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

[Matt N]

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.

Sorry, I should have clarified.

I meant more that the 3 doors could be to divide crowd flow into an initial large pre-show room, similar to how Hex has multiple doors entering both the Cinema Room and the Octagon.

 

[Alsty]

Just to think outside the box a little, but who says those doors on the plan are for people to pass through? They could equally be doors that ride cars pass through.

 

[Matt N]

Just to think outside the box a little, but who says those doors on the plan are for people to pass through? They could equally be doors that ride cars pass through.

Wouldn’t they be a bit small for typical ride cars, though? Ride cars require a wider clearance than people, and those doors look more person-sized than ride car-sized to me.

 

[Rob]

3 doors: guest entrance, guest exit, staff only access. Simples!

 

[Matt N]

3 doors: guest entrance, guest exit, staff only access. Simples!

I thought the guest exit path was a separate thing entirely? Or am I wrong there?

 

[QTXAdsy]

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.

Off topic but speaking of Hex, correct me if I'm wrong but was the original plan for Hex was to have two Madhouse buildings instead of one?

 

[Matt N]

Off topic but speaking of Hex, correct me if I'm wrong but was the original plan for Hex was to have two Madhouse buildings instead of one?

I don’t think there would have been any space; the existing Hex looks pretty tightly squeezed into that bit of the Towers as it is. Therefore, I’m not sure that a second Madhouse would have been feasible.

 

[Alsty]

Wouldn’t they be a bit small for typical ride cars, though? Ride cars require a wider clearance than people, and those doors look more person-sized than ride car-sized to me.

Well, they are bigger than the ones where the queue enters the building


Even if the door is simply for people to go through on foot it suggests it's not just the queue line going directly to the door but rather a batching area in front of the door.

 

[Matt N]

Well, they are bigger than the ones where the queue enters the building


Even if the door is simply for people to go through on foot it suggests it's not just the queue line going directly to the door but rather a batching area in front of the door.

That’s a valid point; I hadn’t noticed that!

For something like a pre-show, that would necessitate larger doors and a batching area, even if the pre-show had multiple doors.

 

[The Big Mack]

Those could be larger themed doors for guests to pass through, usually with pre-shows the guest flow becomes less organized and more of a free for all as guests are encouraged to fill into a large themed room, so larger doors would make a lot of sense in that context.

 

[Rob]

I thought the guest exit path was a separate thing entirely? Or am I wrong there?

Good point, the exit doors are from the main building on to the exit path. I stand corrected, no so simples!

 

[Matt N]

I still think that a coaster is most likely myself, but those doors could be to divide guest flow into some kind of pre-show room.

 

[Nick🎢]

Well I for one love all the crazy on threads like this.

On the coaster not coaster debate.

I think the evidence probably nods more toward a coaster at this point.

However I agree it isn't an absolute sure bet. The copy and paste theory is absolutely valid. I don't personally put too much weight on how well checked these things are as they are rushed out to hit targets etc.

We will just have to see as time goes on. Back to discussing door dimensions...

 

[Alsty]

If it's a preshow, hopefully they'll provide more than two metres of queue after it before the loading bays...

 

[Skyscraper]

If it's a preshow, hopefully they'll provide more than two metres of queue after it before the loading bays...

Or even better... have guests going straight on to the train(s) after leaving the pre-show, like on Baron 1898.

 

[Mi-Nigle]

Could the number of doors be simply due to fire safety regulations?

 

[venny]

Could the number of doors be simply due to fire safety regulations?

Obviously we don’t know capacity, but I think it’s highly unlikely, because: -

- fire exits wouldn’t be into a batching room where there are liable to be hundreds of people, they’d more likely be directly to the outside if the route is viable.

- fire exits in most well occupied buildings are usually no bigger than a double door. Three in close proximity seems excessive.


To address some of the other points made, I’m not sure anyone has said that this is definitely a flying theatre. The only absolutism of that type has been the opposite, to say it definitely isn’t a flying theatre. I’m not sure how anyone could be that certain.

I’ve previously pointed out the reasons for why some of appendices to the application may be wrong, but to restate: -

- there’s an incorrect assumption that these documents are somehow infallible because they’ve been produced by consultants. I know as a matter of fact that consultants do get things wrong and in circumstances like this, where multiple similar documents are being produced, consultants can often use previous documents as a precedent. They will then go through it and make the necessary changes to avoid duplication of work. That clearly provides the opportunity for incorrect information to be mistakenly left in. Yes, it’s not ideal, but just because it appears in a planning application rather than some other document which is not of record does not mean these mistakes can’t happen.

- we often believe that everyone talks in the same language as we do. It’s obvious to us what a rollercoaster is and what a dark ride is and what a flat ride is. To others, the word attraction and rollercoaster can be used interchangeably. For example, The Rack at Camelot was advertised as a “split rollercoaster”, whilst it was clearly a flat ride.


Now, onto the door debate. I’ve yet to hear an alternative explanation that convinces me as to another reason for these three well spaced but equidistant doors. It was mentioned that Voletarium has one door, it doesn’t. There are three separate doors to each theatre, one for each row. In fact, nearly every flying theatre I have ever ridden has had a separate set of doors for each row, with a batching area in front of each door.

I note that the three doors do neatly align with the three queues, however from an operational perspective, this makes no sense to me. Why would you not have the three queues converge for staffing reasons? If that smaller building is just queue ( rather than batching areas) then how would that queue even work in the space logistically? From a design perspective, I just can’t make that theory add up in my head.

Much more likely that this is a batching and/or pre-show area, with three separate bays, one in front of each of the double doors. This aligns with many similar areas where the pre-show then enters through double doors. If there are three pre-shows batching areas to mirror the doors, what other attraction type has three pre-shows batching areas, other than a flying theatre. I’m not sure I can name any, maybe Rise of the Resistance’s carousel?

Again, I’m not saying this is definitely a flying theatre, I genuinely don’t know. However, the information we have seems to add up to something of this ilk or otherwise some other attraction technology which we haven’t seen before. Since we don’t know what said technology may be, it’s almost impossible to speculate what that option may entail.

 

[Benjsh]

Obviously we don’t know capacity, but I think it’s highly unlikely, because: -

- fire exits wouldn’t be into a batching room where there are liable to be hundreds of people, they’d more likely be directly to the outside if the route is viable.

- fire exits in most well occupied buildings are usually no bigger than a double door. Three in close proximity seems excessive.


To address some of the other points made, I’m not sure anyone has said that this is definitely a flying theatre. The only absolutism of that type has been the opposite, to say it definitely isn’t a flying theatre. I’m not sure how anyone could be that certain.

I’ve previously pointed out the reasons for why some of appendices to the application may be wrong, but to restate: -

- there’s an incorrect assumption that these documents are somehow infallible because they’ve been produced by consultants. I know as a matter of fact that consultants do get things wrong and in circumstances like this, where multiple similar documents are being produced, consultants can often use previous documents as a precedent. They will then go through it and make the necessary changes to avoid duplication of work. That clearly provides the opportunity for incorrect information to be mistakenly left in. Yes, it’s not ideal, but just because it appears in a planning application rather than some other document which is not of record does not mean these mistakes can’t happen.

- we often believe that everyone talks in the same language as we do. It’s obvious to us what a rollercoaster is and what a dark ride is and what a flat ride is. To others, the word attraction and rollercoaster can be used interchangeably. For example, The Rack at Camelot was advertised as a “split rollercoaster”, whilst it was clearly a flat ride.


Now, onto the door debate. I’ve yet to hear an alternative explanation that convinces me as to another reason for these three well spaced but equidistant doors. It was mentioned that Voletarium has one door, it doesn’t. There are three separate doors to each theatre, one for each row. In fact, nearly every flying theatre I have ever ridden has had a separate set of doors for each row, with a batching area in front of each door.

I note that the three doors do neatly align with the three queues, however from an operational perspective, this makes no sense to me. Why would you not have the three queues converge for staffing reasons? If that smaller building is just queue ( rather than batching areas) then how would that queue even work in the space logistically? From a design perspective, I just can’t make that theory add up in my head.

Much more likely that this is a batching and/or pre-show area, with three separate bays, one in front of each of the double doors. This aligns with many similar areas where the pre-show then enters through double doors. If there are three pre-shows batching areas to mirror the doors, what other attraction type has three pre-shows batching areas, other than a flying theatre. I’m not sure I can name any, maybe Rise of the Resistance’s carousel?

Again, I’m not saying this is definitely a flying theatre, I genuinely don’t know. However, the information we have seems to add up to something of this ilk or otherwise some other attraction technology which we haven’t seen before. Since we don’t know what said technology may be, it’s almost impossible to speculate what that option may entail.

Except from the fact it say's rollercoaster in several different places in the planning document ??? Haha

This is almost certainly going to be some sort of rollercoaster. It may well have some dark ride elements though ala Revenge of the Mummy.

 

[Matt N]

Except from the fact it say's rollercoaster in several different places in the planning document ??? Haha

This is almost certainly going to be some sort of rollercoaster. It may well have some dark ride elements though ala Revenge of the Mummy.

As @venny has addressed, the appendices could well be wrong; other places in the same appendices say “indoor attraction” rather than “rollercoaster”, so “rollercoaster” could just have been a slip of the tongue on the part of whoever wrote the appendices.

I have to admit that the doors are an interesting one, but my prediction remains indoor coaster because of a combination of the building height, building shape, and available ground space. I think it would be rash to rule out other possibilities at this stage, however; some things certainly would support a flying theatre, such as the presence and nature of these doors.

These doors could, however, simply be to divide crowd flow into a pre-show room. Wicker Man’s pre-show has had some issues in that regard, so perhaps this is to manage crowd flow a bit better and ensure that a pre-show encounters less issues than Wicker Man’s has?

 

[Benjsh]

As @venny has addressed, the appendices could well be wrong; other places in the same appendices say “indoor attraction” rather than “rollercoaster”, so “rollercoaster” could just have been a slip of the tongue on the part of whoever wrote the appendices.

I have to admit that the doors are an interesting one, but my prediction remains indoor coaster because of a combination of the building height, building shape, and available ground space. I think it would be rash to rule out other possibilities at this stage, however; some things certainly would support a flying theatre, such as the presence and nature of these doors.

These doors could, however, simply be to divide crowd flow into a pre-show room. Wicker Man’s pre-show has had some issues in that regard, so perhaps this is to manage crowd flow a bit better and ensure that a pre-show encounters less issues than Wicker Man’s has?

And as somebody else as already said it says rollercoaster multiple times and these documents aren't exactly just off the cuff emails. They are professional documents so it's hardly likely to say rollercoaster by mistake if it was a flat ride for example.

Also I'd say the 'indoor attraction' is the vague part and a very loose description given that we already knew the whole ride was indoors.

It's going to be a coaster for sure. However I wouldn't rule out some dark ride elements to it perhaps.