Paultons Park: General Discussion

[JAperson]

Would give us all a laugh if someone got a snap of him on George's Dinosaur Adventure actually.

Please somebody make this happen. The press would have a field day with it and it would be so funny.

 

[pluk]

Would give us all a laugh if someone got a snap of him on George's Dinosaur Adventure actually.

Please somebody make this happen. The press would have a field day with it and it would be so funny.

<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/po...sts/4728907087129837&show_text=true&width=500" width="500" height="609" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share"></iframe>

 

[Jb85]

So … Paultons have been very successful the last few years. What can we see coming next?

personally I think they need to try an all out thrill machine. My worry is though this may detract from all the good work they have done putting this place as probably the no.2 park after the Merlin parks in the Uk (no.1 being Blackpool)

 

[Matt N]

So … Paultons have been very successful the last few years. What can we see coming next?

personally I think they need to try an all out thrill machine. My worry is though this may detract from all the good work they have done putting this place as probably the no.2 park after the Merlin parks in the Uk (no.1 being Blackpool)

Out of interest, why do you think that a thrill machine would detract from their current good work? I'd argue that it would only exacerbate it further by opening up the park to a greater pool of potential guests; the wider a park's appeal, the greater the amount of people who will want to visit it, and the more money it will make!

The park did say that Cyclonator was a litmus test to see how more thrilling rides would be received, and it appears to have been pretty successful, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if Paultons did go a little more down the thrill ride route for their next big thing, personally!

It's also worth remembering that Chessington are building a 1.4m thrill ride, so Paultons may want to build one, or at very least something vaguely more thrilling than anything in their current lineup, in order to keep up with and be able to corner Chessington...

 

[JAperson]

So … Paultons have been very successful the last few years. What can we see coming next?

personally I think they need to try an all out thrill machine. My worry is though this may detract from all the good work they have done putting this place as probably the no.2 park after the Merlin parks in the Uk (no.1 being Blackpool)

I've said this before but I think they need something that's a little bit of a step up from what they've got but nothing too crazy. If they can find something that caters both for the somewhat younger kids as well as the older kids and parents I think that might work well in the lineup.

I've often said I'd like to see Paulton's do a duelling Woodie, the difference would be that one side would be more thrilling than the other. Effectively one side would be gravity group mini Woodie scale while the other would be a bit bigger possibility with the 1.2m height restriction. This would give Paulton's something very different and with a nice bit of theming I think it could be really good and make it worth while for older families to visit the park.

 

[Thameslink Rail]

Personally I would like to see Paultons do an inversion, 1.2m inverting coasters exist and putting a vertical loop in a prominent location would be a symbol that they mean business, perhaps start with a mild launch and also do some helixes (not getting into the plural of helix argument) and some air time.

 

[JAperson]

Personally I would like to see Paultons do an inversion, 1.2m inverting coasters exist and putting a vertical loop in a prominent location would be a symbol that they mean business, perhaps start with a mild launch and also do some helixes (not getting into the plural of helix argument) and some air time.

Wouldn't be a bad shout, could do something like Manta at SeaWorld San Diego - https://rcdb.com/9819.htm
Of course it would probably have to be on a little bit of a smaller scale however I see no reason for them not to go for something like that and I wouldn't complain.

Also they have now worked with Mack and so something else from them doesn't seem out of the question although they are a little expensive.

 

[Matt N]

I could see something like Manta at SWSD working terrifically at Paultons, perhaps even something a touch bigger (the 54ft height difference of Manta is smaller than that of some of Paultons' current coasters, for reference) and with an inversion or two.

I dare say that I even think that something along the lines of Icon or Copperhead Strike would be a good fit, in my opinion!

 

[IanB]

I was thinking about this as well, and they have a good thing going currently.

One of the things I like is that all the new rollercoasters have a height limit of 1m, which means everyone who has paid to come in can go on them (Yes, the older ones are not, and they also lack the support rides).

Cyclonator has proven that a 1.2m ride will get a queue, and there is plenty of play areas or smaller rides (Windmill Towers and Farmyard Flyer) for the little ones to go on while the big ones queue for that. This works really well.

I also think the new attractions do increase the thrill factor. If you start off, you have the youngest families getting introduced to the park with Peppa Pig Land.

