• 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

Godscrasher said:
I'm puzzled at the quotes above. "safety rules are now that diseases in the water need to be considered more so they couldn't use the existing lake". What does this mean? In terms of legionella control increasing a lake size wouldn't matter, the water would only be an issue if it was stagnant. holding water in a lake for 10-12 hours before releasing just wouldn't give rise to any meaningful or significant bacteria that would impact the design of a new ride as suggested.

"understand health and safety rules change" regulations and standards change yes, but there's been no significant changes in H&S law to warrant change to the area, it's the initial interpretation and implementation by the company of these regulations/laws/standards etc which are mainly at fault in the first place and (more than likely), not good enough that they have to improve upon them.

If we're going to give option and quote wooly regulations in the first instance then they need to be sourced otherwise they hold no cred.

L8 for your legionella stuff
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pUbns/priced/l8.pdf

No idea about the other one so I cannot really quantify it.
Click to expand...

Without digging out the legislation so paraphrasing from memory, any new instilation is held to a higher standard of water safety necessitating a closed treated water system. That was not retrospective when introduced a decade or so ago so existing attractions like CRR can remain in use, while still having to adhere to general safety standards such as the legionella guidance quoted.

I don't know the detail but for example I understand Thopre got in trouble a few years back for a newly installed squirter on RR that dumped an unacceptable amount of water on riders from their open water system due to the water quality. It was just after the station if anyone remembers it, and it really did drench you in unclean water so had to be deactivated on advice.

Ultimately they couldn't significantly rework CRR without creating a closed treated water system, and I would expect the restrictions and required monitoring of water quality and volumes of water reaching riders on these older open water attractions to only increase over time as risks are identified and guidance updated. Whether that will become prohibitive to operation in the future is anyones guess.
 
Rick said:
Is CRR not fully contained, but more natural looking than most retention ponds? The Drayton rides, for example, take water from the lake, which is not contained and has inlets and outlets.
Click to expand...

I think it might be fairly contained, but in the context of someone on here who suggested a new big drop with a splashdown where the pond is, I think more would need to be done to bring it up to standard. That lake definitely doesn’t feel clean (compared to the water inside the concrete channels) so if it was used as a splashdown it would need replacement?
 
jon81uk said:
my understanding was that in the 30+ years since the AT rapids were built, the management of theme park rides has changed significantly and it is no longer usual to use an existing lake for water rides and most are built to have full separation from natural water features.

as someone else has already pointed out, it wouldn’t be a significant enough modification to need to re-do it from scratch and provide a dedicated water system if something like this was done to CRR.

The relevant section is
“
Water quality
262 For attractions where people are deliberately or incidentally brought into contact with water, including the inhalation of water aerosols, suitable and sufficient treatment/dosing and testing arrangements should be provided to make sure that the quality of the water does not present a risk to health from bacteria such as legionella. More advice on the control of legionella is on HSE’s website: www.hse.gov.uk/legionnaires
“
From https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/hsg175.pdf

although I’m not certain on whether the existing lake surrounding CRR would be considered a risk, modern water rides (Tidal Wave at Thorpe Viking rapids at Legoland etc) are built with fully contained water systems of treated water.
Click to expand...

So regardless if the ride was built 20/30 or 100 years ago it would still need to be suitable to comply. They'll be doing water samples which get sent to a lab for analysis and returned with contents (or they may have a lab on site). The water will be constantly moving with inlets and outlets, it's no worse than going for a dip in a lake in cumbria. Legionella bacteria forms when water becomes stagnant and at a certain temperature which creates the conditions for legionella bacteria to form and grow.

Beside legionella there'll be additional natural elements in the water but none so harmful that their PPM's would exceed any limits even for discharge of surface water (which is also tested). In comparison the fountains in Trafalgar Square probably contain more crap than the water towers use for the rapids. I seem to remember on a presentation with Jonathan Ellis that he explained there was a huge water treatment plant on site, although I cannot remember the details and I don't know what I've done with the presentation and that part was only brief. But it's not like they're just pumping lake water full of contaminants into the rapids ride without doing any checks.
 
Following on from earlier ideas about using the current CRR course to site another coaster.
Rather than getting rid of CRR and accepting that it will never be as thrilling as it was, could the course be used to build a family version of the s&s Axis coaster alongside CRR.
I know that it could be a challenging build and I'd rather ride a thrill version of this pretty exciting concept, but the more I think about this, the more it sounds like what AT needs at the moment.

The Axis concept could offer an exciting and family friendly, marketable secret weapon.
The tunnel interaction definitely improves both CRR and RMT so adding a cool looking sweeping ride to this mix could breathe new life into CRR, without changing much to the existing ride. I don't think they could fit another track into the tunnel, but they could run a track over and around the rest of the rapids.
Axis can be somewhere between Wicker Man, 13 and Nemesis. While using it in this way would miss out on some decent thrill elements, this type of ride could do a lot more with the long sweeping course of CRR.

This is the only new idea I've seen in a long time that fits with ATs SW model.
 
OilyWater said:
The legislation was not retrospective so Congo River Rapids is fine.
Click to expand...
If you're on about Control of Legionella ACOP and Guidance then you're completely wrong. Just because something was designed years ago doesn't mean the code of practice doesn't apply, What a stupid reply.
 
Godscrasher said:
If you're on about Control of Legionella ACOP and Guidance then you're completely wrong. Just because something was designed years ago doesn't mean the code of practice doesn't apply, What a stupid reply.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll dig out the legislation I said I couldn't be bothered to a few posts back...

The entirety of HSE guidance on water quality of water rides reads thus...

262 For attractions where people are deliberately or incidentally brought
into contact with water, including the inhalation of water aerosols, suitable
and sufficient treatment/dosing and testing arrangements should be
provided to make sure that the quality of the water does not present a risk
to health from bacteria such as legionella. More advice on the control of
legionella is on HSE’s website: www.hse.gov.uk/legionnaires.

Legionnaires gets a special mention, but in terms of water safety the same test applies across the board.

However, the whole of HSE guidance for attraction safety comes with the following caveat...

Application of this guidance to devices designed before
October 1997
11 Reports of pre-use inspection may not be available or needed for
older attractions (those existing in Great Britain before October 1997)
whose design has been proved by maturity and can be demonstrated in
a maturity design risk assessment. While, in principle, the hard evidence
of operational history may be an acceptable basis for proving a design,
much depends on the history of modifications. Whether a design review
is needed or not depends on the controller’s assessment of risk, aided
by advice from an IB. Guidance on the contents of a maturity design risk
assessment is in Section D, paragraphs 89–92 and Appendix 2. Although
maturity risk assessments can no longer be carried out, this Information
is included to assist those looking at existing examples.

Which in simple terms means outside of a specific legal requirement such as not giving your guests legionella, some aspects of safety can be viewed differently if designed and built pre 1997 and shown as safe by historic operation, such as the 'treating and dosing' of water mentioned above.

So you can run an old open water system water ride (flume, rapids) with sufficient risk assessment, but you couldn't build one now. A new one would need a closed and treated water system.

The other poster was correct and you shouldn't be so rude if you don't have the knowledge to back up your strong opinion.
 
Last edited:
pluk said:
OK, I'll dig out the legislation I said I couldn't be bothered to a few posts back...

The entirety of HSE guidance on water quality of water rides reads thus...

262 For attractions where people are deliberately or incidentally brought
into contact with water, including the inhalation of water aerosols, suitable
and sufficient treatment/dosing and testing arrangements should be
provided to make sure that the quality of the water does not present a risk
to health from bacteria such as legionella. More advice on the control of
legionella is on HSE’s website: www.hse.gov.uk/legionnaires.

Legionnaires gets a special mention, but in terms of water safety the same test applies across the board.

However, the whole of HSE guidance for attraction safety comes with the following caveat...

Application of this guidance to devices designed before
October 1997
11 Reports of pre-use inspection may not be available or needed for
older attractions (those existing in Great Britain before October 1997)
whose design has been proved by maturity and can be demonstrated in
a maturity design risk assessment. While, in principle, the hard evidence
of operational history may be an acceptable basis for proving a design,
much depends on the history of modifications. Whether a design review
is needed or not depends on the controller’s assessment of risk, aided
by advice from an IB. Guidance on the contents of a maturity design risk
assessment is in Section D, paragraphs 89–92 and Appendix 2. Although
maturity risk assessments can no longer be carried out, this Information
is included to assist those looking at existing examples.

Which in simple terms means outside of a specific legal requirement such as not giving your guests legionella, some aspects of safety can be viewed differently if designed and built pre 1997 and shown as safe by historic operation, such as the 'treating and dosing' of water mentioned above.

So you can run an old open water system water ride (flume, rapids) with sufficient risk assessment, but you couldn't build one now. A new one would need a closed and treated water system.

The other poster was correct and you shouldn't be so rude if you don't have the knowledge to back up your strong opinion.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

I had previously found the first bit, but couldn't locate the pre-1997 wording in the guidance.

I do think its likely that if (as a poster suggested) they wanted to put a giant drop in the rapids it would require significant reworking to bring the water system up to a new fully closed system. Would be far easier and more marketable to build a seperate new water ride. But I don't think the demand is there anyway most of the year for a tidal wave style drop ride at AT.
 
Godscrasher said:
If you're on about Control of Legionella ACOP and Guidance then you're completely wrong. Just because something was designed years ago doesn't mean the code of practice doesn't apply, What a stupid reply.
Click to expand...

If that was the true, to the extent you make out. All water rides new and old would need closed, treated water systems. They do not.

Interesting thing in that legislation is when it mentiones rides built before 1997. Well, Storm Force 10 at Drayton was built in 1999 and it probably has some of the most dirty water that totally soaks you, out of all parks in the UK. I do wonder how they manage that from a legal perspective.
 
I'm not the slightest bit bothered about them adding a drop to it. I don't think drops add a whole lot to rapids rides anyway.

I'd rather just see a freshen up of the whole ride....new boats, a new theme, new name and new audio. That will do for me.
 
Had a ride today and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember there being a smoke machine and lighting on the exit tunnel for RMT?

The masks and stuff look okay but it's all just kind of scattered around the place. It'll be very interesting to see how Drayton Manor's rapids compare when they reopen as the theming and paint on those look great from what I've seen.
 
TheAverageNerd said:
Had a ride today and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember there being a smoke machine and lighting on the exit tunnel for RMT?

The masks and stuff look okay but it's all just kind of scattered around the place. It'll be very interesting to see how Drayton Manor's rapids compare when they reopen as the theming and paint on those look great from what I've seen.
Click to expand...
They had that smoke machine and lights a couple of seasons back. It was a good effect actually when you're riding RMT. Less so on CRR. That lit up tunnel is so depressing now. CRR desperately needs some work, as does Duel. Both are damn right embarrassing

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
 
Gumbo_B said:
Following on from earlier ideas about using the current CRR course to site another coaster.
Rather than getting rid of CRR and accepting that it will never be as thrilling as it was, could the course be used to build a family version of the s&s Axis coaster alongside CRR.
I know that it could be a challenging build and I'd rather ride a thrill version of this pretty exciting concept, but the more I think about this, the more it sounds like what AT needs at the moment.

The Axis concept could offer an exciting and family friendly, marketable secret weapon.
The tunnel interaction definitely improves both CRR and RMT so adding a cool looking sweeping ride to this mix could breathe new life into CRR, without changing much to the existing ride. I don't think they could fit another track into the tunnel, but they could run a track over and around the rest of the rapids.
Axis can be somewhere between Wicker Man, 13 and Nemesis. While using it in this way would miss out on some decent thrill elements, this type of ride could do a lot more with the long sweeping course of CRR.

This is the only new idea I've seen in a long time that fits with ATs SW model.
Click to expand...

I think this is one thing the park do not need right now. Removing more family attractions for roller coasters. They have a world class lineup of coasters, they need to get the fundamentals right now.
 
DistortAMG said:
I think this is one thing the park do not need right now. Removing more family attractions for roller coasters. They have a world class lineup of coasters, they need to get the fundamentals right now.
Click to expand...
The idea was to build this alongside the rapids rather than replace them.

We're not getting any of the thrilling rapids features back. Building an interesting looking ride along some of the course and creating a few possible interactions with a visually good looking ride should improve the river run .

While the Axis Coaster can be an amazing thrill ride it can also get a lot more fun out of low profile track layouts. It could make a decent family coaster.

Yes AT need lots of other additions than a new coaster, it was just a suggestion that gives us a better rapids experience and a new exciting family coaster.
 
I did the rapids on opening day, and my god they are so depressing now. I could happily not ride them again, which is a real shame as it used to be a ride we would do on every visit.

Now the queues are long (no boat sharing doesn’t help, but I guess with the removal of the flume also doesn’t help), and the ride is just so dull. We didn’t get a splash of water on our boat at All. You have the three wage pools turned off, making for fairly dull sections, then of course the waterfalls off which leads to a really uneventful ending of the ride.

However I did the Thorpe park rapids recently and what a contrast, they used to be seen as one of the worse rapids, I would say they are probably the best in the UK now. All of their wage pools are turned on as normal and so are the waterfalls in the tunnel, meaning I actually got soaked on it. Plus he queue is never long, as it doesn’t actually have much of a queue line.

It’s such a shame to see the towers rapids so dull and boring now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top