Project 2022: Pantheon

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Status
Not open for further replies.
halfabee said:
Phantom JB93 said SCOTLAND to Festa... and is correct about that. Go to Google Maps and measure it. I did. It's basically the same distance.

Let's continue this conversation on either the train thread or in private conversation, because further discussion of the topic isn't warranted here.
Click to expand...
Consider my mind blown on that one. It definitely does not seem like the distance can be comparable. That was always what I had heard when I worked there.that the distance was too short and something about the slope of the ground making it not feasible.

Anyway I agree we have gotten off topic on this thread
 
GrandpaD said:
I think this thread is getting off track. ?
Click to expand...
I would suggest relocating discussion of the Spain rumor to the January 2019 Festhaus Park Height Survey thread.

As for Project Madrid, my only germane comment is that a continued/new rumor about Spain and specifically related to Festhaus Park is that it further reinforces my thought that Madrid is now really more appropriately named the Festa Italia expansion and therefore should be "Italian" or "Marco Polo" themed--not Spanish--and AFAIK, Marco didn't go west to Spain, so you can't have both.
 
The park uses city code names for attractions frequently. Those city code names almost never related to the ride content, theme, or hamlet placing.
 
Yes, I'm aware of that. And mentioned it again a couple pages back, as have others. There are rumors of both a Spanish hamlet and the attraction originally called project Madrid, which are commonly conflated in this thread, likely due to reading too much into them using Madrid as a name (perhaps it would be less so had they chosen Antwerp).

My only point is that the internal SEAS project name of Madrid seems to be de-emphasized in recent governmental filings, which also pretty much rule out the possibility of a hamlet being included in the Festa Field plans, given the coaster site plan. I don't know why they called the site plan update Festa vs. Madrid when JCC knew it as Madrid. Maybe it's just because of progress towards construction, so not a problem that the GP starts hearing of a Festa expansion.

And there's a separate balloon test in Festhaus Park, so maybe if a hamlet is being planned, it would be over there. I don't know the project name of whatever the Festhaus Park work is.

The irony would be if Project Madrid is a Festa coaster, and only a coaster, and a project Rome (or some Italian thing) becomes a Spanish hamlet. :)
 
Last edited:
Ah, sorry, misunderstood your post! Yeah, I agree that emphasizing the Festa name at this point is probably due to construction progressing. Not sure "Madrid" was really ever supposed to be seen outside of SEAS other than required JCC permits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thopping and Zachary
No worries. There were only 3,455 prior posts in this thread to keep track of. :)

"Madrid" probably wasn't desired to be public, though they must assume it will show up here & enthusiast sites generally. I'm thinking it's just progress as well, and/or the project being nascent at the time of the first filing.

i.e. They probably had an idea for what they wanted, the space that was available (I'm sure there's a 5/10/etc.-year plan identifying all potential build locations), that this was the space they needed/wanted to use for such an attraction, and a pretty close approximation of where its high point would be...

But that it would take this exact form, not provide really much opportunity for anything else (if ever even considered), and necessitate, given where the coaster station wound up, a less-than-ideal entrance (IMHO) that is behind another attraction in Festa and that requires a bridge over the RR + station to even get there--that may not have been clear. Had it been, maybe they would have still called it Madrid internally, but filed it from the start as a "Festa expansion." Maybe it could have been a "San Marco expansion" but an entrance from the Garden of Invention was ruled out somewhere along the line, even if the general concept of Madrid didn't change. (I still think that could be worked out & would be better).

Probably more SEAS insider knowledge than I have needed to answer that one....and if we had that, we probably wouldn't be speculating in this thread about whether or not Spain/new hamlet was ever in consideration as part of this project or elsewhere... :)
 
Last edited:
Some conclusions, based on my assumptions:
  1. LOS/balloon was pretty close. It appears it now aligns better with the track that's closer to the station return (later in the ride), but I think the balloon was meant to cover the element on the track that crosses it--i.e. the assumed top hat, right after the assumed spike. Differences I think are due to minor variances in the design over time and inaccuracy in the diagrams--not a major design change, or that a top hat, etc. is really elsewhere in the design than now thought. I think the footers indicate it is where speculated to be--right after spike/launch.
  2. The high point is the top hat element, or some hill after the launch in any event--not the spike.
  3. The piers in the Rhine point towards the track that rides the bank of the Rhine, and roughly towards the spike. My original idea was they were for themeing/lights. I still think that. Not only does a bridge seem infeasible given the construction details listed in the dredge application (see this post), but there are now better details available about the coaster's layout. A pathway would run right into the track on the bank, and even if the Rhine work was changed to support a higher bridge that would cross over an assumed dip in the track that may occur on the bank right next to the red circle (which admittedly would be cool)--to what end? The space it would go to is land (coaster) locked by the layout, and leaves little point to getting there, especially if there's no connection to San Marco and the coaster station blocks a path to Festa...
My guess is the primary purpose of the dredging work is to illuminate the track that swings out next to the Rhine. Maybe some other elements too, but probably easier to do those from the land, plus they are limited to 60' for illumination other than landscape-shielded "wall washer" lights that they'd use to illuminate vertical elements from their bases. Plus...anything on the south side of the Rhine that we don't know about yet. But it's not for a bridge.
 
Last edited:
I feel like there just has to be a better way to light it than to construct all new lighting rigs in the middle of the Rhine though. Maybe there really isn't but it just feels like a lot of extra hassle for something that seems like it could be done from the hillside or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJTLG and VonDerrick
PhantomJB93 said:
I feel like there just has to be a better way to light it than to construct all new lighting rigs in the middle of the Rhine though. Maybe there really isn't but it just feels like a lot of extra hassle for something that seems like it could be done from the hillside or something.
Click to expand...
Could be... But lighting/themeing is the best thing I've come up with. It can't be a bridge, which was a popular theory at the time.

So why not illuminate from the bank? My thoughts are because of the vegetation. The probably don't want to raze the entire bank of vegetation (nor can they easily in the RPA buffer). And it is very vegetated/wooded. So what do they do? They clear as many trees as they need to for footers, but leave the rest on the bank... the track soars somewhat above the trees...but 60' or less...and they illuminate from the Rhine.
 
I missed these JCC meeting notes as they occurred right around the time the dredging plans were discovered (mid-December 2018)--and those were far more interesting:

CBPA 180148 : Busch Gardens, Festa Italia .... SeaworldParks & Entertainment, LLC, has applied for a Chesapeake Bay Exception for encroachments into the Resource Protection Area buffer for the expansion of Festa Italia on property located at 7851 Pocahontas Trail within the James River watershed. The property is otherwise known as Busch Gardens Williamsburg and is further identified as James CityCounty Tax Map Parcel No. 5140100009. Staff has reviewed the Sensitive Area Activity application and exception request and has determined impacts associated with the proposal tobe major for the proposed development. Staff recommends approval of the application with conditions.
Click to expand...

Minutes do not provide the conditions. Not much more interesting, though someone asked about the timeframe--and the answer was it should take about a year.

Interestingly this is called Festa again. Dredging plans at the same time were labeled Project Madrid.

PS: I answered the Festhaus Park question here.
 
thopping said:
I missed these JCC meeting notes as they occurred right around the time the dredging plans were discovered (mid-December 2018)--and those were far more interesting:



Minutes do not provide the conditions. Not much more interesting, though someone asked about the timeframe--and the answer was it should take about a year.

Interestingly this is called Festa again. Dredging plans at the same time were labeled Project Madrid.

PS: I answered the Festhaus Park question here.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know what Sesame was called? I feel like I remember it being labeled as England expansion but I could be completely misremembering. Either way personally I don't think this is a new Hamlet along with a coaster, but wouldn't it make sense to label this as festa expansion since that's the closest country rather than tip your hand?
 
While I'm not close to being an expert, I have to disagree with @thopping in regards to the Rhine "crossing". There are 4 "concrete structures atop wooden post structures" - one on each shore and 2 in the middle of the Rhine. In his late December post, @halfabee said the plans were rather secretive as to what was their purpose.

I highly doubt that type of construction/expense would go simply toward simply dramatic lighting. I believe, as I conjectured back then, that this is a utility bridge...specifically for electricity.

It's been touched on in this and other threads that Busch is (for the sake of another word) "starving" for power. I've heard their power grid is quite old and they haven't made up for the loss of power they used to get from the brewery back in the AB days.

This new coaster is going to need a huge amount of power. From a website -
....a theme park may have to install large (1,000+ amps) electrical service infrastructure first, comprised of transformers, conductors, wires and cables, etc. This installation can have a very high initial cost, and may require the operator to pull power directly from the local power grid.

In an article about another LSM launch coaster, Intamin talked of using Super capacitors to store energy for launches - “This is the idea behind this coaster, otherwise you would have tremendous high peak loads,” says Schoppen. “Instead of the 4MW, we probably use 1MW peak load from the grid to feed the LSM systems.”

So, my thought is this "bridge" is to bring power to the Festa side of the Rhine from the the Drachen Fire side. Certainly, they could also mount some dramatic lighting on these piers, but, again, don't think that's their primary purpose.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wombat96 and Ziva
thopping said:
As I wrote that I became curious.... how close was that balloon line of sight test? And what about that dredging application? Here's my attempt to reconcile these data:

View attachment 13938
Click to expand...

Some things here:
~ We don't know the elevations of some of these sections. like look at the spot right before the presumed break run. Just because there's track there doesn't mean there won't be a path under it. Based on the space on the footers spacing and pushed out to one side, I think it's reasonable to suggest that there's elevation there that a path can go over.
~Could say because we don't know the height or what the track does at the launch, there's a chance (again) that you have path under it. One of the coolest things about Storm Runner at Hersheypark is the path under the launch. Seeing a coaster fly right over your head is awesome.
~There is a big open area in the middle of the ride. You can really put in a fun flat or two in there, along with a shop and a 'viewing garden' where you can see the coaster go down to it's low point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Invisibread, thopping, Adam and 2 others
warfelg said:
Some things here:
~ We don't know the elevations of some of these sections. like look at the spot right before the presumed break run. Just because there's track there doesn't mean there won't be a path under it. Based on the space on the footers spacing and pushed out to one side, I think it's reasonable to suggest that there's elevation there that a path can go over.
~Could say because we don't know the height or what the track does at the launch, there's a chance (again) that you have path under it. One of the coolest things about Storm Runner at Hersheypark is the path under the launch. Seeing a coaster fly right over your head is awesome.
~There is a big open area in the middle of the ride. You can really put in a fun flat or two in there, along with a shop and a 'viewing garden' where you can see the coaster go down to it's low point.
Click to expand...

That would definitely be pretty sweet. I love coaster interactions.
 
snowman6996 said:
A bridge for power lines would have to be quite tall so that the Rhine River Cruise could pass under it, and unsightly. Wouldn't it make more sense and cheaper to just lay the electrical cables under the water on the riverbed?
Click to expand...
I certainly agree. I believe, when the RPA was first posted it was in general agreement it wasn't a pedestrian bridge. But I can't think of anything that would need shore-side pilings as well as two mid-river. Perhaps, since I know there are plans that certain folks have access, a utilities plan (they'd have to submit one for all this work) might have a clue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad