Project 2022: Pantheon

[madmax]

The Raptors aren’t capacity manchines lmfao. Where are you getting that from. A T-Rex giga would need 24-32 riders a train and 3 trains.

Screams ape was reporting 50-53 seconds from load in to load out with a 1 train operation.

That’s 24 riders a minute, over the course of an hour, no stops, 3 trains that’s a capacity of 1,440. I doubt they ever run it at that capacity, but it’s impressive to do that.

I mean this giga would be waaaaay longer so...

 

[BenWilkerson]

If this does in fact end up being a T-Rex I think it will be an extremely good addition to the park and would definitely create a draw that the park needs.

 

[SLC Headache]

If this does in fact end up being a T-Rex I think it will be an extremely good addition to the park and would definitely create a draw that the park needs.

Yes, a world's (or at least national) first high-thrill ride is exactly what BGW needs to catch up to KD after the 2010s additions.

As for T-Rex capacity, this is BGW. Barring clunky restraints (Tempesto), ops should not be a problem. As for minimum height, I'd expect 52" if this ride will be as wild as Steel Vengeance, 48" otherwise.

 

[CoasterAuditor]

Why exactly are we so sure that BGW is getting a 300' RMC T-Rex now?

 

[b.mac]

Why exactly are we so sure that BGW is getting a 300' RMC T-Rex now?

Because if we believe hard enough it may happen.

 

[madmax]

Why exactly are we so sure that BGW is getting a 300' RMC T-Rex now?

a) BGW filed 315 ft height permit
b) Alan Schilke of RMC recently said that the T-Rex has the capacity of up to 300+ feet

It’s a distinct possibility

As for T-Rex capacity, this is BGW. Barring clunky restraints (Tempesto), ops should not be a problem. As for minimum height, I'd expect 52" if this ride will be as wild as Steel Vengeance, 48" otherwise.

The T-Rex won’t use the OTSRs like the Raptor. Just the normal RMC trains.

 

[SLC Headache]

a) BGW filed 315 ft height permit
b) Alan Schilke of RMC recently said that the T-Rex has the capacity of up to 300+ feet

C. BGW has turned to up-and-coming products from non-Intamin manufacturers (Mach Tower and Verbolten).

But then look at how those two turned out. Having to disable the shaking at the top, and having troubles its first year (and already getting rough) respectively...

 

[CoasterAuditor]

I'm going to point out that with the fact there are currently zero RMC T-Rexs in existence it would seem relatively unlikely that the first one EVER built would be a terrain built Giga. That is a LOT of risk to take for a company like SEAS. Extremely ambitious massive expensive prototype? I mean I will eat my words if I am wrong but I do not see that as reasonably possible as of right now.

 

[Mushroom]

I'd also like to remind some folks that more 300 foot tall attractions exist than just giga coasters. Heck, three of the four rides in Virginia that top the 300 foot mark aren't even coasters.

 

[SLC Headache]

Hmm...Let's break down the three non-coaster 300+ foot options.

Drop tower: BGW already has Mach Tower, sucky as it is.

Observation tower: Don't they operate Mach Tower as an observation tower in winter operations? Though a replica landmark would be much more fitting.

Tower swing: I guess it's a thrilling flat and would fit well in the flat collection. But it's not the kind of attraction you add when it's been over a decade since the last headliner.

The pessimist-realist in me says both Ireland 2019 Expansion and Project Madrid are both thrilling flats.

 

[Zimmy]

...
No inversions. It would be a giga coaster...

What makes you sat that?

The Raptors aren’t capacity manchines lmfao. Where are you getting that from. A T-Rex giga would need 24-32 riders a train and 3 trains.

Really? Why?

---

Why exactly are we so sure that BGW is getting a 300' RMC T-Rex now?

Truthiness...

It FEELS so RIGHT!

 

[warfelg]

...
No inversions. It would be a giga coaster...

What makes you sat that?

[/quote]

I think it's unlikely. First it's going to take massive gentle elements to invert on a coaster going 300+. There's also big costs involved in producing elements that big. If there is a coaster that breaks 300+ and inverts, I think it's likely that those elements happen after a mid course break run, since the train will be running at speeds with forces better for handling.

The Raptors aren’t capacity manchines lmfao. Where are you getting that from. A T-Rex giga would need 24-32 riders a train and 3 trains.

Really?  Why?

Yea. In my opinion and experience what prevents bigger coasters from moving through people is the load and unload times. Find a way to be quicker with that or more blocks (yuck) and you increase the capacity.

Why exactly are we so sure that BGW is getting a 300' RMC T-Rex now?

Truthiness...

It FEELS so RIGHT!

[/quote]

Man, there are so many things that just sound right with this project. B&M making a return to the park. RMC building a first ever. Mack getting it's first Giga. I know Intamin is sorta blacklisted, but I could even come up with a reason that they could be building it (Unlikely, but the argument is there).

 

[madmax]

I'd also like to remind some folks that more 300 foot tall attractions exist than just giga coasters. Heck, three of the four rides in Virginia that top the 300 foot mark aren't even coasters.

How many 300 foot attractions utilize a large area of land AND a ravine?

I mean this thing could have a 350 ft drop

 

[Adam]

I'd also like to remind some folks that more 300 foot tall attractions exist than just giga coasters. Heck, three of the four rides in Virginia that top the 300 foot mark aren't even coasters.

How many 300 foot attractions utilize a large area of land AND a ravine?

I mean this thing could have a 350 ft drop

We don't know for sure at this point though if the attraction is going to use the ravine.  There is evidence out there that something could happen with the ravine and FHP and that something could be up to 315ft. tall with the height waiver.  Nothing says that the two are connected in any way.

Yes, I agree it would make sense for them to be connected, but you have to consider other options.  I too would like a new giga at Busch as it really needs a new hallmark coaster, but there are many other things that this could be.  For all we know, they could be building a 315ft swing with a new pedestrian bridge that crosses the Rhine to get there from FHP. That is not likely, but until we know that the evidence is connected, we cannot take it as fact.

 

[madmax]

I'd also like to remind some folks that more 300 foot tall attractions exist than just giga coasters. Heck, three of the four rides in Virginia that top the 300 foot mark aren't even coasters.

How many 300 foot attractions utilize a large area of land AND a ravine?

I mean this thing could have a 350 ft drop

We don't know for sure at this point though if the attraction is going to use the ravine.  There is evidence out there that something could happen with the ravine and FHP and that something could be up to 315ft. tall with the height waiver.  Nothing says that the two are connected in any way.

Yes, I agree it would make sense for them to be connected, but you have to consider other options.  I too would like a new giga at Busch as it really needs a new hallmark coaster, but there are many other things that this could be.  For all we know, they could be building a 315ft swing with a new pedestrian bridge that crosses the Rhine to get there from FHP. That is not likely, but until we know that the evidence is connected, we cannot take it as fact.

Yup. Makes total sense to build a swing far off from the rest of the park. Like no, that’s actually not realistic unless there’s a full fledged Spain along with it (even then it would have a coaster there anyways). Skyscreamers are also quick and easy setups that don’t require testing over a large area.

 

[Adam]

Yup. Makes total sense to build a swing far off from the rest of the park. Like no, that’s actually not realistic unless there’s a full fledged Spain along with it (even then it would have a coaster there anyways). Skyscreamers are also quick and easy setups that don’t require testing over a large area.

I think you missed the point of my post.

 

[warfelg]

Yup. Makes total sense to build a swing far off from the rest of the park. Like no, that’s actually not realistic unless there’s a full fledged Spain along with it (even then it would have a coaster there anyways). Skyscreamers are also quick and easy setups that don’t require testing over a large area.

The point everyone is making is that just because they did all of that doesn't mean a coaster is what you get. What if it is a new Hamlet and they open a new spot without a coaster at first and the height waiver is for a Skyscreamer? And just because it's near the water doesn't mean it's going to go down into the ravine. They could stay above it and go down into it on the return, or use it to make a great picture scene. Heck maybe it goes the complete opposite direction. The drilling tests could have been about putting in infrastructure and ensuring they wouldn't hit bedrock.

Thing being....nothing is definitive enough to know 100% what this is or what's going on. And to consistently insist what it is and combat any talk of what else it could be blocks good debate of what could be going on here.

What if their plan is to open up a new hamlet with a few good flats, a great show, good food, and after a year or two put in a coaster. It might actually be a better business argument for growth. The idea of a new themed area can carry you for a year or two, and right as that starts to quiet down you throw in a coaster to push the hamlet into new areas.

Take out the failure that was DF the coaster, but as a concept, without much else back in that area any coaster was going to struggle some back there IMO. A coaster set off on it's own without much of a draw otherwise in the area will struggle to get enough riders to make you want to continue to invest in the area. But if you got a nice area that's starting to struggle, putting a coaster in can pull more people back into that area. The way New France and France got revitalized with InvadR and Griffon is what could happen if you build out the hamlet first, and bring in the coaster later.

 

[madmax]

Yup. Makes total sense to build a swing far off from the rest of the park. Like no, that’s actually not realistic unless there’s a full fledged Spain along with it (even then it would have a coaster there anyways). Skyscreamers are also quick and easy setups that don’t require testing over a large area.

The point everyone is making is that just because they did all of that doesn't mean a coaster is what you get. What if it is a new Hamlet and they open a new spot without a coaster at first and the height waiver is for a Skyscreamer? And just because it's near the water doesn't mean it's going to go down into the ravine. They could stay above it and go down into it on the return, or use it to make a great picture scene. Heck maybe it goes the complete opposite direction. The drilling tests could have been about putting in infrastructure and ensuring they wouldn't hit bedrock.

Thing being....nothing is definitive enough to know 100% what this is or what's going on. And to consistently insist what it is and combat any talk of what else it could be blocks good debate of what could be going on here.

What if their plan is to open up a new hamlet with a few good flats, a great show, good food, and after a year or two put in a coaster. It might actually be a better business argument for growth. The idea of a new themed area can carry you for a year or two, and right as that starts to quiet down you throw in a coaster to push the hamlet into new areas.

Take out the failure that was DF the coaster, but as a concept, without much else back in that area any coaster was going to struggle some back there IMO. A coaster set off on it's own without much of a draw otherwise in the area will struggle to get enough riders to make you want to continue to invest in the area. But if you got a nice area that's starting to struggle, putting a coaster in can pull more people back into that area. The way New France and France got revitalized with InvadR and Griffon is what could happen if you build out the hamlet first, and bring in the coaster later.

1) No to rebuilding Drachen Fire. Just, no. They need something more headlining rather than “Hey, we brought back the coaster that everyone hated! Give us your money!!!! Ride this redundant looper instead of the airtime filled Twisted Timbers up the street!” There’s a reason coaster concepts are dead.

2) There’s actually a very limited number of things that could be 315 ft tall. They already have a drop tower. A Skyscremaer is not only redundant to the large swing they already have but it doesn’t sell for the opening of a hamlet, being an off the shelf ride. Observation deck I guess they could do but I can’t think of anything to theme it to that has to do with Spain. That leaves a roller coaster.

 

[Nicole]

It isn't clear to me that we know:

1. The results of the soil tests; or
2. That SEAS still has the money for Project Madrid as it was originally conceived (whatever that was).

Edit: To the best of my knowledge, we have never known exactly what this project entailed. I have seen theories positing a new hamlet, a tall flat ride, and/or a coaster. Since then, we have seen evidence of the introduction and possible removal of other probably unrelated proposals. I do not think we have enough data to be very certain of anything yet.

Also, I missed where someone recently suggested "rebuilding Drachen Fire?"

 

[warfelg]

Yup. Makes total sense to build a swing far off from the rest of the park. Like no, that’s actually not realistic unless there’s a full fledged Spain along with it (even then it would have a coaster there anyways). Skyscreamers are also quick and easy setups that don’t require testing over a large area.

The point everyone is making is that just because they did all of that doesn't mean a coaster is what you get. What if it is a new Hamlet and they open a new spot without a coaster at first and the height waiver is for a Skyscreamer? And just because it's near the water doesn't mean it's going to go down into the ravine. They could stay above it and go down into it on the return, or use it to make a great picture scene. Heck maybe it goes the complete opposite direction. The drilling tests could have been about putting in infrastructure and ensuring they wouldn't hit bedrock.

Thing being....nothing is definitive enough to know 100% what this is or what's going on. And to consistently insist what it is and combat any talk of what else it could be blocks good debate of what could be going on here.

What if their plan is to open up a new hamlet with a few good flats, a great show, good food, and after a year or two put in a coaster. It might actually be a better business argument for growth. The idea of a new themed area can carry you for a year or two, and right as that starts to quiet down you throw in a coaster to push the hamlet into new areas.

Take out the failure that was DF the coaster, but as a concept, without much else back in that area any coaster was going to struggle some back there IMO. A coaster set off on it's own without much of a draw otherwise in the area will struggle to get enough riders to make you want to continue to invest in the area. But if you got a nice area that's starting to struggle, putting a coaster in can pull more people back into that area. The way New France and France got revitalized with InvadR and Griffon is what could happen if you build out the hamlet first, and bring in the coaster later.

1) No to rebuilding Drachen Fire. Just, no. They need something more headlining rather than “Hey, we brought back the coaster that everyone hated! Give us your money!!!! Ride this redundant looper instead of the airtime filled Twisted Timbers up the street!” There’s a reason coaster concepts are dead.

2) There’s actually a very limited number of things that could be 315 ft tall. They already have a drop tower. A Skyscremaer is not only redundant to the large swing they already have but it doesn’t sell for the opening of a hamlet, being an off the shelf ride. Observation deck I guess they could do but I can’t think of anything to theme it to that has to do with Spain. That leaves a roller coaster.

I didn’t say rebuild DF. Please read what I wrote and don’t put words in my mouth.

And yes there could be limited things it could be. But as Nicole said so many things could have changed that we don’t know about.