Project Drachen Spire: Multi-Launch Shuttle Giga (Cancelled?)

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!

General Information:​

"Project Drachen Spire," is a community-generated identifier for the Intamin-made, multi-launch, shuttle giga coaster that was originally slated to open at Busch Gardens Williamsburg in 2021. The attraction is planned to utilize the currently-vacant land behind Verbolten, Festhaus Park—the former home of Drachen Fire.

The coaster's main layout—as leaked before the addition was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic—featured two launches, two spikes (one spiral, one vertical-ish), and a couple of banked turns. Drachen Spire was designed to run two trains by means of a pair of switch tracks connecting the primary, shuttle portion of the layout to the station platform.

Important Articles:​

  • Most Up-To-Date Understanding of the Layout:
    bgwfans.com

    Leaked Electrical Plan Depicts Busch Gardens Williamsburg's 2021 Roller Coaster in Detail – BGWFans

    If there’s a god, he’s up there laughing this afternoon. Why? Because BGWFans just had one of those classic sitcom moments. Yesterday, we published our painstakingly detailed analysis of the footer plan for what we believe is Busch Gardens Williamsburg’s 2021 roller coaster—seemingly a huge...
    bgwfans.com bgwfans.com
  • Most Recent Status Update:
    bgwfans.com

    Drachen Spire Height Waiver Extension Details – BGWFans

    Just over a week ago, we reported on the renewal of the notorious 355 foot Festhaus Park height waiver that was originally requested for the controversial, Intamin-made, multi-launch, giga, shuttle coaster we’ve dubbed Drachen Spire. In last week’s article, we were very careful to leave the door...
    bgwfans.com bgwfans.com

NoLimits Model of the Layout:​

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Direct Link to Embedded Media Source

Additional Coverage (Newest to Oldest):​

Previous Thread:​

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Zachary said:
It's my understanding that any StarFlyer that is over 223 feet uses the thicker tower, no?

Assuming I'm correct there, a 350-ish foot StarFlyer would require the too-thick-to-qualify tower, yes?
Click to expand...
I measured the star flyer in Orlando and it's approximately 10 ft wide
 
warfelg said:
Random thoughts going on here:
~Good neighbor policy is being overused here.
~Saying to expect going higher is silly IMO.
~ ?Degradation of John Smith’s land. Your house ruined it just as much as BGW.
~Comparing BGW to a vandalizing person is absurd. I’m glad I’m not there because I would have said her house shouldn’t be there if that’s the way she felt.
~ ?The hotels and other business banding together to support BGW is awesome.
~ Id love for BGW/JCC to do an economic study of what losing BGW’s taxes would do to their Property taxes. I do now JCC has some of the lowest property taxes in Virginia. They only enjoy that because of BGW.
~I’m always amazed at how Suzy Cheely carries herself in these meetings. It’s not easy to remain calm in these statements. She’s also very clear and concise with her words.
~Bringing in the outside help to assess the noise was awesome. It’s like smacking KCSA in the face with their own complaint.
~Kevin Lamkie (eek sp?) is also very well spoken and he’s a great park president.
~Kevin saying it’s been redesigned many times isn’t something you would say about a tower ride. Not much redesign to be done.

Some outside personal notes:
~Hersheypark, Dorney Park, and Kennywood are right by neighborhoods, and not a single one meet with those homeowners.
~ BGW does more in that regards than any other park I know. So to say they are breaking a “good neighbor in faith” is absurd.
Click to expand...
I was about to say that about them redesigning the ride. A tower ride wouldn't need much redesign.
 
William545 said:
Hold on let me do a side ways measurement on red force
Click to expand...

You don’t need to take any measurements to see that this ain’t gonna fit the 10’ criteria from any angle.

I suppose TECHNICALLY it is less than 10’ for a very very small portion of the structure at its exact tallest point but I think that would be a really misleading/dishonest description of it by BGW if it came to that technicality.

I will clarify that I am specifically referring to the TTD/KK/RF top hats...something like MMXX might be 10’ from certain angles but given the heights we’re discussing I don’t think those top hats are relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jonfin826
Zachary said:
It's my understanding that any StarFlyer that is over 223 feet uses the thicker tower, no?

Assuming I'm correct there, a 350-ish foot StarFlyer would require the too-thick-to-qualify tower, yes?
Click to expand...

The tallest regular star flyer is 62m, the 117m ones all have varying height topper elements to advertise "tallest." So far there has not been a tower built that's between the 62m model or the 117m tall model yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary
PhantomJB93 said:
You don’t need to take any measurements to see that this ain’t gonna fit the 10’ criteria from any angle.

I suppose TECHNICALLY it is less than 10’ for a very very small portion of the structure at its exact tallest point but I think that would be a really misleading/dishonest description of it by BGW if it came to that technicality.

I will clarify that I am specifically referring to the TTD/KK/RF top hats...something like MMXX might be 10’ from certain angles but given the heights we’re discussing I don’t think those top hats are relevant.
Click to expand...
The thing is that height waiver only pertains to the highest point. So it would can be thicker at lower heights
 
Zachary said:
It's my understanding that any StarFlyer that is over 223 feet uses the thicker tower, no?

Assuming I'm correct there, a 350-ish foot StarFlyer would require the too-thick-to-qualify tower, yes?
Click to expand...
Here's a rendering of Orlando's @ 450ft and a photo of Texas at 400ft.
 

Attachments

  • 0412_n13_starflyer_rendering.jpeg
    0412_n13_starflyer_rendering.jpeg
    582.8 KB · Views: 0
  • PicsArt_06-11-09.30.14.jpg
    PicsArt_06-11-09.30.14.jpg
    693.6 KB · Views: 0
Rewatching this, honestly I could do without the two-minute anti government "private industry controls private industry" monologue, coming from a representative of local government itself, no less. This entire process largely puts the lie to the idea that government needs to "stay out" of business decisions as a matter of some largely black-and-white rhetorical principle. The residents in this case were largely wacky, but there is a valuable review service being provided by this board when it comes to approving community-facing capital projects in a historical region.

I say this as a fan of the way the vote ultimately went: it really doesn't come down to that overly simplistic theme, ringing as it does with generic anti-regulatory doctrine. Even the Board voice expressing concern with some overblown notion of future rides growing ever taller, by hundreds of feet beyond this one (probably an early stance for some imagined future waiver application), ultimately voted in favor of 355 feet. The ride's height does no harm to anyone. If it did somehow portend material and provable harm, however, then I hope the board would act to protect those affected, instead of falling for that one individual's rhetoric and stooping to "private industry controls private industry" boilerplate.

Admittedly, it's possible that the individual in question was just trying to bootlick the park a bit with inflated oratory. But to my ear, it didn't come off that way. A bit too much "what would this county look like if the park weren't there" absolutism. And yeah, the other guy was possibly just paying lip service to his residents' concerns, since I believe he mentioned they are in his jurisdiction. But I'm not convinced they didn't respectively mean what they said to some substantial degree.

Yet the other board member's grave mention of the abandoned Geauga Lake photo was thoroughly entertaining. I guess sometimes it's all about where the speaker chooses to go with similar source material.

Bring on 355 feet! Or something close to it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pretzel Kaiser, Alf33, Adam and 4 others
Zachary said:
It's my understanding that any StarFlyer that is over 223 feet uses the thicker tower, no?

Assuming I'm correct there, a 350-ish foot StarFlyer would require the too-thick-to-qualify tower, yes?
Click to expand...


as soon as they said 10 ft wide from this angle, I was thinking that doesn't seem wide enough for the larger starflyer's. If you compare that to Orlando's for example, it looks 15-20ft.
 
warfelg said:
Not with the way the one BOS member that was there. He said that BGW explained at as looking like a knife from the angle they explained.
Click to expand...
But if I look at the one balloon test picture from a neighborhood, you only see maybe 10-15ft above the trees. So, basically narrow-ish at the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
warfelg said:
Not with the way the one BOS member that was there. He said that BGW explained at as looking like a knife from the angle they explained.
Click to expand...
He said that's how he understood it when viewed from kingsmill. To me that means the portion that is visible from Kingsmill. This would allow it to be wider at the base. I don't think that it's a red force type ride. I think it's a traditional Giga personally. This would require it to be wider at the base.

BGW has been very slearly referring to it as a spire like structure. One of the definitions of a spire is: A tapering conical or pyramidal structure on the top of a building, typically a church tower. This seems a lot like a lift hill which would be wider at the bottom and taper to a narrower top.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: jornor, Ziva, jonfin826 and 1 other person
BGWnut said:
He said that's how he understood it when viewed from kingsmill. To me that means the portion that is visible from Kingsmill. This would allow it to be wider at the base. I don't think that it's a red force type ride. I think it's a traditional Giga personally. This would require it to be wider at the base.

BGW has been very slearly referring to it as a spire like structure. One of the definitions of a spire is: A tapering conical or pyramidal structure on the top of a building, typically a church tower. This seems a lot like a lift hill which would be wider at the bottom and taper to a narrower top.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but ?. And I want to explain the rolling eyes. In a planning sense a spire is the point of that, not that wider at the bottom like the top hat element. If what was explained was very thin and I got something with a wider base than expected, I would be pissed and not trust that company again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole and GrandpaD
warfelg said:
I'm sorry but ?. And I want to explain the rolling eyes. In a planning sense a spire is the point of that, not that wider at the bottom like the top hat element. If what was explained was very thin and I got something with a wider base than expected, I would be pissed and not trust that company again.
Click to expand...
I think the key is spire like. Not that it is a spire. Also I'm not advocating for a top hat. But a Giga coaster is going to be something that is a little wider at the base but gradually taper to the top. A top hat is largely the same size until the top when it dramatically tapers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad