• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Thorpe Park: General Discussion

John_P said:
B+Ms are expensive though, if they'd went with one of them it would've been a 236 foot coaster with a first drop straight into the break run.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Mack are actually any cheaper than B&M nowadays, and we should note that the alternative layout, thought to be a B&M, actually looked longer than what we ultimately got.
 
Tom said:
We don't know, but we have a damn good idea on this latest issue. Since it first tested, it has been seen going painfully slowly through elements when empty since it was built.

It has not noticeably sped up since it was built.

It has stalled in summer and in light/moderate winds.

It has a problem of underspeed, and I personally believe this is separate to the original lift issues, and the later purported block clearance issues.

Without changes, at best it will be a pain to manage and could gain an almost Odyssey/Big One-like reputation for being a gamble coaster - particularly in wind and/or cold.
Click to expand...
Come on now, just change the wheel compounds to something a little harder and faster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom
RustyRider said:
looking back at the construction period, it’s honestly quite funny how concerned we all were about the trim brackets on the drop after the Immelmann… I don’t think we need to ever worry about those being installed now!
Click to expand...
Good point! 😂 Boosters would have been a better shout 😜
 
Matt N said:
What I’d say is that we don’t actually know that it needs some significant alteration at all.

The solution, if a solution is even needed, could be far more minor; the issue could be solved with different wheel compounds, or speeding up the lift hill slightly.
Click to expand...

Using the lift hill as a vital source of momentum isn't a sensible solution - unlike a launch, lift hills are frequently stopped at any point along it's length, and they take time to get up to speed after this has happened. A chain lift coaster needs to be able to complete its course with the train creeping over the lift at minimum speed, because this is something it'll have to handle in normal working.

If a train is stopped when approaching the crest, in mild winds, what do you do if the lift hills speed is the only thing protecting it from a stall? Do you evacuate to save guests from having to be rescued mid-course, but increase the chance of a stall exponentially? Or do you send it over, risking a full train stranded mid-course, with images in national news of your brand new rollercoaster sitting in a pre-smiler-crash state? The optics of that, no matter how different the scenario is, would be devastating.

The solution lies elsewhere.

Wheel compounds are an option, but we don't know how much wiggle room there is left in that department. There's a chance they've gone as hard as they can after initial tests showed the train so close to a stall. But I doubt it, there's probably further they could go, at the expense of ride comfort of course.

It could simply be decided that this is a coaster that cannot run empty for the time being. What this would look like for morning tests, and reopening after downtime, I'm not sure. But it'd need some decent policies in place to not seem like a total bodge and faff.

It'll get sorted, and we'll find out soon enough what route they take with it.
 
Bring back the brakeman! 😁

Is it even feasible to only run non-empty trains?? That's going to be a lot of downtime to add/remove ballast for test runs. The stall "seemed" to be in favourable weather conditions - anyone can be forgiven a stall if you get some freak wind condition...

Hopefully they get it back testing soon, but if I were them I'd be testing to see if could get another stall. If it's going to happen, the last thing you want is for people to be on it. The clickbait press with be all over it with "Smiler 2.0" (I know it's not, and you know it's not, but let's not the truth get in the way of a catchy headline).
 
Smiley said:
Is it even feasible to only run non-empty trains?? That's going to be a lot of downtime to add/remove ballast for test runs. The stall "seemed" to be in favourable weather conditions - anyone can be forgiven a stall if you get some freak wind condition...
Click to expand...
Blackpool Pleasure Beach often whacks sandbags on The Big One when they test it, so I think it can be done.
 
Agreed. I think if you want "near stalls", you need ways to accurately control the speed/energy - like a few booster LIMs/trim brakes. You might only add/lose a few mph, and most of the time not needed.

Can't see however it's a good idea to design near-stall elements with a chain lift... Maybe Elon Musk can help????
 
Smiley said:
Agreed. I think if you want "near stalls", you need ways to accurately control the speed/energy - like a few booster LIMs/trim brakes. You might only add/lose a few mph, and most of the time not needed.

Can't see however it's a good idea to design near-stall elements with a chain lift... Maybe Elon Musk can help????
Click to expand...

Last time my Model Y had a software update, it decided to change the stored seat position to fully lying flat for no reason whatsoever. And the headlights go decidedly boss-eyed every time too.

I see from Facebook that some of the trains have been slung onto the back of a hiab/flatbed truck this morning. Wonder where they are going to take them or if it's just to get them back to their engine shed.
 
According to Twitter, they’re lifting the last car off now, so hopefully that should clear the way for the ride to test, and (possibly) reopen on 1 train while they reassemble the 2nd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top