They have a good experience, and see the other rides and attractions, and come back. As the children get older, you have the rides in Lost Kingdom, and then you have Tornado Springs.

1.4m rides tend to be when a child gets to 11+. I would say the current line up ticks all the boxes for 0-12 year olds. Don't get me wrong, older children might enjoy the rides as well, but I probably would not take my children to Paultons Park once they are 12+.

I really like @JAperson suggestion above, some sort of duelling coaster with one side aimed at the 4-12 year olds, and the other aimed at the 11+ age range could work well. I would like a inverting coaster for the 11+ one though, a mini Mack megacoaster would be lovely. This having this one ride solve the issue above, maybe for people visiting as a one off.

You have to avoid the issue Alton Towers have though, where with young children certain areas of the park (Forbidden Valley and X-Sector) are no go zones because there is nothing for them to do. Paultons have the same issue with Peppa Pig Land, anyone who has kids over 8 is probably not going to spend any time in the area. Its a family day out, and its not much fun if the little one has to sit in the queue but not go on the rides and the other has to wait in an hour queue to sit on boat.

Tornado Springs is the best example of how to avoid this (Family still have to split up, but at least not sat on a bench for an hour), so I have every confidence what ever comes next, the Paultons team will be on top of it.

There is always more families with young children who can get introduced to the park, and as nice as it would be to see the park grow and add more thrilling rides as time goes by, I think they have got a big enough age range they can target, they dont need to make that any bigger.

But Europa Park have managed it, they have rides for all age ranges so maybe Paultons could do it as well. I think some infrastructure changes would be required in the future if they do keep extending and increasing capacity. Not sure what options they have on land in the area, or how much council/government support they would get but it would be fantastic if they could pull it off.

 

[Matt N]

In terms of whether a thrill coaster at Paultons would cause segregation of demographics; I'm optimistic that it wouldn't.

Based on their recent investment patterns, Paultons seem to favour complete areas over singular rides, and both Lost Kingdom and Tornado Springs, the two most recent big areas, are pretty universally appealing in terms of the demographics they cater for. Lost Kingdom has the two Vekomas as bigger rides, but also has the likes of Dino Chase, Boulder Dash and Dinosaur Touring Co as smaller rides for young children. Tornado Springs has Storm Chaser and Cyclonator as bigger rides, but also has the likes of Trekking Tractors, Al's Auto Academy and soon Farmyard Flyer as smaller rides for young children.

I'm sure Paultons would aim to do something very similar if they built another new area with a larger thrill coaster at its centre.

 

[JAperson]

I dare say that I even think that something along the lines of Icon or Copperhead Strike would be a good fit, in my opinion!

Although I haven't ridden Icon it does look like more of a family coaster too me anyway. As for Copperhead (I also haven't ridden it) that looks a little more thrilling with quite a few extreme elements. Personally, I'm not sure Paulton's currently have the backup ride line up to accept something of that thrill level. What I mean by this is that I don't think there is enough other thrill rides for a big thrill coaster to make sense however in the future I imagine there will be.

I do think long term Paulton's should become an all round family park with rides for all and I defiantly think that's a possiblility in the future however they need to do it carefully as they have a image of being a park for kids which I believe is slowly changing. If they continue on there current path of slowly upping the thrill level with each major investment I think eventually we could be looking at a really well rounded park. I'm not sure how long that is in the future or whether that's really unrealistic but in the meantime something more thrilling than what they've currently got but nothing too extreme makes sense to me.

You have to avoid the issue Alton Towers have though, where with young children certain areas of the park (Forbidden Valley and X-Sector) are no go zones because there is nothing for them to do. Paultons have the same issue with Peppa Pig Land, anyone who has kids over 8 is probably not going to spend any time in the area. Its a family day out, and its not much fun if the little one has to sit in the queue but not go on the rides and the other has to wait in an hour queue to sit on boat.

This is one of the reasons I like the idea of a duelling coaster with a 'big' side and a 'little' side (doesn't even have to be wood) as that caters for a much larger age range at probably a much better price than building two standalone coasters to fill those gaps. Of course the really young kids may struggle so when adding something like that they may want to consider a few little kiddie rides next to the entrance just for something to do with the little ones. But I think overall you've hit the nail on the head @IanB that its a great way to avoid the issue of splitting the family with nothing to do on one half of the park for the kids and vise versa with the adults.
Furthermore I think its a way to introduce the little kids to the big rides slowly. Water parks have done this for a long time with slides side by side that different ages can ride and this seems like an equivalent and dare I say better solution. I may also solve the issue of the kids kicking off because they are too small to ride as this would be a fairly small problem if they had two sides that could accept different sizes.

 

[Themeparksandy1981]

I personally don’t think Paulton need to go down the 1.4m tall route as they are a family park and look at the great coasters out there for the 1.2m height range with Thirteen, Spinball and Wickerman. Like they know there onto a winner with Tornado springs and they adding on that with another family coaster for next year. The area they need to work on next is where the log flume is as that the weakest area of the park now.

 

[Jb85]

@Matt N for me I just feel they need another area / investment like Tornado Springd to solidify what they have before they go for the all out thrill market with a 1.4m thrill coaster. It’s just an opinion.

the risk they have by not doing this though is that they become stagnant. It’s difficult, a bit like Drayton Manor did after Thomas Land. If you have a successful plan then why deviate from it, continue to invest down the same path. However if you don’t diversify your risk not moving forward …. I’d argue that even with new investments in Thomas land it actually has held back potential growth at DMP. You have to have a variety of investments to keep the park relevant to all markets. However if that thrill investment back fires, then your almost chasing your tail again to get back to a winning formula.

difficult decision for the park to make

 

[Benzin]

Next step is probably theme the Cobra and T'Edge area and a new water ride to replace the travelling flume they have. Add a few support rides to that area and bring that corner in line with the newer additions.

After that get a dark ride and maybe a support coaster. Given the recent developments in the industry the park have zero need to get anything 1.4m restrictive. Vekoma, Gerst and Mack all provide family thrill coasters with a 1.2 or 1.3m limit. They could easily work within a remit of a maximum of 1.2m requirements for the foreseeable future. Build something like Lech Coaster or a woodie of some description. The park have lots of options.

However a new water or dark ride should be the next priority.

 

[Danny]

If they want to go down a thrill coaster route that doesn't stumble too far from their roots, something like Copperhead Strike would be ideal.

It has the inversions/launches, but is carried out at a tamer speed. Still under the 1.4m height restriction posed by other major thrill coasters in the country, and doesn't look intimidating at all. Heck, Copperhead Strike with its current theming wouldn't look out of place in Tornado Springs. It's a fun, solid high-tier family thrill coaster that would truly highlight how dull Icon is compared to the other Mack Megas.

 

[Matt.GC]

Out of interest, why do you think that a thrill machine would detract from their current good work? I'd argue that it would only exacerbate it further by opening up the park to a greater pool of potential guests; the wider a park's appeal, the greater the amount of people who will want to visit it, and the more money it will make!

Hang on a minute, aren't you also concurrently suggesting that Thorpe do the exact opposite in other threads?

 

[Matt N]

Hang on a minute, aren't you also concurrently suggesting that Thorpe do the exact opposite in other threads?

In that thread, I was suggesting that Thorpe might benefit from opening itself up to a greater pool of guests over the long term, as I think it would be a good idea for them to go towards families with older children.

I think the difference with Paultons is that it would cost a lot more and take a lot longer for Thorpe to appeal to older families than it would for Paultons to appeal to older families, and Paultons also has that momentum going already, whereas I think Thorpe needs that zap of momentum from something familiar first, which is why I think a new thrill coaster would be a good addition in the short term.

I’d argue that Paultons already had that zap of momentum from something familiar in the form of Peppa Pig World, and they used its success as a catalyst to begin developing the rest of the park, gradually increasing the thrill level of their investments over time. I would certainly support a big new coaster at Thorpe as a means to cause a similar process (albeit in reverse).

In terms of the expense involved, I think Paultons would only necessitate perhaps a slightly more thrilling coaster and possibly a thrill flat or two in the vein of Cyclonator if they wanted to make this transition (I feel that they have quite a well-rounded, universally appealing lineup already), while I think Thorpe would need quite a bit more as well as a whole brand and atmosphere overhaul, which would take much longer. Thorpe isn’t really built for families in its current guise, with very little in the way of universally appealing family rides, whereas I think there’s a fair bit at Paultons that a thrill seeker could have a really fun time on.

Do you get where I’m coming from?

