Blackpool Pleasure Beach: General Discussion

[John]

The thing that puzzles me about Nash is why do they have to wait for everyone to get off the trains in offload and then perform a visual check before dispatching the trains in onload? Bizarrely, the way the ride operates now means that the in-line loading actually reduces the throughput - if they just had a single loading platform they'd dispatch as soon as the other trains came to a stop.

 

[Ash84]

The thing that puzzles me about Nash is why do they have to wait for everyone to get off the trains in offload and then perform a visual check before dispatching the trains in onload? Bizarrely, the way the ride operates now means that the in-line loading actually reduces the throughput - if they just had a single loading platform they'd dispatch as soon as the other trains came to a stop.

This is something thats frustrated me since 2006, and I cant honistly say why. I am under the impression that unless the ride is in maintance mode, a certain time delay is required between the arrival of one pair of trains and the departure of the next. (Why can only be answered by the jerk at Kumbak Coasters who wrote the system)

I consider it to be a danger to be honist, is if the brakes were to fail, the second trains would still be sat in the station like sitting ducks. On the older system which came with better thru-put, they'd be half way up the lift, so even if the train completly went through the station, a collision would not happen.

Ash

 

[John]

Update on Thrill-o-Matic: the ride looks nearly complete from the outside, with the slippers sat in the station. The info board is in place at the entrance, revealing that the ride will cost a staggering 7 tokens, the same as Valhalla. Seems that this ride is either going to be spectacular or the biggest rip-off ever seen.

 

[Rupert]

Was it ever revealed what nothingness was lurking in Infusion's 'lake'?

 

[Ben]

I assumed another fountain, I dont recall them saying.

 

[Tom]

This publicity stunt is not yet complete.

Just to add balance, it certainly isn't a tree beyond which's height a ride cannot be built.


-Sent from a mobile phone-

 

[Ben]

Wait what? Not getting into a fan war, I was making a joke about fountains which PBPBPPB seem to install frequently, and you come back with a council restricted building regulation?

Id have gone for something along the lines of: a) current weather and the park failing, b) long construction or c) health and safety ott. Altons a minefield of jokes and you went for something they dont do themselves? LOL.

 

[DiogoJ42]

Does anyone actually bother with tokens anymore? I wasn't even aware they still existed. Surely everyone just buys wristbands.

 

[Danny]

Apologies if this has already been discussed or answered, but is the Magnolia Cafe that shared the building with River Caves and Gold Mine set to reopen when W&G opens? It was my favourite place to eat on park and it was a shame to see it closed.

 

[Ben]

I think I read it had closed to be utilised as a show scene for W&G, but may be incorrect.

If it is true, thats a HUGE scene show, but also a loss, I remember once having one of the best ever theme park meals in there (not the best) but really good - and the little veranda overlooking the river caves and old mine ride was stunning. I do hope its not lost.

 

[Ash84]

Does anyone actually bother with tokens anymore? I wasn't even aware they still existed. Surely everyone just buys wristbands.

Quite a lot do actually, and if BPB were to open later on an evening, go back to free entry and charge a fair and reasonable price for these blasted tickets I'm sure they'd have more usage and the park would see in increas in secondary spend, as well as evening trade. But what do I know?

Ash

 

[DiogoJ42]

Seems madness to me. Surely these people must know they are throwing money away by using tokens? Not that the park is going to complain, of course

 

[Lordy]

When I was last there it was 9 tokens for Infusion!

MaDnEsS!

 

[Ash84]

The thing is, BPB get a lot of custom from people who nip in, go on the Big One and leave again, stag/hen parties lads weekend away ect. A lot more of these people would come in if the entrance fee wasn't there. They have no intention of buying a wristband, they see the park the same as they see the pier, just a quick ride or 2, not a day out. BPB are being very foolish and a missing out on a lot on income by pricing them out.

Ash

 

[Rollercoasters4Life]

The thing is, BPB get a lot of custom from people who nip in, go on the Big One and leave again, stag/hen parties lads weekend away ect. A lot more of these people would come in if the entrance fee wasn't there. They have no intention of buying a wristband, they see the park the same as they see the pier, just a quick ride or 2, not a day out. BPB are being very foolish and a missing out on a lot on income by pricing them out.

Ash

But didn't having no entrance fee also bring in people at night that are intoxicated and causing trouble - something of which you don't want in a family environment.

 

[Ian]

The thing is, BPB get a lot of custom from people who nip in, go on the Big One and leave again, stag/hen parties lads weekend away ect. A lot more of these people would come in if the entrance fee wasn't there. They have no intention of buying a wristband, they see the park the same as they see the pier, just a quick ride or 2, not a day out. BPB are being very foolish and a missing out on a lot on income by pricing them out.

Ash

But didn't having no entrance fee also bring in people at night that are intoxicated and causing trouble - something of which you don't want in a family environment.

But not having an entrance fee doesn't mean you can't have security? Guests would still be entering the park through the same gates, free or not, so checks can easily be enforced if needed.

