• 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

Nick🎢 said:
Would you make the argument then that, although they have been very purposeful in using the term "indoor attraction" for the majority of the documentation, they decided to let the cat out of the bag on the travel impact document? What would be the rationale for that?
Click to expand...

As Adam said they wanted to emphasise it was indoors as it’s so close to the village. That said they need to be clear at some point what sort of hardware is inside the building.
 
Dave said:
As Adam said they wanted to emphasise it was indoors as it’s so close to the village. That said they need to be clear at some point what sort of hardware is inside the building.
Click to expand...
That's fair enough. I appreciate it's purely a hypothesis and has no basis in circumstantial or direct evidence. To be totally fair, while people may believe it, it's just as much of a hypothesis as the cut and paste chain of thought is. I.e. the only direct fact is what it says, where and at what ratio in the documents. Everything on top of that is people rationalising and creating meaning.
 
Dave said:
I think it’s also worth repeating that being open minded doesn’t mean giving equal weight to every idea presented to you, it means that you are open minded to evidence given and don’t apply your own bias to it.
Click to expand...
I really don't have that bias as I really do expect their to be a rollercoaster in the building, but there is no way anyone should be absolutely certain of it based on the scant information publicly available. That really would be closed minded. The beating up on Matt in here for remaining open minded is unnecessary. Until AT confirms what's going in there, or we see it, we won't KNOW.

People with a little knowledge and some plans were certain about the washing machine element...

The one document I find it surprising they are not getting away with mentioning ride type, where that information is actually relevant, is the noise impact assessment. In not disclosing the vague type of ride it is (I remember The Smiler planning referenced Saw for example), the planners can't hold that to any level of scrutiny. All that is stated is noise levels were recorded at locations of similar ride types both at AT and across the UK. With no indoor coasters already at AT what was it they were listening to?
 
Nick🎢 said:
I don't think that's in that much doubt. The whole debate is around if it's 100% one or 95% one. It's a critical thinking exercise if nothing else.

Let's put it to bed until we have some direct evidence.
Click to expand...
Like them referring to it as a rollercoaster in planning permission documentation? Yeah towers totally would spend £30,000 to submit planning permission to not even proof read a legal document.
 
George W said:
Like them referring to it as a rollercoaster in planning permission documentation? Yeah towers totally would spend £30,000 to submit planning permission to not even proof read a legal document.
Click to expand...
A large part of critical thinking is applying a skeptical lens. The above it's what's called Rationalising and would be deemed Conjecture.
 
pluk said:
People with a little knowledge and some plans were certain about the washing machine element...
Click to expand...

The washing machine Smiler rumour was completely unrelated to plans, indeed at the time many pointed out that the track and foundations showed that there was no space for such a trick track but again people refused to believe the evidence in front of them.
 
Dave said:
The washing machine Smiler rumour was completely unrelated to plans, indeed at the time many pointed out that the track and foundations showed that there was no space for such a trick track but again people refused to believe the evidence in front of them.
Click to expand...
As I understand it those making the claim had info that it was inversion led (with access to some of the graphics produced), but with the plans as they were not reflecting what was to be built they decided it must then in that inside element. So yes, directly related to plans. Not that this little aside is really the point, the point was you can be creative and remain legal within planning documents.
 
As I’ve said, I’m not saying it 100% won’t be a roller coaster. I expect that it is most likely to be one. If Alton says “coaster” or we see supports/footers on site when it’s being built, I will accept that it 100% is a coaster. I’m simply keeping an open mind, as it’s hard to be certain at this stage with what little info we have. I simply believe it would be overly rash to instantly rule out all other options at this stage of the game.

As for other planning application errors from Alton in the past; I believe Wicker Man was said to have a “silent magnetic lift system” in its noise assessment. That made many people assume that it would have a launch, or at very least a unique lift hill, but it ultimately had a regular chain lift. Also, I’m sure that most people who’ve stood by that lift hill would agree that it’s far from silent! To tell you the truth, I’m quite surprised that they got away with that given that what they built is arguably the opposite of what they said they were going to build…

My basic point is; third parties writing planning applications are not infallible on these things, particularly when it comes to the small print.
 
