Project 2022: Pantheon

[TheCoasterSource]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

I have to say I find it incredibly hard to back this being a starflyer. With the exception of the newer generation of drop towers Seaworld has never been huge on just filling their parks with random towers.

That being said, I could easily see them returning to B&M for a giga. BGW needs to step up their thrill selection with dive coasters becoming more frequent. Im praying to the gods they give us Zeus.

 

[mountaineers]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

Actually if still in Italy then Jupiter would be a better name.

 

[Unagi]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

I have to say I find it incredibly hard to back this being a starflyer. With the exception of the newer generation of drop towers Seaworld has never been huge on just filling their parks with random towers.  

Agreed. The Star Flyer is nothing but a tall carnival ride. And they're not that exciting and have shit capacity. I'd really hate to see one in the park.

 

[Ghost of Pretzel Kaiser]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

I mentioned this before, but an observation tower could be really cool at BGW.

 

[basseyfish]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

I mentioned this before, but an observation tower could be really cool at BGW.

That would be cool.. but way back there? That's a long walk for just that. Maybe if they add some other stuff on the way

 

[halfabee]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

Maybe they're taking a cue from Six Flags America, and dropping rides semi-randomly into open fields.

One sure-fire way to make an attraction look taller is to surround it with nothing.

 

[Ghost of Pretzel Kaiser]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

It's only right outside Festa, it also wouldn't be out in the field if they're doing Spain.

 

[Grant]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

If it is a coaster (I'm not saying it is) we could potentially see the parks 2nd launch coaster (3 if you count Tempesto). If it's from Intamin, which I dought heavily, I think seeing an Accelerator before a true giga would make more sense. It wouldn't overshine Apollo considering they are 2 very different ride experiences, but then again, I don't think they will work with Intamin. *Back to square one*

 

[basseyfish]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

If it is a coaster (I'm not saying it is) we could potentially see the parks 2nd launch coaster (3 if you count Tempesto). If it's from Intamin, which I dought heavily, I think seeing an Accelerator before a true giga would make more sense. It wouldn't overshine Apollo considering they are 2 very different ride experiences, but then again, I don't think they will work with Intamin. *Back to square one*

Intamin launch coasters seem to have to many problems, atlease the ones like ka and TTD and xcelerator. No way they want those

 

[basseyfish]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

If it is a coaster (I'm not saying it is) we could potentially see the parks 2nd launch coaster (3 if you count Tempesto). If it's from Intamin, which I dought heavily, I think seeing an Accelerator before a true giga would make more sense. It wouldn't overshine Apollo considering they are 2 very different ride experiences, but then again, I don't think they will work with Intamin. *Back to square one*

Intamin launch coasters seem to have to many problems, atlease the ones like ka and TTD and xcelerator. No way they want those

better yet look at volcano, it has incredible downtime

 

[Grant]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

You're certainly correct; however, Xcelerator was the very first Hydraulic launch coaster from Intamin, and the Hydraulic launch system itself was never the most reliable method of launching passengers. New for this year, Red Force (Intamin) at Ferrari World PortAventura uses LSM's and has not had any problems as of yet.

https://youtu.be/NeK96BDOub8

To this day LSM's have proven to be one of the more reliable forms of lauching passengers. Keep in mind that launching a train for 0-80+ in less than 3 seconds is never going to be 100% reliable regardless the manufacture.

 

[MAZ]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

If this thing is in fact a coaster, with its peak height at 315 feet that close to the Rhine, I can't help but wonder if they are going for 'the mother of all drops'. If it drops from that high, down to the water like Apollo, you might as well tack on an extra 50 feet for a 365 ft drop. Talk about exciting!

That's exactly what I was thinking as well! Only issue would be having enough clearance for the Rhine River Cruises, since they go out that way.  

Also I'm going to play my own devil's advocate against a coaster and put it out there that if they build anything that encroaches upon the "river" they will need a lot of permits since they will be disturbing a Resource Protection Area (RPA). They were able to get around this with Verbolten since they re-used Big Bad Wolf's footers that were in the RPA/RPA Buffer, but I don't think it will be that easy with anything brand new. With that being said though, I don't think a coaster is out of the picture, considering we already know BG can do a lot with only small spaces if they are not going to encroach upon the water, case in point InvadR and Tempesto.

Were similar permits involved with Apollo's water interaction?

I'm taking for granted that back then, county officials realized that the Rhine was not a natural wetland preserve because Busch dug it out with dozers and filled it with water(i.e. 'Man made') Nowadays, people seem to be a bit naive and choose to think that the park is trying to destroy some natural ecosystem by building something. The whole watershed permit thing is actually a political mumbo jumbo crap way for the county to receive money.

 

[Adam]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

If this thing is in fact a coaster, with its peak height at 315 feet that close to the Rhine, I can't help but wonder if they are going for 'the mother of all drops'. If it drops from that high, down to the water like Apollo, you might as well tack on an extra 50 feet for a 365 ft drop. Talk about exciting!

That's exactly what I was thinking as well! Only issue would be having enough clearance for the Rhine River Cruises, since they go out that way.  

Also I'm going to play my own devil's advocate against a coaster and put it out there that if they build anything that encroaches upon the "river" they will need a lot of permits since they will be disturbing a Resource Protection Area (RPA). They were able to get around this with Verbolten since they re-used Big Bad Wolf's footers that were in the RPA/RPA Buffer, but I don't think it will be that easy with anything brand new. With that being said though, I don't think a coaster is out of the picture, considering we already know BG can do a lot with only small spaces if they are not going to encroach upon the water, case in point InvadR and Tempesto.

Were similar permits involved with Apollo's water interaction?

I'm taking for granted that back then, county officials realized that the Rhine was not a natural wetland preserve because Busch dug it out with dozers and filled it with water(i.e. 'Man made') Nowadays, people seem to be a bit naive and choose to think that the park is trying to destroy some natural ecosystem by building something. The whole watershed permit thing is actually a political mumbo jumbo crap way for the county to receive money.

I think the issue really is that it drains to the James River which flows into the Chesapeake Bay, therefore it's part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.  I did some research and the State are the ones who created the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, which is enforced by the localities, i.e. James City County.  James City County's Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance states that there shall be no land disturbance activities within the Resource Protection Area (RPA) or buffer.  I read that the ordinance was passed in 1988, 11 years before Apollo's was built, so I'm still trying to figure out why JCC let it slide back then.

Also, the Rhine has technically always been there, they just built a dam which allowed for the lake to form.

 

[basseyfish]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

There is like literally no room in that area behind rapids for a big coaster. The lift his would have to be almost vertical so it has room to drop, also isint that an employee place back there? I can see a country with small stuff. It would be an awesome spot for a trainstation also if they do go country side

---

Can someone draw a giga coaster there for craps and giggle and see if it even possible

 

[Zachary]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

Ok, so I've not mentioned this on the forum yet, but I've been doing a lot of digging on "Madrid" in the height waiver application. I think most people have been a bit confused by its inclusion, but none more so than myself.

Why? Because I have copies of the original height waiver application and guess what never once makes an appearance in the filing? That's right, "Madrid." Naturally, that shoots up an immediate red flag in my mind.

So I went and talked to some folks. According to what I've been told, James City County went back to BGW after the initial filing asking for a more specific name for the project than was originally provided ("Busch Gardens Height Waiver"). What BGW provided for the new, revised project name was "Madrid."

So take that detail for whatever it's worth.

That's not all though. While I was poking around, I mentioned the change from "structure" to "attraction" in the description of the request. From what I was told, it sounds as though that was not a change by BGW, but was, instead, switched by JCC to keep it consistent with previous BGW filings.

In summary, "Madrid" was a late addition by Busch Gardens Williamsburg to uniquely identify the project. Furthermore, the "structure" -> "attraction" change was done by JCC without input from BGW.

 

[Zimmy]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

I hope they go with intamin if it's a coaster. I don't wanna see some ugly mack coaster or a hypetwist style trains

Don't hold your breath, not as long as Larry is still around.

 

[mountaineers]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

How high does something need to be in James City County for a waver to be required?   I didn't see a specific height on anything so far.  If the requirements are say 75 feet then it could be a number of things, not just a coaster/swing.

 

[warfelg]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

There is like literally no room in that area behind rapids for a big coaster. The lift his would have to be almost vertical so it has room to drop, also isint that an employee place back there? I can see a country with small stuff. It would be an awesome spot for a trainstation also if they do go country side

---

Can someone draw a giga coaster there for craps and giggle and see if it even possible

---

Do you think they would ever get rid of the rapids to give the space for another attraction?

I think it could be a possibility. Rapids rides really only see peak ridership on hot days in the middle of the day, are a beast to keep up, and cost more than they are worth.

---

How high does something need to be in James City County for a waver to be required?   I didn't see a specific height on anything so far.  If the requirements are say 75 feet then it could be a number of things, not just a coaster/swing.

I mean....at a waiver height of 315 ft...is there much else it could be?

 

[Zimmy]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

I mean....at a waiver height of 315 ft...is there much else it could be?

I'm still going with new hamlet at an altitude of about 275' That still leaves ample height for buildings!!

 

[Adam]

RE: June 2017 Height Waiver: New Hamlet? Madrid?

Ok, so I've not mentioned this on the forum yet, but I've been doing a lot of digging on "Madrid" in the height waiver application. I think most people have been a bit confused by its inclusion, but none more so than myself.

Why? Because I have copies of the original height waiver application and guess what never once makes an appearance in the filing? That's right, "Madrid." Naturally, that shoots up an immediate red flag in my mind.

So I went and talked to some folks. According to what I've been told, James City County went back to BGW after the initial filing asking for a more specific name for the project than was originally provided ("Busch Gardens Height Waiver"). What BGW provided for the new, revised project name was "Madrid."

So take that detail for whatever it's worth.

That's not all though. While I was poking around, I mentioned the change from "structure" to "attraction" in the description of the request. From what I was told, it sounds as though that was not a change by BGW, but was, instead, switched by JCC to keep it consistent with previous BGW filings.

In summary, "Madrid" was a late addition by Busch Gardens Williamsburg to uniquely identify the project. Furthermore, the "structure" -> "attraction" change was done by JCC without input from BGW.

So basically the park wanted to be as vague as possible when filing? As if the 315ft part doesn't give it away that it's going to be HUGE whatever it is. Could they have filed for something much taller than what they actually need to throw us off? Also, guess JCC changed it from structure to attraction when they read into it more?