• 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

Matt N said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think the point is that any piece of evidence is ‘potentially erroneous’ but the chances of what is essentially a legal document having errors in it relating to fundamental aspects of the subject are incredibly slim.

It’s worth bearing in mind that use of the word ‘rollercoaster’ was used in the context of additional throughput which is important because unless Alton are planning on building something like Rise of the Resistance with a blockbuster IP then a rollercoaster is clearly going to be the attraction bringing in the most people, it would be quite an error to use the word incorrectly it in that context.

It’s like thinking your football team has a chance of winning the league when it’s mathematically impossible because there’s still technically a chance that the team above can get a points deduction for bankruptcy, it’s technically possible it it’s so unlikely it isn’t worth thinking about.

It’s a rollercoaster and I’d be absolutely stunned if it isn’t, my question is what type and whether it is going to be SW level.
 
Matt N said:
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.
Click to expand...

1) It says so in the planning application

2) The building is too high for a dark ride

3) It says so in the planning application

4) The building is too big for flying theatres

5) It says so in the planning application

6) JW said it was a roller coaster

7) It says so in the planning application.
 
Fair enough… I agree with the building dimensions pointing towards a roller coaster, and I’ll admit that JW’s comments are interesting to chew over.

However, I still think that something seems a little off about them saying “indoor attraction” throughout the planning application and the appendices and then suddenly dropping “roller coaster” into only two sentences of the entire thing.

Alton are clearly going to great efforts to conceal what’s inside the building, so the prospect of intentional reveals in only those two sentences seems a little odd to me…

I don’t disagree that a coaster is what I feel is most likely here, but I wouldn’t like to be certain since so many people still seem to be sceptical and think that they made a mistake in the application.
 
And there we have it. No need for any further comment unless any further evidence comes to light. I expect to see an enlightening revelation next time I get an alert for this thread ;) I honestly can't cope any more with the constant round and round of the same boring argument written about at length every 15 minutes.
 
Matt N said:
Fair enough… I agree with the building dimensions pointing towards a roller coaster, and I’ll admit that JW’s comments are interesting to chew over.

However, I still think that something seems a little off about them saying “indoor attraction” throughout the planning application and the appendices and then suddenly dropping “roller coaster” into only two sentences of the entire thing.

Alton are clearly going to great efforts to conceal what’s inside the building, so the prospect of intentional reveals in only those two sentences seems a little odd to me…

I don’t disagree that a coaster is what I feel is most likely here, but I wouldn’t like to be certain since so many people still seem to be sceptical and think that they made a mistake in the application.
Click to expand...

You're reading WAY too much into this 'indoor attraction' Matthew. A indoor coaster is technically an indoor attraction itself anyway.

There's no way they build a building this grand for anything less than a coaster. It just wouldn't make much sense.

JW's interview was all I needed. This is an indoor rollercoaster and it's got me excited as I used to adore the Black Hole as a kid.
 
Benjsh said:
You're reading WAY too much into this 'indoor attraction' Matthew. A indoor coaster is technically an indoor attraction itself anyway.

There's no way they build a building this grand for anything less than a coaster. It just wouldn't make much sense.

JW's interview was all I needed. This is an indoor rollercoaster and it's got me excited as I used to adore the Black Hole as a kid.
Click to expand...
I’m not saying it isn’t. An indoor coaster definitely qualifies as an indoor attraction, I never meant to say that it doesn’t, and I apologise if that wasn’t clear.

I was more on about how it seemed odd that Alton would use the very vague descriptor of “indoor attraction” for most of the application, go to such pains to hide the attraction type that they wouldn’t even specify what attraction they did the noise study on (merely saying “an attraction similar to Project Horizon”… past applications have used more specific case studies), and then suddenly blab out roller coaster in only two sentences of the entire massive application.

There is a chance that “roller coaster” could have been a mistake, particularly seeing as it was only mentioned twice in the entire application. It should be noted that Alton are seeking permission for the building, not the attraction inside (therefore they are under no obligation regarding what’s inside the building). Also, the phrases where “roller coaster” was mentioned are taken almost word for word from Project Exodus’ planning documents, which could have resulted in the odd mistaken word left in there.

I fully agree that a roller coaster seems like the most logical explanation for a building of those dimensions. And JW’s interview is very interesting to chew over, even if he may not have been expressly talking about Project Horizon (what he said is very open to interpretation). As such, I feel that a roller coaster is the most likely outcome here, and that is what I am personally predicting.

However, I would not like to declare that it 100% is a roller coaster, simply because we don’t know for sure by virtue of it being indoors, and there is still evidence that could support an alternative outcome at this stage.
 
Last edited:
I personally think we will see something along the lines of an Intamin Multi Dimension coaster. While the park already have thirteen it only utalises the freewill drop. Intamin offer alot of different effect elements for this model (they offer 12 effect elements) this includes bungee lift, motion base track pieces, track tilts, teeter-totter elements, side drops. Plus cars can have controlled or free spinning capabilities, lifts or launches, they also offer with sling launches with track spikes (like on hagrids at universal) with two example layouts with spikes at 18m and 13m high. Lots of car options as well as could be traditional style trains or motorbike style trains. This model would work very well in an indoor themed environment with so many possibilities to make something unique.

www.intamin.com

Multi Dimension Coaster - Intamin Amusement Rides

www.intamin.com www.intamin.com
 
The planning application literally says rollercoaster Matthew.

People are paid ALOT of money to create and submit ACURATE planning applications, it can be considered a criminal offence to put misleading information on a planning application, in rare cases, even if the information that is not accurate is not directly linked to getting the plans approved.

Given that this ride is being built in one of the most sensitive areas in the park, being so close to the village, it would be extremely important to make sure the information is accurate. If it was not a coaster, they would not leave rollercoaster wording in the planning application, which would be a more difficult sell to get past the planners than a non-coaster attraction. They are not purposely going to make their own application more difficult to be approved if it did not need to be.
 
DistortAMG said:
The planning application literally says rollercoaster Matthew.

People are paid ALOT of money to create and submit ACURATE planning applications, it can be considered a criminal offence to put misleading information on a planning application, in rare cases, even if the information that is not accurate is not directly linked to getting the plans approved.

Given that this ride is being built in one of the most sensitive areas in the park, being so close to the village, it would be extremely important to make sure the information is accurate. If it was not a coaster, they would not leave rollercoaster wording in the planning application, which would be a more difficult sell to get past the planners than a non-coaster attraction. They are not purposely going to make their own application more difficult to be approved if it did not need to be.
Click to expand...
Plus, as has been mentioned before a tracked dark ride or flying theatre could be built anywhere, so it makes sense to put a coaster in this building as one wouldn't be allowed on its own due to noise. It would be a wasted opportunity if it wasn't a coaster.
 
Last edited:
Skyscraper said:
Plus, as has been mentioned before a tracked dark ride or flying theatre could be built anywhere, so it makes sense to put a coaster in this building as one wouldn't be allowed on its own due to noise. It would be a wasted opportunity of it wasn't a coaster.
Click to expand...
I agree. If Alton are ever to build an indoor coaster, I’d say this is their best opportunity to do so by far. Tracked dark rides and flying theatres typically require less ground space, therefore a big area like this would arguably be a bit wasted on a flying theatre in particular.
DistortAMG said:
The planning application literally says rollercoaster Matthew.

People are paid ALOT of money to create and submit ACURATE planning applications, it can be considered a criminal offence to put misleading information on a planning application, in rare cases, even if the information that is not accurate is not directly linked to getting the plans approved.

Given that this ride is being built in one of the most sensitive areas in the park, being so close to the village, it would be extremely important to make sure the information is accurate. If it was not a coaster, they would not leave rollercoaster wording in the planning application, which would be a more difficult sell to get past the planners than a non-coaster attraction. They are not purposely going to make their own application more difficult to be approved if it did not need to be.
Click to expand...
I agree that a lot of the evidence points towards a coaster. However, I wouldn’t personally like to be 100% sure of it being a coaster at this stage.

I’m not sure two mentions out of many sentences by a third party is necessarily concrete confirmation, because the same third party mentions “indoor attraction” at the vast majority of the other points. I know that sounds pedantic, but the devil is in the detail with these things; everywhere else, they say “indoor attraction”, which lines up with the park line to hide what’s in the building as much as possible.

Therefore, you’d expect them to want a consistent line of wording throughout the application and maximum secrecy; I’d be surprised if Alton asked for “rollercoaster” to be put in intentionally given their efforts to hide the attraction type in every other document (heck, even most other parts of the same appendices). Given how similar the wording is to the same parts in Exodus’ application, I think there’s every chance that “rollercoaster” could have been left in accidentally. It seems a bit odd that Alton would want it explicitly confirmed it on only those two occasions. Surely they’d either go for “roller coaster” all around or no mention of it at all?

As for legality; the application is for the building, not the attraction inside the building, not to mention that rollercoaster is not a legal term with no legal definition; even enthusiasts can’t agree on exactly what constitutes a roller coaster, and non-enthusiasts sometimes have an even more fluid definition of the term. Therefore, it would be very hard for someone to make a case against the park for not building a roller coaster, because it’s not a legal term, and the definition of what even constitutes one in the first place is surprisingly fluid.

If the park themselves confirm it more explicitly in a different planning document, or there’s some jaw-dropping revelation, or they announce something, my mind will be changed and I will believe that it 100% is a coaster. I agree that a lot of the evidence points towards a coaster being most likely. However, I’m hesitant to be so confident that it will be a coaster at this stage, because the actual known facts are pretty limited.

I should probably stop banging this drum, though, as it’s clear that I’m losing this battle… sorry to waste all of your time.
 
Last edited:
I think the question and what John says are both quite open to interpretation.

Despite initially asking about coasters, the questioner asks “has anything come along that has really impressed or even surprised you?” and John simply responds “it is coming along… here”. That is incredibly open to interpretation… who’s to say that John is even necessarily talking about coasters? I know the question is initially asked in the context of coasters, but who’s to say that he isn’t just responding to the last line of the question and talking more generally?

And who’s to say that he’s even necessarily talking about Horizon?

It’s very open to interpretation…
 
Last edited:
No interpretation there Matt, the question is opened in the context of a rollercoaster with several examples given in terms of new technologies on coasters.

In terms of him talking about Horizon, there is a potential for him to be referring to something after this, but he did say that we wouldn’t have long to wait for plans (which we now have).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top