• 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.

Blackpool Pleasure Beach: 2025 Discussion

Mick said:
The way I see Pleasure Beach and their ride decisions is very similar to Alton Towers at the moment.

The need to invest quite significant amounts in existing rides to keep them going, combined with the need for new attractions to grab headlines and draw in customer numbers, and having to make some tough decisions or removing rides at a not ideal time.

Both parks I think are risking short term pain for some in order to put the park in a better place in a the short to medium term, with a better rounded offering for all types of customer base. But I guess we’ll see.
Click to expand...
They still have a lot of rides still there even so, maybe bit by bit it will get back to having a lot of rides again starting with a new Gyro Swing which is literally the best flat ride on the market
 
I think “necessary evil” would be more of a descriptor of why they’ve removed these filler rides in Blackpool than “good decision”, in my view.

No one likes seeing rides removed. But if we’re realistic, the park had a big loss in the prior financial year, so there’s bound to be some need to claw back profits. And realistically, removing attractions with low ridership, or low ridership to maintenance cost ratio, is probably the course of action that claws those back with the least impact on the average guest’s experience.
 
Matt N said:
I think “necessary evil” would be more of a descriptor of why they’ve removed these filler rides in Blackpool than “good decision”, in my view.

No one likes seeing rides removed. But if we’re realistic, the park had a big loss in the prior financial year, so there’s bound to be some need to claw back profits. And realistically, removing attractions with low ridership, or low ridership to maintenance cost ratio, is probably the course of action that claws those back with the least impact on the average guest’s experience.
Click to expand...
"You’ve gotta be cruel to be kind!"

Clinton_Baptist2-624x772.jpg
 
Hid said:
And each can be explained why they closed either through lack of Ridership, High Maintenance Costs, Popularity, or end of service life. Also some were closed due to Insurance both Wild Mouse and Noah's Ark were.

The Monorail holds wiring on it and so the park can use all this space and replace the rides. It'd a case of too many end of service rides at once.

Many have been replaced with something not nothing
Click to expand...

They can be explained by the incompetent running of the park and a move to POP.

None of those rides have been replaced by another ride. If you think that AstroTurf or plant pots is an adequate replacement then fair enough.

And for the umpteenth time on this forum, there is no proof as far as I am aware that Wild Mouse could not be insured, and not a great deal of evidence for it either. It is unlikely that the ride was uninsurable. It is just rumour and gossip, but if you have some evidence then please share it. The official explanation from the park was "To make way for new and exciting attractions" . I don't class a bar that hardly ever opens as exciting !
 
shakey said:
They can be explained by the incompetent running of the park and a move to POP.

None of those rides have been replaced by another ride. If you think that AstroTurf or plant pots is an adequate replacement then fair enough.

And for the umpteenth time on this forum, there is no proof as far as I am aware that Wild Mouse could not be insured, and not a great deal of evidence for it either. It is unlikely that the ride was uninsurable. It is just rumour and gossip, but if you have some evidence then please share it. The official explanation from the park was "To make way for new and exciting attractions" . I don't class a bar that hardly ever opens as exciting !
Click to expand...
Spin Doctor was replaced by Icon, Wild Mouse was replaced by a bar.

I have spoken to Amanda Thompson before at event asked the question directly she said that it was the insurance that cause it to be removed
 
Hid said:
Consider the maintenance each rides requires every year, those rides require full strip downs also no one was riding so why keep them open if literally daily they only had 1 rider per day doesn't make sense to keep them. Skyforcd as well only a small number of people rode it. Compared to the other filler rides.

I'll wait and see what they do with these ride area Pleasure Beach needs to modernise with bigger more reliable, easier to maintain machines, a few of these rides could have been end of service life. So it's a wait n see what they do next
Click to expand...
Hid said:
Those SBNO Rides could of been end of Service life or just not used so why keep them if no one is riding.
Click to expand...

if they are end of service, then remove them don't keep them

I did consider the the cost of maintaining those rides and it will be practically pennies compared to a rollercoaster, or any of the more complex attractions, gallopers is litterally a motor, gearbox and some cranks very little that requires inspecting (and the structure of course) it depends how it was built, but they can probably quite easily inspect it. the same goes for many of the other SNBO ride, stobart is just a motor, wheels and some rail, there would be some maitanence but it is practically none compared to the big one, nash, dipper etc.
Benzin said:
Are modern rides "easier" to maintain? Often far more complex than a motor on a stick most old attractions tend to be.
Click to expand...
yes and no, they can easily be more complex to maintain with more actuators, digital systems and more requiring a lot more trouble shooting to figure out the problem. but older rides may use older gearboxes, older motors etc this depends on the ride, but a bit of investment and analysis from an engineering firm and they could get modern gearboxes
IMO it is easier to maintain older rides, as they are far more simple
 
I agree the park does seem to be going through a transition period which we will likely not see the full effect taking off until 2028 or 2029, however it does seem that they do have a plan compared to the rather scattered gun approach during the 2010s and if it works then so be it, it just takes time but alas, both the public and enthusiasts at large are always ruthless somewhat unfairly at time (even if PB have indeed deserved some blame over the years such as the Wild Mouse debacle in which I don't think we'll have a closure without a announcement again after that backlash).

Also while watching that interview with Mandy, I couldn't help but feel that we'll never see something like PMBO or Valhalla again not that I don't think she wants too, on the contrary she seems like she'd be happy to go for a height record again, as those attractions did lead to some long term effects of affecting the park financially. Yes, many on here still hold GT to high regard but he did honestly was partly at fault in the long run for getting the park in its current state (Valhalla being the elephant in the room) and since then the Thompson family have been trying to clear off the debts and losses since then to mix results.

If we do see work on the Grand Prix site say next year then all's good so I'll be cautiously hopeful and with Launch Pad coming back into use soon is a welcome bit of news for the park that they do need.
 
Hid said:
Spin Doctor was replaced by Icon, Wild Mouse was replaced by a bar.

I have spoken to Amanda Thompson before at event asked the question directly she said that it was the insurance that cause it to be removed
Click to expand...

A bar is not a ride.

Spin doctor closed 12 years before icon opened. And if you are going to say Icon replaced it then actually Icon replaced Spin Doctor, Swamp Buggies, Turtle Chase, Go Karts and The Raft Ride. So 1 ride for 5 !!

Yes I am sure Amanda would say that to a random member of the public. And even if she did, its hardly proof. She could tell you anything she wanted, I doubt she would be totally honest. Rides dont become uninsurable half way through a season. Nash is still insured and a man broke his neck on it. Smiler is still insured and a woman lost a leg on it. Rides where people have died in the uk are still insured. There were health and safety concerns, that is true, and is why a double seat belt was fitted. Although never used as it did not reopen.

And even if it was closed for insurance reasons, it has not been replaced by another ride !!
 
QTXAdsy said:
I agree the park does seem to be going through a transition period which we will likely not see the full effect taking off until 2028 or 2029, however it does seem that they do have a plan compared to the rather scattered gun approach during the 2010s and if it works then so be it, it just takes time but alas, both the public and enthusiasts at large are always ruthless somewhat unfairly at time (even if PB have indeed deserved some blame over the years such as the Wild Mouse debacle in which I don't think we'll have a closure without a announcement again after that backlash).

Also while watching that interview with Mandy, I couldn't help but feel that we'll never see something like PMBO or Valhalla again not that I don't think she wants too, on the contrary she seems like she'd be happy to go for a height record again, as those attractions did lead to some long term effects of affecting the park financially. Yes, many on here still hold GT to high regard but he did honestly was partly at fault in the long run for getting the park in its current state (Valhalla being the elephant in the room) and since then the Thompson family have been trying to clear off the debts and losses since then to mix results.

If we do see work on the Grand Prix site say next year then all's good so I'll be cautiously hopeful and with Launch Pad coming back into use soon is a welcome bit of news for the park that they do need.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that you should mention Valhalla @QTXAdsy, as despite its plaudits, I’ve often wondered how much Blackpool actually benefitted from its installation.

It is obscenely wet, which I’d argue is not the best for year-round appeal in an area like Blackpool, it costs an arm and a leg to run for a multitude of reasons, and is also hideously unreliable. I do wonder if a more traditional dark ride or enclosed coaster may have been a better installation.
 
Matt N said:
It’s interesting that you should mention Valhalla @QTXAdsy, as despite its plaudits, I’ve often wondered how much Blackpool actually benefitted from its installation.

It is obscenely wet, which I’d argue is not the best for year-round appeal in an area like Blackpool, it costs an arm and a leg to run for a multitude of reasons, and is also hideously unreliable. I do wonder if a more traditional dark ride or enclosed coaster may have been a better installation.
Click to expand...
Funny thing I remember when I went last year to try it out for the first time in its new look, I was talking to one of the staff who joked that the ride is too good for a place like Blackpool which I suppose really is a good point, had this time been built say in Florida then its likely it might have had a better fit. You do have to wonder what GT was thinking when he wanted to build it in the first place and what other options they had at the time.
 
Valhalla probably opened at the worst possible time for the park as it was starting to transition to wristbands.

When the big one opened every person was paying £4 a ride, and I'd imagine Valhalla (as it was also a Double A ticket) was envisioned in a similar way that every boat round would bring in £32.
 
Matt N said:
It is obscenely wet, which I’d argue is not the best for year-round appeal in an area like Blackpool, it costs an arm and a leg to run for a multitude of reasons, and is also hideously unreliable. I do wonder if a more traditional dark ride or enclosed coaster may have been a better installation.
Click to expand...
Valhalla has always been a problem child of GT was built by the wrong manufacturer, I'm not sure why they went for Intamin especially for their lack of experience with water rides back then and dark rides. The ride was clearly designed for pay per ride use had a high through put lots of boats and expensive effects . The rides I've had on Valhalla have never been consistent all in all the ride now for many years has been in the wrong park I do think its too big for a park the size of pleasure beach.
 
How much of a financial liability do we believe Valhalla to be? I know it costs an absolute fortune in effects and takes 24 staff or so to operate. Would they really be bold enough to ditch it?
 
There’s definitely been an uptick in the parroting of either the popular, or the park’s, narrative over the last few pages. It’s a shame that is diluting the usual independent thought and analysis this thread generally contains.

I’ll provide some examples, and I am paraphrasing through necessity: -

- “the closed rides are to make space for new attractions” - if they were closed because there was a need to use that space to install new attractions, there would be evidence of that. At the moment half the rides are just SBNO, and the ones that can be sold have been.

- “the park is going though a transitional period” - it’s not even clear what this means, but it’s clearly a good line for the park to spout and others to repeat. It gives the impression of some sort of improvement without any firm commitment to such. What’s happening at the moment is the park has closed lots of rides and is about to add one exciting one next year. The nature of the industry is that successful parks need to adapt and add new attractions; that’s not a transitional period, it’s the nature of the industry. The phrase “transitional period” is as empty as River Caves’s trough.

- “the park cannot continue to lose money, so needs to make a change” - I suspect this comes from the recent sensationalist headlines reporting on BPB Ltd’s latest annual accounts. It does not consider the performance of the group. It does not consider the parks considerable profits made during Covid. It is an extremely simplistic, blinkered, and often uneducated analysis of the park’s holistic position. This was the same sort of analysis that led to some suggesting the gyroswing had been bought and then immediately cancelled once the associated charge had been settled. I am not by any means suggesting that there is a massive slush fund, but at the same time I’ve yet to see any convincing analysis to suggest the group’s financial situation is dire enough to force the decisions being made.
 
Vaz0202 said:
How much of a financial liability do we believe Valhalla to be? I know it costs an absolute fortune in effects and takes 24 staff or so to operate. Would they really be bold enough to ditch it?
Click to expand...
The quoted statistic for Valhalla before the 2023 refurb was £1million a year in operating costs alone. Supposedly the refurb was meant to bring down the operating expenses of the ride, but there’s still a lot of Fire and Water effects in there. So I suspect with energy bills and minimum wage increases, it’s probably still in seven figure territory.
 
venny said:
There’s definitely been an uptick in the parroting of either the popular, or the park’s, narrative over the last few pages. It’s a shame that is diluting the usual independent thought and analysis this thread generally contains.

I’ll provide some examples, and I am paraphrasing through necessity: -

- “the closed rides are to make space for new attractions” - if they were closed because there was a need to use that space to install new attractions, there would be evidence of that. At the moment half the rides are just SBNO, and the ones that can be sold have been.

- “the park is going though a transitional period” - it’s not even clear what this means, but it’s clearly a good line for the park to spout and others to repeat. It gives the impression of some sort of improvement without any firm commitment to such. What’s happening at the moment is the park has closed lots of rides and is about to add one exciting one next year. The nature of the industry is that successful parks need to adapt and add new attractions; that’s not a transitional period, it’s the nature of the industry. The phrase “transitional period” is as empty as River Caves’s trough.

- “the park cannot continue to lose money, so needs to make a change” - I suspect this comes from the recent sensationalist headlines reporting on BPB Ltd’s latest annual accounts. It does not consider the performance of the group. It does not consider the parks considerable profits made during Covid. It is an extremely simplistic, blinkered, and often uneducated analysis of the park’s holistic position. This was the same sort of analysis that led to some suggesting the gyroswing had been bought and then immediately cancelled once the associated charge had been settled. I am not by any means suggesting that there is a massive slush fund, but at the same time I’ve yet to see any convincing analysis to suggest the group’s financial situation is dire enough to force the decisions being made.
Click to expand...
That looks like speculation on your end there, none of us know what Pleasure Beach are doing with this transition
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top