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'm not sure if it was in the original/first/previous waiver request (but I recall @Zachary brought it up before) is this sentence - "The visual simulations show an approximate "width" of the structure at it's highest point as a bracket labeled "355FT above Existing grade on the aforementioned exhibit."

So how wide is it?
 
I really do think a hamlet with a tower ride/eventual mid-size coaster would be a good fit for this area rather than a giga if it’s being built in the near future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLC Headache
GrandpaD said:
I'm not sure if it was in the original/first/previous waiver request (but I recall @Zachary brought it up before) is this sentence - "The visual simulations show an approximate "width" of the structure at it's highest point as a bracket labeled "355FT above Existing grade on the aforementioned exhibit."

So how wide is it?
Click to expand...
I don't think there is reference to an exact number. I believe it is just a visual representation for the board to get a better idea of the visual impacts.
 
kingadam said:
I don't think there is reference to an exact number. I believe it is just a visual representation for the board to get a better idea of the visual impacts.
Click to expand...
I figured there isn't an exact number. I'm old, but didn't someone show the balloon test photo with a line at height to indicate "about" how wide it was? Wouldn't let our "expert guessers" give this maybe 10 pages of theories?

Real question hidden in some sarcasm

And the more I think about it...I don't see a new hamlet, even with the tower/RailBlazer type coaster in my España concept.. I'm guessing SEAS takes the easy way out and deems the new area "Black Forest".
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
GrandpaD said:
I'm not sure if it was in the original/first/previous waiver request (but I recall @Zachary brought it up before) is this sentence - "The visual simulations show an approximate "width" of the structure at it's highest point as a bracket labeled "355FT above Existing grade on the aforementioned exhibit."

So how wide is it?
Click to expand...

Here are the pictures from the article written by Zachary. It only shows the approximate width of the highest point of the structure. My guess would be that from 64 you are viewing the drop of a coaster and that from 199 you see the top of the lift hill. Based on these images it seems too wide to be anything else. Especially given how much further behind Griffon it actually will be in FHP.

15327 15329
 
So, you've joined the "it's a giga" club? At 355ft, that's 30ft taller than Fury 325. And conceivably a drop that exceeds Fury's 320ft as well. That would be one hell of a coaster.

Perhaps a Power Tower type attraction? With four legs, it would also be as wide as depicted in the estimates. And it also fits the "lattice" description.

Either way, it's gonna be big.
 
GrandpaD said:
So, you've joined the "it's a giga" club? At 355ft, that's 30ft taller than Fury 325. And conceivably a drop that exceeds Fury's 320ft as well. That would be one hell of a coaster.

Perhaps a Power Tower type attraction? With four legs, it would also be as wide as depicted in the estimates. And it also fits the "lattice" description.

Either way, it's gonna be big.
Click to expand...
I've been team Giga the entire time. Personally I don't think that BGW is going the whole height. I think it'll be closer to the height of Fury but they are leaving themselves some room to reapply and reduce the height if JCC for some reason didn't approve the waiver.

Personally I think that a power tower doesn't fit the two pictures. As they show one side that's wide and another side that significantly thinner. Unless they weren't arranged in a square for she reason and are just 4 towers next to each other like Hershey.
 
BGWnut said:
Here are the pictures from the article written by Zachary. It only shows the approximate width of the highest point of the structure. My guess would be that from 64 you are viewing the drop of a coaster and that from 199 you see the top of the lift hill. Based on these images it seems too wide to be anything else. Especially given how much further behind Griffon it actually will be in FHP.

View attachment 15327View attachment 15329
Click to expand...
You actually bring up an excellent point with this - I never really thought about the difference in width between the two.

I thought about it a little more and realized too that if this were something like a tower where it's the same "width" from any angle, the width in the second picture you have there would be much smaller than the first.. The first picture is taken from Rte. 60 at the I-64 ramp to Busch (~3,000 ft from the site), and second picture is taken from Route 199 (~9,000 ft from the site). The line in the picture from 199 should be 3 times smaller than the one from 60, but that's not the case here. Though they are rough, if these are really depicting a "visual simulation" and the lines are roughly the same length on the photos (accounting for zoom...?), we are likely talking about an asymmetrical attraction (i.e. lift hill).

Take this all with a massive grain of salt though, because this is purely just a theory based on very inaccurate measurements and a huge margin of error. Not to mention, they may not have taken too much care in exactly scaling out these lines on the photos.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jesy, Logang, BGWnut and 2 others
Just note that there's multiple other rides with a "width" to them as well.

400%20foot%20TExas%20Starflyer.jpg


view-from-room-sky-coaster.jpg
 
I tend to agree with @kingadam's last paragraph, that there wasn't a great deal of care in scaling the line. If they were, it would be difficult to visualize a line 3X smaller in the photo.

The GPS coordinates may give a stronger indication of what it may be. I am still leaning toward a Tower/RailBlazer combo. I wonder, when they flew the balloon in Festa Field they were considering this same combination but guest egress to the area and space (because of maintaining pastures, etc.) made them realize the Intamin was a better fit. They've plenty of room in Festhaus Park for both and these new attractions "balance" the park's hamlet draw.
 
I'm basing this off of a general "width" required since there's not really much to glean from the lines in vantage point. Unless they put down a concrete number for the width I'm keeping all cards on the table.

For reference:
  • a 300 ft Skycoaster model is approximately 50 feet wide at its peak, 130 feet wide at its base.
  • a Funtime Star Flyer is approximately 65 feet wide when rotating at speed. 46 feet wide when static.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GrandpaD
My guess is 4th B&M coaster somwhere around 340 ft range in festhaus park. Kings island is getting the first one in 2020 and the second going to Busch in 2021. That’s why they waited because B&M is working King’s island coaster in 2020.
 
kingadam said:
The height waiver has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission for public hearing at the next Board of Supervisors meeting (5/14/19). The project has the blessing of the Planning Commission, now it's up to the BoS for final approval. Also, note the verbiage used: "attraction" and "lattice-type construction." This could mean a variety of things, but I will mention that this is the same wordage used for the MMXX height waiver.

View attachment 15321View attachment 15322View attachment 15325View attachment 15324
Click to expand...

First thing that comes to my mind when I hear “lattice-type construction” (and this is probably wishful thinking) is RMC’s ground-up steel truss lift hills.
 
I would think any structure that is not a solid structure that you can see through parts of it could qualify as a lattice type structure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Logang
I very well think these supports can be considered 'lattice-type construction' as well, especially toward the bottom of the drop. 15331
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad