• 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.

Future of the Congo River Rapids

I can understand why they would remove the hose pipes after the Drayton incident. I never understood the 3 wavemakers though.

They were specifically highlighted in the HSE report that these could encourage guests to stand, but that was specifically because the wavemaker lake on Drayton's rapids had no guide ways which enabled boats to get stuck, for long periods at times whilst other boats passed. This encouraged people to stand and even jump boats. I witnessed people jumping from one boat to another many times in the early 2000's on Splash Canyon.

This has never once been an issue since day one of the CRR's at Alton, because on Congo, each of the 3 lakes where the wavemakers are, have guideways and catwalks, making it totally impossible for the boats to even slowdown, let alone get stuck.

This crucial information was left out of the HSE report however, so from Alton's perspective, they would have just seen the report mentioning that wavemakers encouraged guests to stand, without the very crucial context as to why they encouraged people to stand.

Fast forward to the Splash Canyon refurbishment into River Rapids. The guideways were retro fitted to that rides wavemaker lake, something Congo had present from construction in the 1980's on all three of it's wavemaker lakes. Even with them though, Drayton's wavemaker is still switched off.
 
Last edited:
DistortAMG said:
This crucial information was left out of the HSE report however, so from Alton's perspective, they would have just seen the report mentioning that wavemakers encouraged guests to stand, without the very crucial context as to why they encouraged people to stand.
Click to expand...
Oh come now, you’re VASTLY undervaluing the expertise of people who literally work in the industry.

I know us enthusiasts like to believe that our knowledge surpasses all, but to claim that Alton Towers, an established theme park operator, would miss nuance in an HSE investigation into a ride incident, is baffling.
 
Matt N said:
I think it would do more for capacity on there if they properly enforced boat sharing.
Click to expand...
as a former rapids host - the amount of abuse we'd receive from trying to boat share groups was absurd. generally if the queue was >15min we'd do our best to boat share but it very often wasn't worth pushing for since this usually involved heated back and forths with people who felt entitled to their own boat and suddenly 5 empties have gone out (which creates its own issue, because guests further down the queue justify not sharing a boat because they'd seen empties going round) - be kind to ride staff folks they're (usually) doing their best!

edit: it's also a compromising position to suddenly start trying to boat share people if the queue builds up because usually the first groups to be asked have spent their entire queuetime seeing boats go out with 1 group which as staff puts you in an awkward position of trying to explain why it's different for them
 
LPW said:
as a former rapids host - the amount of abuse we'd receive from trying to boat share groups was absurd. generally if the queue was >15min we'd do our best to boat share but it very often wasn't worth pushing for since this usually involved heated back and forths with people who felt entitled to their own boat and suddenly 5 empties have gone out (which creates its own issue, because guests further down the queue justify not sharing a boat because they'd seen empties going round) - be kind to ride staff folks they're (usually) doing their best!

edit: it's also a compromising position to suddenly start trying to boat share people if the queue builds up because usually the first groups to be asked have spent their entire queuetime seeing boats go out with 1 group in them which as staff puts you in an awkward position of trying to explain why it's different for them
Click to expand...
No staff should be receiving abuse of any kind you all are doing your best.
 
LPW said:
as a former rapids host - the amount of abuse we'd receive from trying to boat share groups was absurd. generally if the queue was >15min we'd do our best to boat share but it very often wasn't worth pushing for since this usually involved heated back and forths with people who felt entitled to their own boat and suddenly 5 empties have gone out (which creates its own issue, because guests further down the queue justify not sharing a boat because they'd seen empties going round) - be kind to ride staff folks they're (usually) doing their best!

edit: it's also a compromising position to suddenly start trying to boat share people if the queue builds up because usually the first groups to be asked have spent their entire queuetime seeing boats go out with 1 group which as staff puts you in an awkward position of trying to explain why it's different for them
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to say it’s necessarily in the hands of the ride staff alone, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I fully understand why it might cause issues, and why it possibly isn’t worth the battle in some cases.

I was purely stating that if the park were able to enforce boat sharing more, it would make the queue shorter. The ride does use its capacity quite inefficiently due to the fact that there are multiple empty seats in most boats, and I was merely expressing my feeling that having more efficiently filled boats would do more to improve the ride’s capacity than simply adding more.
 
Matt N said:
I’m not trying to say it’s necessarily in the hands of the ride staff alone, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I fully understand why it might cause issues, and why it possibly isn’t worth the battle in some cases.

I was purely stating that if the park were able to enforce boat sharing more, it would make the queue shorter. The ride does use its capacity quite inefficiently due to the fact that there are multiple empty seats in most boats, and I was merely expressing my feeling that having more efficiently filled boats would do more to improve the ride’s capacity than simply adding more.
Click to expand...
no of course you're good I didn't read your comment as being rude/offensive in any manner! I completely agree that boat sharing should be more enforced (ESPECIALLY with signage - op announcements don't cut it because guests don't tend to listen) - just providing context from my own experience as to why it's less enforced than it should be - because the responsibility falls onto ride hosts who just end up as punching bags for the general public. it's a shame because I generally loved working congo but occurrences like these really dimmed my enthusiasm for it
 
Islander said:
Oh come now, you’re VASTLY undervaluing the expertise of people who literally work in the industry.

I know us enthusiasts like to believe that our knowledge surpasses all, but to claim that Alton Towers, an established theme park operator, would miss nuance in an HSE investigation into a ride incident, is baffling.
Click to expand...

One moment, enthusiast I am yes. I have previously worked in the industry as an engineer and general park staff before that, over nearly a decade. I have also worked on Intamin Rapids Rides as an engineer, ride host and operator.

First point to address, I never once claimed that Alton Towers missed anything? They can't miss something when the information was never provided in the first place.

I said that the context as to why people used to jump from boat to boat and stand up in wavemaker areas on Splash Canyon was completely left out of the HSE report, don't take my word for it, read all the reports here for yourself. The report generally mentioned that wavemakers encourage people to stand, without the context as to why. Context that I know and understand from the experience gained from working at the park many years ago and witnessing first hand these issues.

Alton Towers would not be privy to the ins and outs and intricacies of very specific things in ride operations at another park, why would they be? This is partly why things like ADIPS safety bulletins and HSE reports exist. But this is reliant on the reports actually being specific, of which in this case they were not.

The HSE reports did not specify what it specifically it was about wavemakers and their lakes and design that caused people to stand, they just generally mentioned that they caused people to stand.

Maybe they omitted this information because one, it may not have been known or understood to how we witnessed it happening back in the early 2000's. Or by mentioned in the HSE report that wavemakers encouraged people to stand without giving specifics, adds an extra factor of safety into the recommendations. Which would work with and not against the HSE motives here in what is trying to make a relatively unsafe ride, safer.
 
Last edited:
DistortAMG said:
One moment, enthusiast I am yes. I have previously worked in the industry as an engineer and general park staff before that, over nearly a decade. I have also worked on Intamin Rapids Rides as an engineer and as a ride host and operator.

First point to address, I never once claimed that Alton Towers missed anything?

I said that the context as to why people used to jump from boat to boat and stand up in wavemaker areas on Splash Canyon was completely left out of the HSE report, don't take my word for it, read all the reports here for yourself. The report generally mentioned that wavemakers encourage people to stand, without the context as to why. Context that I know and understand from working at the park many years ago and witnessing first hand these issues.

Alton Towers would not be privy to the ins and outs and intricacies of very specific things in ride operations at another park, why would they be? This is partly why things like ADIPS safety bulletins and HSE reports exist. But this is reliant on the reports actually being specific, of which in this case they were not.
Click to expand...
"from Alton's perspective, they would have just seen the report mentioning that wavemakers encouraged guests to stand, without the very crucial context as to why they encouraged people to stand."

^To be fair, I guess if I were to read that at completely face value, it states that the report doesn't include context as to why people were encouraged to stand up - correct. However the inference from that line is that Alton couldn't deduce that context themselves, which is rubbish lol.

As a fellow industry professional, I know that parks actually share intricacies and specifics of ride maintenance and operation far more than you imply, and I'm not just talking in-group within Merlin. Yes of course there are safety bulletins, HSE reports etc., but to suggest* these are taken at face value is wrong. Parks collaborate, both between one another, and between IB's who work across various parks.

* - if this isn't what you're suggesting, then I apologise - was definitely how it read :)
 
Islander said:
"from Alton's perspective, they would have just seen the report mentioning that wavemakers encouraged guests to stand, without the very crucial context as to why they encouraged people to stand."

^To be fair, I guess if I were to read that at completely face value, it states that the report doesn't include context as to why people were encouraged to stand up - correct. However the inference from that line is that Alton couldn't deduce that context themselves, which is rubbish lol.

As a fellow industry professional, I know that parks actually share intricacies and specifics of ride maintenance and operation far more than you imply, and I'm not just talking in-group within Merlin. Yes of course there are safety bulletins, HSE reports etc., but to suggest* these are taken at face value is wrong. Parks collaborate, both between one another, and between IB's who work across various parks.

* - if this isn't what you're suggesting, then I apologise - was definitely how it read :)
Click to expand...

This is an intereresting discussion actually.

Totally agree with you there though mate, in this specific case though, I genuinely believe this was not communicated previously by the park. Partially because of what I think was a lack of understanding of the perceived risks that certain things had. This was also something that was sort of implied to be a root cause for safety issues that were discovered by HSE after the incident.

If they park did not perceive certain things as a big enough risk, when they were, they would not communicate that to other parks I do not think.

Obviously some of this is assumptions on my part and by no means fact, joining the dots based on the HSE information and the evidence of what we see on the ground today. It does not mean it is correct however. I feel that is an important point to add, given TST's team highlighting certain comments recently based on conjecture or outright rumours.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top