• 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.

Cross Valley Coaster

Matt N said:
With regard to 2015; I thought they mentioned a “timber truss structure” in Forbidden Valley, which would have used the valley, to the council in some capacity?

Perhaps it wasn’t a full planning application, but I definitely remember something official coming out along those lines, and I remember the rumour mill strongly suggesting that it was a revival of the cross valley coaster. We never got a full planning application due to the Smiler incident seeing it get cancelled and replaced with Wicker Man, as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly it was some sort of environmental assessment plan for the cross valley mk2 that was submitted
 
Marshal-B33J said:
If I remember correctly it was some sort of environmental assessment plan for the cross valley mk2 that was submitted
Click to expand...
That sounds about right, from memory. It wasn’t a full planning application, but gave enough details for us to get a vague feel for what the park were planning.
 
I believe that the 2015 screening request, whilst not providing full info, alluded to the majority of the ride being located in the existing FV area, including the Blade and Burger Kitchen sites. There would have been some of the ride entering the woods beyond the Burger Kitchen, but it was certainly not going to be ‘cross valley’ in the sense people seem to be talking here - I.e crossing from FV to Dark Forest like the 2003 proposals.

In any case it didn’t even progress to a full application so who knows how this would have gone down with the planners and local residents, although we can take an educated guess.
 
Yup, the 2015 screening request was essentially asking the question: "if we were to redevelop The Blade and Ripsaw sites and woodland behind, would we need to do an environmental impact assessment?". I've amended my above post, as clearly some plans were included as part of that request, but not in the context of planning permission. There's not a huge amount of detail in the screening opinion, but it's certainly not talking about anything cross-valley, given the area measurements and the site as described in the opinion.
 
Ah, fair enough! I’d remembered rumours strongly suggesting cross valley, but I could well have been wrong there…
 
Squiggs said:
I'm not sure anyone in the local villages will be able to hear the difference, since Nemesis' roar is reasonably self-contained in its pit - not like the Beast or more notoriously the Thunder Looper.
Click to expand...
Thunder Looper had more than just noise...the elephant in the room being the height issue and I recall Towers in a desperate attempt to blend the top parts of the ride above the tree height white to match the sky! :p All rather pointless in hindsight. Poor ride, she was always better than Rita IMO.

Now regarding Cross Valley Coaster, I'm aware of many saying it won't happen and I've heard this many times over the years, honestly if I had a tenner for everything said it won't happen then I could help raise funds to fix Towers' current flat ride problem buy in all seriousness with the original planned they had for it, I'm kinda glad Wardley's original plans never happened for after looking at several simulated creations of those plans brought to life, it actually looks rather boring.

Don't get me wrong, the two giant drops are breathtaking but other than that it just looks rather slow at parts and it does scream of the gimmick factor that Towers goes for their coasters and nothing else and this case, the giant drops were most certainly going to play into that. Maybe things happen for a reason and as many might like to throw shade at Wicker Man in comparison to the Cross Valley woody mostly for small size, at least WM provides a relentless layout throughout unlike the CVC.

So while the noise factor is always a problem for Towers, many will say that Coaster Corner has a far better chance of seeing a new Coaster in that spot than the Valley and I do agree with that however with it being that close to the village them the noise factor is a bigger problem there than anyone else on the park which is how we lost both the Mouse and Beast from that area, even though they were built with temporary planning permission. As I've said many, many times already, the only Coaster you will see there is an indoor coaster which given it would be enclosed and something different for the park it would be very welcomed by the enthusiast and the GP alike.

Hang on, maybe they can build the CVC...by using VR headsets and a simulator ride that gives guests a interesting 'what if' for the park and thus we would, somewhat, get to have that ride finally on the park! How's that for a bruh moment? :p Surely those VR headsets are lying around somewhere can be put to good use...?
 
AT86 said:
I believe that the 2015 screening request, whilst not providing full info, alluded to the majority of the ride being located in the existing FV area, including the Blade and Burger Kitchen sites. There would have been some of the ride entering the woods beyond the Burger Kitchen, but it was certainly not going to be ‘cross valley’ in the sense people seem to be talking here - I.e crossing from FV to Dark Forest like the 2003 proposals.
Click to expand...
Thats what I was trying to imply by it being in FV and the top-of-valley. The brief consideration of a FV coaster in 2015 was never going to cross the valley, but may have gone into the woods just outside FV.

I think if the Smiler incident hadn't happened maybe the wooden coaster which became Wickerman would have gone onto the FV site and we would have lost Blade but kept the flume. But as everything changed we got Wickerman.
 
I don't think it's as unlikely as most people are suggesting. The proposed ride would have crossed through a mass of woodland which is neither in the formal gardens nor goes too near the bottom end of Towers property (the fenced in bit). I've walked most of the very land that the track would have passed across and it's mostly just boring woodland with an old path running down through it. There are no structures of any significant interest down there, unless anyone has proof to the contrary (I'll wait)? There are definitely not any current day public footpaths running through it. Towers are always struggling for space for new rides so are forced to find weird and wonderful spaces to put coasters into. I believe it will be revisited one day and it'll be little surprise to me personally if it actually happens. I've posted my plan over the years of where the coaster would have gone and how you can see it would have potentially little impact on its surroundings. I'll do so again here. You can see how far away the proposed track would be from the village. Arguably the likes of Galactica are more visible and noise-making. You can also see how far away it is from the village compared with the likes of Galactica and Dark forest on the other side of the valley (not much difference).

Cross valley plan mine.png
 
jon81uk said:
Thats what I was trying to imply by it being in FV and the top-of-valley. The brief consideration of a FV coaster in 2015 was never going to cross the valley, but may have gone into the woods just outside FV.

I think if the Smiler incident hadn't happened maybe the wooden coaster which became Wickerman would have gone onto the FV site and we would have lost Blade but kept the flume. But as everything changed we got Wickerman.
Click to expand...
That is certainly my understanding of what happened. Post-Smiler the budget for the coaster got cut, and we ended up with Wicker Man. I always had a feeling that it was going to be an RMC as well, which could have been rather awesome.

I'm not sure we'll ever see cross valley coaster plans re-emerge. Not only would it require a huge budget (probably more than we are seeing from Merlin for high CAPEX these days) but I am not sure the coaster itself would be that good. Two relatively large drops in a unique location, yes. But not a lot else was going on with those original woodie plans.
 
Rob said:
That is certainly my understanding of what happened. Post-Smiler the budget for the coaster got cut, and we ended up with Wicker Man. I always had a feeling that it was going to be an RMC as well, which could have been rather awesome.

I'm not sure we'll ever see cross valley coaster plans re-emerge. Not only would it require a huge budget (probably more than we are seeing from Merlin for high CAPEX these days) but I am not sure the coaster itself would be that good. Two relatively large drops in a unique location, yes. But not a lot else was going on with those original woodie plans.
Click to expand...

Yes I assume the 2015 coaster would have been a layout closer to that of Wickerman, more twisty, whereas the original cross-valley was just out-and-back so not much too it other than large drops.
 
An RMC would be my preferred choice for the Cross Valley all thanks to this SW9 concept someone did with an RMC for the Valley if you ignore the fact that it does pop up over the trees briefly.

I'm sorry, but for those who still hold Wardley's original design to be built, this version utterly kicks the crap out of his version and honestly I'm kinda glad we never got the original version as this version is just relentless throughout which is always what I want from a woody/RMC coaster.

Oh, if only we could have had something like this built plus in this version of the Cross Valley...that first giant drop into the valley! 😍😍😍
 
It's impressive how quiet RMCs can be, so even if the building height restrictions stop RMC from being able to put their signature elements/style into a cross valley coaster, i think if the cross valley coaster gets built it will be an RMC.
 
TheTalbotHound said:
It's impressive how quiet RMCs can be, so even if the building height restrictions stop RMC from being able to put their signature elements/style into a cross valley coaster, i think if the cross valley coaster gets built it will be an RMC.
Click to expand...
The lift hills can be VERY loud though. Just look at Iron Gwazi.
 
TheTalbotHound said:
Yeah of course not all RMCs, but the lift hill on Wildfire is really quiet (except right at the bottom, maybe there's a fix to that idk), i'm guessing because they can't be too noisy around the zoo animals. Not to mention it could use an LSM launch instead of a lift.
Click to expand...
It was because of the locals I think. It was SBNO for a while after being built until the issues were resolved.
 
I always interpreted the 2015 submission as early plans for Wicker Man, ultimately it was curtailed and reduced in scale. I assume it was originally envisaged as just touching upon Forbidden Valley in a more out-and-back layout.
 
Similarly, I always envisioned that the mid-00s iteration of the wooden/cross-valley coaster would have taken the form of an Intamin Plug-and-Play, following the then recent introduction of Balder, Collossos, etc.
 
Re-reading the 2015 screening opinion, I don't think it's talking about the woodland we've been assuming (i.e. the woodland behind The Burger Kitchen/Funk'n'Fly). Whilst there isn't a map included with the opinion, from the description of the site and the few facts that are given, it would suggest that it's roughly speaking talking about this site surrounding Nemesis:
1658675092359.png
Things we know from the screening opinion:
  • The development site is around 1.7 hectares (the purple area is roughly this size)
  • A grid reference of SK 079 433 is given (which, depending on how you read it, either represents the red pin by The Blade, or this is the bottom left corner of the grid square referenced)
  • The site is 75m from the Prospect Tower (i.e. the site includes either The Edge Games or Skyride Station)
  • The site is only visible outside the park from the South Side of the Churnet Valley, and is less visible than Air, Nemesis, the Hotels and Skyride cables over the garden
  • The proposed ride had a high point of 202.5 AOD (above sea level), and the maximum height of the track would be 14.5m from the existing ground levels. The high point is compared to Nemesis, which it states is 'nearby' and has a high point of 202.62.
  • The proposed ride would require the removal of approximately 100 tree, most of which would be classed as U or C, but two would be in category A (high quality) and 25 in category B (moderate quality).
  • In the conclusion, the opinion states: 'It is considered that the development would not fundamentally alter the existing landscape character of the site and its immediate surroundings.' But they also note that 'at its northern end would allow the 'developed theme park character' to spread slightly further than existing into the currently non-accessed early mature woodland screening.'
That last point would strongly suggest that the opinion is considering the site currently occupied by Nemesis' extended queue line. Not least because it is the only 'early mature woodland' to the North of The Blade site. This site is already part of the "developed theme park character" because it has rides on three sides of it and a queue line running through it. The description of the trees being lost would also fit this area way better than the woodland to the South or East of the site, since most of the trees up there have only grown in since Nemesis was built.

You can also work out that the high point of the proposed ride would have to be within the dark purple outline. Give the maximum height of the track is 14.5m, but the high point of the ride is 202.5m, this means that the high point must be built on ground at least 188m AOD, the outlined area is the only area at this end of Forbidden Valley with land that is high enough to allow this. For reference, the path of the extended queue line after it turns sharp right is at a height of around 188m.

So, yeah. I'm not sure the 2015 screening opinion really tell us anything relating to cross valley coaster or a ride anywhere very near the valley, but on the other hand might be of interest when it comes to SW9 speculation, as it is clearly a different site the park have recently considered for a big ride, and not one that often comes up in discussion.
 
Squiggs said:
Re-reading the 2015 screening opinion, I don't think it's talking about the woodland we've been assuming (i.e. the woodland behind The Burger Kitchen/Funk'n'Fly). Whilst there isn't a map included with the opinion, from the description of the site and the few facts that are given, it would suggest that it's roughly speaking talking about this site surrounding Nemesis:
1658675092359.png
Things we know from the screening opinion:
  • The development site is around 1.7 hectares (the purple area is roughly this size)
  • A grid reference of SK 079 433 is given (which, depending on how you read it, either represents the red pin by The Blade, or this is the bottom left corner of the grid square referenced)
  • The site is 75m from the Prospect Tower (i.e. the site includes either The Edge Games or Skyride Station)
  • The site is only visible outside the park from the South Side of the Churnet Valley, and is less visible than Air, Nemesis, the Hotels and Skyride cables over the garden
  • The proposed ride had a high point of 202.5 AOD (above sea level), and the maximum height of the track would be 14.5m from the existing ground levels. The high point is compared to Nemesis, which it states is 'nearby' and has a high point of 202.62.
  • The proposed ride would require the removal of approximately 100 tree, most of which would be classed as U or C, but two would be in category A (high quality) and 25 in category B (moderate quality).
  • In the conclusion, the opinion states: 'It is considered that the development would not fundamentally alter the existing landscape character of the site and its immediate surroundings.' But they also note that 'at its northern end would allow the 'developed theme park character' to spread slightly further than existing into the currently non-accessed early mature woodland screening.'
That last point would strongly suggest that the opinion is considering the site currently occupied by Nemesis' extended queue line. Not least because it is the only 'early mature woodland' to the North of The Blade site. This site is already part of the "developed theme park character" because it has rides on three sides of it and a queue line running through it. The description of the trees being lost would also fit this area way better than the woodland to the South or East of the site, since most of the trees up there have only grown in since Nemesis was built.

You can also work out that the high point of the proposed ride would have to be within the dark purple outline. Give the maximum height of the track is 14.5m, but the high point of the ride is 202.5m, this means that the high point must be built on ground at least 188m AOD, the outlined area is the only area at this end of Forbidden Valley with land that is high enough to allow this. For reference, the path of the extended queue line after it turns sharp right is at a height of around 188m.

So, yeah. I'm not sure the 2015 screening opinion really tell us anything relating to cross valley coaster or a ride anywhere very near the valley, but on the other hand might be of interest when it comes to SW9 speculation, as it is clearly a different site the park have recently considered for a big ride, and not one that often comes up in discussion.
Click to expand...
Looking that large highlighted area near Nemesis, that would have been a perfect spot for a large show building for a dark ride than a coaster...that would have been better if NST had been a shooter dark ride as I've said many times before though this time I'm surprised at how much you can have built there as apposed to the current NST site.
 
Whilst Coaster Corner is still up there waiting to be redeveloped, I'm not sure if it would make sense for them to build a large scale dark ride anywhere else in the park.

Not that I'd advocate building a coaster at all at the moment whilst the ride line-up is so lop-sided, but this site in particular is notable because it could accommodate a coaster with around a 30m drop without any significant excavation, so that would seem like a better use of this particular space. Not least because a show building on this site actually would actually require a lot of land work, because the site is extremely uneven, not to mention wooded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top