Project 2022: Pantheon
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
- Status
This is a truely asinine statement.
I like Premier. The work they do is good, whether or not you like the design is different. They execute very well.
Have you not seen West Coast Racer and how poor of a layout that is lol
Have you not seen them put comfort collars on rides that don’t need them
Reportedly Six Flags Magic Mountain wanted another of those stupid "races itself" mobius loop rides. Don't blame Premier for fulfilling a park's request.
The same is true for comfort collars. BGWFans has previously reported that comfort collars were requested by BGW. Premier didn't just decide to toss them on a train.
Your distaste for the manufacturer is misplaced. Premier does really good work. Consider the uptime of Flight of Fear (an old LIM launch) and Tempesto (a new LSM launch). There are few launch coaster manufacturers out there that manage reliability anywhere near that of Premier.
Joker’s Jinx has terrible reliability and Tempesto had a lot of downtime this year.
Don't cha just hate it when you think you posted a good comment and it gets lost in the fog of yet another "I know better than you" poop-fest?
For one specific issue they waited on a part for, to me that is as smooth as a repair process there can be. I know of some Intamins that suffer worse fates *cough* Volcano *cough*
Also, try to refrain from using such selective examples. Because I could just as easily shout out a ton of Premier's rides (hehe pun kinda) that have had a ton of uptime. It isn't very indicative of the big picture to just name two rides that had issues and then generalize the entire manufacturer.
Cartergee was just stating a POSSIBLY in what project Madrid could become since Premier is building a similar ride to what the current rumors uphold. We understand that you don’t favor a manufacturer, but please don’t repeat yourself repeatedly about that point. It’s just a rumor and you don’t have to convince others to side with your opinion, because everyone is entitled to their own.
I for one enjoy Premier’s rides and think it’s cool that they are a possible option on the table.
I for one enjoy Premier’s rides and think it’s cool that they are a possible option on the table.
Premier is a lot more than the sky rockets. The Mummy. Full Throttle. This new Dragonfire ride. I think they can do a lot more. I'm intrigued...
Anyways, the "spike ride" is made by someone other than Intamin so it's possible still.
You're welcome.
Anyways, the "spike ride" is made by someone other than Intamin so it's possible still.
You're welcome.
I'm a fan of Premier's work. Joker's Jinx is a fluke and boils down to the park's maintenance of the ride and not any fault of Premier. Have you seen Joker's condition? It hasn't been painted in over a decade, maybe two and makes some sounds I don't think I've heard another LIM coaster make before.
Despite Premier's recent flux of SkyRocket II's they have a long history of reliable rides and with their commitment to quality they've continued to source their track from InterMountain Lift using American made steel while their competitors have chosen to source their track from cheaper alternatives in Italy and China with unfortunate consequences.
Unrelated to Project Madrid, although Premier is known for their reliable launch coasters, in the past they have dabbled in traditional lift hills and I have a feeling we may see more chain lift coasters from them in the future.
Despite Premier's recent flux of SkyRocket II's they have a long history of reliable rides and with their commitment to quality they've continued to source their track from InterMountain Lift using American made steel while their competitors have chosen to source their track from cheaper alternatives in Italy and China with unfortunate consequences.
Unrelated to Project Madrid, although Premier is known for their reliable launch coasters, in the past they have dabbled in traditional lift hills and I have a feeling we may see more chain lift coasters from them in the future.
Swale = drainage ditch. Has nothing to do with the ride itself, just managing stormwater. I'm not sure if they're required to do so via new impervious cover, RPA encroachment, or other regulations, but they might have to build a retention pond on-site for the project. If so, the swale is likely the outfall for the pond to let out into the Rhine. Considering the contours of the area are pretty conducive to a pond structure, that might be the case.
Thank you for bringing this up though, because it made me look at the drawing again and realize something: the swale clips the corner of one of the square "footer" areas. Why is that important you ask? Because I believe that this means the square areas are not the true size or shape of the footers, but rather just a buffer around the new impervious area, to provide some wiggle room. In short, there could be several footers in those box areas, rather than one huge footer per box. I think I brought this up before as a possibility, but I just wanted to reiterate that to some that might not realize the potential.
Ah.....a comment/question up my ally.
So there's likely not going to be a retention pond with this project. There's not going to be enough impermeable surfaces to force that to happen. The swale is a combination of 2 things: (1) drainage, hence why it goes down into the buffer area and to the Rhine and (2) excess water retention, so if it does rain that hard, the swale is an area deep enough that excess runoff water has somewhere to go as opposed to sit on the surface.
The reason why it's going to be required here is that this was previously an open field and likely considered 'natural area' which doesn't require any special drainage to it. But when you start building on an area like that, you have to start accounting for how the water on that area will drain and flow when there's heavy rain, flooding, or other ways for excessive water.
Where BGW is actually well set: The Rhine acts as a retention pond for the entire property, and the size of the Rhine is actually much bigger than what is required for what they have developed already. If they are unsure and want to do more, they could do an underground retention center. Something like this:
I've overseen many projects that use this form of retention, and for them it's great, because what it really does is open up more space that you can develop by taking away the need for a big retention pond at surface level, and moves it down underground so that less of the surface area isn't taken up by this. This also eliminates the areas where a swamp like area could develop with tainted water and diseases.
Long story short.....that swale is nothing to get worked up over, and needs to be done because there's natural swales that are likely going away as they develop previously undeveloped areas.
While the layout is nothing like the "leak", another multi-stage launch up a spike is Mack's "Star Trek-Operation Enterprise" in Germany. At 56mph it has a 131ft twisted spire.
And, while certainly not the layout, Intamin took their multi-stage launch up a few notches. This picture is a dualing setup with the up and back triple launch. Spike(s) at 184ft. One coaster is inverted and the other a sit down. No idea of speed. Opening 2019 in China (of course).
And, while certainly not the layout, Intamin took their multi-stage launch up a few notches. This picture is a dualing setup with the up and back triple launch. Spike(s) at 184ft. One coaster is inverted and the other a sit down. No idea of speed. Opening 2019 in China (of course).
Attachments
I assumed it would be something similar to the rocky former waterfall next to the bridge under Bolt's break run which has footers inside of it.
That was a MACK creation. Looks like there are currently at least three manufacturers providing these "full circuit, spike shuttle, launch" coasters.
I probably should have thought this one through a little more before posting; got ahead of myself a bit.. Lol I guess I don't recall seeing any sort of retention/detention ponds in BGW before (minus the Rhine). For some reason I always forget that the Rhine is pretty much a lake, probably because of how BGW names it.Ah.....a comment/question up my ally.
So there's likely not going to be a retention pond with this project. There's not going to be enough impermeable surfaces to force that to happen. The swale is a combination of 2 things: (1) drainage, hence why it goes down into the buffer area and to the Rhine and (2) excess water retention, so if it does rain that hard, the swale is an area deep enough that excess runoff water has somewhere to go as opposed to sit on the surface.
The reason why it's going to be required here is that this was previously an open field and likely considered 'natural area' which doesn't require any special drainage to it. But when you start building on an area like that, you have to start accounting for how the water on that area will drain and flow when there's heavy rain, flooding, or other ways for excessive water.
Where BGW is actually well set: The Rhine acts as a retention pond for the entire property, and the size of the Rhine is actually much bigger than what is required for what they have developed already. If they are unsure and want to do more, they could do an underground retention center. Something like this:
I've overseen many projects that use this form of retention, and for them it's great, because what it really does is open up more space that you can develop by taking away the need for a big retention pond at surface level, and moves it down underground so that less of the surface area isn't taken up by this. This also eliminates the areas where a swamp like area could develop with tainted water and diseases.
Long story short.....that swale is nothing to get worked up over, and needs to be done because there's natural swales that are likely going away as they develop previously undeveloped areas.
So does that mean there are no water quality regulations by DEQ/USACE for discharges into lakes (or very large ponds)? The plans show that the Rhine is a surveyed wetlands confirmed by the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). I didn't think that a retention pond necessarily classified as a wetland unless there was at least two of the three: wetland hydrology (check), hydrophitic vegetation (sometimes), and hydric soils (only develop after a long time of saturation, if I understand correctly). Since this would be a discharge into a wetland, wouldn't water quality have to be considered? I'm guessing not, since the park discharges directly into the Rhine anyways, but I just want to make sure my understanding is correct.
No there's still plenty of water quality regulations on it because it isn't an official SW4M area. (Storm Water and Waste Water Management) However, in some cases if part of the area was manmade (I believe parts, if not all, of the Rhine is that) they can count it as that. Retention ponds do not require buffer areas like the Rhine is. So yes the water quality needs to be considered some, but that's why the buffer is so important here. Rusperian Buffers are natural filters of water going into the Rhine. Which is why in what they are doing they have to offset what they are taking out.
I'll even go further that this is why Bolt reuses BBW's footers. They didn't need to fully go through this process again, since they were changing the structure on the pre-existing footprint of what has been accounted for in the barrier. That is a huge savings, not in cost (because it's actually more expensive) but they save the park big time in land use.
Of course, with what I put out there with underground water retention; BGW can use those without us knowing.
The Rhine is a manmade impoundment and therefore is regulated differently than natural lakes. There maybe wetlands along the perimeter, however that does not disqualify discharging into the Rhine. BG should be able to use the Rhine to control the quantity of stormwater while simultaneously purchasing nutrient credits to address the water quality issues, assuming that the Rhine does not meet the current regulations on water quality treatment.
- Status