Project 2021/Drachen Spire: Intamin Multi-Launch Shuttle Giga Coaster [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...
I’d like to see an overlay on Google map as to possible layouts of track prior to entrance into leaked station design. Will track be elevated above existing walkways?
 
Food for thought, version 2. Swapping around the track direction, as depicted in leaked station design.
.
17446
 
I can't say I'd be upset if an Intamin Accelerator occupied the land where Drachen Fire was. Even a Red Force style ride would be fine with me, personally. Although, I do believe the 355' permit and this roller coaster are two separate attractions of the same project, both, however, potentially being 300+ feet tall. When I consider what Suzy said at the public hearing about the structure being like a spire, I think a tower rather than a top hat element (maybe even the space shot models by S&S with the new SEAS and S&S relationship after Finnegan's Flyer). Also, the 'leaked' Drachen Fire station floorplan does not match the orientation to make it reach the proposed high point of the 355' permit unless it turns along parallel with Verbolten's event building, especially with the train exiting the station in the opposite direction. It just seems... a bit messy that way, leaving no room for other attractions or expansion.

Here's my take on the 'leaked' Drachen Fire Accelerator / Black Forest hamlet:

17447

The layout consists of a mini Kingda Ka. The station is exactly as the 'leaked' floorplan suggest with storage tracks off to the left as the train departs. The Drachen Fire maintenance bay would be re-utilized as a LSM disconnect / electrical / transformer building for maintenance. The train would launch at 1.1g into the top hat 300+ feet above grade by the railroad trestle. It reaches the top with a view facing the rest of the park for a fantastic view, much like Pantheon. Then, dropping straight down into the ravine, as shown by the topography map. Then up over the service road with a low to the ground amazing pop of ejector airtime into the brakes. The yellow on the map is where I believe a new hamlet / access to the 355' tower ride would be. (the blue circle filled with yellow). I realize the tophat would be facing Kingsmill, but is it further away to the point where they wouldn't be able to see it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drachenwolf
The one issue with having two rides that I have never seen brought up is that this would require two separate height waivers from the park. Unless they are the same structure and connected somehow (like Kingda Ka and Zumanjaro), the park would have had to file for another waiver.
 
BGWnut said:
The one issue with having two rides that I have never seen brought up is that this would require two separate height waivers from the park. Unless they are the same structure and connected somehow (like Kingda Ka and Zumanjaro), the park would have had to file for another waiver.
Click to expand...
Not unless just one if the two exceeds 200ft. As I recall from early on Pantheon (then Madrid) discussions, JCC only requires 1 waiver for the attraction. Conversely, the FAA would require one for each element that surpasses 200ft.
 
I thought it was determined the subsequent FAA filings are needed only if the additional 200'+ points are further than a certain radius from the original location?
 
But JCC will require another height waiver if a separate structure were to be built above the 60'. If it's part of of the same ride and structure as this then it would be covered under the height waiver. However the concepts being discussed are for 2 separate structures that would both require a height waiver for the 60' height limit within JCC. The 200 feet is a FAA requirement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adam and Zachary
Zachary said:
@BGWnut has it right from what I understand. Each separate structure over 60 feet would need a JCC height waiver.
Click to expand...
Meaning separate structure of a different attraction, correct? I recall we discussed Madrid, at one time thinking the spike and top hat were both 200ft+. FAA would have two waivers for each element while JCC would have 1 for the whole shebang. Right?

I just didn't read the entire @AIR idea...which now I have and don't think that'll happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut and Zachary
GrandpaD said:
Meaning separate structure of a different attraction, correct? I recall we discussed Madrid, at one time thinking the spike and top hat were both 200ft+. FAA would have two waivers for each element while JCC would have 1 for the whole shebang. Right?

I just didn't read the entire @AIR idea...which now I have and don't think that'll happen.
Click to expand...
Yes that's what I was saying. If they share a structure like Kingda Ka and Zumanjaro then there would be no need for a separate height waiver with JCC. If they are two separate structures then they would be both need a height waiver.

As far as the FAA waiver I don't know that we've ever gotten confirmation that the FAA would require two height waivers for each portion over 200 feet. That's just what we have assumed based on their guidelines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary and BenWilkerson
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad