• 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.

Drayton Manor Park

alfie said:
Why on earth would anyone think we would be getting a full on thrill coaster at a family park? Drayton are very clearly marketing towards a family audience so why would they decide to install a thrill coaster which doesn’t meet there target audience? The thrill coaster they already have (shockwave) is never really that busy even in the summer holidays so by installing another thrill coaster it would just overall be a bad decision.
Click to expand...

It depends really on what people take to be a family thrill coaster. Things have changed over the past decade or so in that many companies have gone with restraint designs that have a lower height restriction of 1.2m compared to the 1.4m OTSRs that were more common previously.

On the one hand you could argue that Thirteen, Wicker Man, and Icon are all family thrill coasters as they are 1.2m rides with either zero or one inversions. But then take Abyssus, that’s a 1.2m ride but is that a family thrill coaster or do it’s 4 inversions mean that it’s a full on thrill coaster? How about Taron, with it’s zero inversions and 1.32m height restriction, is it a family thrill coaster or a full on thrill coaster? The boundaries between the two categories have really become blurred.

You say that Shockwave is never really busy so installing another thrill coaster would be a bad decision but do you really think that if the park theoretically installed an RMC (at 1.2m) or an Intamin Blitz (1.32m) it would be an unpopular ride or a bad decision?
 
Shaggy_Dog_ said:
It depends really on what people take to be a family thrill coaster. Things have changed over the past decade or so in that many companies have gone with restraint designs that have a lower height restriction of 1.2m compared to the 1.4m OTSRs that were more common previously.

On the one hand you could argue that Thirteen, Wicker Man, and Icon are all family thrill coasters as they are 1.2m rides with either zero or one inversions. But then take Abyssus, that’s a 1.2m ride but is that a family thrill coaster or do it’s 4 inversions mean that it’s a full on thrill coaster? How about Taron, with it’s zero inversions and 1.32m height restriction, is it a family thrill coaster or a full on thrill coaster? The boundaries between the two categories have really become blurred.

You say that Shockwave is never really busy so installing another thrill coaster would be a bad decision but do you really think that if the park theoretically installed an RMC (at 1.2m) or an Intamin Blitz (1.32m) it would be an unpopular ride or a bad decision?
Click to expand...
I agree with what people class as family-thrill and full on thrill and also what you said about an RMC or Intamin Blitz. In general, it would definitely not be a bad move, but in terms of Drayton being a family park it wouldn’t be attracting the right audience, as a younger child may very well want to ride a family coaster but probably wouldn’t want to ride an RMC.
 
Shaggy_Dog_ said:
It depends really on what people take to be a family thrill coaster. Things have changed over the past decade or so in that many companies have gone with restraint designs that have a lower height restriction of 1.2m compared to the 1.4m OTSRs that were more common previously.

On the one hand you could argue that Thirteen, Wicker Man, and Icon are all family thrill coasters as they are 1.2m rides with either zero or one inversions. But then take Abyssus, that’s a 1.2m ride but is that a family thrill coaster or do it’s 4 inversions mean that it’s a full on thrill coaster? How about Taron, with it’s zero inversions and 1.32m height restriction, is it a family thrill coaster or a full on thrill coaster? The boundaries between the two categories have really become blurred.

You say that Shockwave is never really busy so installing another thrill coaster would be a bad decision but do you really think that if the park theoretically installed an RMC (at 1.2m) or an Intamin Blitz (1.32m) it would be an unpopular ride or a bad decision?
Click to expand...

Height restrictions do not dictate if a coaster is thrill or family thrill, they never have and never will. While height restrictions do dictate the general age range that can ride a ride. They do not determine it's classification.

Family thrill in general refers to the intensity, forces and overall fear factor of a ride, it sits in the middle between a kids coaster and a high thrill coaster. Abyssus is a thrill coaster, it just so happens to have a small height requirement, but that doesn't mean for one moment it is family thrill due to the intensity of the ride. Taron again, a thrill coaster, but with a smaller height restriction.

Once you throw out the notion that the height restriction dictates a coasters classification, I would argue that the lines are not blurred, they are pretty clear cut based on the intensity and fear factor of a ride.

Thirteen and Wickerman both sit firmly in the family thrill section. Wickerman perhaps slightly more towards the higher end, but they are both cemented in family thrill.

It also extends out of coasters. Apocalypse, the ride this is replacing was quite a prominent thrill ride. Despite having a 1.2m height restriction for the sit down, it is not something a lot of families would ride together. The intimidation and intensity of attraction was very high. Young people did ride of course. But just as many if bit more did not. But the fact it had a 1.2m height restriction did not make it a family thrill ride. Not even close.

A smaller height restriction does not nessicerialy make people want to ride. How intimidating or inviting a ride looks to the subjective opinion of a person does. Family thrill broadens this scope to make a ride as appealing as possible to a wide margin of people. A high intensity thrill coaster such as Taron, will not get a lot of younger people riding due to how intense and fast it is, not matter how low the height restriction is.
 
Last edited:
I think that this will be a great new addition to the park and I’m not at all disappointed that’s it’s family rather than thrill.

Let’s not forget, this time 5 years ago, the thought of Drayton Manor installing any major new ride let alone a coaster, was pretty much something we thought would never happen. They went through a period of multiple rides closures with nothing replacing them, terrible ride reliability etc.

We’ve already seen big improvements at Drayton and this new coaster is likely to have nice, albeit modest, theming and will be a very welcome addition to a park which, pre-pandemic, I’d almost lost all faith in.
 
Drayton are doing almost everything right at the moment. Socials are a great balance between customer service, promotional activities and engagement with enthusiasts. The Adventure Cove and Vikings areas are great. The hotel is fantastic. The park is improving all the time - play areas nestled amongst rides, refreshed and well maintained rides (including painting the buildings, up keep of the queue lines and surrounding land etc). They’ve got the right staff team in place and a solid plan of continuous improvements outlined. It isn’t perfect by any stretch, but it shows what can be done with the right will and plan. Exciting times for DMR.
 
Ciaran said:
I wish I could see what the park would look like now if it was still owned by the Bryan’s and they never had the money troubles they had. I imagine we never would’ve lost Apocalypse for a start.
Click to expand...
I agree I doubt we would have lost Apocalypse as they gave it a big refurbishment in 2019 and it was only knackered because Looping Group wanted rid so stopped maintaining it. Other Giant Drops at other parks are still going strong.

On a related note does anyone know about why the park suffered under the last few years financially under the Bryan's. I know there was Splash Canyon followed by the floods (though surely they had insurance for that) and Covid which finished them off but wasn't there more to it. Didn't Ferris Wheel, Pirates Adventure, Excalibur and cable car all close without replacement before that so I'm thinking there must have been money problems before that? does anyone know why since Thomas Land was always popular?
 
My problem with the way the park was run under the ownership of the Bryan’s was upkeep. There were a lot of fantastic installations under their ownership (Stormforce 10, Pirates, Excalibur, Apocalypse, Shockwave etc) but after the original installation, they were left to rot. Stormforce in particular was an incredible installation, but was left to rot. Likewise, Shockwave, with cannibalising one train for parts and the shabby state of the station building and queue line. Pirates - nostalgic, yes. But SO much didn’t work towards tue end - with drab and rotting interiors and displays. The Haunting was never properly staffed or maintained (it still isn’t, really). But whilst I do get the nostalgia towards the Bryan’s and their often surprising ride additions, the way the park was actually run and maintained was really very poor. As has been noted, when a ride was needing a refurb, they often just took the decision to close it or remove it, more often than not without replacement.
 
pjanvil said:
On a related note does anyone know about why the park suffered under the last few years financially under the Bryan's. I know there was Splash Canyon followed by the floods (though surely they had insurance for that) and Covid which finished them off but wasn't there more to it. Didn't Ferris Wheel, Pirates Adventure, Excalibur and cable car all close without replacement before that so I'm thinking there must have been money problems before that? does anyone know why since Thomas Land was always popular?
Click to expand...
Take this with a pinch of salt, but I’ve heard suggestions in this thread before that the hotel financially crippled the park to an extent, and then the installation of Accelerator didn’t do as well as they’d hoped, and the combination of those two things made Drayton Manor’s financial situation a lot more difficult and was the reason why they decided to focus almost solely on Thomas Land from there onwards.

I think the combination of the Splash Canyon accident, the Storm Dennis floods and COVID ultimately sealed the park’s fate, however; had those not happened, I wager that the park would still be owned by the Bryans.
 
Given how the companies accounts for the last years under the Bryan ownership showed huge losses. I feel that under the Bryans, we would still have Apocalypse, but Vikings, the new coaster and river rapids would not have happened / re opened. No chance. Everything mentioned required significant investment, the Bryans simply did not have that kind of money, not even close.

I feel the park would still be dwindling under the Bryans, they had worked their way into a vicious and hard to get out of downward financial spiral. The park is on the up up up now. It is a shame the Bryans do not own it anymore, but it is what it is, glad to see the park doing well again, with a promising future more than anything else.
 
You only got to look after the 2.5 million investment of the Thomas land expansion in 2015 which brought big crowds to the park but on the other hand pirate adventure closed and the only new investments were Vertigo (up charge) and James and the red balloon which cost £250000. They also re-themed the haunting, Ben 10 and golden nuggets. We also lost the big wheel, Chair lift, G force.
The Bryan’s didn’t want to lose the park and they were gonna let the Mellors Group Ltd run the theme park but the lockdown happened and they went into administration.
 
I'm not expecting Drayton's new coaster to be anything more than family thrill. But I do hope for something that becomes the parks new signiture ride.
Currently Shockwave is still the signiture ride of the park. They might have removed it from the logo but it's still the ride that draws your attention. Stormforce 10 also has iconic status but with Valhalla's reopening it's dropped back to being the second most impressive flume in the UK. Pirates and Apocalypse have of course gone.
so far I'm not won over by the ride type they've chosen. The default layout feels quite bland (with the 90 degree turn out of the station actually being marketed as a selling point!). But with an interesting theme and a strong layout it could still make for a good ride.
 
Yeah I can't say I'm overly optimistic after seeing the promotional video of that model type. Granted it might not be the same layout but it doesn't seem that great to me even for a family coaster.

They need to put themselves on the map again and I was expecting something more interesting.
 
It will be interesting to see when the time comes to replace shockwave if they still go for that signature coaster. It will certainly be a 1.2 metre hight coaster but there are alot of options on the market for something more thrilling than the new family coaster. I'm still looking forward to the new coaster, my daughter will probably love it as she's not tall enough for Shockwave yet.
 
Relife said:
It will be interesting to see when the time comes to replace shockwave if they still go for that signature coaster. It will certainly be a 1.2 metre hight coaster but there are alot of options on the market for something more thrilling than the new family coaster. I'm still looking forward to the new coaster, my daughter will probably love it as she's not tall enough for Shockwave yet.
Click to expand...

I do wonder if the park would look to convert Shockwave from a 1.4m stand up to a 1.2m sit down to broaden its appeal and ridership, or whether they see it as a ride earmarked for removal at some point.

I’m not sure if the uniqueness of it being one of the few stand up coasters of its type out there is enough of a draw for the park anymore, compared to being able to give it a refresh and promote it as being a 1.2m coaster more in line with the parks target audience.
 
Shaggy_Dog_ said:
I do wonder if the park would look to convert Shockwave from a 1.4m stand up to a 1.2m sit down to broaden its appeal and ridership, or whether they see it as a ride earmarked for removal at some point.

I’m not sure if the uniqueness of it being one of the few stand up coasters of its type out there is enough of a draw for the park anymore, compared to being able to give it a refresh and promote it as being a 1.2m coaster more in line with the parks target audience.
Click to expand...

Lowering the height won't broaden it's appeal though. People who are scared to ride will still be scared to ride. Sure, it will allow more people to ride it, but people will not suddenly want to ride it who otherwise would have not rode it based on a restraint height change.

If the ride scares the living daylights out of you, it scares the living day lightsout out of you. No amount of height restriction change will change that fact.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top