• 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

Tom said:
All I can say is that the track on this had better be black as it makes for a better ride in the dark.
Click to expand...
I highly expect that the track would be black if this were to be an enclosed coaster. The vast majority of enclosed coasters have black track.

Come to think of it, I’m struggling to think of ones that don’t… I think CanCan Coaster at Europa might be the only one? (CanCan is painted red)
 
Who even cares anymore, you can guarantee that Alton Towers is going to get both a new coaster and an indoor attraction in the future. If this isn't a coaster, despite the application saying, then another project will be.
 
With the application stating roller coaster, and the building having a large shutter door on one side, this suggests a coaster more than anything. The application is for the building only, so it could be something else, however, I don't feel the mention of roller coaster multiple times is a coincidence.

Lets hope Towers can actually build it first!
 
NoSmoking said:
Who even cares anymore, you can guarantee that Alton Towers is going to get both a new coaster and an indoor attraction in the future. If this isn't a coaster, despite the application saying, then another project will be.
Click to expand...
If it isn't a coaster then you would probably be waiting for another 3-4 years until the next major ride investment opens, although the investment model does seem to have moved on a little bit. A 2028 coaster would make it about 10 years since the last major coaster, which seems unlikely, but who knows these days.
 
James said:
With the application stating roller coaster, and the building having a large shutter door on one side, this suggests a coaster more than anything.
Click to expand...
With regard to the bolded; wouldn’t a shutter door be needed for any ride vehicle? A coaster train is not that uniquely sized compared to any other dark ride vehicle, and even something like a flying theatre would still require access to the building.
 
Matt N said:
With regard to the bolded; wouldn’t a shutter door be needed for any ride vehicle? A coaster train is not that uniquely sized compared to any other dark ride vehicle, and even something like a flying theatre would still require access to the building.
Click to expand...
But you're disregarding the other bit in his whole sentence which states...rollercoaster 😂
 
Craig said:
But you're disregarding the other bit in his whole sentence which states...rollercoaster 😂
Click to expand...
I wasn’t focusing on that bit. I was merely talking about his mention of the door, which if the mention of coaster was put aside, could be for any ride type. The door alone is not special to a coaster; any ride type would require a service hatch like that.

I accept that the planning application states “roller coaster”, which is a pretty big bit of evidence in favour of it being a coaster, but I’m not sure that the door on its own automatically points to it being a coaster. @James inferred that the service door was a piece of evidence for it being a coaster, but I’m not sure I agree, as any ride type would need access to the building.

Do you get what I mean?
 
And so the great back and forth continues over what the ride is continues.

I'm hoping for an SFX/Multidimension coaster, but I'll wait for the ride system to arrive before we know what it is for sure.
 
Matt N said:
With regard to the bolded; wouldn’t a shutter door be needed for any ride vehicle? A coaster train is not that uniquely sized compared to any other dark ride vehicle, and even something like a flying theatre would still require access to the building.
Click to expand...
The comment on the shutter door is more to support the rollercoaster evidence. Yes, a shutter door could be required for any other ride, however, in regards to an application where 'rollercoaster' is mentioned throughout, the shutter door is perfect for a rollercoaster train... if that makes sense!

My memory is a bit hazy with the application. I believe one document compares the amount of steel required for this project to The Smiler's construction, and also the project timeline is similar to that of a roller coaster. I'll try to have a gander and find where that is in the documents.

There's much more evidence in this application that this will be a rollercoaster, compared to Nemesis' track colour in that application (which was more of a throwaway line that could be perceived one way or the other).
 
Matt N said:
I accept that the planning application states “roller coaster”, which is a pretty big bit of evidence for it being a coaster, but I’m not sure that the door on its own points to anything.
Click to expand...
But again this goes back to the whole point I'm making. James said both the shutter and the application stating coaster is suggesting that we're looking at that. Picking just the shutter part out of his sentence send us back round in circles to the same thing that has been talked about page, after page, after page despite the facts presented right in front of us.

We're speculating about the very remote possibility of an error in factual information which has been submitted by the park and its representatives to secure legal permission to build the thing. They spent £22k to submit the application alone, and I dread to think about the rest of the money spent to actually draw up the plans. If there was an error, it'd have been rectified in an amended submission by now and to suggest anything otherwise with this crazy back and forth about flying theatres and whatever else is just getting a bit silly.

It's a shame we've got to 69 pages on this topic and despite it being laid out in black and white that it's a coaster we still haven't moved onto actually having some actual constructive discussion on themes and coaster type. Instead we're just in a roundabout of the same thing being said repeatedly again and again.
 
James said:
The comment on the shutter door is more to support the rollercoaster evidence. Yes, a shutter door could be required for any other ride, however, in regards to an application where 'rollercoaster' is mentioned throughout, the shutter door is perfect for a rollercoaster train... if that makes sense!

My memory is a bit hazy with the application. I believe one document compares the amount of steel required for this project to The Smiler's construction, and also the project timeline is similar to that of a roller coaster. I'll try to have a gander and find where that is in the documents.

There's much more evidence in this application that this will be a rollercoaster, compared to Nemesis' track colour in that application (which was more of a throwaway line that could be perceived one way or the other).
Click to expand...
Ah, sorry… I think I misunderstood you. That makes a lot more sense to me now.
Craig said:
But again this goes back to the whole point I'm making. James said both the shutter and the application stating coaster is suggesting that we're looking at that. Picking just the shutter part out of his sentence send us back round in circles to the same thing that has been talked about page, after page, after page despite the facts presented right in front of us.

We're speculating about the very remote possibility of an error in factual information which has been submitted by the park and its representatives to secure legal permission to build the thing. They spent £22k to submit the application alone, and I dread to think about the rest of the money spent to actually draw up the plans. If there was an error, it'd have been rectified in an amended submission by now and to suggest anything otherwise with this crazy back and forth about flying theatres and whatever else is just getting a bit silly.

It's a shame we've got to 69 pages on this topic and despite it being laid out in black and white that it's a coaster we still haven't moved onto actually having some actual constructive discussion on themes and coaster type. Instead we're just in a roundabout of the same thing being said repeatedly again and again.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Craig… I think I misinterpreted what @James said. I agree that in all probability, the likelihood of an error is very remote, and most of the evidence points towards a coaster.

I’m only trying to stay balanced because I previously got told off elsewhere for “willing [my] wishes into reality and relying on confirmation bias to make this a coaster without actual evidence” by using the “rollercoaster” line in the planning application and the height and ground space of the building (which I believe to be strong indicators in favour of it being a roller coaster) to evidence that a coaster was the most likely outcome, in my view.

I should probably just stay out of this debate, because it feels like my take on it pleases nobody…
 
In my personal opinion I think it’s going to be an Aardvark sanctuary, they miss spelled “Aardvark” as “roller coaster” is all.

In all seriousness though I agree with Craig, a discussion forum is meant for discussion and it’s difficult to know when to be open to listening to the same stretched argument out of respect or shutting things down (thankfully not my problem as I am not moderating :p), but orbiting the same obsolete point like dust spiralling around a black hole isn’t helping here.
 
Having worked on dark rides that aren't indoor coasters, I can confirm that they have shutter doors tucked away backstage. So the shutter door is probably not something we can read into to determine what the ride type is.
 
Nosferatu said:
Having worked on dark rides that aren't indoor coasters, I can confirm that they have shutter doors tucked away backstage. So the shutter door is probably not something we can read into to determine what the ride type is.
Click to expand...

No indeed it isn’t….

but for the 6587th time the planning application gives us a damn solid idea.
 
From this point forward, I think that based on the planning application having not been amended, as well as the other evidence (building height, ground space etc) it’s probably best to assume that it is most likely a coaster and be surprised if it isn’t.

With this in mind, do we reckon it’s more likely to be a “regular coaster in a shed” type coaster or a more trick track-laden coaster with some dark ride sections thrown in?

I’m thinking the latter based on the size of the building, but I could be wrong.
 
Having suffered the crazy Duel topic for five months, and the road block that is the nemesis topic, why is anyone surprised that this one is falling down the same hole?
I don't think I have ever hit the "mark forums read" button more.
Good to see that people are beginning to agree it is going to be a coaster, as the planning application says it is going to be a coaster.
I have been following far more sensible debate within the brony network, which is fast becoming my closed season community of choice.
A bit more normal.
 
A 12 million pound budget suggests that this will be a major investment for Towers. A Shwarzkopf JetStar like the Black Hole is very unlikely, unless Towers decide to theme it to death. I hope that it is something like an S&S Axis (Horizon?), but this is simply speculative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top