Galactica's Future

[dw1812]

each train has its own PLC (If I recall correctly) and they may have to have new PLC on the train

Not quite. Each train has an encoder to transmit the states of each individual component and, as you said, a photo eye beam system, however the ride PLCs (programmable logic controllers, these are the brains of the ride) are located behind the door at the front of the left-hand loading station if memory serves me right. But the PLCs themselves are honestly probably in good enough knick to last the ride through to demolition. Every ride experiences faults with PLCs - even new ones - so new PLCs invariably will not stop the occasional emergency stop.

Where the ride suffers are aborted sends. This is when the ride detects an anomaly in the dispatch sequence and halts the dispatch of a train. This is often because a sensor reports an incorrect reading with a harness and changes state partway through tilt. If you find yourself stopped mid-tilt and brought back down, this is often the cause. New sensors, and possibly encoders, are what are needed.

 

[Skyscraper]

Im not up to date on lingo. What is PLC?

The operators panel, basically.

 

[dw1812]

The operators panel, basically.

Not quite. That's just the interface. PLCs are whole banks of simple computers that determine what the ride can do and how. Again, as I said, they're the brains of the ride.

The doors in the top left of this screenshot show where the PLC room is.

They're often in banks of cabinets, like this:

Pics from the Gerstlauer website.

 

[Slugjc]

Cheers.

 

[Ash]

Not quite. That's just the interface. PLCs are whole banks of simple computers that determine what the ride can do and how. Again, as I said, they're the brains of the ride.

The doors in the top left of this screenshot show where the PLC room is.

They're often in banks of cabinets, like this:

Pics from the Gerstlauer website.

For the record.

None of those things are PLCs

 

[dw1812]

For the record.

None of those things are PLCs

To be fair they look remarkably similar to photos of PLCs I've seen, and it came up on the Gerstlauer page for control systems - which often use PLCs.

But anyway. Galactica's PLCs are likely fine. The trains, however, are not. They're 23 year-old bits of kit (well, probably more like 24 at this point) and as far as we can tell haven't had any major refurbishment done aside from replacing the radio transmitters with photo eyes, on top of the winter annuals. The restraints are problematic, they're highly complex and I'm sure the park would rather not have to deal with them if they could help it. I don't think many of the newer flyers are nearly as problematic - my friend works on Manta, I can ask him.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

For the record.

None of those things are PLCs

For the record.

None of these things are PLCs either.



Thank you for the contribution. It might be a little helpful if you did clarify what PLCs are though.

 

[Slugjc]

Can we all just agree on what a PLC is.

The images sent of the cabinets. I have a good basic idea of the part numbers of that stock and where to get them cheaply. That was my old job. I now have flashbacks of trying to speak explain to someone a fault in Schneider component, whilst not knowing what the component actually did. And neither did he I think.

 

[DistortAMG]

For the record.

None of those things are PLCs

To be fair, the one photo, the second one, appears to show what looks like a Siemens Simatic control panel of some description, which is very much a PLC.

 

[Ash]

To be fair, the one photo, the second one, appears to show what looks like a Siemens Simatic control panel of some description, which is very much a PLC.

It isn’t but you do you

From memory (and it is only from memory)

Air ran on redundant Siemens S7 400 PLCs which certainly aren’t what’s in that picture.

 

[dw1812]

It isn’t but you do you

Can you cut the snark? Thanks.

Let's actually talk about the topic at hand. Air's reliability.

 

[Jb85]

It isn’t but you do you

God this is going to sound pathetic as I never thought I’d see an argument over this but for Christ sake if your going to say it isn’t please show and explain what it is

 

[dw1812]

Air ran on redundant Siemens S7 400 PLCs which certainly aren’t what’s in that picture.

Re. the edit:

Nobody actually claimed 'this is exactly what Air uses'.

If we are being pedantic, this is the PLC in question.

Now that this rigamarole of pedantry is finally quelled, can we please talk about something of substance? Thanks.

 

[DistortAMG]

It isn’t but you do you

From memory (and it is only from memory)

Air ran on redundant Siemens S7 400 PLCs which certainly aren’t what’s in that picture.

Perhaps learn understand what the word "appears" means, maybe you do but your response suggests other wise.

Is there any need for the snark though, you seem to do it on here every time anyone dares challenge your opinion. As if you are the all knowing god of control systems. Calm down, take 5 and have a beer. For god sake.

Anyway, back to air.

 

[Ash]

Perhaps learn understand what the word "appears" means, maybe you do but your response suggests other wise.

Is there any need for the snark though, you seem to do it on here every time anyone dares challenge your opinion. As if you are the all knowing god of control systems. Calm down, take 5 and have a beer. For god sake.

Anyway, back to air.

I thought the original comment was helpful.

But alas, we are where we are.

It wasn’t meant to be snarky, but merely correcting a wrong, on a topic as you’ve pointed out I’ve commented on many times previous. And for the avoidance of doubt, it wasn’t an opinion. I did start a dedicated topic on the subject a while back, but not many takers in terms of interest sadly

Along with other favourite topics (use of car parks, control systems, the air soundtrack, the railway near the park etc) and many other topics I seem to chip in on regularly.

Indeed you’re right, this isn’t a serious topic. Maybe you should take some of your own advice. And despite my straight writing style, my tone is no way as serious as it perhaps comes across.

This is a forum of theme parks after all…

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Along with other favourite topics

I've always thought that Galactica could do with a Flying Theatre at the end.

 

[Ash]

I've always thought that Galactica could do with a Flying Theatre at the end.

This brings me immense joy

You never disappoint

One day we’ll ride that flying theatre in TWODW and I’ll hold you aloft like Rose in the titanic whilst your wings flap against a light breeze and the smell of orange grove fills the air.

We all know it’s true

 

[Craig]

I know this is all but resolved, but I’m gonna chirp in anyway .

Obviously we’ve got plenty of people on here who take a keen interest in theme parks. Some just like the adrenaline rush, others are right into the geekery of the technical side as well. Then we have those that work in the industry too.

Written text is all too easily misinterpreted, so it’s best if you’re going to call something out as incorrect (which is absolutely fine!) to also back that up with a bit of context as to why that’s the case. It makes for a much more interesting discussion, particularly for those who are into that side of things as a hobby/interest only. Without that context, it can sometimes come across as a bit like the old “I know something you don’t know” that we get when be ride rumours come around. Some of us who have been around for years have learned a lot from informative posts over the years, let’s spread the knowledge a bit for those who want to learn too!

It doesn’t need to be too over the top to cause things to go completely overly technical in a general topic, but the edited post is a prime example of what comes across much better to readers .