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...
Adam said:
Now this is just plain hilarious ?

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


So... Either BGW submitted false plans that @Zachary picked up on for his update, or there's something else going there and our assumptions are still wrong and in the dark.

Or the third option that the assumptions are close, but why not troll coaster nerds?
 
There’s been several concept layouts posted to this string. Which of those posted bears a resemblance to what we know to date?
 
Jonesta6 said:
Or the third option that the assumptions are close, but why not troll coaster nerds?
Click to expand...

Publicly refuting our claims sows confusion. In a lot of ways, that just, in turn, results in more hype for the project.

We can't say for sure that BGW didn't seed fake station plans to people in hopes that they'd get out to BGWFans. And we can't say for sure that they didn't then file falsified RPA impacts plans with the county to backup that previous reporting. That said, we can estimate that the amount of man hours and money involved would be prohibitive given even the best case outcome for the park.

I'm pretty confident in my reporting here, but if BGW sees BGWFans as a big enough player to put themselves through everything that would be required to pull off a con job like this, I can only say I'm proud. ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alf33, Crunchewy, mountaineers and 12 others
Being that this initial RPA filing has been made, what’s the likelihood that the coaster will cross the ravine? - requiring another RPA filing.
 
These exact same submissions were made at the exact same times for Pantheon, and those submissions were 100% real and accurate to the final product. So unless the new ride is coming later than 2021 or is not coming at all, I find it very hard to believe these are fake, no matter what the park’s twitter is teasing.

And besides, if they really were out to fool us they would post fake plans a little more revealing than these. We’re all pretty much still completely grasping at straws here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnD
That’s honestly awesome that the park replied to BGWFans’ tweet like that. Awesome BGWFans gets the recognition, and awesome that BGW marketing is for once jumping on the hype train and fueling the speculation caused by the leaks, instead of denying them altogether.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sly4Good, Alf33, tursiops and 6 others
Zachary said:
Publicly refuting our claims sows confusion. In a lot of ways, that just, in turn, results in more hype for the project.

We can't say for sure that BGW didn't seed fake station plans to people in hopes that they'd get out to BGWFans. And we can't say for sure that they didn't then file falsified RPA impacts plans with the county to backup that previous reporting. That said, we can estimate that the amount of man hours and money involved would be prohibitive given even the best case outcome for the park.

I'm pretty confident in my reporting here, but if BGW sees BGWFans as a big enough player to put themselves through everything that would be required to pull off a con job like this, I can only say I'm proud. ?
Click to expand...
I can say for sure that those station plans didn't come from bgw. ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary
JohnD said:
If the coaster doesn’t cross the ravine, that would begin ruling-out layouts.
Click to expand...
You're acting as though people's "guess" layouts were the real deal. They were "it would be cool to dive toward the water" with some realism thrown in. I doubt (if this is the "drop") riders are going to moan because it's alongside instead of over the water (like Pantheon).

In an aside - BGW's Twitter response today is the first time in recent memory they've actually been timely about anything.
 
GrandpaD said:
You're acting as though people's "guess" layouts were the real deal. They were "it would be cool to dive toward the water" with some realism thrown in. I doubt (if this is the "drop") riders are going to moan because it's alongside instead of over the water (like Pantheon).

In an aside - BGW's Twitter response today is the first time in recent memory they've actually been timely about anything.
Click to expand...
that assuming that youre looking at a drop here...
 
GrandpaD said:
You're acting as though people's "guess" layouts were the real deal. They were "it would be cool to dive toward the water" with some realism thrown in. I doubt (if this is the "drop") riders are going to moan because it's alongside instead of over the water (like Pantheon).

In an aside - BGW's Twitter response today is the first time in recent memory they've actually been timely about anything.
Click to expand...
I’m well aware of the guesses-nature of layouts previously shared, including my own.. The comment was offered in the spirit of ruling out that direction - if the guess holds true there won’t be a ravine crossing.

Edit: put another way, is the most recent reveal the Eastern-most perimeter of the layout, if another RPA isn’t forthcoming?
 
Last edited:
Replying to this post from the Lumberhack thread:

GrandpaD said:
Ok, I'm confused. You're saying that green square about center of the straight red line your added to the RPA is a building? As in "it's too far to walk to the high point for a flat ride" building?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about this structure:

421818906.png

I assume it's some sort of backstage support building—possibly for the Woods Maze or possibly for the coaster. Not sure yet.
 
Ok @Zachary That's what I thought. But if it's not backstage.... (Just curious).

Edit - Instead of a double post, I'll just ask my question here.

I'm going to assume the color codes for an RPA request are the same (landward, seaward, etc.)

This is a portion of the RPA for Pantheon -

Screenshot_20191003-210009_Chrome.jpg

This is the newly discovered RPA for Festhaus Park -

Screenshot_20191003-210107_Chrome.jpg

The color codes indicate that green is "proposed impervious cover" (i.e. concrete or similar).

For Pantheon it is obvious that the squares are footers. Subsequent plans and viewing on site construction confirms this. But, despite more expert people interpreting this, I'm seriously wondering if the FP RPA is depicting footers.

I certainly don't think BGW got lazy and didn't draw individual squares for footers as I'm certain they'd want to show as less an impact as possible. And, with my semi-limited knowledge of coaster construction, I've yet to see any coaster built that has that long of a continuous concrete slab. Add to that it appears they have concrete lined drainage culverts going right through the widest portions of the horizonal "slab" where you'd assume would be load bearing footers.

I've no idea what it could be. But, in comparing the two RPA requests, I've got some doubts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sereniv and JohnD
To continue ravine chat above...
if there’s no crossing of ravine, in what direction will track go to sufficiently bleed off energy from top hat - before returning to station. How many feet of track needed to bleed off 300+ feet top hat / and direction in which that distance will be found?
 
Looking more closely at those footers to the right, they rotate in a weird way for something simple like a turn. Could this be an inversion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad