[202X] Project Horizon (SW9?): Planning Approved

[rob666]

I know that this forum is all about discussion, and that there is little else to do but speculate in this topic, but…

My god this topic is painful to read through when people keep speculating about what we already know it isn’t.

I haven’t read the planning application, mainly because I’m relying on the core aspects to be posted here in no time. And it didn’t take long for someone to point out that they explicitly state “roller coaster” several times. So I really think the speculation over whether it’s a water ride (yes, I know a water coaster is a thing, but already that’s highly doubtful) or a dark ride is a fools errand. Planning applications will only state fact. So if it says it’s a roller coaster, that’s what it is,

Regarding whether it’s an SW or not. Maybe they have moved away from that for future investment? Maybe it’ll be labelled SW at a later date? Maybe this isn’t an SW, but is still a coaster, and SW9 won’t be a coaster? It not currently being labelled an SW however is not evidence that it isn’t a roller coaster.

As you were

You think this is painful???
Get over to the Dead Duel topic my friend...

 

[Shaggy_Dog_]

The statement about there being no water supply is interesting. With the mention of the word “coaster” and the fact that there is a maintenance hatch that looks suitable for a train I was wondering if this ride was going to be an indoor water coaster.

Remember how the park teased Spinjam like this a year before it actually arrived?

Well I keep thinking back to a couple of years ago and how the park made mention of these two specific things on the Model Your Own Map game/survey that they did. I see there’s also been mention of a new Black Hole ride. Wouldn’t it be something if whatever Project Horizon is had been hidden in plain sight all this time?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[s_g_k]

The statement about there being no water supply is interesting. With the mention of the word “coaster” and the fact that there is a maintenance hatch that looks suitable for a train I was wondering if this ride was going to be an indoor water coaster.

Remember how the park teased Spinjam like this a year before it actually arrived?

Well I keep thinking back to a couple of years ago and how the park made mention of these two specific things on the Model Your Own Map game/survey that they did. I see there’s also been mention of a new Black Hole ride. Wouldn’t it be something if whatever Project Horizon is had been hidden in plain sight all this time?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But water coasters are massive installations. Their track is cumbersome, they require a huge amount of power to pump the water around and I just don’t see this building being big enough for that.

This is either an indoor coaster or a flying theatre of some sort with new tech. I can’t see it being a dark ride due to the height of the building.

 

[James]

Obviously, an indoor ride has been on the cards for a while, and an indoor coaster has proved to be the better investment. The application explicitly states a roller coaster multiple times and states no water supply. So we can easily rule out a water ride or anything other than a coaster at this point.

If this were an outdoor coaster I would be completely against the idea, however, Towers needs more indoor rides and it is something that's missing in the line-up, so I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with. I hope John Wardley's comments of the next 'big thing' are related to this project.

 

[Matt N]

It should be noted that the references to “roller coaster” in the planning application are thought by others to be typos because of the fact that many of the statements are thought to be near copies of similar statements used in Project Exodus’ documents. Some think that they could have just forgotten to take out the word roller coaster a couple of times, as they refer to it as an “indoor attraction” in most other parts of the same statement. Therefore, I think our options are quite possibly still open.

On a side note; as there’s so much debate, I thought I’d do a critical review summing up the arguments for and against Project Horizon being each commonly debated option and judge each one based on how likely I perceive it to be.
Indoor coaster
For

• The building is to be 19.4m tall, which is pretty tall for an indoor attraction. An indoor coaster would be one logical explanation for this building height.
• The building’s ground space is big enough that it could facilitate one, and is also quite large for a dark ride. While admittedly not a huge plot, the area in question is larger than that of Spinball Whizzer, so could certainly facilitate an enclosed family coaster.
• When you consider the height and ground space of the building put together, I’m struggling to think of many alternatives aside from an indoor coaster. Everything else I think of is either too small in ground space, too short in height or both.
• Merlin view coasters as being more marketable than other types of ride, and an indoor coaster is the only notable void left in Alton Towers’ coaster lineup. Indoor coasters are also more lacking at Alton Towers than dark rides; they have 3 dark rides (possibly 4 if Sub Terra reopens), but no indoor coasters.
• John Wardley stated that “impressive coaster technology” was on its way to Alton Towers, and Horizon being an indoor coaster would match up with this statement.

Against

• The project is not currently being emblazoned with an SW codename. This could be a hint at a non-coaster.
• The building is a slightly odd shape for an indoor coaster, with a hipped roof at only one end. Atypical building shapes are not uncommon on indoor coasters, but even for an indoor coaster, this building shape looks odd.
• While the area could definitely fit one, a building that’s 19.4m tall and occupies a ground space of 3,266m2 is not a huge area for an indoor coaster; it would certainly rule out any kind of huge thrill coaster, and fitting one in could be a tight squeeze.

Final Verdict
This seems like the most likely option to me at present. While some things throw the possibility of an indoor coaster into question a little, I think the evidence we currently have, such as the building height and ground space, would support the theory of it being an indoor coaster, in my view.

Flying theatre/media based dark ride
For

• The project name of “Project Horizon” could hint towards flying… maybe hinting at a flying theatre?
• The angled roof at one end could feasibly be to accommodate a large screen of some sort.
• Merlin have considerable form for building flying theatres as of late; the Legoland parks have built quite a few.
• The building has multiple doors side-by-side connecting the extension and the main building… which is similar to the boarding configuration of a flying theatre.

Against

• Flying theatres, and most other media-based dark rides of that vein, are very compact attractions in terms of ground space, occupying less than 1,000m2 when only one theatre is used. This building is to occupy 3,266m2 of ground space, and based on the way the paths are laid out, the big building will only hold the main ride portion of one ride, which rules out the possibility of any kind of indoor area that would provide reasoning for the building holding an attraction that’s so compact inside it.
• To counter the above argument, I’ve seen some suggest that the park could build two theatres to fill the space. However, I would argue… if it were a two-theatre flying theatre, wouldn’t the building have an angled roof on both sides rather than just on the one side?
• Also, the building shape is subtly different to that of a flying theatre. The roof slope on Horizon is more pronounced, and the building is shaped like a rectangle, whereas the building on a flying theatre has a less pronounced roof slope and is shaped like a pentagon, with multiple angled edges.
• Not to mention, the building height is slightly too tall for a flying theatre; Flight of the Sky Lion’s building was mentioned as being 13m tall in its planning application, while Project Horizon’s building is to be 19.4m tall.

Final Verdict
A flying theatre or media based dark ride is certainly a pretty plausible theory, but certain pieces of evidence lead me away from a flying theatre. The large ground space implies that it won’t be a one screen flying theatre, while the non-uniform building sides would hint against a two-screen flying theatre. I guess it could be some variant of a flying theatre or an alternative media based dark ride, but even then, some of the evidence leading me away from a flying theatre still stands, which is why I don’t think it is the most likely option.

Tracked dark ride
For

• The building takes up similar ground space to many modern dark rides. It’s certainly a large building for a dark ride, but things like Symbolica and such take up around 3,000-4,000m2, and while the building is a bit bigger than Duel, it’s not a huge amount larger.
• Merlin have recently invested in some dark ride systems that would fit Alton Towers well, so a tracked dark ride certainly isn’t out of Merlin’s recent remit. For instance, the Oceaneering ride system on Jumanji: The Adventure at Gardaland would work well at Alton Towers, in my view. Perhaps Merlin could have another Oceaneering ride up their sleeves?

Against

• The building has an atypical shape, and dark ride buildings aren’t normally atypically shaped like that. There are exceptions, but I’d say that atypical building shapes of that style are more typical of indoor coasters or media based dark rides, on the whole. Why would they need a sloped roof on one side like that if they were building a traditional flat dark ride?
• The building also seems very tall for a traditional tracked dark ride. Most dark ride buildings don’t tend to exceed 10m or so in height, while this is 19.4m. Unless they’re installing some truly epic grand-scale theming or using elevators and doing a TransFormers-style situation where the ride spans two floors, that seems very, very tall for a regular tracked dark ride.
• The budget is only £12.5m, and tracked dark rides often require a large budget to make them work compared to indoor coasters and flying theatres. For instance, Jumanji at Gardaland cost €20m. Would a £12.5m budget really stretch far enough for a tracked dark ride?

Final Verdict
This is certainly possible, but I’d say that it’s less likely than the other two ideas. I don’t see a tracked dark ride needing a building that tall and shaped in that way unless they’ve got something seriously special planned, and £12.5m does also seem a touch low in budget for a big scale tracked dark ride. It’s certainly plausible, and I think it would work well, but I’m not sure I see it as the most likely option, personally.

Indoor water ride (a la Valhalla)
For

• Many argue that Alton Towers needs a new water ride as well as a new dark ride, and this option would kill two birds with one stone, particularly if it had some sort of adjustable wetness option to take seasonal weather variations into account.
• Similarly to an indoor coaster, the ground space and height put together would make a building that’s about right for one. It has been noted that the ground space occupied by the building is suspiciously very similar to that of Valhalla, even if the building isn’t quite as tall…

Against

• I would personally argue that building an indoor water ride would cancel out many of the advantages of building an indoor attraction in the first place. For instance, an indoor water ride would be unable to operate (or at least, be very unpopular) during the colder and wetter periods, and year-round operation and year-round popularity are often key motives behind building indoor attractions in the first place. With that in mind, would Alton Towers see such a ride as viable or worth the effort for their biggest indoor attraction investment in many years?
• The biggest thing working against this theory is that the Sustainability Statement revealed that the building “will not have a water supply”. Therefore, unless Alton Towers think up some very innovative way of getting water into the building without using the mains, such as building a reservoir or hiring water tanks, a water ride looks unlikely, in my view.

Final Verdict
Anything is possible, but I’m not sure that this one is terribly likely myself. It could happen and I could be totally wrong, but the combination of the lack of year-round viability of such an attraction and the lack of a mains water supply to the building leads me away from this one. It could happen, but it’s the option I see as least likely out of the ones commonly listed.

Do you agree with me? Do you think there’s any for or against points that I’ve missed out for a particular theory?

 

[Spark]

Well no one has said it could be a rather large Astro Slide?

 

[Log Flume's Dennis]

I'm fairly certain it's going to be a Lego Discovery Centre as the resort moves towards year-round revenue. If I'm wrong, you can all beat me with sticks but if I'm right you can continue to consider me a god. I'm going on record on Nov 3rd 2022 to say it'll be a LDC with a small kiddies coaster within

 

[QTXAdsy]

It won't be a dark ride as there would be no need to; just gut out the Dungeons building, build something in there either use the boats or some other new dark ride system and that's yer lot and I've no doubt it is earmarked for a change if Project Horizon is a hit.

A coaster always draws in the crowds and no doubt it would do the same here as honestly you can say ever since Coaster Corner shut back in the day, that area of the park has suffered as you just need to view old footage of the area when you had the Beast and Mouse working there to see how vibrant the area was.

A coaster there would finally make that area relevant for GP at long last and we cam all say the park is top heavy on coasters which I cam agree with to an extent but if any area of the park needed a new coaster in this moment in time it is that area without question.

 

[venny]

Can someone explain to me the need for three equidistantly spaced door after the first smaller queue/batching building, if it were not for a flying theatre?

Twitter is clearly a cesspool of banal, unconsidered opinions, but I trust the consistently reliable and analytical TS forum to provide some sense around this question. Could somebody please indulge me?

 

[Matt N]

Can someone explain to me the need for three equidistantly spaced door after the first smaller queue/batching building, if it were not for a flying theatre?

Twitter is clearly a cesspool of banal, unconsidered opinions, but I trust the consistently reliable and analytical TS forum to provide some sense around this question. Could somebody please indulge me?

My thought was that it could be main queue/FT/RAP, with one door for each. The queues don’t appear to merge before the entrance to the building, so in my mind, it’s certainly possible that they could split off with the main queue going to the left door, FT going to the centre door and RAP going to the right door.

 

[tayspru]

I would bet it would be 3 of the Brogent flying theatres. One is going to have its screen at the side of the building with the hipped roof (don’t build for space you don’t need), and the other two will be back to back with the screens in the interior of the building, hence the lack of hipped roof at the other side of the building.

 

[Matt N]

I would bet it would be 3 of the Brogent flying theatres. One is going to have its screen at the side of the building with the hipped roof (don’t build for space you don’t need), and the other two will be back to back with the screens in the interior of the building, hence the lack of hipped roof at the other side of the building.

3 seems like a lot for what Towers would need, and to me at least, it seems more than they would likely build… even Soarin’ at Epcot only had 2 theatres until very recently, and all other versions of Soarin’ still only have 2 theatres. Flight of Passage only has 2 theatres. And that’s at Disney of all places, where visitor figures are exponentially higher than Alton Towers’.

Even Voletarium, which was built by Europa Park, the arguable kings of throughput, only has 2 theatres.

A 3-theatre flying theatre would have a theoretical throughput of 2,100pph… which seems like a fair bit more than they’d need or be likely to go for. (That estimate is based on Voletarium’s throughput, which is 1,400pph on 2 theatres. That’s also a Brogent.)

 

[tayspru]

One theatre for standby, one for FT and one for RAP

 

[Matt N]

One theatre for standby, one for FT and one for RAP

That's admittedly a very good idea... but it would still be a fair bit more throughput overall than Towers needs (if Disney and EP don't need 3 theatres, then Towers definitely don't), and quite possibly a fair bit more cost than £12.5m can cover.

 

[Tom]

Maybe they've simply gone with someone who provides more metal for your buck - Vekoma, S&S, etc. - and not an overpriced lumbering B&M or Mack for once.

 

[Benjsh]

Maybe they've simply gone with someone who provides more metal for your buck - Vekoma, S&S, etc. - and not an overpriced lumbering B&M or Mack for once.

B&M's over priced? Hahahaha. Don't make me laugh. You get what you pay for. The Smiler is a third of the age of Nemmy and still has more jolts in it.

I honestly can't see the Smiler still operating in its 28th year. It will be long gone by then no doubt.

 

[Tom]

In certain applications a B&M would be overpriced, or more specifically a waste of money. Fitting one into a building of this size would be seemingly wasteful. There’s also a chance Chessington’s will be, but until what it actually does is known, the jury is still out.

You give a good example in Nemesis of course, but there are plenty of examples where B&M track is excessive cost and over engineering for the design….Mako for example.

 

[BarryZola]

One theatre for standby, one for FT and one for RAP

Better go 2 for RAP and 1 for everyone else, just to be sure.

 

[Maelstrom]

3 seems like a lot for what Towers would need, and to me at least, it seems more than they would likely build… even Soarin’ at Epcot only had 2 theatres until very recently, and all other versions of Soarin’ still only have 2 theatres. Flight of Passage only has 2 theatres. And that’s at Disney of all places, where visitor figures are exponentially higher than Alton Towers’.

Even Voletarium, which was built by Europa Park, the arguable kings of throughput, only has 2 theatres.

A 3-theatre flying theatre would have a theoretical throughput of 2,100pph… which seems like a fair bit more than they’d need or be likely to go for. (That estimate is based on Voletarium’s throughput, which is 1,400pph on 2 theatres. That’s also a Brogent.)

Flight of Passage has 4 theatres each has three rows (Different levels of the building) seating 16 riders so 48 per theatre. I am not convinced this will be a flying theatre though.

 

[Nick🎢]

I'm fairly certain it's going to be a Lego Discovery Centre as the resort moves towards year-round revenue. If I'm wrong, you can all beat me with sticks but if I'm right you can continue to consider me a god. I'm going on record on Nov 3rd 2022 to say it'll be a LDC with a small kiddies coaster within

I could get onboard with the possibility if it wasn't for those queues. Surely it would be more walk in or at least have minimal queue infrastructure outside?