 

[Rollercoasters4Life]

The thing is, BPB get a lot of custom from people who nip in, go on the Big One and leave again, stag/hen parties lads weekend away ect. A lot more of these people would come in if the entrance fee wasn't there. They have no intention of buying a wristband, they see the park the same as they see the pier, just a quick ride or 2, not a day out. BPB are being very foolish and a missing out on a lot on income by pricing them out.

Ash

But didn't having no entrance fee also bring in people at night that are intoxicated and causing trouble - something of which you don't want in a family environment.

But not having an entrance fee doesn't mean you can't have security? Guests would still be entering the park through the same gates, free or not, so checks can easily be enforced if needed.

Not saying it does. What I am saying is people would drink before they enter the park then would cause problems which isn't good business practice within an area that is supposed to be a family environment.

Adding in a fee is a way to deter undesirables (in the intoxicated sense) away and also in a mind warped way to the park, more income. If the park was still a free to walk in place then you would get people coming in that have had a few drinks down the front, walk in, cause trouble then exit the park which obviously the park wanted to stop. I'm not saying this is the main reason for it, I think the main reason for them is to boost income - whether that happens because of the fee is an entirely different kettle of fishes.

 

[Ian]

The thing is, BPB get a lot of custom from people who nip in, go on the Big One and leave again, stag/hen parties lads weekend away ect. A lot more of these people would come in if the entrance fee wasn't there. They have no intention of buying a wristband, they see the park the same as they see the pier, just a quick ride or 2, not a day out. BPB are being very foolish and a missing out on a lot on income by pricing them out.

Ash

But didn't having no entrance fee also bring in people at night that are intoxicated and causing trouble - something of which you don't want in a family environment.

But not having an entrance fee doesn't mean you can't have security? Guests would still be entering the park through the same gates, free or not, so checks can easily be enforced if needed.

Not saying it does. What I am saying is people would drink before they enter the park then would cause problems which isn't good business practice within an area that is supposed to be a family environment.

But I don't follow? Parks have security to prevent occurrences such as this. If people entering the park still have to pass security they can simply refuse entry to anyone they think is intoxicated and may cause a problem. Wether it's free entry or not the guests are still on park property, and I'd imagine the park reserves the right to eject and refuse entry at its discretion?

Most parks usually have a clause in their terms and conditions which cover this anyway. It may cause more people to attempt to enter the park, granted, but it's no major issue to prevent them given the security setup is already in place.

Besides, I don't think alcohol in parks is quite as much of an issue as some people make out. If it was I'd imagine every park would take the Disney World approach and simply not serve alcohol? Aside from people who are completely wasted it doesn't seem to be that much of an issue.

 

[Rollercoasters4Life]

The thing is, BPB get a lot of custom from people who nip in, go on the Big One and leave again, stag/hen parties lads weekend away ect. A lot more of these people would come in if the entrance fee wasn't there. They have no intention of buying a wristband, they see the park the same as they see the pier, just a quick ride or 2, not a day out. BPB are being very foolish and a missing out on a lot on income by pricing them out.

Ash

But didn't having no entrance fee also bring in people at night that are intoxicated and causing trouble - something of which you don't want in a family environment.

But not having an entrance fee doesn't mean you can't have security? Guests would still be entering the park through the same gates, free or not, so checks can easily be enforced if needed.

Not saying it does. What I am saying is people would drink before they enter the park then would cause problems which isn't good business practice within an area that is supposed to be a family environment.

But I don't follow? Parks have security to prevent occurrences such as this. If people entering the park still have to pass security they can simply refuse entry to anyone they think is intoxicated and may cause a problem. Wether it's free entry or not the guests are still on park property, and I'd imagine the park reserves the right to eject and refuse entry at its discretion?

Most parks usually have a clause in their terms and conditions which cover this anyway. It may cause more people to attempt to enter the park, granted, but it's no major issue to prevent them given the security setup is already in place.

Besides, I don't think alcohol in parks is quite as much of an issue as some people make out. If it was I'd imagine every park would take the Disney World approach and simply not serve alcohol? Aside from people who are completely wasted it doesn't seem to be that much of an issue.

Majority of people can act sober when they are drunk. I'm not talking so drunk that they can't walk, just drunk to the point where they are highly merry or where they are usually not themselves. Security can get rid of any people like that, but that usually happens after such incidents have already occurred upsetting the family atmosphere. The sale of alcohol in parks isn't a bad things, and I am not against it.

The problem with Blackpool is its known the be an area where stag/hen dos go for the weekend and with them not charging it allows them to act normal - although security still being able to tell that they have had a drink and then being allowed into the park (as not all drunk people cause problems) then some incident occurring. Having a fee will deter (not fully) people that have been drinking, from entering.

With regards to drinking in parks, there isn't really a problem as usually people that drink in parks just have one or two and its within a small group so they cause no harm (there is odd exceptions to this). The difference with Blackpool is the park is so close to drinking outlets that once allowed them to roam the park free of charge - the fee just deters them from entering.

 

[thefatone]

It's just easier for the park to have the paid entry to prevent them in the first place - the chances of risking the reputation of the pleasure beach is greatly reduced if you didn't have them on there in the first place.

I do understand their viewpoint and generally support it. I imagine it's a long term strategy which'll hopefully pay off.