The same circles being spun round again and again.
No development, no progress, just repeating the same opinions and perspectives.
Beginning to prefer the dead duel topic.
Maybe not, but all the same.
Rationalising and conjecture?
If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit.
 
rob666 said:
The same circles being spun round again and again.
No development, no progress, just repeating the same opinions and perspectives.
Beginning to prefer the dead duel topic.
Maybe not, but all the same.
Rationalising and conjecture?
If you can't dazzle them with diamonds, baffle them with bullshit.
Click to expand...
No need to be a 🍆 mate.
 
Ok I think we all need to calm down a bit! Is there anyway the discussion can be moved on to another point so as to stop endless circles of the same stuff and unnecessary arguing? Like what theme do we want? Will it be a thrill ride? Will it be a family ride? Please, ANYTHING to stop the "it's a coaster", "it's not a coaster", "it could be a coaster", "here's why it is/its not a coaster". ANYTHING
 
I think some of us need a chill pill or a ride on In The Night Garden Magical Boat Ride and just chill out it's really not that deep.

Everything seems to be heavily hinting heavily towards a coaster, doesn't mean we can't speculate otherwise this is a theme park forum after all.

The constant debate of the 2 sides of 'this has to be a coaster' and 'no it's a flying theatre' is very jarring at this point though.
 
Looking through the New for 2023 might give a feel for the sort of kit going in. I am struggling to find any examples generally of anything thrill that doesn't need a hight of at least double this building, envelope included so unless it's unconventional it is likely family thrill or lesser.
 
Ok so it’s pretty standard form for Merlin to only open dark rides with an IP. In fact it’s pretty much the case across all theme park chains now.

So what do you think? What IP could be in its way?
 
AT86 said:
Ok so it’s pretty standard form for Merlin to only open dark rides with an IP. In fact it’s pretty much the case across all theme park chains now.

So what do you think? What IP could be in its way?
Click to expand...
I would hope there isn't an IP to this. I don't think the David Walliams one has gone down particularly well, and I think they'd be best sticking to an original (lighthearted) theme.
 
If we are taking the planning docs at face value re: digging down (or not) - ignoring ground works. Looking at the theme of hardware going out, the most likely candidate in my mind has to be Intamin, tire drive launch such as DarKoaster or Arctic Rescue. What the Horizon element is could be interesting. These words are not just made up and are "obvious" post reveal. If it were an Intamin there is the possibility it's a coaster combined with screen tech. Maybe large screens that show images in time with the coaster movement to give a certain perception?
 
George W said:
'no it's a flying theatre' is very jarring at this point though.
Click to expand...

Literally no one has said this. It's like people don't actually read posts, they just have a guess at what someone is thinking regardless of what they've written.

Nick🎢 said:
If we are taking the planning docs at face value re: digging down (or not) - ignoring ground works. Looking at the theme of hardware going out, the most likely candidate in my mind has to be Intamin, tire drive launch such as DarKoaster or Arctic Rescue. What the Horizon element is could be interesting. These words are not just made up and are "obvious" post reveal. If it were an Intamin there is the possibility it's a coaster combined with screen tech. Maybe large screens that show images in time with the coaster movement to give a certain perception?
Click to expand...

Maybe it's really obvious, and they've had that omnimover in storage since 1999? 🤣🤣

It certainly does make me think of an expansive view, maybe some space connotations, something visually spectacular.
 
I don't want to keep sending the thread in circles as I have complained about it myself :tearsofjoy:but in Joh Wardley's interview just posted in the Nemesis thread, he clearly lists (most) of the coasters he's been involved in, and then says "a big new ride is coming after Nemesis opens in 2024". That's Project Horizon surely?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top