News Project 2027/Purple: Delayed “World Record Breaking Coaster" (Phantom Spire?)

[Zachary]

Flash has shown that single track train shuttles are too low capacity for a park of the size of GAdv.

FTFY

Cleverly-designed shuttle coasters can be engineered to match the hourly capacity of full-circuit designs. Hell, shuttle coasters can be designed with multiple block sections in the main ride course nowadays thanks to the recent flood of (especially fast) track switches and the like. The hourly capacity of shuttle coasters aren't limited by their nature so much as they're limited by the creativity of their designs.

 

[The Master]

FTFY

Cleverly-designed shuttle coasters can be engineered to match the hourly capacity of full-circuit designs. Hell, shuttle coasters can be designed with multiple block sections in the main ride course nowadays thanks to the recent flood of (especially fast) track switches and the like. The hourly capacity of shuttle coasters aren't limited by their nature so much as they're limited by the creativity of their designs.

Multi block shuttles are found mostly in higher tier parks like Universal. Most shuttles are meant to fit in locations with limited room like Hagrids in the corner of IOA or indoors like the Mummy. I doubt GAdv wants another maintenance hog. Complexity increases the number of failure points.

 

[Nitro230]

On the topic of manufacturers having waitlists, when's the last time SF planned a ride over the course of several years for GAdv? Joker, JDC, Flash, and this new 2026 coaster (atleast from the vibes I have gotten) all seem to have been bare minimum last minute decisions that that chain put very little thought or care into.

God…probably El Toro, most of this is really just due to how Six Flags operates for a decade and a half.

That being said, I don’t think we’re that far away from one. If this company is serious about building up Great Adventure, which is what everything we’ve heard suggests, something big will eventually follow this up.

I think they’re working on plans to fill the Green Lantern plot right now before turning their attention to the old Lone Star Theater plot of land. That to me seems like the project that will eventually put Great Adventure over the top, kinda like Orion did at Kings Island (although I wouldn’t be shocked if Medusa is removed in the process).

I really see 2026 as the first step in a much larger plan, I’m still not ruling out the possibility of a Giga down the line, and I think a tilt coaster to replace Green Lantern is a no brainer.

 

[GASM]

A tilt in GL’s plot would be genius. If you’re gonna have a parking lot coaster, a ridiculous looking monstrosity of a coaster (not in a negative way, I absolutely love how goofy tilts look) is the way to go.

 

[Zachary]

Multi block shuttles are found mostly in higher tier parks like Universal. Most shuttles are meant to fit in locations with limited room like Hagrids in the corner of IOA or indoors like the Mummy. I doubt GAdv wants another maintenance hog. Complexity increases the number of failure points.

I don't think much of anyone considers Mummy (with its switch-track-enabled backwards segment and turntable) or Hagrid's (with its switch track + swing launch portion and reversing drop track) to be shuttle coasters. Those are full-circuit coasters with, at least in the case of Hagrid's, a single shuttle portion, if you ask me.

I'm using "shuttle coaster" to refer to a coaster which utilizes the vast majority of its elements multiple times in a single ride cycle. Here are some examples of existing or proposed multi-block, multi-train shuttle coasters at parks which aren't both "higher tier" and "in locations with limited room":

Palindrome @ Cotaland
Switchback @ ZDT'S Amusement Park
Proposed Shuttle Woodie @ Dorneypark
Proposed Drachen Spire Project @ Busch Gardens Williamsburg

I'm pretty dang confident that I could sketch out a multi-block, launched shuttle strata layout with three+ train operations with a shorter minimum launch interval than the theoretical minimum that existed on Ka. Match Ka's train capacity and the capacity argument could go away in an instant.

I'm not saying that Six Flags/the ride's manufacturer will actually employ the creativity required to pull of a shorter minimum launch interval than Ka's, but it is almost certainly possible while still delivering a much more substantial layout than Ka's.

 

[GASM]

For a Six Flags specific example, there’s also the Mr. Freeze shuttles. Granted, they’re nearly 30 years old and this is assuming both sides are open, but it’s not unheard of for the chain.

 

[TPoseOnTantrum]

Just because something is down to the wire though, I don't think it's fair to characterize it as "bare minimum" or having had "very little thought or care." In fact, there are likely increased costs and difficulty onboarded specifically due to the tight timeline in question. It'll be interesting to see what we get delivered on the other side of all of this, but I don't think we should judge them to hard until we see it.

I'm still convinced that what we saw in the surveys was a rough cut rather than a final design. It was drafted for different parks with different footprints, surely whatever we saw wasn't final. It just looked too goofy to be honest.

 

[Zachary]

For a Six Flags specific example, there’s also the Mr. Freeze shuttles. Granted, they’re nearly 30 years old and this is assuming both sides are open, but it’s not unheard of for the chain.

Yeah, there are a good handful of examples of coasters with switch tracks or turntables in their stations to enable multi-train operations on pretty traditional shuttle coaster layouts, but the big downside with those is that they can't dispatch (let alone launch) another train until the previous has finished its cycle completely and stopped on its final block. A layout like that is probably much less likely to beat Ka's minimum launch interval.

The brilliance of something like Drachen Spire's double switch track setup is that you could launch a train while the prior train is still in motion on an additional portion of the layout past a block brake behind the main launch track. I don't think we've seen an example of this in action on something I'd consider a real shuttle coaster yet, but it really is just the swing launch + fast track switch concept present on Pantheon or Hagrid's enlarged to full coaster scale.

 

[The Master]

I don't think much of anyone considers Mummy (with its switch-track-enabled backwards segment and turntable) or Hagrid's (with its switch track + swing launch portion and reversing drop track) to be shuttle coasters. Those are full-circuit coasters with, at least in the case of Hagrid's, a single shuttle portion, if you ask me.

I'm using "shuttle coaster" to refer to a coaster which utilizes the vast majority of its elements multiple times in a single ride cycle. Here are some examples of existing or proposed multi-block, multi-train shuttle coasters at parks which aren't both "higher tier" and "in locations with limited room":

Palindrome @ Cotaland
Switchback @ ZDT'S Amusement Park
Proposed Shuttle Woodie @ Dorneypark
Proposed Drachen Spire Project @ Busch Gardens Williamsburg

I'm pretty dang confident that I could sketch out a multi-block, launched shuttle strata layout with three+ train operations with a shorter minimum launch interval than the theoretical minimum that existed on Ka. Match Ka's train capacity and the capacity argument could go away in an instant.

I'm not saying that Six Flags/the ride's manufacturer will actually employ the creativity required to pull of a shorter minimum launch interval than Ka's, but it is almost certainly possible while still delivering a much more substantial layout than Ka's.

Ok. Personally I don't consider either Hagrid or Mummy true full circuits, at least they are not normal continuous full circuits. Hagrid is a hybrid between full circuit and shuttle. One of the features of a shuttle coaster is that it requires less real estate as it can reuse most of its track twice which also saves on building materials.

I looked up Switchtrack and noticed it appears to be squeezed into a tight footprint and that the trains are short, only 4 cars long. Still a very interesting looking ride. Palindrome also appears to be squeezed into a space that would be difficult to fit a full circuit in. Again the trains are short, only 3 cars in this case. It is apparent that a drawback to turntables is that they limit train length, a long train would require a large diameter turn table. Switch tracks with a siding appear to not be as size limited but still a long train requires a long siding. Both switching methods require more complex control systems to automatically switch trains and prevent collisions or running off the track.

I like Mr Freeze but an issue with its dual loading station is that each train requires its own loading crew. This gives the operator an greater incentive for single train operation to reduce staff. Stormrunner has the same issue even though its a full circuit.

 

[RDL]

God…probably El Toro, most of this is really just due to how Six Flags operates for a decade and a half.

That being said, I don’t think we’re that far away from one. If this company is serious about building up Great Adventure, which is what everything we’ve heard suggests, something big will eventually follow this up.

I think they’re working on plans to fill the Green Lantern plot right now before turning their attention to the old Lone Star Theater plot of land. That to me seems like the project that will eventually put Great Adventure over the top, kinda like Orion did at Kings Island (although I wouldn’t be shocked if Medusa is removed in the process).

I really see 2026 as the first step in a much larger plan, I’m still not ruling out the possibility of a Giga down the line, and I think a tilt coaster to replace Green Lantern is a no brainer.

I do remember Taylor from CS in a recent video claiming that Six Flags execs said GAdv was the park they were most excited about in regards to the future, so we'll see how things play out

 

[harry580]

A tilt in GL’s plot would be genius. If you’re gonna have a parking lot coaster, a ridiculous looking monstrosity of a coaster (not in a negative way, I absolutely love how goofy tilts look) is the way to go.

fun fact: I considered six flags Mexico building that in the parking lot next to superman before we know that coaster went to cedar point

and also, if this coaster has a name, I have one: great american monstrosity scream machine is the way to go

 

[GASM]

I do remember Taylor from CS in a recent video claiming that Six Flags execs said GAdv was the park they were most excited about in regards to the future, so we'll see how things play out

I’m gonna sound like a broken record, but it’s been the biggest wasted potential in the chain for a long time and I think Cedar Fair is very aware of that. Even though it’s an off year, they’ve made so many small improvements that there’s no doubt in my mind that they have big plans. How those plans look remains to be seen, but I’m definitely optimistic.

 

[RDL]

I’m gonna sound like a broken record, but it’s been the biggest wasted potential in the chain for a long time and I think Cedar Fair is very aware of that. Even though it’s an off year, they’ve made so many small improvements that there’s no doubt in my mind that they have big plans. How those plans look remains to be seen, but I’m definitely optimistic.

I respect those who are optimistic, and I do truly hope that they optimism is rewarded. It's just hard for me to be optimistic personally, since I've been waiting for significant change for over a decade and we haven't had it. Jim Reid Anderson really screwed this park alot when he was around.

 

[Nitro230]

I do remember Taylor from CS in a recent video claiming that Six Flags execs said GAdv was the park they were most excited about in regards to the future, so we'll see how things play out

I think at this point it’s safe to say that there is legitimate interest from executives to invest heavily in Great Adventure, but the plan set up is performance based and if the park does poorly they won’t go through with it.

 

[RDL]

I think at this point it’s safe to say that there is legitimate interest from executives to invest heavily in Great Adventure, but the plan set up is performance based and if the park does poorly they won’t go through with it.

That's a very malicious way of going about it on their part, I'm not gonna lie. There's obviously going to be a drop in attendance after what they just did to the park. The current state of the park is a result of Jim Reid Anderson and the previous regime, not surrounding competition. The only thing stopping Great Adventure from being successful is the company that's running it.

 

[Zachary]

To be clear, the first phase of the plan won't be performance-based, but restoring a park is a multi-decade process and if progress on attendance, guest satisfaction, and profitability isn't made in the early phases, yes, subsequent phases won't occur and/or will be scaled back. There's nothing malicious about that—no chain wants to keep pouring money into a pit that isn't showing adequate returns when there are other superior investment opportunities for stronger ROI.

If Six Flags keeps the legacy Cedar Fair methodology and has a similar degree of patience as the legacy Cedar Fair chain showed with the Paramount parks, I don't think there's reason to be too worried. That said, if the merger has made the financial situation considerably tighter (sorta seems like it may have) and the chain is feeling pressured to not have that previously mentioned patience, that's where I start to get worried—and to be clear, I do think there's a chance that is the case.

That also won't be malicious though, that will just be evidence that this merger was severely ill-advised and/or doomed due to external economic and political factors that were unforseen/poorly predicted at the time of said merger.

 

[Nicole]

That's a very malicious way of going about it on their part, I'm not gonna lie. There's obviously going to be a drop in attendance after what they just did to the park. The current state of the park is a result of Jim Reid Anderson and the previous regime, not surrounding competition. The only thing stopping Great Adventure from being successful is the company that's running it.

I don’t think that is entirely true.

To be clear, I am not speaking specifically about Great Adventure; I am theorizing about the industry as a whole. Obviously, GAdv has been suffering under a corporation that has a reputation for destroying charming parks across the country. That said, I believe there are other major forces at play. Just blaming the old Six Flags leadership, in my opinion, over simplifies the issue.

In my observation successful parks tend either to be located in places with an amusement park culture or in destination tourist cities. For example, I believe parks in places like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Texas, and California benefit from locals who view amusement parks as normal and integral parts of their recreational budget. They buy annual passes and expect to visit parks at least one a year. Obviously, there is a chicken and egg issue here, but in the end, I believe that people who grow up with local parks are more likely to visit them. Similarly, parks in cities like Orlando and LA/Anaheim benefit from being located where tourist visit for the express purpose of going to theme parks. So they too have a built in revenue stream.

Global, national, and local economics also obviously play crucial roles in the success if a park and the ability to invest in growth, infrastructure, maintenance, etc. COVID was a disaster for the industry, even resulting in massive cuts in giants like Disney. Just five years later we are on the precipice of another potentially economically devastating situation. The impacts are still unknown, but ever chain must be looking at slowing growth in the near and midterms. So, even chains that intend to invest in their parks may be forced to wait.

I can’t say whether Great Adventure specifically has or will suffered from the effects of these forces, but in general real, I don’t think it is reasonable to blame stagnation or decline entirely on the intentions of the executives.

 

[Nitro230]

That's a very malicious way of going about it on their part, I'm not gonna lie. There's obviously going to be a drop in attendance after what they just did to the park. The current state of the park is a result of Jim Reid Anderson and the previous regime, not surrounding competition. The only thing stopping Great Adventure from being successful is the company that's running it.

I mean Six Flags has played a huge role in the current state of things but at the same time there are things that the park itself should have done. The Toro accidents should have never happened, the fact that the park decided not to shut the ride down in the weeks leading up to that blows my mind. Something was clearly wrong. There are also other parks in the chain which have thrived over the last 5 ish years, look at Fiesta Texas.

Six Flags played a role in many things and I’m not letting them off the hook, Rolling Thunder was entirely corporate’s fault. But it’s a complex situation.

 

[The Master]

GAdv simply has had a string of bad management, both corporate as well as at the park level. Each new regime does nearly the exact same thing. Rip out a bunch of stuff, overhyped some minor improvements, maybe add one or two token new rides, slowly relapse into poor operations and upkeep like their predecessors, then end because by a new set of assholes who repeat the cycle all over again. This time there is now less competition than before as well as a far larger scale of removals than previous rounds of removals.

The park is now pretty crippled for improving attendance. 2024 was a disappointing year that was handled poorly leaving a bad taste with many customers. A delayed new ride. 16% of the park is gutted out which includes several icons. Two major coasters, one being a major marquee attraction, and two classic rides gone.

 

[Nitro230]

GAdv simply has had a string of bad management, both corporate as well as at the park level. Each new regime does nearly the exact same thing. Rip out a bunch of stuff, overhyped some minor improvements, maybe add one or two token new rides, slowly relapse into poor operations and upkeep like their predecessors, then end because by a new set of assholes who repeat the cycle all over again. This time there is now less competition than before as well as a far larger scale of removals than previous rounds of removals.

The park is now pretty crippled for improving attendance. 2024 was a disappointing year that was handled poorly leaving a bad taste with many customers. A delayed new ride. 16% of the park is gutted out which includes several icons. Two major coasters, one being a major marquee attraction, and two classic rides gone.

I’m in agreement with you….except for the competition aspect. Sure there’s less competition across the country but Great Adventure still faces a lot of competition. Sure Dorney is no longer necessarily hurting the park but Hersheys more popular now than it ever has been with no sign of stopping. That’s the level Great Adventure needs to get to in order to be competitive in the market they want it too.

The other thing that needs to be pointed out is the experience this company has now. All of the former Paramount properties saw huge improvements under Cedar Fair management with sone of them now being premier destination parks. If the company dedicates enough resources to making great adventure a true destination park they’re more than capable.