• 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.

Chessington World of Adventures Resort

I mean if they wanted a normal boomerang ride at a cheap price that would've been ideal surely they would've gone for Vekoma, I think it's likely there is more than just that for a reason to go with this model, perhaps they've got a really really good deal on it with it being a prototype and likely a package deal but still I think it might've still been cheaper to go with someone else. I do hope they've got some sort of solution capacity wise, B&M have never really sold a ride with this low capacity and it wouldn't surprise me if they've come up with some way to perhaps run two trains (although I'm unsure how this could be done with it not being on the plans).
 
Nosferatu said:
There appears to be a multi-coaster deal between B&M and Merlin, because Legoland Deustchland and Legoland Sichuan are getting B&M's.
Click to expand...
LEGOLAND Sichuan, and LEGOLAND Shenzhen are both getting 2 b&m coasters each, a Family Invert and a Wing Coaster each. LEGOLAND Shanghai also getting a Family Invert. There is also the Nemesis Re-track. SW9 probably also likely to be a B&M (Cross Valley Hyper maybe?)
 
JAperson said:
I mean if they wanted a normal boomerang ride at a cheap price that would've been ideal surely they would've gone for Vekoma, I think it's likely there is more than just that for a reason to go with this model, perhaps they've got a really really good deal on it with it being a prototype and likely a package deal but still I think it might've still been cheaper to go with someone else. I do hope they've got some sort of solution capacity wise, B&M have never really sold a ride with this low capacity and it wouldn't surprise me if they've come up with some way to perhaps run two trains (although I'm unsure how this could be done with it not being on the plans).
Click to expand...
If the seats were to rotate then it would maybe be possible to have a piece of track with track on the top and also on the underside, which could also rotate. So, the train could be loaded on the underneath, track rotates, train is sent through the course, while the next train is loaded underneath, and so on and so forth. I doubt there is enough space in the station for that to be happening on this coaster though.
 
Skyscraper said:
Doesn't help that they removed a 1.4 a while back (Rameses Revenge).
Click to expand...
Not all rides with a 1.4m restriction offer the same scare or thrill level. Rameses was much more thrilling than Rattlesnake, Nemisis is more thrilling that Air. I didn’t really like Rameses/Ripsaw but could ride Rattlesnake repeatedly.
 
This is just me thinking out loud, but with the current state of Rattlesnake it isn’t too much of a stretch to think they may have medium term plans to remove it.

This would leave the new Jumanji coaster as the main attraction for older guests at 1.4m and free up space for development in what is a pretty tired area of the park. If you also remove the row of game stalls opposite Rattlesnake and the petting zoo behind it, you have a pretty big development area to work with.
 
AT86 said:
This is just me thinking out loud, but with the current state of Rattlesnake it isn’t too much of a stretch to think they may have medium term plans to remove it.

This would leave the new Jumanji coaster as the main attraction for older guests at 1.4m and free up space for development in what is a pretty tired area of the park. If you also remove the row of game stalls opposite Rattlesnake and the petting zoo behind it, you have a pretty big development area to work with.
Click to expand...

Could you imagine how brilliant an RMC would work for the park with its wild adventure theming. If Kolmarden can get one (and theirs a 1.2m ride) and have it fit so well in an animal focused park then I think it would be pretty spectacular if Chessington could do something similar but on a smaller scale height wise. That would revolutionise the park.
 
AT86 said:
This is just me thinking out loud, but with the current state of Rattlesnake it isn’t too much of a stretch to think they may have medium term plans to remove it.

This would leave the new Jumanji coaster as the main attraction for older guests at 1.4m and free up space for development in what is a pretty tired area of the park. If you also remove the row of game stalls opposite Rattlesnake and the petting zoo behind it, you have a pretty big development area to work with.
Click to expand...
Replace Scorpion Express too and intertwine a lower thrill coaster or mine train with a higher thrill one. Chessington doesn't need big scary coasters but to be able to offer two different experiences intertwined is a good thing and something many parks are starting to do now.
 
AT86 said:
This is just me thinking out loud, but with the current state of Rattlesnake it isn’t too much of a stretch to think they may have medium term plans to remove it.
Click to expand...
Every coaster at Chessington has fairly significant maintenance and/or operational headaches associated with it.

For that reason alone you can see why they would perhaps go down the B&M route, they've been doing it across the chain for a while now. Most of the major steel coasters across RTP in the past decade have been B&M, Cedar Fair have taken a similar approach.
 
On another note, I was thinking about the capacity of this ride, and Wardley’s comments about how B&M “solved the capacity problem”, and I was trying to work out how they would be able to run 2 trains on this ride with the train configuration and station setup specified. Wing Coaster trains, due to airgates being required on both sides, would not work with the typical turntable or sliding station solutions used to enhance capacity on other types of shuttle coaster.

Then, I had an idea.

There is apparently a big empty space being left below the station track.

If there was to be a new loading solution on this ride that allows for it to accommodate 2 trains, I wondered if the space below the station could be for some sort of stacked station affair. Think something a bit like the Big One’s vertical transfer track, but with station platforms on the top and bottom levels.

Here’s a video of the Big One’s transfer track, to show you what I mean:


Hopefully this system would go a bit faster than that, but the basic principle would be the same. My thought was:
  • The station building could be on 3 levels.
  • On the ground floor, you could have Station 1.
  • On the middle floor, you’d have the launch track.
  • On the top floor, you could have Station 2.
In terms of how this would work in practice:
  • Train 2 would load and unload in Station 2 while Train 1 negotiates the circuit. Retractable floors would be raised to allow for riders and operators to get to and from the train safely.
  • When Train 2 is ready to dispatch and Train 1 has completed the circuit, the retractable floors would lower and Train 2 would lower onto the launch track.
  • As Train 2 is lowered onto the circuit, Train 1 would be lowered into Station 1 on the ground floor to load and unload as Train 2 negotiates the circuit.
  • Repeat process, while alternating between Train 2 and Train 1, many times.
That’s my idea, anyway. I’m not sure how feasible it would be, but I think it would be a possible way to get around the pitfalls of wing coaster seating for the regular solutions like turntables and sliding station tracks. It also wouldn’t require any additional ground space compared to a regular station.

In terms of how you’d get people up to the top station; my thought was that it could operate a bit like a flying theatre does, where guests are split into different groups to go to different levels. 2 groups (Station 1 right & left) could stay on the ground, while other groups (Station 2 right & left) could go upstairs.

What do you guys think of my idea?

For clarity, I’m not saying that this ride will run 2 trains. I could be adding 2 and 2 and getting 121 here. But there is evidence suggesting that it might run 2 trains.

The ride has a maintenance shed, which is not normally something that’s present on coasters that only run 1 train. Surely you could just use the ride station to do maintenance on the train in this scenario, as the ride wouldn’t be operating if its only train was down for maintenance?

Wardley also made rather intriguing comments about B&M having “solved the shuttle coaster capacity problem” for this ride. Given that the 720pph capacity with a 24-rider train being thrown around for the ride on 1 train would be a lower theoretical than that of the common-as-anything Vekoma Boomerang (760pph with a 28-rider train), I find this comment rather baffling if the ride will only run one train.
 
Matt N said:
On another note, I was thinking about the capacity of this ride, and Wardley’s comments about how B&M “solved the capacity problem”, and I was trying to work out how they would be able to run 2 trains on this ride with the train configuration and station setup specified. Wing Coaster trains, due to airgates being required on both sides, would not work with the typical turntable or sliding station solutions used to enhance capacity on other types of shuttle coaster.

Then, I had an idea.

There is apparently a big empty space being left below the station track.

If there was to be a new loading solution on this ride that allows for it to accommodate 2 trains, I wondered if the space below the station could be for some sort of stacked station affair. Think something a bit like the Big One’s vertical transfer track, but with station platforms on the top and bottom levels.

Here’s a video of the Big One’s transfer track, to show you what I mean:


Hopefully this system would go a bit faster than that, but the basic principle would be the same. My thought was:
  • The station building could be on 3 levels.
  • On the ground floor, you could have Station 1.
  • On the middle floor, you’d have the launch track.
  • On the top floor, you could have Station 2.
In terms of how this would work in practice:
  • Train 2 would load and unload in Station 2 while Train 1 negotiates the circuit. Retractable floors would be raised to allow for riders and operators to get to and from the train safely.
  • When Train 2 is ready to dispatch and Train 1 has completed the circuit, the retractable floors would lower and Train 2 would lower onto the launch track.
  • As Train 2 is lowered onto the circuit, Train 1 would be lowered into Station 1 on the ground floor to load and unload as Train 2 negotiates the circuit.
  • Repeat process, while alternating between Train 2 and Train 1, many times.
That’s my idea, anyway. I’m not sure how feasible it would be, but I think it would be a possible way to get around the pitfalls of wing coaster seating for the regular solutions like turntables and sliding station tracks. It also wouldn’t require any additional ground space compared to a regular station.

In terms of how you’d get people up to the top station; my thought was that it could operate a bit like a flying theatre does, where guests are split into different groups to go to different levels. 2 groups (Station 1 right & left) could stay on the ground, while other groups (Station 2 right & left) could go upstairs.

What do you guys think of my idea?

For clarity, I’m not saying that this ride will run 2 trains. I could be adding 2 and 2 and getting 121 here. But there is evidence suggesting that it might run 2 trains.

The ride has a maintenance shed, which is not normally something that’s present on coasters that only run 1 train. Surely you could just use the ride station to do maintenance on the train in this scenario, as the ride wouldn’t be operating if its only train was down for maintenance?

Wardley also made rather intriguing comments about B&M having “solved the shuttle coaster capacity problem” for this ride. Given that the 720pph capacity with a 24-rider train being thrown around for the ride on 1 train would be a lower theoretical than that of the common-as-anything Vekoma Boomerang (760pph with a 28-rider train), I find this comment rather baffling if the ride will only run one train.
Click to expand...

I hope they've done something like this but it seems a little unlike B&M, who've never done so much as a switch track.
 
JAperson said:
I hope they've done something like this but it seems a little unlike B&M, who've never done so much as a switch track.
Click to expand...
They did switch tracks for Galactica’s dual station, and they do moving tracks for maintenance sheds.

If Arrow did it in 1994, then I wouldn’t put it past B&M in 2023.

However, my theory has been quashed due to the fact that the station reputedly isn’t tall enough for it. The maintenance shed, and Wardley’s comments about the shuttle coaster capacity problem having been “solved” by this ride, are a real head scratcher…
 
Matt N said:
They did switch tracks for Galactica’s dual station, and they do moving tracks for maintenance sheds.

If Arrow did it in 1994, then I wouldn’t put it past B&M in 2023.

However, my theory has been quashed due to the fact that the station reputedly isn’t tall enough for it. The maintenance shed, and Wardley’s comments about the shuttle coaster capacity problem having been “solved” by this ride, are a real head scratcher…
Click to expand...
Maybe they've come up with a way to load it really fast, a restraint system perhaps. Quite difficult to know at this stage.
 
There is something all very odd about this coaster. I wonder why they went for a shuttle coaster when there is more than enough room for a full circuit coaster, especially if it means they are going to need to engineer a way of it utilising 2 trains. If this was a standard shuttle then obviously they’d just use a turntable, however with a wing rider it means they have to come up with a new solution. All just seems a lot of faff.
 
JAperson said:
Maybe they've come up with a way to load it really fast, a restraint system perhaps. Quite difficult to know at this stage.
Click to expand...
That’s possible, but I don’t think it would be that. The planning application said it would be parked in the station for 1 minute, which is no less time than any other wing coaster with trains that size is theoretically parked for.
 
Let's end this speculation now.

This coaster has 1 train and 28 seats.

Capacity will be low although relative to the park no worse than rides like Fury.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
 
I understand it's 28 but hey. Let's see.

Either way, no transfer track, no revolving turntables, no multi level station.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
 
AstroDan said:
I understand it's 28 but hey. Let's see.

Either way, no transfer track, no revolving turntables, no multi level station.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Ah, interesting… I wonder why they put 24 on the planning application then?

In that case, I find Wardley’s comments about the capacity problem having been solved truly baffling, particularly given that he hasn’t been one to mince his words in the past…

I also wonder why it has a maintenance shed if it’s only running one train… maybe they’ve bought a spare train so that the ride can always operate even if one train is undergoing maintenance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top