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

[Matt N]

£12 million would be the construction budget, so everything not including marketing and IP (if there is an IP). Add those two elements and you have a budget of least £18 million. It's an indoor attraction so I reckon that an IP is extremely likely.

Not necessarily. Wicker Man's was reported as £16m in its planning application, and Towers marketed it as... £16m. It might have been £15m, come to think of it, but it was certainly pretty close, if not identical, to the figure that Merlin reported in marketing.

Even still, I think £12.5m could fund an indoor family coaster of some form. I'd argue that a tracked dark ride would be more doubtful than an indoor coaster or media based dark ride at that price tag, as those require a lot more money to get right than an indoor coaster or a media based dark ride (e.g. a flying theatre).

 

[Matt.GC]

Such a small building and budget screams a relatively run of the mill indoor Vekoma to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's something the park could do with and would be able to operate in the winter. But at 12m quid in a 19 meter high building, an SW it ain't. Hopefully we'll get something inclusive and well themed.

 

[The Big Mack]

Not necessarily. Wicker Man's was reported as £16m in its planning application, and Towers marketed it as... £16m. It might have been £15m, come to think of it, but it was certainly pretty close, if not identical, to the figure that Merlin reported in marketing.

Even still, I think £12.5m could fund an indoor family coaster of some form. I'd argue that a tracked dark ride would be more doubtful than an indoor coaster or media based dark ride at that price tag, as those require a lot more money to get right than an indoor coaster or a media based dark ride (e.g. a flying theatre).

It states in the infographic that the construction budget is £12.5 million. It doesn't say anything about it being the full budget including marketing and IP (if there is one). As I've explained on another forum, I'd expect a major new attraction at Alton Towers to carry a marketing budget by a few million or so, which would of course inflate the budget considerably. Merlin like to splash out the cash on their marketing, and in this age of harnessing entertainment Intellectual Property we could expect them to spend a large chunk on that as well. I'm pretty certain that the new Jumanji area at Chessington carries a similar construction budget if you ignore the IP and marketing costs.

 

[Benjsh]

£12.5m might not sound a lot but if this is a new prototype coaster they could be getting a good deal on it. Certainly wouldn't be the first time Towers have been the Guinea Pigs for that sort of thing.

 

[Matt N]

Such a small building and budget screams a relatively run of the mill indoor Vekoma to me. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's something the park could do with and would be able to operate in the winter. But at 12m quid in a 19 meter high building, an SW it ain't. Hopefully well get something inclusive and we'll themed.

My thought was that it could be something that uses technology to its advantage to make the ride seem longer and more advanced than it is, such as a ride like DarKoaster at Busch Gardens Williamsburg. That ride is due to use high speed switch track technology that allows it to do 2 laps of the layout without inhibiting throughput. I've done some measurements of the building it's occupying on Google Earth, and I think it could fit into the Project Horizon building nicely. The shorter physical track length would also support a lower budget, if the £12.5m referred to is the entire project budget.

Here's an NL2 rednering of DarKoaster to show you the sort of thing I'm talking about:


I reckon you could do something quite cool with that; they could even do different effects and light up different theming items on each lap to give off the illusion of it being a longer ride.

I would be very surprised if any coaster in this space was SW-calibre, however; I fully expect a family or family thrill ride here whether it's a coaster or not.

It states in the infographic that the construction budget is £12.5 million. It doesn't say anything about it being the full budget including marketing and IP (if there is one). As I've explained on another forum, I'd expect a major new attraction at Alton Towers to carry a marketing budget by a few million or so., which would of course inflate the budget considerably.

Ah, sorry; I didn't see that they'd referred to it possibly only being a construction budget. It could still be the entire project budget, but if it is a construction budget that excludes marketing, that does open up our options a bit more!

 

[Matt.GC]

I'm familiar with Darkoaster. It's small and does a lap of the layout twice using expensive switch track tech to make the ride seem longer than it is. It will also probably be costing significantly more than £12m even without having the expense of constructing a new building to house it in. Not that I'd mind something like that, it would be a great fit for Towers but I don't think this will be a groundbreaker.

 

[Matt N]

I'm familiar with Darkoaster. It's small and does a lap of the layout twice using expensive switch track tech to make the ride seem longer than it is. It will also probably be costing significantly more than £12m even without having the expense of constructing a new building to house it in. Not that I'd mind something like that, it would be a great fit for Towers but I don't think this will be a groundbreaker.

One thing I would say there, however, is that if Towers were to build such a ride, they wouldn’t be grappling with the R&D costs that Busch Gardens Williamsburg potentially are, which would make it a fair bit cheaper.

In fact, I believe there are a number of rides using Intamin’s high speed switch track technology opening before Project Horizon will; examples include Toutatis and Gotham City Escape. I think the tech may actually already have premiered on Hagrid’s Magical Creatures Motorbike Adventure back in 2019, come to think of it… my basic point is, however, that Towers’ costs could be lowered compared to BGW’s and others’ for a hypothetical ride of that vein because unlike BGW or another of the upcoming rides, they wouldn’t be the ones developing and premiering the technology.

Therefore, Towers would be using tested technology, which would remove the R&D costs, while still providing a UK’s first. In terms of complexity of tech, this would only require two switch tracks… that’s no more switch/trick tracks than Thirteen has to facilitate its drop track and backwards section, and that also had the entire R&D cost of developing the drop track in the first place attached to it.

 

[BarryZola]

Okay, okay. I think everyone's had their say now. Coaster, not a coaster, flying carpet? We'll find out in a couple of years. No need to keep writing an essay about it every time someone suggests a differing view to your own or a vloggers. Stop worrying yourselves about it. CHRIST.

 

[DistortAMG]

However, the planning application sends somewhat mixed messages. It says "rollercoaster" in some parts and "indoor attraction" in others, which could lead to the suggestion that "rollercoaster" may have been a mistake in the places where it appeared. 5.

Why would it suggest that the use of the world rollercoaster is a mistake? I do not see the logic here.

Are you implying that a rollercoaster inside a building is not an indoor attraction? I think you are. A coaster indoors is an indoor attraction, therefor the wording on the application is correct. They can use the words "indoor attraction" while still referring to a rollercoaster, it is still factually correct.

Alton Towers is one of the most notoriously difficult places in the country to get planning permission, they will have gone over that application with a fine-tooth comb before submitting it. There are no mixed messages, a rollercoaster indoors is an indoor attraction, it is as simple as that.

 

[Nick🎢]

Right let's put this to bed. I can't see anyone arguing that this isn't a coaster. The only debate seems to be around the bullet proof certainty that it is.

I am sure nobody in this great community is a big enough fool to say there is a 100% chance this is a coaster. 99%? Maybe. 90% certainly?

It looks like all that is play is that different brain and personality types attribute "definitely" to different practical probabilities. I have seen this a lot at work, high risk projects. Many people will conflate "highly likely" with "definitely". We always assume we are talking the same language and have the same frame of reference but we really don't.

 

[Raza]

I can see this thread getting very interesting (is that the word?) if AT don’t have to reveal any other details since it is an indoor attraction as TPWW stated - the speculation will be on another level (remember when WM lift hill was being touted as a launch? )

 

[Matt N]

Why would it suggest that the use of the world rollercoaster is a mistake? I do not see the logic here.

Are you implying that a rollercoaster inside a building is not an indoor attraction? I think you are. A coaster indoors is an indoor attraction, therefor the wording on the application is correct. They can use the words "indoor attraction" while still referring to a rollercoaster, it is still factually correct.

Alton Towers is one of the most notoriously difficult places in the country to get planning permission, they will have gone over that application with a fine-tooth comb before submitting it. There are no mixed messages, a rollercoaster indoors is an indoor attraction, it is as simple as that.

That’s not what I was trying to imply. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

A rollercoaster inside a building is certainly an indoor attraction. I’m not trying to say for a second that it isn’t.

I’m fully aware that “rollercoaster” and “indoor attraction” are not mutually exclusive terms, but Alton Towers used “indoor attraction” in most other parts of the appendices and planning application apart from two instances, both of which happened to be very, very similar to extracts from the same appendices in Thorpe Park’s Project Exodus application. They did admittedly update the statistics to fit Project Horizon rather than Project Exodus, but given that only those two sentences said rollercoaster and the rest of the application, even within those same two appendices, said “indoor attraction”, I don’t think it’s inconceivable to suggest that roller coaster may have been a typo, and that Alton Towers’ intended line was to say “indoor attraction” throughout. When Alton Towers are clearly trying to keep the identity of the attraction inside a secret by saying “indoor attraction”, it does seem a little odd that the appendices would say “indoor attraction” for most of the sentences and then suddenly blab out “roller coaster” in 1 or 2.

