jon81uk
TS Member
New boats would cost a significant amount of money and not gain them much.
- News all the latest
- Theme Park explore the park
- Resort tour the resort
- Future looking forward
- History looking back
- Community and meetups
-
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. - Thread starter Benjsh
- Start date
- Favourite Ride
- Steel Vengeance
- Favourite Ride
- Ride To Happiness
- Favourite Ride
- POTC Disneyland Paris
- Favourite Ride
- The Smiler
- Favourite Ride
- Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
Future of the Congo River Rapids
New boats would cost a significant amount of money and not gain them much.
Rob
TS Team
Nope, rode it last year and it was yet another glorified boat ride.
Good rapids in the UK are a thing of the past thanks to the HSE.
Jb85
TS Member
Shaggy_Dog_
TS Member
I think that’s actually a fair rule about having no unaccompanied under 18s on a rapids ride. Having accompanied a school trip to a theme park as a parent volunteer a couple of weeks back it was very clear to see that sometimes the kids can get a little bit silly when they are in their own groups and sometimes one or two of them will try and show off a bit in front of their peers or do something a bit daft to try and see what they can get away with.
A coaster or a flat ride where you are securely fastened in and can’t go anywhere with a ride op watching and controlling the whole cycle is absolutely fine for a group of unaccompanied school kids but a rapids ride isn’t the place for that unfortunately. If it’s a ride that they have to skip on their visit there then that’s actually not such a big deal, plenty of other much better rides to have a blast on instead.
Plastic Person
TS Member
I rode the Jungle River Rapids ride at Gardaland yesterday, which operates under Merlin. It was hardly Bilge Rat Barges at IOA, but there are some fairly hefty and impressive waterfalls operating to dodge, choppy waves and such. We were loaded in with a slow-moving family with small children and it was about the closest I've ever come to hitting an operators cabin at the end of the rotating platform. I gestured to the loader that I'd be happy to hold back and wait for the next boat, but he was (lazily) insistent we hopped in. Thrilling stuff!
jon81uk
TS Member
This isn't a "merlin" problem, this is an interpretation of guidance from the HSE in the UK issue.
TroySmith1
TS Member
Guests satisfaction, higher safety measures and all effects back on? you could say the same about nemesis retrack or wicker man screens.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jon81uk
TS Member
But those benefits are not seen as tangible. I doubt the people deciding whether to spend thousands/millions on boats think about the effects at all.
Whereas Nemesis retrack is simpler, if we don't do this we may not be able to run one of the key coasters at all. The cost long-term of small fixes and the appeal of the park with it closed completly are easier to measure.
DistortAMG
TS Member
One word. Money. Money they do not want to spend.
Plastic Person
TS Member
Yes, I know that, my point was made to demonstrate the gulf of red tape between the UK and Europe, even within the same division.
(As well as to lord it over you all that I'm on holiday, naturally.)
pluk
TS Member
Very frequently 'the HSE' is used to explain or excuse the state of rapids rides in the UK, but looking through the published documents this is not really supported by the reality of the actual guidance. There are two different published things that I think sometimes get confused.
First, during the coroners inquest into the Drayton fatality, the coroner themselves issued a notice to all opporators of similar attractions. This is a fairly common practice in coroners court, where involved parties and others are instructed or invited to demonstrate what has been implemented after an event to prevent reoccurrence or seek best practice from alternative practitioners.
www.judiciary.uk
This is not in itself instruction, but notification to an industry that something is being scrutinised, and admittedly it would be foolish recipient not to listen to a coroner who is certainly empowered to comment on industry wide or individual opporators risk management in their findings, so something of a kneejerk reaction is understandable.
While this is not from the HSE, it did quote earlier HSE guidance from 2017, and included the often quoted ...
Being from earlier guidance this would have been nothing new for opporators who had been running the rides in the previous wetter rougher incarnations and considering themselves compliant. It clearly led to a new, far stricter, interpretation of the guidance.
Then, sometime after the coroners case concluded, in Dec '21 the HSE used the findings from that case alongside other reported near misses and incidents from the UK and around the world to update their guidance. This is where there is some divergence from old guidance and actually far more scope for opporators to reinstate water features while remaining compliant with the guidance.
www.hse.gov.uk
Perhaps surprisingly, gone is any specific mention of water features and the resulting adoption of unsafe riding position. The closest we now get is this short passage...
The guidance itself places far greater emphasis on rider instruction, ride monitoring, rescue plans, and design/maintainance based issues that could lead to capsizing. It also notes the risk of falling into, rather than out of, the boat exists but leads to a far lesser risk of serious injury or death. This part of the guidance makes me laugh while Tagadas exist!!
With the action already taken to fill in the gaps around the seating the risk of ejection should be considered miniscule without extreme guest misbehaviour. With the signage, monitoring and rescue plan we already know are implemented, that pretty much is the guidance covered. Maybe some padding in the boat would help mitigate against the lesser risks associated with falls within the boat.
I'm confident the guidance could easily be interpreted to allow for the reinstatement of many of the water features if the desire is there from the park. I don't think it is in the HSEs Court at all.
First, during the coroners inquest into the Drayton fatality, the coroner themselves issued a notice to all opporators of similar attractions. This is a fairly common practice in coroners court, where involved parties and others are instructed or invited to demonstrate what has been implemented after an event to prevent reoccurrence or seek best practice from alternative practitioners.
Evha Jannath - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Date of report: 13 November 2019 Ref: 2019-0368 Deceased name: Evha Jannath Coroners name: Margaret Jones Coroners Area: Staffordshire (South) Category: Other related deaths This report is being sent to: Merlin Entertainment Limited; Drayton Manor Theme Park
This is not in itself instruction, but notification to an industry that something is being scrutinised, and admittedly it would be foolish recipient not to listen to a coroner who is certainly empowered to comment on industry wide or individual opporators risk management in their findings, so something of a kneejerk reaction is understandable.
While this is not from the HSE, it did quote earlier HSE guidance from 2017, and included the often quoted ...
Being from earlier guidance this would have been nothing new for opporators who had been running the rides in the previous wetter rougher incarnations and considering themselves compliant. It clearly led to a new, far stricter, interpretation of the guidance.
Then, sometime after the coroners case concluded, in Dec '21 the HSE used the findings from that case alongside other reported near misses and incidents from the UK and around the world to update their guidance. This is where there is some divergence from old guidance and actually far more scope for opporators to reinstate water features while remaining compliant with the guidance.
Managing health and safety on river rapids rides
This guidance is aimed at controllers of river rapid rides and amusement park owners and will help them operate river rapid rides safely.
Perhaps surprisingly, gone is any specific mention of water features and the resulting adoption of unsafe riding position. The closest we now get is this short passage...
The guidance itself places far greater emphasis on rider instruction, ride monitoring, rescue plans, and design/maintainance based issues that could lead to capsizing. It also notes the risk of falling into, rather than out of, the boat exists but leads to a far lesser risk of serious injury or death. This part of the guidance makes me laugh while Tagadas exist!!
With the action already taken to fill in the gaps around the seating the risk of ejection should be considered miniscule without extreme guest misbehaviour. With the signage, monitoring and rescue plan we already know are implemented, that pretty much is the guidance covered. Maybe some padding in the boat would help mitigate against the lesser risks associated with falls within the boat.
I'm confident the guidance could easily be interpreted to allow for the reinstatement of many of the water features if the desire is there from the park. I don't think it is in the HSEs Court at all.
Steve74
TS Member
I firmly believe that the rapids are in the state they are in largely because of the Smiler incident. Towers are hyper, hyper sensitive on H&S matters now because one tiny slip up, eg someone standing up going through the waterfalls then falling over cracking their head (even if it was their own fault for standing up) will be plastered all over social media and mainstream media will pick it up quicker than you can say "Rapids". Look at the incident at Drayton, rightly all over the news when it happened and with the inquest, but now next to nothing. In contrast, we're still getting so-called local newspapers reporting on the victims of the Smiler incident when they go to the toilet 7 years later. The media would make mincemeat of Towers if an accident were to happen on the Rapids.Very frequently 'the HSE' is used to explain or excuse the state of rapids rides in the UK, but looking through the published documents this is not really supported by the reality of the actual guidance. There are two different published things that I think sometimes get confused.
First, during the coroners inquest into the Drayton fatality, the coroner themselves issued a notice to all opporators of similar attractions. This is a fairly common practice in coroners court, where involved parties and others are instructed or invited to demonstrate what has been implemented after an event to prevent reoccurrence or seek best practice from alternative practitioners.
Evha Jannath - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Date of report: 13 November 2019 Ref: 2019-0368 Deceased name: Evha Jannath Coroners name: Margaret Jones Coroners Area: Staffordshire (South) Category: Other related deaths This report is being sent to: Merlin Entertainment Limited; Drayton Manor Theme Park
This is not in itself instruction, but notification to an industry that something is being scrutinised, and admittedly it would be foolish recipient not to listen to a coroner who is certainly empowered to comment on industry wide or individual opporators risk management in their findings, so something of a kneejerk reaction is understandable.
While this is not from the HSE, it did quote earlier HSE guidance from 2017, and included the often quoted ...
Being from earlier guidance this would have been nothing new for opporators who had been running the rides in the previous wetter rougher incarnations and considering themselves compliant. It clearly led to a new, far stricter, interpretation of the guidance.
Then, sometime after the coroners case concluded, in Dec '21 the HSE used the findings from that case alongside other reported near misses and incidents from the UK and around the world to update their guidance. This is where there is some divergence from old guidance and actually far more scope for opporators to reinstate water features while remaining compliant with the guidance.
Managing health and safety on river rapids rides
This guidance is aimed at controllers of river rapid rides and amusement park owners and will help them operate river rapid rides safely.
Perhaps surprisingly, gone is any specific mention of water features and the resulting adoption of unsafe riding position. The closest we now get is this short passage...
The guidance itself places far greater emphasis on rider instruction, ride monitoring, rescue plans, and design/maintainance based issues that could lead to capsizing. It also notes the risk of falling into, rather than out of, the boat exists but leads to a far lesser risk of serious injury or death. This part of the guidance makes me laugh while Tagadas exist!!
With the action already taken to fill in the gaps around the seating the risk of ejection should be considered miniscule without extreme guest misbehaviour. With the signage, monitoring and rescue plan we already know are implemented, that pretty much is the guidance covered. Maybe some padding in the boat would help mitigate against the lesser risks associated with falls within the boat.
I'm confident the guidance could easily be interpreted to allow for the reinstatement of many of the water features if the desire is there from the park. I don't think it is in the HSEs Court at all.
Danscott22
TS Member
The Rapids definitely need the water features back on! I just wish they'd do what extra things/assessment they have to do to get them back on because it's such a boring ride compared to what it once was.
jon81uk
TS Member
I think it comes back to what @Steve74 said in the previous post. They've done the risk assesments, the mitigations are mostly there, lots of signage, staff "lifeguarding" in some areas, new doors on the boats. But the issue AT has is the press are all over the slightest incident at the park nowadays.
Its bizarre that Drayton who had the accident on the rapids are using some water sprays and similar, because their park isn't as newsworthy when things go wrong. Same with Thorpe running most of the standard waterfalls and wave machines.
AT is the number 1 theme park in the UK so attracts more press attention when things go wrong.
Matt N
TS Member
One thing I could see in the HSE guidance that might have spurred Towers and other parks to remove effects is:
In terms of Drayton and Thorpe’s rapids; Drayton’s had no effects at all when I rode last month, and Thorpe’s waterfall is far less forceful than Towers’ was. I believe Thorpe’s waterfall and wave machines are also required for safe operation; all of the other effects have been turned off.
I don’t think this safety consciousness is exclusive to Towers by any means.
The HSE did say that parks need to make the risk of riders leaving their seats as low as possible. Could the bolded have possibly spurred the parks to remove effects in order to lower this risk?The HSE said:
In terms of Drayton and Thorpe’s rapids; Drayton’s had no effects at all when I rode last month, and Thorpe’s waterfall is far less forceful than Towers’ was. I believe Thorpe’s waterfall and wave machines are also required for safe operation; all of the other effects have been turned off.
I don’t think this safety consciousness is exclusive to Towers by any means.
Last edited:
