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:
  • Most Recent Status Update:

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:
I share the same thoughts @Jpineda96 regarding a package deal. Either make that a giga (?) or tower and same size Walibi "clone" combo.

And now back on the attraction... Not sure what 2021 would look like, but I've [also] been of the mindset that this is a package deal. And my guess is an Intamin giga. I think that's why the park is so intent on the planning, and it being critical to the park's future plans.. Maybe other development around it (future hamlet), maybe not, but for sure I think there are some (time-limited) synergies in doing these back-to-back from the same company. Not just in buying power, but perhaps some parts of site work too.

Though I really would like a B&M of course.

edit: And I really would love to know what caused Madrid to morph into 2021 or otherwise be cancelled in lieu of MMXX. That's the inside baseball that really intrigues me, especially because, given the Kingsmill headache, it "may" have presented fewer NIMBY challenges if the taller attraction was further away from the Busch brewery real estate development project.
 
Last edited:
@thopping My response wasn't really directed towards you, just the in general people who treat both as one.

To comment on the whole thing and bring it around to the attraction:
We really don't know when some of these people with complains moved in or on what other projects they complained about. If someone like the lady that complained about this, the power lines, and who knows what else (she might be a NIMBY person) has live there since the development opened; the park might have been smaller at that point.

Pulling it back to this attraction though and where it currently sits.

I feel this height waiver is in a bit of a limbo status and something is going to have to be revealed somewhat in order to move forward. Something I do like in the BoD meeting is that they did close off the project to open commentary. What's that tell me? That they have basically made up their mind, the delay is to allow a little more soothing over between KCSA and BGW. In the end the board is right and BGW is a great partner that goes beyond what any other park does.

dI do think that this attraction ultimately goes through; but on the flip, I think that after this I fear that the park might have to take a break for a while on height waiver rides. It might be one of the few ways to smooth over the relations some.

Which means to me that Project2021/355 needs to knock it out of the park because from a height/thrill ride prospect this might be it for a while.
 
Something I do like in the BoD meeting is that they did close off the project to open commentary.

This is an incorrect conclusion.

They do not have a second public commentary because Robert's rules of order do not allow for one.

This was mentioned by the board at one point during the discussion about the postponement.

In fact, some board members were asking questions about this to ensure the public would have another opportunity to comment.

The answer is there is an open commentary opportunity after the opening agenda before they get into specific hearings. And that's where we'll potentially get more public statements about the waiver application.
 
I do think that this attraction ultimately goes through; but on the flip, I think that after this I fear that the park might have to take a break for a while on height waiver rides. It might be one of the few ways to smooth over the relations some.

Which means to me that Project2021/355 needs to knock it out of the park because from a height/thrill ride prospect this might be it for a while.

I'm hoping a "maybe" break in the height waivers is the only concession. That's another thing that pisses me off--is the politics of trying to extract concessions by being unreasonable. Someone posted a while back about a related negotiating strategy in asking for way more than what they wanted to approved, just to act like they were throwing the community/government/etc. a bone by revising down... Really hoping that's not the case here. To your earlier point, they don't get a say in how the business makes money (assuming they aren't shareholders).

The reason why such a break as a concession doesn't bother me much is that "if" we are looking at two coasters of this rumored size/scale so close together, it would probably be awhile before we saw another anyway--just looking at economics, locations, etc. Plus, I think the CODK SBNO situation will be in their plans for 2022 or 2023...
 
Last edited:
This is an incorrect conclusion.

They do not have a second public commentary because Robert's rules of order do not allow for one.

This was mentioned by the board at one point during the discussion about the postponement.

In fact, some board members were asking questions about this to ensure the public would have another opportunity to comment.

The answer is there is an open commentary opportunity after the opening agenda before they get into specific hearings. And that's where we'll potentially get more public statements about the waiver application.

The commentary they will be allowing is different from what this past meeting was. Having worked these for years, I can tell you that there’s going to be a big difference in the way the BoD reacts to the next set of statements from the KCSA.

Edit:
What the BoD did with following standard procedure allows for this:
  1. BGW presents the height waiver along with impact.
  2. Open forum for commentary. At this point if any were present we could have put ourselves into the meeting to talk on behalf of BGW.
  3. BoD takes concerns to redirect to BGW.
They should be voting at this point.

Now this is where the BoD took a turn.
Usually in BoD meeting with a delay vote; BGW would update any findings, another time for commentary on only this project, one last BGW rebuttal and vote.

What the BoD did was put the public commentary first, which case other projects will be discussed before BGWs. This is key in that it allows BGW to update anything and get no rebuttal from KCSA before vote; have the last word over KCSA; and most importantly, have time to formulate responses to any KCSA member comment that needs defending.

This is actually unusual to follow. Especially since through the Planning Board, these things have typically already gone through this process (though less visible). So that the BoD did was effectively cap KCSA input to what is currently known and not force BGW to reveal more unless they want to.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut and thopping
Sure, but to imply that the board closed off commentary because they already have their mind made up is a mischaractorization. The board closed commentary because Robert's rules said they had to.
 
Plus, I think the CODK SBNO situation will be in their plans for 2022 or 2023...

