Project 2022: Pantheon
- Thread starter Shane
- Start date
- Status
Thank you @GrandpaD you worded it better than I could've.
The launch itself is not the selling experience of this ride. The triple launch is an easy way for parks to save energy costs and pad ride experience with minimal impact on investment. This coaster is checking all those boxes.
The launch itself is not the selling experience of this ride. The triple launch is an easy way for parks to save energy costs and pad ride experience with minimal impact on investment. This coaster is checking all those boxes.
You're right, I transposed numbers on that drop. Apologies for the error.
Here's the fact sheet for Parc Asterix -
In terms of capacity (out of curiosity because I'm still learning the nuts & bolts of coasters) could we assume, with this rides projected popularity, that they will have 2 trains on line all the time, with a third held in the maintenance building?
I ask because (1) a lot of folks are questioning capacity with only 2 trains and (2) both SwD and PA are both 3 train designs. Or is it because this ride is shorter than the other two?
I ask because (1) a lot of folks are questioning capacity with only 2 trains and (2) both SwD and PA are both 3 train designs. Or is it because this ride is shorter than the other two?
This ride (at least based on the NL creations) is about 600-800 feet shorter compared to the Parc Asterix model.
This is accounting for physics of a 76 mph launch, ditching the 300 foot claims entirely, making for a station to brake run cycle time of about 75-90 seconds depending on what creation tickles your fancy. That gives you a capacity in the neighborhood of 800-960 riders per hour with two train operations.
The reason why I think this is going for two trains and not three is due to investment. They're not expecting this ride to warrant the need for a third train and any potential capacity benefits it may bring, and the maximum capacity is a happy middle ground for their peak and slow days.
Also apart of the plans shown, the final brake run is only long enough to slow down and stop one train, while the other is sitting in the station. I do not believe that BGW is opting to use the launches as blocks like what Carowinds is doing with Copperhead Strike. Simple 3 block setup. They will still be control points however where a train can roll back and reset itself in case of any faults.
This is accounting for physics of a 76 mph launch, ditching the 300 foot claims entirely, making for a station to brake run cycle time of about 75-90 seconds depending on what creation tickles your fancy. That gives you a capacity in the neighborhood of 800-960 riders per hour with two train operations.
The reason why I think this is going for two trains and not three is due to investment. They're not expecting this ride to warrant the need for a third train and any potential capacity benefits it may bring, and the maximum capacity is a happy middle ground for their peak and slow days.
Also apart of the plans shown, the final brake run is only long enough to slow down and stop one train, while the other is sitting in the station. I do not believe that BGW is opting to use the launches as blocks like what Carowinds is doing with Copperhead Strike. Simple 3 block setup. They will still be control points however where a train can roll back and reset itself in case of any faults.
Not 100% true as Soaring With Dragon does it with one load/unload station and Parc Asterix will do it with one load/unload station. They get away with it because the triple launch segment is its own block, and the dispatch interval is met when the previous train clears the tallest element. They both have the added brake run length to accomodate a 3rd stacked train as well.
BGW opted for the simpler system of operation.
I don't see any indication of that being true for the most part, or any affect the air time hill has is minimal at most if that is apart of the failsafe plan.
The LSMs should be able to naturally slow the train down from top speed in the case of a rollback or any sort of fault for that matter. And if Parc Asterix is anything to go by the area of track directly after the switch segment will have a physical brake and a catwalk section to unload riders from incase anything happens.
The LSMs should be able to naturally slow the train down from top speed in the case of a rollback or any sort of fault for that matter. And if Parc Asterix is anything to go by the area of track directly after the switch segment will have a physical brake and a catwalk section to unload riders from incase anything happens.
Any guesses what elements are going to be removed after the first year?
Considering it's been a long time since BGW had a coaster where they did that I'm hopeful that none will be removed.
Edit: unless I am mistaken the last time a coaster had an element removed at BGW was when they removed the corkscrew on DF in 95. Am I missing one?
Edit: unless I am mistaken the last time a coaster had an element removed at BGW was when they removed the corkscrew on DF in 95. Am I missing one?
Last edited:
So far they're removed one element and partially altered another. Not that common.
I am going to put my money on a top hat around 240 feet (and whatever that means for top speed). With luck that gets you close to a 300 ft total drop. Definelty not family coaster stuff.
I base this assumption on the construction of the support towers, and a assumption that the top segment of track is an unsupported arch-shape, which is pretty common on these newer rides.
The support towers are triangulated with the long legs made of 3 main segments, with some smaller connector segments. The main supports for the Griffon first drop are also 3 segments each, and that portion of the ride is ~190 feet AGL. Obviously different ride designers for Griffon and this ride, but there can’t be more than 1 or 2 places in the US that fabricate that type of stuff, and the only reason for bolted connections is to make it possible to transport, so logic says they would always maximize the length. That makes the support towers ~ 200 feet tall, so the track tops out somewhere above that, 40 feet seems reasonable, but could be more.
I doubt the towers could be any taller than that, and most of the 300+ foot towers switch to a lattice structure for stiffness at that height.
Very cool ride and track design, can’t wait to ride it!
I base this assumption on the construction of the support towers, and a assumption that the top segment of track is an unsupported arch-shape, which is pretty common on these newer rides.
The support towers are triangulated with the long legs made of 3 main segments, with some smaller connector segments. The main supports for the Griffon first drop are also 3 segments each, and that portion of the ride is ~190 feet AGL. Obviously different ride designers for Griffon and this ride, but there can’t be more than 1 or 2 places in the US that fabricate that type of stuff, and the only reason for bolted connections is to make it possible to transport, so logic says they would always maximize the length. That makes the support towers ~ 200 feet tall, so the track tops out somewhere above that, 40 feet seems reasonable, but could be more.
I doubt the towers could be any taller than that, and most of the 300+ foot towers switch to a lattice structure for stiffness at that height.
Very cool ride and track design, can’t wait to ride it!
- Status