Chessington World of Adventures Resort

[Matt N]

Well that seems like a pretty big pointer to the theme.

Very interesting…. Gardaland is rumoured to be getting a Jumanji ride as well, so could Merlin have received exclusive rights to use the IP in all their properties?

I’ll admit I’m surprised that it could be an IP, but in hindsight, I guess it would fit; the styling very much aligns with the Jumanji movies, and the jungle-style aesthetic of the films does match Chessington quite well!

 

[jon81uk]

It just seems such a strange choice completely.

Chessington needs high throughput. They need a full coaster not a boomerang. Or ideally both.
I don't think they need an inversion, a 1.4m restriction doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of their market.

Chessington needs to think more like Paulton.

 

[Matt N]

Merlin don’t seem to care about throughput these days anyway, think how much they’d lose in FT sales if this coaster was *gasps* efficient !

I’d be very intrigued to know the grounds on which people make the assumption that Merlin purposely builds low throughput rides to lead to greater Fastrack sales, as I’ll admit that it’s a theory that’s always confused me a little. I’m racking my brains as to how low throughput rides would sell more Fastrack tickets, so I’d be intrigued to hear an explanation.

I know that lower throughput rides often have longer queues, but wouldn’t a coaster with a higher throughput mean that Fastrack sales would be higher, as each coaster is allocated a percentage of its throughput for Fastrack (I know it’s capped, as I’ve seen them sell out of Fastrack before).

For instance, if the FT cap was 20% of the ride’s hourly throughput, and each FT cost £10, a ride with a higher theoretical throughput of 1,200 riders per hour would be able to sell 240 Fastracks per hour, thus making the park £2,400 and still leaving the main queue moving at a respectable throughput of 960 riders per hour.

By contrast, if a ride had a lower theoretical throughput of 500 riders per hour, it would be able to sell 100 Fastrack tickets per hour, thus making the park £1,000 and leaving the main queue moving at a mere 400 riders per hour.

I know it might seem like I’m overly complicating things, but by my reckoning, surely a higher throughput ride would be a win-win situation, because they’d be able to sell more Fastracks and make more money, while also meaning that the main queue moves more quickly?

I’m also seeing evidence that Merlin is not purposely lowering throughput in their installations. Take Wicker Man, for instance; I know that it’s not the highest throughput ride, at a theoretical of 952pph, but Merlin/Towers did take measures to ensure that it attained a high throughput that many other builders of GCIs didn’t.

GCI had built & opened 25 roller coasters prior to building & opening Wicker Man, and all bar 2 of them have trains with additional seatbelts and operate only 2 trains, so Wicker Man’s 3 train, no seatbelt operation certainly doesn’t strike me as purposely wanting to lower throughput, personally. If they’d wanted to purposely make WM’s throughput as low as possible, surely they would have just built it with 2 trains and seatbelts like most other GCIs on Earth have?

I’m certainly not trying to cause an argument for the sake of it, and I apologise if my viewpoint annoys you, but I’d just be interested to hear your logic. I’m not debating that throughput might not necessarily be a big part of the thought process anymore like it once was, but I personally see no evidence that Merlin are purposely building low throughput rides to increase Fastrack sales, or why it would be in their best interests to purposely build low throughput rides.

 

[Danny]

Utterly bizarre. An IP that is only notable for the first film and is now being milked with sub-par sequels, mixed with a radically unsuitable coaster type and throughput for the park.

Thunderbird is good fun, sure. This, however, will be a fraction of the height, speed and throughput.

 

[JAperson]

Very interesting…. Gardaland is rumoured to be getting a Jumanji ride as well, so could Merlin have received exclusive rights to use the IP in all their properties?

I’ll admit I’m surprised that it could be an IP, but in hindsight, I guess it would fit; the styling very much aligns with the Jumanji movies, and the jungle-style aesthetic of the films does match Chessington quite well!

If that is actually the theme of Chessington's ride and Gardaland that it is almost certainly done together as a big deal. Wouldn't be surprised to see it at Heide Park in the future too if that is the case.

It just seems such a strange choice completely.

Chessington needs high throughput. They need a full coaster not a boomerang. Or ideally both.
I don't think they need an inversion, a 1.4m restriction doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of their market.

Chessington needs to think more like Paulton.

My thoughts exactly, I just don't why? It doesn't make any sense. It's an interest concept and I'm sure it'll be a good ride but I just don't understand it.

 

[tayspru]

I’d be very intrigued to know the grounds on which people make the assumption that Merlin purposely builds low throughput rides to lead to greater Fastrack sales, as I’ll admit that it’s a theory that’s always confused me a little. I’m racking my brains as to how low throughput rides would sell more Fastrack tickets, so I’d be intrigued to hear an explanation.

I know that lower throughput rides often have longer queues, but wouldn’t a coaster with a higher throughput mean that Fastrack sales would be higher, as each coaster is allocated a percentage of its throughput for Fastrack (I know it’s capped, as I’ve seen them sell out of Fastrack before).

For instance, if the FT cap was 20% of the ride’s hourly throughput, and each FT cost £10, a ride with a higher theoretical throughput of 1,200 riders per hour would be able to sell 240 Fastracks per hour, thus making the park £2,400 and still leaving the main queue moving at a respectable throughput of 960 riders per hour.

By contrast, if a ride had a lower theoretical throughput of 500 riders per hour, it would be able to sell 100 Fastrack tickets per hour, thus making the park £1,000 and leaving the main queue moving at a mere 400 riders per hour.

I know it might seem like I’m overly complicating things, but by my reckoning, surely a higher throughput ride would be a win-win situation, because they’d be able to sell more Fastracks and make more money, while also meaning that the main queue moves more quickly?

I’m also seeing evidence that Merlin is not purposely lowering throughput in their installations. Take Wicker Man, for instance; I know that it’s not the highest throughput ride, at a theoretical of 952pph, but Merlin/Towers did take measures to ensure that it attained a high throughput that many other builders of GCIs didn’t.

GCI had built & opened 25 roller coasters prior to building & opening Wicker Man, and all bar 2 of them have trains with additional seatbelts and operate only 2 trains, so Wicker Man’s 3 train, no seatbelt operation certainly doesn’t strike me as purposely wanting to lower throughput, personally. If they’d wanted to purposely make WM’s throughput as low as possible, surely they would have just built it with 2 trains and seatbelts like most other GCIs on Earth have?

I’m certainly not trying to cause an argument for the sake of it, and I apologise if my viewpoint annoys you, but I’d just be interested to hear your logic. I’m not debating that throughput might not necessarily be a big part of the thought process anymore like it once was, but I personally see no evidence that Merlin are purposely building low throughput rides to increase Fastrack sales, or why it would be in their best interests to purposely build low throughput rides.

It’s just that throughput seems so far out of the equation for anything but the biggest of rides. A higher throughput ride on average will have shorter queues. This is a headline ride that will undoubtedly be incredibly popular, and at best it will achieve jus over 700pph. The concept / idea is flawed from the ground up as a shuttle would never meet the needs of the park. Yet secondary spend is a high driver for Merlin, and you only have to look at the length of the FT queue in the plans to see they plan to sell it. If it was high throughput then FT would be less of a necessity for the average guest. The length of the FT tells me that FT has been considered as a plaster for the throughput problem that also increases spend per head.

People are less likely to spend money on Fastrack if the main queue moves quickly. Your maths only really works assuming every FT sells out, but look at Towers - it’s hard to get a single FT for Thirteen or Rita (low capacity) but single FT for Oblivion and Nemesis (High capacity) rarely sell out

 

[Plastic Person]

Utterly bizarre. An IP that is only notable for the first film and is now being milked with sub-par sequels, mixed with a radically unsuitable coaster type and throughput for the park.

This isn't strictly true. The reboot sequels did $900 and $800 million respectively, and while it's not important criteria for a theme park land, both were much better critically received than the Robin Williams original in the nineties. I'd say it's a fairly solid to strong choice of IP.

A joke with a punchline but no setup: Dwayne 'Tiger Rock' Johnson.

 

[MakoMania]

There is a maintenance shed for the coaster shown on the plans. Coasters with a single train don’t usually have these, see any Sky Rocket II, Runaway Minetrain, any Vekoma boomerang etc...

 

[jmc]

There is a maintenance shed for the coaster shown on the plans. Coasters with a single train don’t usually have these, see any Sky Rocket II, Runaway Minetrain, any Vekoma boomerang etc...

I assume because generally it would be easy to accommodate space for engineers to get under a standard train in a station; not really possible on a Wing Coaster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Rick]

There is a maintenance shed for the coaster shown on the plans. Coasters with a single train don’t usually have these, see any Sky Rocket II, Runaway Minetrain, any Vekoma boomerang etc...

A maintenance facility full stop or a maintenance shed with storage track ? Looks like the area you would expect a transfer to be is pretty tight.

Is it launched? Those B&M flywheels are pretty big.

 

[Skyscraper]

Reaction and analysis by TPWW;

 

[pluk]

Things that Chesdington really don't need:

- another relatively low throughput major attraction

- another generic jungle area

- one single ride on the whole park that is thrill with an inversion with nothing else thrill or inverting to support it

This whole thing is utterly baffling.

 

[Rick]

This response is depressingly predictable.

.... a B&M RIDE at CHESSINGTON.

 

[Jb85]

This is either going to be severely over engineered (why b&m! It’s a small coaster really)

Or

I can see this being a prototype - B&M take on X perhaps? Some sort of rotating / spinning seats? It would make sense then

 

[Craig]

I can see this being a prototype - B&M take on X perhaps? Some sort of rotating / spinning seats? It would make sense then

Oh god it's gonna be like the washing machine on The Smiler all over again

 

[pluk]

This response is depressingly predictable.

.... a B&M RIDE at CHESSINGTON.

So we shouldn't think it's the wrong ride for the wrong place?

What do you like about these plans?

I’d be very intrigued to know the grounds on which people make the assumption that Merlin purposely builds low throughput rides to lead to greater Fastrack sales,

You don't make any fastrack sales if there's no queue to jump. Not that I'm advocating that theory.

 

[Rick]

So we shouldn't think it's the wrong ride for the wrong place?

What do you like about these plans?

It's from a quality manufacturer, it's not replacing something better than itself and it's not a repaint/refresh or an existing ride, for starters. It's a line drawing at this point.

I'm not banging the drum for it, I just don't understand the negativity. It's like Wicker Man all over again.

If it did 1000pph we'd want it to do 2000, it's just the nature of this community.

 

[Jb85]

Oh god it's gonna be like the washing machine on The Smiler all over again

Lol!

You have to admit though it’s a bit of a shocker - a Vekoma Boomerang would have been my choice and what’s I would have expected

That’s why I feel there is something with the trains

 

[JAperson]

Lol!

You have to admit though it’s a bit of a shocker - a Vekoma Boomerang would have been my choice and what’s I would have expected

That’s why I feel there is something with the trains

I hope there is. The ride doesn't make sense at this park however if it's a cool B&M prototype I'll let it off.
All jokes aside I do wonder whether this ride has any special elements/features we don't know about. It seems like something B&M and Merlin would do. Hide it until it's fully announced.

 

[Dave]

Utterly bizarre. An IP that is only notable for the first film and is now being milked with sub-par sequels, mixed with a radically unsuitable coaster type and throughput for the park.

Thunderbird is good fun, sure. This, however, will be a fraction of the height, speed and throughput.

The Jumanji sequels where commercially successful and well reviewed, I think on this point you have allowed your personal film taste to overcome an objective look at the IP.

For Merlin standards it’s a pretty decent acquisition for an IP especially as it now spans multiple generations with all three films.

It's from a quality manufacturer, it's not replacing something better than itself and it's not a repaint/refresh or an existing ride, for starters. It's a line drawing at this point.

I'm not banging the drum for it, I just don't understand the negativity. It's like Wicker Man all over again.

If it did 1000pph we'd want it to do 2000, it's just the nature of this community.

It’s a discussion forum people will discuss, that’s nothing to do with “this community” and everything to do with discussion forum dynamics.

I have had concerns about this since I heard about it, these are mainly:

1) Chessington needs high throughput, as it stands this isn’t screaming high throughput. Add shuttle coaster to the already fafftastic way wing coaster have you unload past the loading bays and I think it’s a fair concern that this could struggle with throughputs.

2) Chessington really need family fun attractions, doesn’t have to be devoid of a thrill factor but this seems an odd mix of high height limit and low thrill credentials.

On the plus side it’s a solid manufacturer and should be visually impressive by Chessington standards so I will keep an open mind. I’m also cool with the IP assuming the rumours are true.