Do UK parks have the worst queue times in Europe?

[flyingguitar]

The liability is yours, never the park's. There is an option, it's a paid locker outside the ride. If you decide to go on a ride with a loose article in your possession, which then falls and breaks (or worse, hits someone), you are liable. The park has warned you, the park has given you the option of paying for a locker to store your possessions. The park would only be liable if they encouraged you to bring on loose articles, and didn't warn you that doing so could lead to the items becoming lost, broken and doing so was at your own risk.

I wouldn't be surprised if an American park also charged a "retrieval fee" for every item which falls out and lands in a ride area.

but there is one, you can argue that they should have put their keys in the lockers at the start of the queue, but is it also reasonable that someone would have forgotten to do so, and thus on platform arrangements should be taken into account. in addition there are arguments that they should have added metal detectors, etc.

The argument would come down to a couple factors:
Is it reasonable for the park to have known the passenger had loose articles? well the park could have installed metal detectors (such as in universal) will probably be the argument
also where is the line between park and patron's responsibility. the park knows how dangerous loose articles can be, and thus they should ensure that guests don't have loose articles, or protections exist for loose articles (netting, etc).
etc

the argument would be similar to knowing your friend doesn't have a licence but letting them drive your car, and them crashing. you were aware they wern't qualified but let them do it.

Even if they weren't liable, this is America where even if you aren't correct you can sue and win millions because it costs so much to defend against a lawsuite it is cheaper to settle, and the lawyer will go after the bigger pockets (the park).

 

[flyingguitar]

It's a revenue stream for the park. Why give something away for free, when people will pay for it? That's the American / Capitalist way.

Thank you for purchasing a $1,000 phone made out of precious and breakable materials. Wanna protect it? Here's a piece of additional plastic... It's only an extra $40.

It's not really any different from having to purchase a photo at the end of each ride, or selling you a rain / water jacket before soaking you, or charging you for parking when there really isn't any other alternative to getting there.

Theme parks aren't built to entertain you, that's just a happy byproduct. They exist to rinse you for as much money as you're willing to part with.

I understand that, I am more arguing from a guest perspective, the amusement industry isn't just theme parks, there is plenty of other things to do. why would you go to a park, to essentially pay $2 per ride, on top of everything else. you may do it once, and learn about how bad it can be and not go back. (I think disney have a similar problem with gene + or what ever they call it now, as they charge hundreds of dollars for a ticket, then expect you to pay to queue in what should be the normal line)

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

The argument would come down to a couple factors:
Is it reasonable for the park to have known the passenger had loose articles?

The passenger is warned at every stage that loose articles are not allowed on the ride, an element of personal responsibility always comes into play. If you want an example "Caution, this drink may be hot". - The person selling you the drink doesn't warn you if this, but it is printed on the cup. It's a reasonable attempt.

well the park could have installed metal detectors (such as in universal) will probably be the argument

No. Metal detectors are there to detect any potentially dangerous weapon, not mobile phones or keys.

also where is the line between park and patron's responsibility. the park knows how dangerous loose articles can be, and thus they should ensure that guests don't have loose articles, or protections exist for loose articles (netting, etc).
etc

The protections for loose articles, such as netting, suggests that the park is aware that some guests will not listen to their instructions and have taken limited steps to try and mitigate any potential risk, but the responsibility is still with the guest.

the argument would be similar to knowing your friend doesn't have a licence but letting them drive your car, and them crashing. you were aware they wern't qualified but let them do it.

Not at all. This is a weak argument for several reasons:

1. You knowingly let your friend drive your car, without a licence. Your friend asks, you say yes, you're responsible. - The park says you can't bring on loose articles, you ignore it, you are responsible.
2. If your friend asks you to drive your car, you say no and they do so anyway, they are responsible. They have committed theft and several driving offences.
3. You may or may not have third party cover insurance, which is another legal issue entirely. If you knowingly let a driver operate your car without appropriate third party cover, you are responsible. This is not the same as allowing a guest on a rollercoaster as a passenger.
4. Driving a car is an active role. A passenger on a ride is a passive role.

Even if they weren't liable, this is America where even if you aren't correct you can sue and win millions because it costs so much to defend against a lawsuite it is cheaper to settle, and the lawyer will go after the bigger pockets (the park).

Any lawsuit still has to have an element of credibility and must be without frivolity. Filing a frivolous law suit opens you up to a world of pain. You have to be sure you can win and the parks, as you've pointed out, have deep pockets and are lawyered to the teeth.

there is plenty of other things to do. why would you go to a park, to essentially pay $2 per ride, on top of everything else. you may do it once, and learn about how bad it can be and not go back.

This isn't any different to a pay per ride amusement park. You pay for entry, you pay for a ride, you pay for your food, you pay for your drink, you pay if you want to charge your phone, etc.

You compete by offering unique experiences, or by encasing your turd in extremely good marketing, there are plenty of other ways.

We are really off topic, apologies @Craig.

 

[Bowser]

No. Metal detectors are there to detect any potentially dangerous weapon, not mobile phones or keys.

I believe he's referring to the metal detectors in ride queues which are for loose items, not potential weapons.

"Guests wishing to experience Jurassic World VelociCoaster, The Incredible Hulk Coaster® and Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit will be required to pass through a metal detector as loose items are strictly prohibited on these attractions."

Universal Orlando

Universal Orlando Resort

www.universalorlando.com

 

[John]

Steel Vengeance has a bizarre system where large bags must go in paid lockers outside the queue but small items such as phones can be brought into the queue and left in free lockers near the station, there are metal detectors after these lockers and staff have hand wands to hone in on anything the detectors pick up. The whole thing takes a frankly absurd number of staff yet the capacity is still bang average as the trains have seatbelts which must be checked before the main bars are closed. Inevitably someone pulls their lap bar down and they have to be released so the belts can be checked.

Ideally you don't want guests to be in the loading bays still holding bags but parks have implemented a surprisingly wide range of bad alternatives. I think the only good ones I've seen are the rotating lockers on the likes of Desert Race and Raptor

 

[Smiley]

I think we're getting a bit off-topic... Plenty of good points made, but reducing queue times and maximising load/throughput should be what theme park management is all about. So why are so many rides designed/operated not to do this??

Like I mentioned earlier, compare to the airline industry. If the metal isn't flying you're not making money, so especially for low-cost airlines getting people off and on as fast as possible is key. Theme parks should be the same - but they're often not. Which is weird, because the best experience drives repeat business. Seems like a broken model.

 

[flyingguitar]

I believe he's referring to the metal detectors in ride queues which are for loose items, not potential weapons.

"Guests wishing to experience Jurassic World VelociCoaster, The Incredible Hulk Coaster® and Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit will be required to pass through a metal detector as loose items are strictly prohibited on these attractions."

Universal Orlando

Universal Orlando Resort

www.universalorlando.com

correct, this is what I was referring to.

The passenger is warned at every stage that loose articles are not allowed on the ride, an element of personal responsibility always comes into play. If you want an example "Caution, this drink may be hot". - The person selling you the drink doesn't warn you if this, but it is printed on the cup. It's a reasonable attempt.

The protections for loose articles, such as netting, suggests that the park is aware that some guests will not listen to their instructions and have taken limited steps to try and mitigate any potential risk, but the responsibility is still with the guest.

yes, but the question is if it is foreseeable for someone to ignore these signs (which I think we agree it is) and what reasonable measures need to take place to prevent injury, not allowing people to place loose articles on the platform to make more money isn't going to look good as you have set up incentives for people to bring loose articles on the ride.

you and I probably don't think metal detectors are reasonable because we are in the amusement industry, but the argument isn't to people well versed in amusement parks, it is to the general public, using lawyers they can argue a reasonable measure is to add metal detectors. likewise if you look evil and money grubbing the jury / judge will look less favourably on you.

Not at all. This is a weak argument for several reasons:

1. You knowingly let your friend drive your car, without a licence. Your friend asks, you say yes, you're responsible. - The park says you can't bring on loose articles, you ignore it, you are responsible.
2. If your friend asks you to drive your car, you say no and they do so anyway, they are responsible. They have committed theft and several driving offences.
3. You may or may not have third party cover insurance, which is another legal issue entirely. If you knowingly let a driver operate your car without appropriate third party cover, you are responsible. This is not the same as allowing a guest on a rollercoaster as a passenger.
4. Driving a car is an active role. A passenger on a ride is a passive role.

yes, I was giving a bit exaggerated statement, but the key question is if the park reasonably should have known, and let them ride.

That doesn't mean using the current set up if they should have known, it means if reasonable measures could have been added to be made aware of the issue.

For this example it could be if your friend asks you to drive your car, and you don't know if they have their licence (and they don't) but if you don't ask then you could be in trouble as you could have asked, you reasonably should have known that they didn't have a license. any lawyer would make this argument

Any lawsuit still has to have an element of credibility and must be without frivolity. Filing a frivolous law suit opens you up to a world of pain. You have to be sure you can win and the parks, as you've pointed out, have deep pockets and are lawyered to the teeth.

kind of true, but in America even if you don't have much credibility you can still deal millions of dollars in damage (look at slapp lawsuits) and I would argue since we are having this conversation there is an argue for the liability, defending against this often will cost millions, so is cheaper to settle out of court (it is why you get loads of settlements in America)

 

[Matt N]

Contrary to the popular view, I mostly quite like the Universal system of lockers and metal detectors. It enhances safety while also enhancing operations, which is quite rare. It is a near-panacea for preventing loose articles and bags coming into the station, while also allowing for absolutely seamless operations.

Granted, I don’t think it works as well for the guest on rides where it’s been retrofitted, like Rockit and Hulk, but on VelociCoaster, where it was specifically baked in from the outset, I think it works very well for the guest and allows for absolutely seamless operation.

In general, I think not having loose articles on loading platforms is a key aspect of bettering operations. I feel that a good UK case study of this of Wicker Man; that ride has a baggage hold, and it operates about as flat out as it possibly can on 3 trains (which it does usually run, to be fair), frequently exceeding its manufacturer-quoted theoretical throughput!

I don’t think UK park operations are as bad as some make out, though. Yes, they could definitely be better in places, but I think there are also areas of very good practice and at the likes of Alton and Thorpe, they generally do well enough, for the most part.

 

[flyingguitar]

Contrary to the popular view, I mostly quite like the Universal system of lockers and metal detectors. It enhances safety while also enhancing operations, which is quite rare. It is a near-panacea for preventing loose articles and bags coming into the station, while also allowing for absolutely seamless operations.

Granted, I don’t think it works as well for the guest on rides where it’s been retrofitted, like Rockit and Hulk, but on VelociCoaster, where it was specifically baked in from the outset, I think it works very well for the guest and allows for absolutely seamless operation.

I do agree from what I have seen, the rides with them baked in look really good, I just don't like it on rockit (imagine a queue about the same if not worse than smile for campness, an animation loop and sound track looping every like 5 mins, and because the metal detectors are at the start no phone or snaks through the queue).

 

[Bowser]

I think we're getting a bit off-topic... Plenty of good points made, but reducing queue times and maximising load/throughput should be what theme park management is all about. So why are so many rides designed/operated not to do this??

Like I mentioned earlier, compare to the airline industry. If the metal isn't flying you're not making money, so especially for low-cost airlines getting people off and on as fast as possible is key. Theme parks should be the same - but they're often not. Which is weird, because the best experience drives repeat business. Seems like a broken model.

Not really following the airline analogy. The budget airlines you are referencing are notorious for providing an awful customer experience and the only driver of repeat business is economics and convenience rather than "the best experience". In fact they're providing the worst experience.

I suppose you're accurate in that the likes of Merlin are imitating the focus on economics by providing the cheapest experience but i'm not sure it's a model we should be encouraging when theme parks should arguably be prioritising customer experience above all.

 

[Poisson]

Energylandia are probably kings at it. 10 Zloty a day to use lockers, the queue and exit paths go past them and they're double sided. Easy, fast and cheap.

 

[neil_wilson]

Going back to the question post about whether the UK parks have worse queues, another difference is that in some countries the big parks went through more of a master planning process. I know it’s easy to end up with an element of confirmation bias where you choose your argument and look for evidence to support it. I’m not necessarily saying this has a massive impact, but it probably has some impact.

In the UK a lot of the parks evolved over time from pre-existing infrastructure. For example Alton Towers and Drayton Manor evolved out of the grounds of stately homes, Chessington has roots in Chessington Zoo and Legoland has roots in Windsor Safari Park. I don’t think that’s a major problem or necessarily makes bad queues inevitable. What makes a good infrastructure for a zoo isn’t necessarily that different from a theme park, and even if your master planning a theme park with a fresh piece of land, you may still have to work around natural features or planning issues.

But some of the big European parks like Port Aventura or Parc Asterix came through a different process, where someone bought a plot of land and then master planned a theme park often taking quite a bit of inspiration from Disney. I know Parc Asterix gets a lot of complaints about the queues, so maybe its not the best example, although according to the Themed Entertainment Association they also get more visitors than any of the UK parks do now.

The American company Duell Associates designed the infrastructures for quite a few of the big European parks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall_Duell

Whereas some of the big UK parks didn’t go through that same master planning process. I don’t think that’s anywhere near as significant as some of the points I’ve already made about school holiday patterns and weather, but there probably are some downsides to growing in a less planned way. Although there might be a benefit in terms of the park having more character. If Alton Towers used a ‘conventional’ theme park layout like a hub and spoke design, or a circular layout (the ‘Duell Loop’), it wouldn’t be as unique. In some ways I’m happy to sacrifice a bit of efficiency for a bit of character and originality.

Layout and infrastructure are one of a long list of factors that can affect the queue lengths, and often it’s not the main one. But I thought I’d mention it.

In terms of loose articles I agree that this is a key factor in throughputs. The legal side of things is complicated, particularly if we’re talking about America. In the US employee safety laws are often federal (set by the national government) and falls under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) which is a bit like their equivalent of the HSE (Health and Safety Executive). For visitor safety it often hinges more on a state by state basis, and then there’s the distinction between criminal law (what you can be prosecuted for) and civil law (what you can sue for). The civil aspect has a different history in the US because of the way their healthcare’s funded.

I don’t recall hearing an example of a guest being prosecuted for injuring another guest because they took a loose article on a ride, but that doesn’t mean it definitely hasn’t happened.

Flying Guitar’s talked about what’s reasonable and foreseeable, which is the language the HSE tends to use in the UK. I think that’s a good starting point.

There’s a lot of evidence you could potentially look at. What does the manufacturer advise? What does the inspection body advise? What control measures do other similar rides have in place? Have there been previous accidents or near misses that showed a heightened risk from loose articles? How was the ride risk assessed? How clear was the signage? How likely was a guest to be able to read and understand the signage? What other control measures were there? The evidence available to a member of the public suing is going to be less than the evidence available to a statutory inspection body like the HSE.

But I agree, essentially the reasonable and foreseeable argument is how it’s likely to be considered. In many cases signage on its own probably wouldn’t be enough to dissolve the park of liability, particularly in a criminal case. There is a concept called 'contributory negligence' which could have a significant bearing in a civil case, depending on which state or country we're talking about. But every ride’s different and every country’s legal system’s different, so I don’t think there are any hard and fast rules.

 

[Bowser]

Layout and infrastructure are one of a long list of factors that can affect the queue lengths, and often it’s not the main one. But I thought I’d mention it.

That’s an interesting theory though I’m struggling to think of any cases where it would be true. Even the example of Drayton (or indeed Paultons which I believe would qualify) doesn’t suffer as a result. Efteling is another example.

I suppose I’d argue that a park like Alton Towers should benefit from both its size spreading out customers to reduce queue times and its landscape/history providing alternative attractions but that either doesn’t seem to be the case or the queues would be even worse if it had a simpler layout.

 

[flyingguitar]

I suppose I’d argue that a park like Alton Towers should benefit from both its size spreading out customers to reduce queue times and its landscape/history providing alternative attractions but that either doesn’t seem to be the case or the queues would be even worse if it had a simpler layout.

in the modern era I would argue it is probably worse, as we have phones to check the queue times and see that nemesis has a low queue, but because of the distance if you were in DF it is like a 20-30 min walk, you may just go to the wicker man instead and do nemesis / GAL together once, but it nemesis was able to be placed closer to the rest of the rides it could be another easy to walk to option to aid reducing the queue times.

 

[neil_wilson]

That’s an interesting theory though I’m struggling to think of any cases where it would be true. Even the example of Drayton (or indeed Paultons which I believe would qualify) doesn’t suffer as a result. Efteling is another example.

I suppose I’d argue that a park like Alton Towers should benefit from both its size spreading out customers to reduce queue times and its landscape/history providing alternative attractions but that either doesn’t seem to be the case or the queues would be even worse if it had a simpler layout.

There’s a lot of factors affecting guest flow, so maybe you just have to look at it on a park by park basis. I was just throwing it out as an idea.

In an ideal world everyone would be spread evenly through the park, or at least matched to where the capacity is. For example, you don’t want the rides near the entrance to get inundated in the morning and the rides at the back of the park to get inundated in the afternoon. But Chessington and Drayton Manor both benefit from having multiple entrances, which helps to disperse crowds, regardless of the layout.

Alton Towers does benefit from having the entrance in the middle of one side, rather than in a corner. For example if the entrance were where Katanga Canyon or X Sector are, it would be less effective at fanning people out through the park.

My first job was as a ride host in Team Rita in 2008. That’s the last year Corkscrew was open for. Even in the summer, it was rare for Corkscrew’s queue to go above 20 minutes. However, Rita wasn’t the most reliable. Those rocket coasters have a lot of complex technology in the launch, which perhaps is why they don’t tend to build hydraulic launched coasters now. We also had quite a few E stops when people got phones or cameras out just before a train launched.

As soon as Rita went down, Corkscrew’s queue would rapidly grow. We did try to pre-empt this. As soon as Rita went down we’d put Corkscrew’s queue onto 60 minutes, and send someone to the entrance to ‘queue bust’, which meant telling everyone the queue was really long because Rita’s down, and we’d advise them to come back later. But a lot of people would still join it and the queue would quickly grow to over an hour, particularly as Corkscrew’s throughput was lower than Rita’s. Would it have helped if there were more major rides nearby? Possibly. Although it is also a fair point that all the time spent walking, is time when people aren’t in queues.

An interesting fact is that in Hong Kong Disneyland’s first year its capacity was 28,000. We know this because Hong Kong is about the only country where theme park capacities are set by the government. Disney actually thought the capacity was too low and tried to persuade the government to let them have it higher. This isn’t because the Hong Kong government invested in the park. The contract gave Disney complete control over how the park was operated aside from legal requirements. But the capacity was set by a government department under Hong Kong safety laws.

This 28,000 capacity is similar to what Alton Tower’s capacity has historically been (for example the 28,000 capacity was mentioned in a relatively recent TV documentary. Possibly the one about Wicker Man, but I might be wrong on that).

However, in its opening year Hong Kong Disneyland had one roller coaster (Space Mountain), two major rides (Space Mountain and The Jungle Cruise) and about 8 rides in total. One of the case studies in my book was looking at how Hong Kong Disneyland had such a big capacity with so few rides, and how Disney managed the crowds. I’m not saying Hong Kong Disneyland was a good theme park when it opened. It was widely panned. But it’s interesting looking at things like guest flow such as the hub and spoke layout and Fast Pass (which they’ve since got rid of), as well as things like the fact the parade was timed for the busiest point in the day, to see how they managed the crowds.

I think guest flow is a factor in waiting times, but generally not as big a factor at the throughputs on rides or the distribution of guests through the season.

 

[Bowser]

One of the case studies in my book was looking at how Hong Kong Disneyland had such a big capacity with so few rides, and how Disney managed the crowds

Sorry if I missed it, is this a book you’re currently writing or have already written? And if the latter what’s it called?

I seem to recall HK Disney still has a reputation for being the park with the shortest queues.

 

[neil_wilson]

Sorry if I missed it, is this a book you’re currently writing or have already written? And if the latter what’s it called?

I seem to recall HK Disney still has a reputation for being the park with the shortest queues.

I’ve never actually been to Hong Kong Disneyland, but I think it did get quite a few complaints about queues in its first year, but then attendance slumped in the second year after the negative reviews. Attendance did then grow as the park expanded, before slumping again when Shanghai Disneyland opened and cannibalised some of its attendance.

Because the park struggled to cope in its first year it looks like they also fast tracked Autopia into the park. I gather there had been plans for a more complex ride themed to the Pixar car films, and then they scaled it back to a more traditional Autopia ride to quickly boost the capacity and the ride count. I suppose it’s a bit like Indiana Jones getting rushed into Disneyland Paris soon after it opened.

Since then it’s grown quite a lot with things like It’s a Small World, Toy Story Land, Mystic Manor, Grizzly Mountain, the Ironman Experience and Frozen Land.

In terms of the books it’s a series called Absolute Efficiency. It was published by the Theme Park Press. I researched and wrote it as a lockdown project. Originally I was going to write a book about the Guest Experience with a chapter on queuing, but then I realised there was a lot more than I thought there was about queuing. I thought it was originally going to be pretty much all about throughputs, and then it became clear that throughputs are only part of it.

It was something I’d been passionate about for a while. Working at some parks I’d seen that pressuring staff to work faster was a key part of the strategy for managing queues, and some of the accidents it created. This was before The Smiler accident, which shone a light on the risks of encouraging staff to work faster, albeit with engineers rather than ride operators.

At the same time I was also aware of the pressure that queues put staff under. On enthusiast forums there’s often the impression that staff don’t care about how long the queues are, because they’re not waiting in them. Whilst that might sometimes be true, in my experience that often isn’t the case. Working on a ride with a long queue can be stressful. Particularly for staff working on their own. It tends to lead to more aggression from customers. For example a parent is more likely to become aggressive if they’ve waited a long time and they’re told their child’s too short. I was aware that assaults on staff were very common at some theme parks, and long queues clearly made the assaults more likely.

Working at Europa Park also gave me some interesting insights into managing queues. Some of them are fairly obvious, others less so. For example the rides pretty much all have ramps at the exit rather than stairs. Vampire was being mentioned earlier in this thread, which is a ride where you exit up steps. The exits to the platforms are often in the centre rather than at one end. The ice show has an exit on each side emptying the guests into different areas of the park. Most of the rides have undercover queues and there are a lot of undercover rides, so people are more willing to visit when the weather’s poor… I realised that a lot of the efficiency was through design. I also realised that whilst some things like continuous loading stations and dual platforms are expensive to install and operate, some of the solutions to queueing are quite cheap.

Then I lost my job when Covid started. I had been planning to go straight from working at Europa Park to working at Disney World, but that didn’t happen, so I used some of the time in between to finish off my first book at get it published.

Then a couple of months ago I was part of a panel doing a talk about reducing queues at the IAAPA (International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions) show in Amsterdam, and people started coming up to me afterwards and said that they’d tried to order my book and it was saying it was out of print, and I realised my publisher The Theme Park Press had closed down. So I’m at the point of looking into updating it and then re-publishing it, probably just as a self publication. It has had quite limited interest in the UK, though. Most of the people who bought it seemed to be managers at American theme parks, aside from people who knew me.

By the way, I know I said I normally use a different account so that I can give honest opinions about things like rides without reflecting on any employers. I should probably clarify for everyone else that Bowser’s not my other account, haha.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Efficiency-Guide-Operational-Industry/dp/1683903102
https://www.coaster101.com/2022/03/...must-read-absolute-efficiency-by-neil-wilson/
https://www.roller.software/the-guest-experience-show/?wchannelid=2l49v3p0cj&wmediaid=f2yqphe7ah

I have to admit I’m not very good with technology which is why I didn’t publish it myself before. Also I now work as a theme park safety consultant so I do a lot of research for that so I don’t have as much time for the queuing stuff. But hopefully I’ll get it republished soon along with the second book in the series.

 

[Bowser]

But hopefully I’ll get it republished soon along with the second book in the series.

Let us know if you do, I’d like to read it!

And yes, I’m not conversing with myself to publicise said book

 

[Benzin]

It's a big balance between getting throughputs and ensuring health & safety procedures are being followed.

Going back to Vampire, back when I was on it you had 30 seconds on 3 trains to get people on and off. There's always people delaying things. You want to dispatch it but wait, someone's stood on the platform taking a pic of their kid. You tell them to go away (politely), but then someone else kicks their shoes off so you have to give them back (in case of an evac, those steps were nasty). Then a child is crying because they're being forced on and they don't want to. By which point the trains are stacked and you want to kill everyone for ruining it.

People seem to leave their brain at the door at theme parks.

 

[Smiley]

The loose object discussion reminds me of Duelling Dragons at Universal (the duelling aspect was fantastic, especially on the front row as the trains faced each other head on). Idiots with loose objects (or more likely throwing loose objects) ruined that.

I can only look to Disney who are experts at throughput - separate load/unload stations, multiple tracks (eg Space Mountain, ToT, Toy Story Mania), longer ride times whilst maintaining throughput via good block management). I appreciate it's a $200 ticket rather than a $50 ticket - maybe Universal will bring something better.

I only live 30 mins from TP/Chessy and in the last 20 years have never visited unless it's an INSET (teacher training) day so my son had the day off school. Otherwise the queues are just too long, and the cost of FP compared to the ticket price is ridiculous. IMHO.