It is worth remembering a few things:

• In this case, Alton Towers are seeking planning permission for the building rather than the attraction inside it. Other than some minor details about usage of the mains and such, Alton Towers are under no obligation to specify any details about the attraction inside.
• Roller coaster is not a legal term, and is surprisingly open ended in definition. “Roller coaster” can often be applied to any attraction by non-enthusiasts, and when even enthusiasts can’t agree on exactly what constitutes a roller coaster, I’m not sure that any case against them for building, say, a dark ride instead of a roller coaster would have a lot of legs simply due to how open ended the term is and how it’s not actually a legal term. These appendices were made by an external consultancy firm rather than the park themselves, therefore I don’t think it’s out of the question that they could have a wider definition of roller coaster than us.
• “Indoor attraction” seems to be the park line, and for the most part, the consultancy firm also uses it apart from two sentences. Given that rollercoaster only appears twice out of many potential opportunities for it to, I don’t think it’s out of the question that it could have been an accidental typo left in from Project Exodus’ documents.

I agree that I think there’s a very good chance of this being an indoor coaster. To me, it seems like the most likely of the potential options even when excluding those statements. However, I do think that it would be overly rash to rule out a non-coaster, because there are some explanations that could support one, and we haven’t actually had confirmation of it being a coaster aside from these possible typos.

 

[AT86]

Just popping in this thread to see what’s being discussed now it’s been a few days.

 

[BarryZola]

Please, make it stop.

 

[tayspru]

People are desperate for it to be a new coaster despite the rhetoric being until very recency that the park already has too many, with ratio of coaster to permanent thrill flats being 10:1 (if you even count Blade as a thrill ride)

It’s fascinating stuff and there’s merit to both camps. But interesting that people are so certain, despite the points Matt outlined is fascinating

People don’t like to be wrong either so we will see how this works out

 

[Matt N]

I’d really like an indoor coaster. I could certainly make an argument that an indoor coaster could provide great value to Alton Towers’ lineup and be different from their existing coasters.

From where I’m standing, an indoor coaster in a building of that size would most probably add a whole family attraction, which many argue that the park needs more of. They only really have RMT for this demographic within the coaster lineup anyway, so it would add value. An indoor coaster is also one of the few proper gaps left in Alton Towers’ coaster lineup, and the Coaster Corner site is perhaps their prime opportunity to build one. They have some potential easy wins on the dark ride front in the form of the Dungeons building and Sub-Terra (if it doesn’t reopen next year, that is).

The filler lineup may well have improved by 2025 (if Sub-Terra reopens next year, that adds a not insignificant filler attraction into the mix, and who’s to say that they won’t add some permanent flats in 2024?), and it would also be 7 years since Alton Towers’ last coaster investment. Going much longer than 7 years between coasters would be borderline unprecedented based on the park’s recent history.

However, I don’t think a coaster is necessarily a given here, and I also think a non-coaster could be equally valuable in different ways.

 

[Dave]

People are desperate for it to be a new coaster despite the rhetoric being until very recency that the park already has too many, with ratio of coaster to permanent thrill flats being 10:1 (if you even count Blade as a thrill ride)

It’s fascinating stuff and there’s merit to both camps. But interesting that people are so certain, despite the points Matt outlined is fascinating

People don’t like to be wrong either so we will see how this works out

I would prefer a tracked dark ride…

…This is definitely a roller coaster

 

[Skyscraper]

Alton Towers staff when reading this thread...

 

[Matt N]

I would prefer a tracked dark ride…

…This is definitely a roller coaster

Out of interest, what evidence is making you predict that so confidently aside from the two potentially erroneous mentions of “roller coaster” in the appendices?

I don’t disagree that a roller coaster looks likely; to me, it seems like the most likely option based on the evidence I see in the application. But what evidence is making you 100% certain that it’s a coaster, out of interest?

I’m not trying to be confrontational there, and I apologise if it comes across that way. I’m simply interested to know.

 

[tayspru]

Out of interest, what evidence is making you predict that so confidently aside from the two potentially erroneous mentions of “roller coaster” in the appendices?

I don’t disagree that a roller coaster looks likely; to me, it seems like the most likely option based on the evidence I see in the application. But what evidence is making you 100% certain that it’s a coaster, out of interest?

I’m not trying to be confrontational there, and I apologise if it comes across that way. I’m simply interested to know.

Unless someone wants to fall of their high horse and onto their sword, it’s very likely that some higher up” forum members may have information that isn’t public that allows them to be so certain. Of course they can’t directly say as such