If the plan went forward like it was supposed to we wouldn't have an SBNO Darkastle. I'm also fairly certain, at least from what I have been made aware with BGW's 2018-2022 plans, that there would not have been a major 2020 or 2021 project. I'm hoping with the added influx of capex cash Darkastle gets what it needs to either be revived or a fitting replacement, but as far as my knowledge goes Darkastle was ultimately cut due to operating costs and their operating budget has not been adjusted to properly cover it staying alive.

Whatever planning they were doing in 2017, they're on a totally different path than what they originally wanted to do. For all we know, Izzy might be returning.
 
Is there some evidence Im missing or is this just speculation, because everyone is saying this but I doubt BGW would get 2 Intamins after hating their guts for 20 years...
I swear this "hates there guts" "never work with them again" Larry Giles stuff seems to perpetuate year after year. It may have been true there was some animosity but for quite a few years SEAS has been doing business with them at other parks. Of further note is Intamin has been pretty much dealing with China and Europe and absent in the US market save for a project or two.

Anyway, like the rest of the 48 pages in this thread, yes, it's speculation. But many companies, to save a great deal of money, do package deals. It may be 2 for one park (also potential savings in maintenance) or a couple for a couple of parks. To paraphrase Sgt. Schultz "We know nothing".
 
I've dismissed "never Intamin" too. MMXX is all but confirmed to be Intamin, right? So that negates the argument of not doing business with them [for BGW]. Now that we've established that they are, it makes sense to do a package deal either between parks or within a park, if Intamin offers such a thing to SEAS and they can get more bang for the buck.

Now if Intamin screws up after given a shot at two major investments after that history.... well, I'd understand them being back in the dog house for years to come. But I'm sure Intamin knows they're in the spot light too. Who knows, perhaps the package deal, if there is one, was offered specifically to incent SEAS/the park to using them in spite of reservations, if there are any even...
 
Intamin has a few SEAS projects under their belts since Pompeii. But, whether they were in the wrong or not, I'd think they'll have more more to lose at Universal than BGW. Who knows, maybe that why SEAS feels more confident dealing with them now.
 
Just to really quickly debunk the "but a giga won't fit" rumors recently...

15701 15702

That path gives a nice clean route out of Drachen Fire's old station and plenty of room for a lift, drop, and turn-out all notably larger than Intimidator 305's. Additionally it gives a highest point "downhill from Verbolten's bridge" and is angled in such a way that it would look very spire-esque from much of Kingsmill.
 
I agree with you there @Zachary. Not trying to be argumentative (well, maybe a little ?), but after the turn out? I think we'd have to see if there's any soil testing, etc. outside the tracks, wouldn't we?
 
A quick (very reasonable) alteration to i305 gets it into an area that's about 850 feet long and 350 feet wide.

15703

The FHP site, on average, is somewhere around 825 feet long and 500 feet wide. I'm 100% positive that the designers over at Intamin HQ can manage to fit a really serious giga into that space.
 
To piggy back on @Zachary ’s point on the space and a Giga:
The most important thing there is going to be the speed and turn radius there. I-305’s turn is going to be the more important measurement than the lift/drop because who knows there. If this twists at the start of the drop, this could easily fit without crossing the tracks.

And from there the speed slows down which means the turn radius keeps getting tighter, making it even easier to fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary and BGWnut
Sure it can fit. And there are other ways to make it fit too, if willing to expand a little beyond DF's footprint.

Disclaimer: potential bias disclosure. I'm an engineer. As such, I believe engineers (especially Hokie engineers) can do anything and solve any problem. My view is inherently "how" it would be possible, not "whether" it is possible.

The park absolutely can build a giga. Only question is the tradeoffs (e.g. engineering quality/cost/time triangle) and whether the overall plan and business case makes sense to the park, SEAS and Intamin*. But they can definitely pull this off if they want to.

*edit: That should read "assuming" Intamin, which I am. But for recent readers, no, Intamin is not confirmed at all, and I personally would prefer B&M.
 
Sure, like @thopping said, it'll fit. And I know @Zachary is merely using 305 as an example and it's not, in any way, representative of what we might see (if it's a giga)

Which means to me that Project2021/355 needs to knock it out of the park because from a height/thrill ride prospect this might be it for a while.
^This. If this is a giga (or not) how's it going to differentiate itself from other gigas (or others)? Five, 10, 15 feet higher? 10 or so mph faster? To me those are bragging points and not anything that makes a coaster "special". Again, realizing the use of 305 was merely for size comparison, but if the 2021 design even remotely resembled the example, it would tell me BGW shrugged and said "hey, you wanted a giga...you got a giga."

Gigas usually don't have a lot of special events... They're "go high, go fast, airtime, it's over" Give me some "knock it out of the park" stuff to go with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJTLG
I'd be slightly disappointed with a ride that used that entire area since this seems like a natural expansion area, eventually. Losing Festa Field and Festhaus Park would be two of the most logical locations. I guess a new hamlet could be build across the tracks in the boneyard? It'll be interesting to see if this is another spur like Griffon or if it's part of something more.
 
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad