Attraction Zambezi Zinger

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
Zachary said:
Hard to imagine a way for Midwest Info Guide to tank their reputation (whatever was left of it after the whole COVID thing) faster than they are right now.

First they claimed Worlds of Fun was building the GravityGroup shuttle coaster that was planned for Dorney pre-COVID. That claim was disproven days later and they responded by deleting their previous assertion altogether. Now they're over on CoasterForce smugly claiming to have found a (now removed) publicly-available coaster layout but refusing to share it.

🤡🤡🤡​

Click to expand...
They’ve always come off as scummy. They don’t handle any questioning of the validity well at all from what I’ve seen and generally just act far more self important than they actually are. They’re not down on the level of Theme Park Review, but are a blemish on the coaster media scene nonetheless
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoasterTalkBob, Furyous Baco 325 and YachtyLogs
Zachary said:
I think it would certainly raise questions about the future would-be-RMC projects.

RMC has built a reputation for designing and constructing VERY intense coasters. I could see a world in which GCI could successfully differentiate Titan Track coasters as a tamer, more approachable, potentially-more-reliable/conservative RMC alternative. I think the industry sees GCI as the B&M of wooden coasters—I think I'd be surprised to see them deviate from that wheelhouse too severely with Titan Track.
Click to expand...
Rmc here would be intamin. That’s not to say they pretty much are them, but now with the raptor train issues and also the whole lightning rod thing yeah it kinda feels that way.
 
If it's actually a mix of steel track and wooden track, then they can call it a hybrid. If it's all titan track, it's a steel coaster and I hope they call it that. In any case I'm all for ground-up whatever they make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CoasterTalkBob
Coasterguy95 said:
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Direct Link to Embedded Media Source
THE PLOT THICKENS
Click to expand...

So I guess its safe to say that it we aren't getting the spiral lift hill that has been speculated. Still great to see! Also heard completely unsubstantiated rumors of this possibly being a larger long term project like a new themed area. Like a whole Australia themed area. I doubt this is likely but it would make sense since Boomerang is lightly Australian themed in the middle of Africa. It would be really cool to see an area like this, especially if its similar to Jungle Expedition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coasternerd and Thrills & Chills WQAQ
CoastersRUS said:
So I guess its safe to say that it we aren't getting the spiral lift hill that has been speculated. Still great to see! Also heard completely unsubstantiated rumors of this possibly being a larger long term project like a new themed area. Like a whole Australia themed area. I doubt this is likely but it would make sense since Boomerang is lightly Australian themed in the middle of Africa. It would be really cool to see an area like this, especially if its similar to Jungle Expedition.
Click to expand...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but apparently those chain links are for the rapids ride
 
Coasterguy95 said:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but apparently those chain links are for the rapids ride
Click to expand...
I worked in Park Ops at WOF for 4 seasons and I can say confidently that Nile does not require a chain anywhere for its operation. It's a 1984 off the shelf intamin rapids ride. Same for monsoon, so unless its replacement chain for one of the other coasters we have no idea what it's for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ziva, panopticon31, Thrills & Chills WQAQ and 5 others
CoastersRUS said:
I worked in Park Ops at WOF for 4 seasons and I can say confidently that Nile does not require a chain anywhere for its operation. It's a 1984 off the shelf intamin rapids ride. Same for monsoon, so unless its replacement chain for one of the other coasters we have no idea what it's for.
Click to expand...

If it's an off-the-shelf Intamin rapids ride, then it would require a chain. How else do you think the lift hill at the end works? All those wooden slats are connected to a pair of chains.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary and AlpenChariot
Haptic said:
If it's an off-the-shelf Intamin rapids ride, then it would require a chain. How else do you think the lift hill at the end works? All those wooden slats are connected to a pair of chains.
Click to expand...
That’s true for newer models, but in the earlier days of the intamin rapids rides, they used a direct drive axel and gear system rather than a chain system. The one at WOF is one of these models. The motor is in a pit off to the side of the ride and is directly connected to the drive axel. The axel has large gears attached to it which directly interacts with the slats in the underwater switchback system, moving the slat conveyor forwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mushroom, Nicole, Mwe BGW and 2 others
I don't know who is right here, but I'm trying to understand how the wooden plank-style rapids lifts would work without a "chain" of any kind. Here is how I assumed they worked:

Screenshot_20220731-171528_Keep Notes.jpg

Basically, I assumed the left and right sides of each plank (brown) were mounted to a flexible chain-esque system (red) which would interface with the actual gears (blue).

Doesn't the system basically require some sort of metal chain-like thing to connect all the planks together?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: panopticon31
Zachary said:
I don't know who is right here, but I'm trying to understand how the wooden plank-styke rapids lifts would work without a "chain" of any kind. Here is how I assumed they worked:

View attachment 27393

Basically, the left and right sides of each plank (brown) were mounted to a flexible chain-esque system (red) which would interface with the actual gears (blue).

Doesn't the system basically require some sort of metal chain-like thing to connect all the planks together?
Click to expand...
Couldn’t you have a sub layer of like a conveyor and the planks be mounted to that? I honestly don’t know
 
Zachary said:
I don't know who is right here, but I'm trying to understand how the wooden plank-styke rapids lifts would work without a "chain" of any kind. Here is how I assumed they worked:

View attachment 27393

Basically, the left and right sides of each plank (brown) were mounted to a flexible chain-esque system (red) which would interface with the actual gears (blue).

Doesn't the system basically require some sort of metal chain-like thing to connect all the planks together?
Click to expand...
I wish I still worked there so I could get a picture of how this thing works for you because it’s wacky. Bolted to the bottoms of the planks are metal “teeth” that interface with the gears. There are 2 gears on the axel which interface with the “teeth” on the planks. The axel spans the entire trough and is connected to the motor via a gearbox. I’ve worked at 3 other parks with intamin rapids rides and WOF’s is the only one I’ve seen that still operates like this. It’s a pain for maintenance and Causes almost all of the downtime for the ride. Also, in prime intamin fashion the park must order replacement teeth directly from intamin or risk voiding agreement for the ride.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: lightninlady, AlpenChariot, Ziva and 5 others
This is a total non sequitur, but I saw it the other day and thought I should bring it up.

The latest (third) failed stormwater review for Worlds of Fun's Project 50 grading plan is really concerning. The first failure was due to the park failing to mark "field delineated, marked, and surveyed streams," and then the second came after Worlds of Fun failed to mark the required stream buffer area. Those could be pretty routine oversights, but the latest is more damning.

Screenshot_20220731-222113_Samsung Internet.jpg

Judging by this review comment, Worlds of Fun's Project 50 plans included intrusions into an area around a stream that is marked for preservation and not cleared for attraction construction.

It's possible that Worlds of Fun could apply for a waiver to this requirement, but it's something that the park seems to have failed to anticipate and could present an unexpected delay in their approval process. Alternatively, it's also possible that the attraction has been designed without taking this regulation into consideration, a waiver is unlikely to be granted (or potentially even illegal), and something will need to be redesigned. Either way, it seems potentially pretty problematic. Definitely something to keep an eye on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightninlady, Nicole, AlpenChariot and 3 others
Zachary said:
This is a total non sequitur, but I saw it the other day and thought I should bring it up.

The latest (third) failed stormwater review for Worlds of Fun's Project 50 grading plan is really concerning. The first failure was due to the park failing to mark "field delineated, marked, and surveyed streams," and then the second came after Worlds of Fun failed to mark the required stream buffer area. Those could be pretty routine oversights, but the latest is more damning.

View attachment 27395

Judging by this review comment, Worlds of Fun's Project 50 plans included intrusions into an area around a stream that is marked for preservation and not cleared for attraction construction.

It's possible that Worlds of Fun could apply for a waiver to this requirement, but it's something that the park seems to have failed to anticipate and could present an unexpected delay in their approval process. Alternatively, it's also possible that the attraction has been designed without taking this regulation into consideration, a waiver is unlikely to be granted (or potentially even illegal), and something will need to be redesigned. Either way, it seems potentially pretty problematic. Definitely something to keep an eye on.
Click to expand...
If the design involves it going over said stream/river/pond, then there’s a pretty big redesign that’ll have to take place. If it’s something in the style of Verbolten where a portion of it is supposed to, they could redesign it so that it doesn’t touch the water, just gets close to it.
 
Coasternerd said:
If the design involves it going over said stream/river/pond, then there’s a pretty big redesign that’ll have to take place. If it’s something in the style of Verbolten where a portion of it is supposed to, they could redesign it so that it doesn’t touch the water, just gets close to it.
Click to expand...
There’s a creek that handles the park storm water that goes through the area I’ve highlighted. It’s hard to tell from google maps but the grading site is a pretty deep valley. This is probably what they’re dealing with from the city. That creek goes off property and eventually gets to the Missouri River, so the city is going to be very careful with that creek.
 

Attachments

  • 3ACC9354-AA6D-49E1-9E1C-6E02CDFD61E0.jpeg
    3ACC9354-AA6D-49E1-9E1C-6E02CDFD61E0.jpeg
    2.2 MB · Views: 30
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole, Coasternerd, YachtyLogs and 1 other person
Zachary said:
This is a total non sequitur, but I saw it the other day and thought I should bring it up.

The latest (third) failed stormwater review for Worlds of Fun's Project 50 grading plan is really concerning. The first failure was due to the park failing to mark "field delineated, marked, and surveyed streams," and then the second came after Worlds of Fun failed to mark the required stream buffer area. Those could be pretty routine oversights, but the latest is more damning.

View attachment 27395

Judging by this review comment, Worlds of Fun's Project 50 plans included intrusions into an area around a stream that is marked for preservation and not cleared for attraction construction.

It's possible that Worlds of Fun could apply for a waiver to this requirement, but it's something that the park seems to have failed to anticipate and could present an unexpected delay in their approval process. Alternatively, it's also possible that the attraction has been designed without taking this regulation into consideration, a waiver is unlikely to be granted (or potentially even illegal), and something will need to be redesigned. Either way, it seems potentially pretty problematic. Definitely something to keep an eye on.
Click to expand...
Experience tells me there was potentially a mismarking on the ground or on a map used to figure out the layout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad