Single Riders

[Secret Weapon]

There is a gap there but a lot of it is obstructed by bones and veins

In which case, it surely wouldn't be too difficult to remove the bones and veins if AT ever wanted to bring the old front row queue back into service as a single-rider queue?

I realise that it's very unlikely to happen, though (unfortunately).

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

In which case, it surely wouldn't be too difficult to remove the bones and veins if AT ever wanted to bring the old front row queue back into service as a single-rider queue?

I realise that it's very unlikely to happen, though (unfortunately).

After decades of complaining about Merlin's penchant for unthemed concrete slabs and shipping containers, are we now actively advocating for the removal of bespoke scenic elements just to install another queue into an already cramped space?

I think we're looking at the Single Rider Queue through rose tinted spectacles. The concept of the SRQ is fundamentally broken in the current UK theme park climate.

It's no longer a utility for the solitary enthusiast or the odd spare person. Thanks to the proliferation of "hack" videos on TikTok and YouTube, it's effectively become the "Free Fastrack for Groups who don't mind sitting apart" queue.

You end up with a SRQ clogged with groups of 4, 5, or 6 people who treat it as a cheat code. The over subscription means the queue often moves slower than the main line.

 

[Hid]

Single Rider Queue through rose tinted spectacles. The concept of the SRQ is fundamentally broken in the current UK theme park climate.

Single Rider is designed solely to fill unfilled spaces on a ride. Every time you send a train that is not full the park are loosing money as wear and tear still occurs even when unoccupied.

 

[Matt N]

To be fair, though, I think SRQ very often can still provide a notably shorter queue time than the main. Not often a true walk-on, admittedly, but more often than not notably shorter.

I did have a particularly notable example on Smiler once where I walked straight onto the ride and bypassed a 70 minute advertised queue using single rider, which felt almost naughty, and I had similar examples on various rides during my Alton visit in the summer (e.g. a 45 minute Thirteen queue became 5, a 25 minute Spinball queue became 5, a 30 minute Oblivion queue became walk-on, and numerous others). Even excluding the numerous walk-ons or near walk-ons, single rider normally merits a notable reduction in queue compared to the advertised main for me. On balance, I think it notably benefits me far more often than it hinders me or doesn’t provide tangible benefit.

With this in mind, I would still say it can be a benefit for those who are inclined to use it and I would not say that it’s even close to “broken” as a system.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Single Rider is designed solely to fill unfilled spaces on a ride. Every time you send a train that is not full the park are loosing money as wear and tear still occurs even when unoccupied.

The park doesn't "lose money" by sending an empty seat. The cost of sending the train is a fixed operational cost. It costs exactly the same to send a train with 32 people as it does to send it with 31. The wear and tear differential of one human body on a multiton coaster train is statistically negligible.

They've already taken the money at the gate. Unless that specific empty seat was an unsold Fastrack slot, there's no direct financial loss.

To be fair, though, I think SRQ very often can still provide a notably shorter queue time than the main. Not often a true walk-on, admittedly, but more often than not notably shorter.

I did have a particularly notable example on Smiler once where I walked straight onto the ride and bypassed a 70 minute advertised queue using single rider, which felt almost naughty, and I had similar examples on various rides during my Alton visit in the summer (e.g. a 45 minute Thirteen queue became 5, a 25 minute Spinball queue became 5, a 30 minute Oblivion queue became walk-on, and numerous others). Even excluding the numerous walk-ons or near walk-ons, single rider normally merits a notable reduction in queue compared to the advertised main for me. On balance, I think it notably benefits me far more often than it hinders me or doesn’t provide tangible benefit.

With this in mind, I would still say it can be a benefit for those who are inclined to use it and I would not say that it’s even close to “broken” as a system.

As we're both aware, anecdote isn't the plural of data.

Your experience, while positive, highlights the extreme variance of the system. For every "walk on" you experienced, I can counter with my own experiences this year alone.

On five separate occasions last season, whilst actually entering a queue alone, I've joined a Single Rider queue only to abandon it 20 minutes later having not moved an inch

It works when it works (usually on low-capacity throughput days), but when it fails, it's often a slower and more frustrating experience than just joining the main line.

Regardless, we shouldn't be stripping out theming to insert single rider queues.

 

[Matt N]

As we're both aware, anecdote isn't the plural of data.

Your experience, while positive, highlights the extreme variance of the system. For every "walk on" you experienced, I can counter with my own experiences this year alone.

On five separate occasions last season, whilst actually entering a queue alone, I've joined a Single Rider queue only to abandon it 20 minutes later having not moved an inch

It works when it works (usually on low-capacity throughput days), but when it fails, it's often a slower and more frustrating experience than just joining the main line.

Regardless, we shouldn't be stripping out theming to insert single rider queues.

I think saying it’s variable is fair enough. Neither of our anecdotes are in themselves proof of anything other than inconsistency. And it is always somewhat of a gamble by nature, as it relies on odd numbered groups and empty seats being present.

For me personally, I find that more often than not, single rider considerably benefits me, across a variety of types of days and different theme parks, and I would almost always give it a go over the regular queue if the occasion called for it. But if that isn’t the case for you, that’s fair enough and does suggest inconsistency. Evidently I’m generally lucky and you’re generally unlucky!

Although to counter what I said before, I do remember trying the SRQ on Hurakan Condor twice and bailing after a few minutes on both occasions because it literally didn’t move at all… so it definitely is a gamble to a degree!

 

[John]

SRQs are always likely to fall victim to simple theme park economics (with time as the unit of currency). If there were a significant benefit to be had by joining a SRQ for any given ride then knowledge of that would increase over time, resulting in more and more people using the SRQ and that benefit decreasing. When you combine that with the typically low number of singer rider spaces available and their unpredictable nature and you've got a recipe for a poor guest experience. In many cases, I think it would be better if parks just tried to fill as many seats as possible from main queue through efficient batching. WM is the good example of this - staff will generally attempt to pair odd groups together and there are hardly ever empty seats as a result.

All that said, there are still situations where SRQs still make sense - nowhere more so than on rides with 3 across seating, or Spinball on wet operation. On Ratatouille I've often seen staff batching approximately equal numbers from main queue, fastpass and SRQ due to the seating layout. The only time I've ever used main queue on that ride was during COVID when SRQ wasn't in use.

 

[AltonLover123]

You end up with a SRQ clogged with groups of 4, 5, or 6 people who treat it as a cheat code. The over subscription means the queue often moves slower than the main line.

Yes, I’ve often felt this pain having loads of groups in front of me. And then they spend 5 minutes arguing with the host because they “did not know they were in a single rider queue” and demanding they be seated together.

 

[DistortAMG]

Single Rider is designed solely to fill unfilled spaces on a ride. Every time you send a train that is not full the park are loosing money as wear and tear still occurs even when unoccupied.

Loosing money how exactly? The park already have your money as you paid upon entry. The trains can only be dispatched a set amount of times in a day, even when running them flat out, so they cannot loose it there by sending more trains.

I would argue they actually save money, albeit a very very tiny, almost immeasurable amount. Sending the trains with empty seats, saves on a tiny bit of ware and tare, ware and tare on the seats themselves, on the ride also, going a tiny bit slower, so an almost indistinguishable amount of less stress on components. But still, less is not more.

I do not think they make any money but I cannot see how the loose money?? Unless I have missed something here.

 

[Poisson]

They'd get so much more benefit focussing on faster ops and keeping main queue at 95% of batching on most rides.

 

[Bowser]

With this in mind, I would still say it can be a benefit for those who are inclined to use it and I would not say that it’s even close to “broken” as a system.

Also dont forget the true purpose is to benefit the main queue. Without it there are empty seats and the queue moves slower.

The hopefully shorter wait time is merely the incentive.

 

[RicketyCricket]

I dread to think how many hours I've spent in the Hyperia SRQ over the last couple of years. On busy days it can move quicker than the main queue because it's not impacted by the constant RAP/FT queues.

It's still a handy option to have but generally you're only saving 10 minutes or so. Not a big hack like it used to be.

Was interesting to see the new Velocicoaster system. They've removed single rider and now send odd numbered groups from the main queue into the old single rider line. Pretty smart as it ensures there are never any empty seats and improves overall capacity.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Also dont forget the true purpose is to benefit the main queue. Without it there are empty seats and the queue moves slower.

The hopefully shorter wait time is merely the incentive.

Filling an empty seat increases the capacity utilisation of the train, but it doesn't make the main queue move faster

In the station, the batcher draws from two distinct pools: the Batched Queue (Main / Fastrack / RAP) and the Single Rider Queue.

If a row has four seats and the batcher loads a group of three from the main queue, the main queue advances by three people. Whether they fill that fourth seat with a Single Rider or send it empty, the main queue has still only advanced by three people. The velocity of the main queue remains identical.

In fact, the faff involved in managing the SRQ, checking for gaps, shouting for riders, opening separate gates, often increases the dispatch interval. Slower dispatches mean the main queue actually moves slower.

The only tangible benefit to the main queue is displacement, not speed. Siphoning single riders out of the main line into a separate holding pen, keeps the physical queue shorter because there are fewer people standing in it. However, for the person already standing in the queue, filling that empty seat does absolutely nothing to reduce their wait time.

 

[John]

Main queue time is marginally reduced by groups choosing to use SRQ rather than main queue, though this is unlikely to be significant unless the ride gets through a lot of "single" riders.

Occasionally, there can also be an overall benefit to main queue if filling all the seats means loading times are reduced. This would almost certainly be true for Rita as for every empty seat the staff have to battle with the cumbersome restraints, each one adding a few seconds to the loading time.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Main queue time is marginally reduced by groups choosing to use SRQ rather than main queue, though this is unlikely to be significant unless the ride gets through a lot of "single" riders.

If the hypothetical group is already in the SRQ, they have no bearing on how quickly the main queue moves. You're conflating ride throughput with queue velocity, which are two distinct, albeit marginally related, metrics.

Ride throughput is the total number of people experiencing the attraction per hour, which is maximised by filling every seat.

Queue velocity is simply how often the main / batched queue advances.

If a batcher takes a group of three from the main / batched queue to fill a four seat row, the main / batched queue advances by exactly three people. Whether that fourth seat is filled by an SRQ rider or dispatched empty, the main queue still only moved by three. Filling the gap boosts the ride's overall efficiency stats, but it doesn't make the main / batch queue step forward a second faster.

If that a group was in the main queue and then left to join the SRQ, then the people who were behind them would, of course, move faster than normal. However, this migration is statistically negligible, as it rarely happens.

Occasionally, there can also be an overall benefit to main queue if filling all the seats means loading times are reduced. This would almost certainly be true for Rita as for every empty seat the staff have to battle with the cumbersome restraints, each one adding a few seconds to the loading time.

I must respectfully disagree with your assessment.

Checking a restraint on an empty seat is the often fastest action a ride host performs. They walk past, shove the bar down and move on.

Checking a restraint on a person involves variables.

• Is the guest sitting correctly?
• Is the belt not twisted?
• Is the bar tight enough?
• Is the guest complaining it is too tight?
• "Push up, pull down."

Replacing an empty seat (one shove) with a human being (interaction + check) invariably increases the dispatch interval, it doesn't decrease it.

Humans add friction. Empty plastic seats do not.

 

[Bowser]

Single rider improves ride capacity. Increased capacity means shorter wait times.

Without it the occupants are in the main queue, the rate of empty seats increases and the main queue takes longer.

If 100 people are in a queue of a 10 capacity ride that is always filled, the last 10 will be on the 10th cycle. If there are empty seats they will be on the 11th cycle and have waited longer despite the same amount of people queuing.

Theme parks arent using single rider queues altruistically, they’re functional.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Single rider improves ride capacity. Increased capacity means shorter wait times.

Without it the occupants are in the main queue, the rate of empty seats increases and the main queue takes longer.

If 100 people are in a queue of a 10 capacity ride that is always filled, the last 10 will be on the 10th cycle. If there are empty seats they will be on the 11th cycle and have waited longer despite the same amount of people queuing.

You're making a critical error in your calculation.

The single riders are not in the main queue; they are in a separate queue.

If a row takes 4 people, and the batcher loads a group of 3 from the main line, the main line moves by 3.

Filling the 4th seat with a single rider does not make the main line move by 4.

It still only moves by 3.

The main queue speed is identical in both scenarios.

Yes, if the empty seat is filled then the amount of people the ride can put through in total is more efficient. I've never argued otherwise. It doesn't make the main queue move faster though.

 

[rob666]

Single rider improves ride capacity. Increased capacity means shorter wait times....

No, sorry.
The wait time will remain the same or longer, if the length of time to fill the seats from the single rider queue takes a greater proportion of time than the seats being filled.
If the single riders "faff", belts, bags, seat swaps etc, the main queue waits longer...they must wait an extra period, after the main queue has loaded.
Simple as that.
The single rider queue often slowed down the nemesis loading procedure by a considerable period.
Fact.
Witnessed by me on a number of occasions, from the (very fast moving) single rider queue.
Capacitywise, there was usually no benefit...only for the single rider...especially for the very short queue length from the exit...about three metres.

 

[Bowser]

The single riders are not in the main queue; they are in a separate queue.

You are missing the point. I’m stating why it exists and comparing it to what happens without it.

I suspect we are at the point of circular tedium now so i’ll say no more as we clearly cant interpret one anothers points.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

You are missing the point. I’m stating why it exists and comparing it to what happens without it.

I suspect we are at the point of circular tedium now so i’ll say no more as we clearly cant interpret one anothers points.

I am not missing the point. I'm correcting your physics.

If you abolish the Single Rider Queue, those people join the main queue, making it physically longer. That is Displacement. We agree on that.

Your specific claim, however, was that "Without it... there are empty seats and the queue moves slower."

That is factually incorrect.

Sending a train with empty seats is operationally faster than the faff involved in batching, boarding and checking a single rider to fill the gap. Empty seats result in faster dispatches. Full seats result in slower dispatches.

Leaving a seat empty makes the queue move faster, not slower.

You're confusing the length of the line with the speed of the line.