• 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.

2017/18: SW8 Speculation

Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
I think there is something in it. At the end of the day projects could start 3-4 years before they get to planning. It was probably tongue in cheek back then but as the project has developed to the stage it is now at it has turned out to be more relevant. B&M woodie???
 
It'll be the same ride system as Chiapas. It has to be. It is the natural evolution of the flume concept. Possible with the addition of an elevator lift, if they have to throw in something odd (if not new).

Jordan said:
House!

jqJSOwV.png
Click to expand...

Jordan, I think I love you...
 
What Alton towers are crying out for is a water ride of for quality that can be found in Universal.

Something like Ripsaw falls would be awesome.

I don't mind it taking two years if it's well thought out, extremely well themed and immersive, I really hope it includes indoor sections as most gold water rides tend to.
 
The planning applications for both Thirteen (SW6) and The Smiler (SW7) were both submitted in the December two years before ride opening. So if SW8 is scheduled for 2018, and if it does require planning permission, I can't imagine a planning application will be any later than December this year. With any luck it might be earlier!

:)
 
Rob said:
The planning applications for both Thirteen (SW6) and The Smiler (SW7) were both submitted in the December two years before ride opening. So if SW8 is scheduled for 2018, and if it does require planning permission, I can't imagine a planning application will be any later than December this year. With any luck it might be earlier!

:)
Click to expand...

We all know both of those were planned and executed too late though. I'd be hoping for a few more months advance on the planning submission given they've already put this back a year.
 
True, but in both cases there was quite a gap between gaining planning permission and commencement of construction. December likely would still give them time, but I do agree that there's a good chance it will be earleir this time around.

:)
 
JB1985 said:
Why are we so sure planning is needed?
Click to expand...

A good point, it is somewhat of an assumption at this stage. They could build a coaster on The Flume's site (so long as it didn't enter the wooded area) and not require planning permission. But like in the case of The Smiler, if they wanted any buildings or theming objects over 5 meters in height they would require planning permission.

:)
 
With regards to it being an RMC are there actually any solid rumours with sources or is it just wishful thinking? Seems too good to be true that Towers might have two world class coasters in two years time. Although there's tons of firsts they could sell with an RMC like world's first multi launching woodie, world's first launching looping woodie, etc
 
Leah said:
If towers did apply for planning permission on the flume sight, how likely is it to be granted?
Click to expand...
Depends what the planning application is for.

Towers are generally good with planning applications (apart from not paying the correct fees). There have been very few times where applications have been refused.

Given the site is has had a log flume there for 34 years, I would say a new development is highly likely to get approved.
 
In terms of the GDO terms, does the 5m height limit apply from the buildings ground level or the established ground level of the area? Could they, for example, dig a small pit, say 6m deep, build a 10m tall station and still not need permission?
 
IIRC The Smiler only needed it's application for a small part of the building height, and that's more than 5m :p
 
Dar said:
In terms of the GDO terms, does the 5m height limit apply from the buildings ground level or the established ground level of the area? Could they, for example, dig a small pit, say 6m deep, build a 10m tall station and still not need permission?
Click to expand...

Good point, the height of the building does relate to gound level, so buildings have to be more than 5 meters above ground level to require planning permission.
Poisson said:
IIRC The Smiler only needed it's application for a small part of the building height, and that's more than 5m :p
Click to expand...

Ground level was a bit all over the place with the site of The Smiler's station; the heighest ground level point (back of the maintenance shed) is 6 meters above the lowest point (front of the station/shop entrance). The Smiler's station building reaches a height of 11.3 meters, with the main block section of the building varying between roughly 10 meters and 7 meters above ground level.

:)
 
One thing i love about the smiler is the looks of the ride. The ride looks amazing when your walking around x sector or waiting in line. I love the look of all of the track looping around each other.
cf2805c6c227a31c4ea7844e2e55323f.jpg

And this is why i think it was so popular, because it was iconic and had the selling image merlin wanted. When I ask some of my friends what they know about the smiler they don't know about the 14 inversions. But what they do know is how the ride looks. This is why i hope merlin will realise to sell a ride they need a killer image not record breaking stats
 
To me that's the problem with the smiler. It looks much better than it is.

I find they compromised a great ride by striving for the gimmick, record breaking worlds first.

But that's just me, I'm not overly fussed about inversions. Well... More than 4 and its just repetitive.

Style over substance.

I prefer watching it than riding it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
Top