• 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.

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

venny said:
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?
Click to expand...

There is no need for three doors for a flying theatre, certainly not the Brogen variety.

Volatarium has one entry into the building and one batching area for two theatres. The only “doors” are actually on each level and there are 6 doors for two theatres.

Towers don’t need three theatres if they where to build a flying theatre, they would need two max and if you were to do that you would have a similar set up to EP and…… one door into the building!

This building is too big for flying theatres as we know them now. Now it might not be a rollercoaster but I don’t buy the “accidental” copy and paste argument in the planning documents. They might use the same phraseology but these are documents backing up a legally challengeable approval process. I don’t believe a professional outfit would be inclined to allow that sort of error to occur.
 
Last edited:
It says 'rollercoaster' on several pages of that planning document and it mentions it in slightly different ways each time. Why are we still talking about a flying theatre? Surely that's now not possible?

I think the name Horizon is confusing people and making them think of Soarin.
 
Benjsh said:
It says 'rollercoaster' on several pages of that planning document and it mentions it in slightly different ways each time. Why are we still talking about a flying theatre? Surely that's now not possible?
Click to expand...
It is thought by some that “rollercoaster” was an accidental slip of the tongue given that much of the economic support statements were quoted almost ad verbatim from Exodus’ planning application; “rollercoaster” was thought to have been left in by accident, as “indoor attraction” is mentioned in most other places.

As such, I’m not considering that statement confirmation. Some people seem very adamant that those words are simply in there because Alton almost perfectly copied and pasted the statements from Exodus’ planning application and forgot to change the word to “indoor attraction” in those cases. The use of “indoor attraction” in most other places would support this theory.
 
As Dave said, these are in effect legal documents, and you would expect them to be fully proof read before submission. They have been prepared by experienced consultants, and even where bits have clearly been copied from the documents used in Thorpe's application there are wording changes were necessary. I'll be shocked if this is not some sort of indoor coaster.
 
I have forgotten how much desperate speculation new rides bring to these forums.

Nick Varney could parachute into Alton Towers naked with a banner saying “this is definitely a roller coaster” whilst the high court makes a statement confirming the fact and there would still be a geek who would go…

“But maybe it’s a bouncy castle”
 
Exactly, I don't understand how it even refers to it being a coaster and there are still people that are like "it's definitely not a coaster". I was gonna make the point that they would have been thorughly read and proof read and it wouldn't be left in if it wasn't going to be that.
 
I think what’s throwing some people off is that rollercoaster is only mentioned in passing a couple of times and everywhere else, even within the same statements, refers to it being an “indoor attraction”…

It does strike me as suspicious that they referred to it as a “roller coaster” a couple of times, but I’ve been told by some that that’s simply me using confirmation bias to make my wishes a reality rather than rational thinking. I’ve been told that I have an issue with thinking emotionally rather than rationally, and that I need to calm down and be open-minded to the possibility that it isn’t a coaster, so I’ll stop banging that particular drum…
 
Matt N said:
I think what’s throwing some people off is that rollercoaster is only mentioned in passing a couple of times and everywhere else, even within the same statements, refers to it being an “indoor attraction”…

It does strike me as suspicious that they referred to it as a “roller coaster” a couple of times, but I’ve been told by some that that’s simply me using confirmation bias to make my wishes a reality rather than rational thinking. I’ve been told that I have an issue with thinking emotionally rather than rationally, and that I need to calm down and be open-minded to the possibility that it isn’t a coaster, so I’ll stop banging that particular drum…
Click to expand...

Ironically enough I think the people telling you that you are suffering confirmation bias are doing so themselves.

Confirmation bias is using assumed evidence to confirm an internal bias. The planning documents state roller coaster, that’s not confirmation bias, that’s confirmation.

The planning documents mention indoor attraction as well as rollercoaster as they want to emphasise the ride is indoors as it’s a sensitive part of the site from the perspective of the locals.

Now if they resubmit the paperwork and remove all reference to roller coaster in the next few weeks I am happy to change my mind but if they don’t then I am happy this is not an error as otherwise they are jeopardising their application by presenting inaccurate planning information which is challengeable in court.

I do think there will be something unusual about this coaster and it might not operate completely traditionally but I am certain there will be rollercoaster technology in use.

And it definitely isn’t a flying theatre.
 
Matt N said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would say this too, but it's interesting that all three queues enter the building right next to one another. Smiler's 4 queues on the other hand enter its building on different sides, before continuing on for a short distance then reaching baggage. It's also interesting how the three doors connecting the extension to the main building are quite far apart.
 
Skyscraper said:
I would say this too, but it's interesting that all three queues enter the building right next to one another. Smiler's 4 queues on the other hand enter its building on different sides, before continuing on for a short distance then reaching baggage. It's also interesting how the three doors connecting the extension to the main building are quite far apart.
Click to expand...
My theory was that the main queue could switchback about off to the left for a bit, hence using the left door, while the FT queue could go straight ahead and use the centre door and the RAP queue could head off to the right and use the right door.
 
I feel like enthusiasts have become so expecting to know everything about a new attraction, they're acting pretty self entitled now that we have a ride that doesn't require giving it all away in the planning application years before it opens.

In years past you wouldnt even see the planning application unless you went to the local council office. Be ok with NOT knowing exactly what something is before its announced!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Niet Roken said:
I feel like enthusiasts have become so self entitled expecting to know everything about a new attraction, that they're losing their minds now that we have a ride that doesn't require giving it all away in the planning application years before it opens.

In years past you wouldnt even see the planning application unless you went to the local council office. Think of it as a luxury that we have 100s fan sites spreading plans years in advance and vloggers turning up at council meetings attempting to understand the planning process. And be ok with NOT knowing exactly what something is before its announced!
Click to expand...
There’s nothing wrong with a little speculation and some theories, in my view. This is a fan site, after all, and seeing the evidence presented in the planning application and documents is bound to conjure up a few ideas of what people think is most likely to be happening.

The fact that this doesn’t tell us what it’s going to be straight off the bat makes for an interesting change of pace, and I’d argue that it could make the build more exciting, in some ways!
 
Johnny_5 said:
Mission Ferrari style SFX coaster, anyone?
Click to expand...
It could be, I guess!

Although the two that are being built have both spent many years in construction and been delayed multiple times (Mission Ferrari has been under construction in some capacity for the best part of 10 years, it was originally supposed to open in 2015, and there has been little in the way of external movement in the last 5 years), so that might be a possible red flag for a major investment at Alton Towers…
 
Niet Roken said:
I feel like enthusiasts have become so self entitled expecting to know everything about a new attraction, that they're losing their minds now that we have a ride that doesn't require giving it all away in the planning application years before it opens.
Click to expand...

Memories of Smiler's indoor section there for sure.

On top of Smiler not being completely true at the first planning application.
 
For some balance; I did have a thought as to how the building could possibly accommodate something like an Intamin Motion Tower or flying theatre while being too big for one on its own.

Could they do something similar to Hex, where it’s a longer experience with multiple pre-shows beforehand?

That would admittedly be one possible explanation for the 3 side-by-side doors, and it could also fill the space.

I still personally believe that an indoor roller coaster is the most likely outcome here, for the reasons I have set out. However, I do think that a Hex-style implementation would be another logical explanation that would work in favour of it being something like a Motion Tower, a Dynamic Motion Theatre, or a Flying Theatre.
 
Matt N said:
Could they do something similar to Hex, where it’s a longer experience with multiple pre-shows beforehand?

That would admittedly be one possible explanation for the 3 side-by-side doors, and it could also fill the space.
Click to expand...
The layout does not make sense if that's the case. You would be returning to the main entrance/queue line area in-between each scene, rather than just going from each scene directly into the next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top