• 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.

Dreamland Margate: General Discussion

As anticipated, this has gone down like a bucket of cold sick. I'd be very concerned if I was the local authority on how it will affect tourism. It's another reason not to visit
 
Quantum said:
As anticipated, this has gone down like a bucket of cold sick. I'd be very concerned if I was the local authority on how it will affect tourism. It's another reason not to visit
Click to expand...
How many tourists come to see a concert at Dreamland vs how many come for the rollercoaster? I would expect the concerts drive more people to the area in general. But yes, Dreamland as an amusement park is another small thing to add to the list when visiting seaside towns, but I don't think there is a huge amount otherwise to do anyway?
 
rob666 said:
A better question.
How many people who visit the park for a concert would also ride a nice wooden coaster at around a fiver a go, pay per ride?

Poor park management overall.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Half the charm of this place as a venue is its vintage features, they could use the scenic to make extra profit while also making it a really cool place to host a concert. Clearly that is not something they seem remotely interested in doing, and even seem to understand the potential of.
 
There’d be nothing to stop a contractual relationship obliging the current owners to operate the coaster as part of the original transfer of ownership (assuming ownership has transferred). If that didn’t happen that seems odd, or maybe (generously described as) an oversight.

As the helpful insight from the local resident, attests, there’s going to be some bad feelings generated locally by this and there are certain levers that can be pulled to make the venue’s operations more challenging. If that happens, they have perhaps brought it upon themselves.

Contractual obligation or otherwise, there’s surely a moral obligation to keep the ride operational.
 
venny said:
Contractual obligation or otherwise, there’s surely a moral obligation to keep the ride operational.
Click to expand...
What moral obligation is there? I get that the ride is iconic, but if it’s getting old and costly to maintain and the owners feel it would be better to put business resources into other things, then I think a case can be made that the ride’s time has come.

This is why, perhaps controversially, I’m vehemently against listing roller coasters in the manner done for various rides at Blackpool Pleasure Beach and Scenic. It’s a nice idea in concept, but listing does not force the park to operate a ride and if a park can’t or doesn’t want to operate a ride, or the ride has become financially infeasible or infeasible in any other way to operate, listing forces it to sit there like a giant white elephant being unused and not doing anybody much good. I also feel it forces parks to live in the past when that might not necessarily be the best course of action.
 
Matt N said:
What moral obligation is there? I get that the ride is iconic, but if it’s getting old and costly to maintain and the owners feel it would be better to put business resources into other things, then I think a case can be made that the ride’s time has come.

This is why, perhaps controversially, I’m vehemently against listing roller coasters in the manner done for various rides at Blackpool Pleasure Beach and Scenic. It’s a nice idea in concept, but listing does not force the park to operate a ride and if a park can’t or doesn’t want to operate a ride, or the ride has become financially infeasible or infeasible in any other way to operate, listing forces it to sit there like a giant white elephant being unused and not doing anybody much good. I also feel it forces parks to live in the past when that might not necessarily be the best course of action.
Click to expand...
It is good listing a ride when it can be preserved but when it comes to the point that it can't, surely it should be reviewed so it doesn't go to waste.

With Big Dipper, if they got to a scenario where the ride cannot reasonably operate, they could keep the structure where the first drop is and that's it. At the moment, it's worrying that Grand National might end up going the same way as Scenic Railway.

The concern on Blackpool and Scenic Railway is that space, maintenance, time, money and resources would be wasted on maintaining a ride that may not operate.
 
Matt N said:
What moral obligation is there? I get that the ride is iconic, but if it’s getting old and costly to maintain and the owners feel it would be better to put business resources into other things, then I think a case can be made that the ride’s time has come.

This is why, perhaps controversially, I’m vehemently against listing roller coasters in the manner done for various rides at Blackpool Pleasure Beach and Scenic. It’s a nice idea in concept, but listing does not force the park to operate a ride and if a park can’t or doesn’t want to operate a ride, or the ride has become financially infeasible or infeasible in any other way to operate, listing forces it to sit there like a giant white elephant being unused and not doing anybody much good. I also feel it forces parks to live in the past when that might not necessarily be the best course of action.
Click to expand...
I think the moral obligation is based on a few things.

Firstly, most of the money that went into re-building Dreamland was public money from sources such as Thanet District Council, The Heritage Lottery Fund, The Coastal Communities Fund and Sea Change.

Secondly, Dreamland was compulsory purchased from the previous owner for the basis of opening a heritage amusement park.

Thirdly, about 13,000 people supported the Save Dreamland Campaign. Without all these volunteers putting their time in, there'd be no Dreamland.

Personally I'm quite left wing and I'm happy to have higher taxes and better public services. But it's understandable that the public want to know what they're getting for their money, and that it's being used for the public good. At a time when so many public services are really stretched, there needs to be confidence that public money will be spent wisely.

We know from Freedom of Information requests that various groups put in bids to run Dreamland including the Stockvale Group (who run Adventure Island) and Mellors (who now run Fantasy Island and Lightwater Valley). Instead the council chose a group of investment bankers. Understandably some people are questioning why that was.

It also seems reasonable that people want to understand how a roller coaster that was effectively less than 10 years old crashed.
 
Scenic Railway I'd one of the main draws tp Margate if it was marketed properly as the UKs oldest Coaster it would get more attention.

Hoping some form of injuction to make sure for sure they have done everything they can. Because at the moment seems like it Live Nation sole decision
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top