Project 2022: Pantheon

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Seeing as how the thread has been resurrected to an extent, I'll just leave this here. Caught this on Monday and just have been too lazy to post.

Some quick thoughts:
  1. Soil tests are being conducted in the Festa Field area again.
  2. This should give us a good idea of rough size of the area the attraction will be taking up.
  3. I find it hard to believe that they will be using the other side of the tracks, especially considering this shows the area encompassing Circo Sinistro, which would also require the attraction to cross the Colonial Pipeline easement (see: previous thread discussions on the challenges of this).
  4. With regards points 2 and 3, the image of the rough area doesn't exactly match the narrative, which makes it seem like the work is being done between the railroad tracks and the San Marco/Oktoberfest bridge. I believe the blue area in the image very broad, and isn't any indication of the true boundaries.
  5. This is now the second time soil samples have been taken in this area. Originally tests were conducted in the Festa Fields area and the former Drachen Fire area.
  6. Unless the Drachen Fire area is going to end up being used, point 5 exemplifies that these types of plans are very fluid and can change along the way. Maybe, to this point, the 315' height waiver was an early plan and they have since scrapped that. As long as the attraction is <= 315' tall, the park has done no wrong by the waiver.
  7. If you were to ask me, considering the hard facts (scale of the area where soil samples are being taken, height waiver, RPA impacts), I would conclude that this should be a coaster. Then again, the park will probably tell you it's a landscaping project ?

received_319469671977459.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: thopping, jornor, ilovebg and 9 others
Good find. Small point on that new soil sample: there’s now a large enough area for a traditional lift Hill to the point where the height waiver was filed for.

The one counter to the whole where they tested before and what it means for plans changing: IMO that means very little TBH. That could have been testing for something completely unrelated that we don’t know about (like perminant housing for fireworks), or it could be related but not to the structure (running of new power lines on the grid).

When HP built skyrush there were tests on the soil done all the way up to CW. I doubt they ever were going that far with SR....and it turned out they were testing for water table depths because of the extra daming of Spring Creek.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thopping, jornor, DolphinzRock and 4 others
Thanks for an insightful explanation @warfelg . The way people were pointing at the waiver costs, you'd think it was in the millions. As I stated, I knew there was a small army of specialists that would work on such a package. And, yes, that's a good deal of money to "throw away", but they'll absorb it someway in the project budget should they change direction.

In regards to the new soil tests, perhaps they're looking into some subterranean work as in the Intamin POV to see if it's feasible and/or too costly. That's why I posted the second POV showing it all above grade...
 
Last edited:
Absorbing it in the budget though means either their budget grows (we don’t know if a budget was set before or not) or they need to cut costs somewhere else.

Like I said, even for a company with as much money as SEAS, they still have issues with sunken costs, even small ones. Filing and doing all the work for a height waiver and not using it would be a really big sunken cost that would likely cost someone their job.

Edit:
Adding - no matter how good the Township (JCC) and applicant (BGW) relationship is, going through to file something like this and not using it tends to make the next time they file for the same thing more difficult. Having worked on the township side you can bet you tail that I’m going to grill you on why you didn’t use the full height, why you didn’t update the filings, or why you let it expire. Especially the first two because that means none of the filings on record for height accuractely reflect what the completed project was.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: thopping, Alf33 and Adam
I seriously doubt one person would have the authority to sign-off on a site survey. This would hold true for the person(s) that have ordered various soil samples over time and those RPA changes because the proposed layout has changed as the project moves forward.

Yes, we don't know the budget. Nor will we ever. But on construction projects I've worked there are always dollars for site surveys and contingencies that might arise. As was mentioned a few posts above - they decide they are going to go subterranean because soil tests indicate its ok. Construction starts and they run into Fred Flintstone's car buried 20 feet under. Now they have to spend unbudgeted monies to move it. It's all absorbed in contingencies they know will occur. If they go a little over budget, they cut. Maybe less landscaping or a 3 stall bathroom instead of 4. I'm pretty confident the monies for the site/height survey were part of the overall multi-million dollar budget.

In regards to local government, I guess it's dependent on what was presented and how. They could have stated in the closed door meetings this 315ft "thing" is one avenue they wish to explore; fully explaining it's very preliminary. Maybe a "worst case scenario" type thing but we'll go ahead and make this official in case we want to take this approach. We have no clue what discussions between County Planning and SEAS since that time. Maybe JCC is angry. Or maybe their relieved because they won't have to look at something 315ft high. We don't know.

I don't want to make this like a similar tone of "my idea of a coaster is right and you're wrong" earlier in this thread. But I just don't see SEAS/BGW saying "oh crap, we have to build that 315ft coaster even though we like another design better all because we spent $50k on a height waiver and the county planners might be pissed."
 
  • Like
Reactions: DolphinzRock
So...a source (and I don’t mean the Dippin Dots guy this time) confirmed that this is indeed an Intamin.

Basically news came from the, I kid you not, teenager that is co-designing basically all these new Intamins.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jornor, ilovebg and Coasterguy154
I consider Discord to be a source categorized as "never ever believe what they say in any circumstance unless they are discussing the possibility of Zachary being an alias for August Busch V"

We know it is you August. No mere mortal has the knowledge you possess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mushroom, sereniv, warfelg and 1 other person
lce729 said:
I consider Discord to be a source categorized as "never ever believe what they say in any circumstance unless they are discussing the possibility of Zachary being an alias for August Busch V"

We know it is you August. No mere mortal has the knowledge you possess.
Click to expand...
This was also told at IAAPA fwiw.
 
madmax said:
confirmed
Click to expand...

latest
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mushroom, Zimmy, Merboy and 1 other person
Take everything you hear about this with a grain of salt. People make stuff up all the time. If he was so open to telling you, why hasn't it gotten around to others yet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: warfelg
DangerRaide said:
Take everything you hear about this with a grain of salt. People make stuff up all the time. If he was so open to telling you, why hasn't it gotten around to others yet?
Click to expand...

Yup. Like I said....the community would be buzzing if anyone heard anything of Intamin and BGW. Just look at the reaction to B&M being back in HP. Or with CF. Or RMC and CF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sly4Good
After seeing the context, I can see it being more likely.

It really could be something as simple as walking up and saying "Are you looking to put this in at BGW?" And maybe Intamin said yeah. Not every young fella has the ability to spread news like this like wildfire, and the lack of evidence would prevent it from buzzing in the way @warfelg is referring to.

I take it as a small notch in favor of this model being Madrid if he is telling the truth. If not, whatever. We will see soon enough.
 
lce729 said:
After seeing the context, I can see it being more likely.

It really could be something as simple as walking up and saying "Are you looking to put this in at BGW?" And maybe Intamin said yeah. Not every young fella has the ability to spread news like this like wildfire, and the lack of evidence would prevent it from buzzing in the way @warfelg is referring to.

I take it as a small notch in favor of this model being Madrid if he is telling the truth. If not, whatever. We will see soon enough.
Click to expand...

I’ve been to IAAPA before....not much can get said without some enthusiast overhearing it TBH.

I’m not saying that it didn’t happen, just the likelihood of the manufacturer confirming work for a park before the park filed anything and confirming it’s a similar model without it becoming news....I’m highly suspicious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad