Chessington World of Adventures Resort

[Jb85]

Look how desperate we are all for this shed to be something special. And for the seats to rotate. When the reality is we have a crap coaster.

 

[Matt N]

I’ve found a theory on Twitter from JAMMY that could possibly explain why John Wardley is “impressed” with the capacity of the new coaster while also keeping to what we know about it only having one train and excluding any theories about 2 trains and fancy station setups:

Basically, JAMMY’s suggestion is back to back winged seating similar to what the Vekoma Invertigo has. This would double the capacity per train from 24 to 48, and would result in 4 riders per row per side rather than 2. It would also suit a shuttle coaster; as I said above, this has been done before on the Vekoma Invertigo models.

In theory, this would effectively double the theoretical capacity from 720pph to 1,440pph, but it should be noted that the park time would be roughly twice as long (2 minutes rather than 1 minute) with a 48-rider train compared to a 24-rider train. However, this would still boost the capacity to 960pph, or a 48 rider train every 3 minutes, which is fairly decent.

 

[Skyscraper]

I’ve found a theory on Twitter from JAMMY that could possibly explain why John Wardley is “impressed” with the capacity of the new coaster while also keeping to what we know about it only having one train and excluding any theories about 2 trains and fancy station setups:

Basically, JAMMY’s suggestion is back to back winged seating similar to what the Vekoma Invertigo has. This would double the capacity per train from 24 to 48, and would result in 4 riders per row per side rather than 2. It would also suit a shuttle coaster; as I said above, this has been done before on the Vekoma Invertigo models.

In theory, this would effectively double the theoretical capacity from 720pph to 1,440pph, but it should be noted that the park time would be roughly twice as long (2 minutes rather than 1 minute) with a 48-rider train compared to a 24-rider train. However, this would still boost the capacity to 960pph, or a 48 rider train every 3 minutes, which is fairly decent.

For a shuttle coaster that would make a lot of sense!
Unlikely though as the planning application does state only 24 seats.

 

[DistortAMG]

I’ve found a theory on Twitter from JAMMY that could possibly explain why John Wardley is “impressed” with the capacity of the new coaster while also keeping to what we know about it only having one train and excluding any theories about 2 trains and fancy station setups:

Basically, JAMMY’s suggestion is back to back winged seating similar to what the Vekoma Invertigo has. This would double the capacity per train from 24 to 48, and would result in 4 riders per row per side rather than 2. It would also suit a shuttle coaster; as I said above, this has been done before on the Vekoma Invertigo models.

In theory, this would effectively double the theoretical capacity from 720pph to 1,440pph, but it should be noted that the park time would be roughly twice as long (2 minutes rather than 1 minute) with a 48-rider train compared to a 24-rider train. However, this would still boost the capacity to 960pph, or a 48 rider train every 3 minutes, which is fairly decent.

Interesting, out of curiosity, why would the park time be double? It do not think it has to be, as long as it is managed properly.

 

[Matt N]

Interesting, out of curiosity, why would the park time be double? It do think it has to be, as long as it is managed properly.

Apologies; I know that is slightly crude, but my thought process was that a 48 rider train will take longer than a 24 rider train to load and unload, and as there are double the amount of riders, all the processes involving riders will take roughly double the time. On a wing coaster in particular, you have to wait for 48 riders to exit the platform rather than 24 before guests can load (or 4 instead of 2 per row) which will in theory take double the time. It will also take longer to check 48 restraints than it would to check 24, as assuming a similar level of staffing, each staff member would have double the amount of restraints to check.

Do you get where I’m coming from? I know it wouldn’t exactly double, as certain things take the same amount of time irregardless of how many riders there are per train, but it will take longer to check 48 restraints and unload 48 riders than it will to check 24 restraints and unload 24 riders.

 

[Tim]

It's an idea I've already given some thought too. It certainly would improve capacity to an acceptable level.

But based on the plans there's only a 1.5m gap between each airgate (allowing for about 2m per row) is this enough space for back to back seats on each carriage?
I also wouldn't assume it until any evidence for this is given.

@Matt N just a note on your calculations double the seats doesn't double the load time. It'll increase the checking process slightly but most guests don't struggle to board themselves. Also an additional staff member per side would remove this issue.

Edit: missed your response above. Seen it now.

 

[Matt N]

@Matt N just a note on your calculations double the seats doesn't double the load time. It'll increase the checking process slightly but most guests don't struggle to board themselves. Also an additional staff member per side would remove eben this issue.

That is true; my thought process assumed that staffing didn’t increase along with the increased number of riders, which may well not be true.

Surely, though, waiting for 48 riders would take roughly double the time that waiting for 24 riders would, particularly on something like a wing coaster where riders have to wait for the previous riders to unload and leave the platform before taking their seats? Or am I viewing it too simplistically?

 

[Skyscraper]

That is true; my thought process assumed that staffing didn’t increase along with the increased number of riders, which may well not be true.

Surely, though, waiting for 48 riders would take roughly double the time that waiting for 24 riders would, particularly on something like a wing coaster where riders have to wait for the previous riders to unload and leave the platform before taking their seats? Or am I viewing it too simplistically?

That's a good point, we need to remember that riders will enter and exit on the same side if it's a wing. Do Thorpe open the air gates on Swarm as soon as the restraints unlock?

 

[Matt N]

That's a good point, we need to remember that riders will enter and exit on the same side if it's a wing. Do Thorpe open the air gates on Swarm as soon as the restraints unlock?

I don’t think so; in fact, I’m not sure I’ve seen any coaster outside of Europa Park where they do.

Even if they did, though, you’d have to wait for all previous riders to pass your airgate before taking your seat, which will add time.

 

[Tim]

That is true; my thought process assumed that staffing didn’t increase along with the increased number of riders, which may well not be true.

Surely, though, on something like a wing coaster where riders have to wait for the previous riders to unload and leave the platform before taking their seats, waiting for 48 riders would take roughly double the time that waiting for 24 riders would? Or am I viewing it too simplistically?

Only if the way out is too narrow to accommodate the extra people. Of course it does take longer for twice the number of people to leave. But not twice the amount of time, and barley any time at all without obstruction.

 

[AstroDan]

It's 7 rows. 28 riders.

Facts are facts.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[Matt N]

It's 7 rows. 28 riders.

Facts are facts.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

We don’t know that they aren’t hiding certain things from the planning application, though. Merlin have had form for that in the past, and I can see them being particularly OK with doing this for something as insignificant as the ride seating arrangement (let’s face it, the ride taking 56 riders per train rather than 28 would be unlikely to cause issue with the planners).

If it is 7 rows, then that would make the total per train 56 riders under that theory. Which would make capacity even higher!

The theory above would explain Wardley’s comments without applying any contrived theories about additional trains and fancy loading systems. This seating arrangement would also make a huge amount of sense for a shuttle coaster.

Let me ask you this; if Wardley had simply wanted to say something positive about the ride while being dismayed with its low capacity, surely he would simply have focused on something else rather than blatantly lied about the capacity? The question wasn’t about capacity, so he didn’t really have to give a capacity-based answer if he hadn’t wanted to.

 

[Tim]

We don’t know that they aren’t hiding certain things from the planning application, though. Merlin have had form for that in the past, and I can see them being particularly OK with doing this for something as insignificant as the ride seating arrangement (let’s face it, the ride taking 56 riders per train rather than 28 would be unlikely to cause issue with the planners).

If it is 7 rows, then that would make the total per train 56 riders under that theory. Which would make capacity even higher!

The theory above would explain Wardley’s comments without applying any contrived theories about additional trains and fancy loading systems. This seating arrangement would also make a huge amount of sense for a shuttle coaster.

If they're said it's 28 riders it'll be 28 riders.

To my knowledge they've only ever hidden information on an application once before. That was for The Smiler. And in that case it wasn't done in a mislead way that would effect the planning process but to hide the marketable element.

Lying about the capacity serves no purpose. Its not a feature of the ride that would need hiding (a ride with multi-directional seating isn't new) and could invalidate the application if the capacity was a requirement.

Also The Smiler application actually stated very clearly that the track was only there for the sake of visualisation. With hindsight it was quite clear what they were trying to do.

 

[Matt N]

If they're said it's 28 riders it'll be 28 riders.

To my knowledge they've only ever hidden information on an application once before. That was for The Smiler. And in that case it wasn't done in a mislead way that would effect the planning process but to hide the marketable element.

Lying about the capacity serves no purpose. Its not a feature of the ride that would need hiding (a ride with multi-directional seating isn't new) and could invalidate the application if the capacity was a requirement.

Also The Smiler application actually stated very clearly that the track was only there for the sake of visualisation. With hindsight it was quite clear what they were trying to do.

I don’t think they needed to mention the capacity, as far as I’m aware; they just mentioned it in passing in one of the documents.

Also, the planning application actually said 24 riders, so I’m not sure where @AstroDan is getting 28 from. Admittedly, though, he could have picked up on the fact that there are seemingly 7 rows of airgates, which suggests that they may have made a slightly inaccurate comment about the capacity anyway regardless of whether it has back to back seats or not.

To me, the airgates look quite long, as though they could potentially accommodate 4 riders per row rather than 2.

This is all speculation, though; nobody knows until the train turns up and gets fitted onto the track!

 

[Alsty]

I don't know why so much credence is given to Wardley's comments. The increase in capacity could just be something like automated baggage stores on the platform. I don't actually see forsee anything significant here.

Edit. Can we get a link for the 24 seats please? I'm looking at the plans now. I see 7 rows which makes 7x4=28 seats.

 

[AstroDan]

The planning application shows 7 rows, so yeah it is 28 riders per train.

I quote this.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[Matt N]

I don't know why so much credence is given to Wardley's comments. The increase in capacity could just be something like automated baggage stores on the platform. I don't actually see forsee anything significant here.

I trust Wardley’s comments because as I said above; if Merlin had instructed him to say something positive about Chessington’s coaster if asked about it, then surely he could have focused on a different part of it rather than lied about the capacity if it were to have low capacity. The question was asked in quite an open ended way, so John didn’t necessarily need to mention the capacity.

I quote this.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

Interesting… Merlin have clearly mixed up somewhere, because I fully agree that that drawing clearly shows 7 sets of airgates, but their actual writing in the application said that it had 24 riders per train/6 rows.

They’ve clearly gotten something wrong somewhere…

 

[AstroDan]

I've also more contacts.

I'm going with 28.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk

 

[Alsty]

Can we get a link for the 6 rows please?

 

[AT86]

I am finding it very hard to believe Merlin have ‘kept something from the planners’ when it comes to the number of riders.

More riders per train = more noise from screaming. Noise is a BIG consideration for planning. If the train has twice the number of riders than they stated in the application this wouldn’t go down well, surely?