA. The point was that because no other park had anything to announce with these manufacturers beyond what SEAS announced, there was no need for them to release the POV to get some publicity from the event. They were the only big thing that all of these manufacturers had to promote.
Can we also talk about despite how much the IAAPA is for fans, it's really for the parks themselves to see what's new and to talk to manufacturers? Yes while releasing the POV at it would be "fun for fans" there's not much that Intamin gets out of it because PA's prototype's POV was released last year, therefore making within the industry what BGW is getting not new.
Yes, this is often lost in the sauce. If anything I’m a bit surprised that premier didn’t push to release a POV of their second non clone coaster in as many years. Gwazi will come soon enough and as mentioned pantheon is covered from the manufacturers perspective with the PA version.
Thank you. This ^^^.
Deals are made, imaginations captured, and relationships forged (in myriad forms, rawr) at IAAPA. And fans are allowed onto the floor, as long as they don’t interfere with it unduly.
Quiet expo this year... many seeds planted, fewer harvests showcased. Looking forward to the next two years.
- Status