 

[Matt.GC]

In that thread, I was suggesting that Thorpe might benefit from opening itself up to a greater pool of guests over the long term, as I think it would be a good idea for them to go towards families with older children.

I think the difference with Paultons is that it would cost a lot more and take a lot longer for Thorpe to appeal to older families than it would for Paultons to appeal to older families, and Paultons also has that momentum going already, whereas I think Thorpe needs that zap of momentum from something familiar first, which is why I think a new thrill coaster would be a good addition in the short term.

I’d argue that Paultons already had that zap of momentum from something familiar in the form of Peppa Pig World, and they used its success as a catalyst to begin developing the rest of the park, gradually increasing the thrill level of their investments over time. I would certainly support a big new coaster at Thorpe as a means to cause a similar process (albeit in reverse).

In terms of the expense involved, I think Paultons would only necessitate perhaps a slightly more thrilling coaster and possibly a thrill flat or two in the vein of Cyclonator if they wanted to make this transition (I feel that they have quite a well-rounded, universally appealing lineup already), while I think Thorpe would need quite a bit as well as a whole brand and atmosphere overhaul, which would take much longer. Thorpe isn’t really built for families in its current guise, with very little in the way of universally appealing family rides, whereas I think there’s a fair bit at Paultons that a thrill seeker could have a really fun time on.

Do you get where I’m coming from?

I do, but my friendly challenge to you is, are you sure you're not just so excited at the thought of new thrill machines being built everywhere that you're trying to think of justifications for them? It's fine if you are and I don't mean that in an insulating way, it's just a debating point.

I agree with you actually that perhaps it is time for Paultons to turn the gas up on a thrills a little. They've nailed the pre School and younger family markets (best experience for those groups in the UK in my opinion) and even families with older kids can still enjoy themselves.

But there are some issues to deal with first. Cyclonator is a start but this would need to be phased in, perhaps a new area with some more thrilling attractions amongst some family staples. I'd also be concerned about the parks infrastructure. When I went in the summer the access roads were struggling to cope (it had nothing to do with local roadworks, it was the car park access road on site that was the problem) and any future developments would need to be accompanied by more food provision. The queues for most attractions were fine, but it's clear that they didn't have any more parking capacity to deal with bigger crowds.

 

[Matt N]

I do, but my friendly challenge to you is, are you sure you're not just so excited at the thought of new thrill machines being built everywhere that you're trying to think of justifications for them? It's fine if you are and I don't mean that in an insulating way, it's just a debating point.

If I’m being brutally honest; quite possibly. Even though I’m a full theme park enthusiast as opposed to solely a coaster enthusiast, it is easily the coasters that interest me most at a park, and I think at times, I often see empty plots and gaps in a park’s lineup, and I get carried away channeling my inner Planet Coaster builder and thinking of wonderful creations that would fit a park, as well as what I’d personally love to see!

In terms of Thorpe; I would love to see a B&M Hyper built there, and I personally predict that this may be what we see there in 2024 based on rumours and what we have so far, but I’ll admit that part of me talking about one so animatedly is because I look at Thorpe, and I think about my experiences with Mako, and I conjure up thoughts in my head of what Thorpe would be like with a B&M Hyper in it, and it’s a great thought; a B&M Hyper just works there in my head! Do you get what I mean?

I do genuinely feel that some of the reasons I’ve suggested are valid justifications as to why both Paultons and Thorpe could use that new thrill coaster, though; I feel like Paultons would take far less money to turn it into an appealing park for thrill seekers than Thorpe would take to turn it into an appealing park for families, and I do feel like Thorpe could do with that thrill coaster boost that they haven’t had in nearly 10 years!

But there are some issues to deal with first. Cyclonator is a start but this would need to be phased in, perhaps a new area with some more thrilling attractions amongst some family staples. I'd also be concerned about the parks infrastructure. When I went in the summer the access roads were struggling to cope (it had nothing to do with local roadworks, it was the car park access road on site that was the problem) and any future developments would need to be accompanied by more food provision. The queues for most attractions were fine, but it's clear that they didn't have any more parking capacity to deal with bigger crowds.

Believe me, I’m not suggesting that Paultons throws up a 200ft RMC or whatever tomorrow, as I know that wouldn’t work within Paultons as it is currently and would be unfeasible, at least at this point in time.

I’m suggesting something that more gradually eases guests into the thrills, such as a mid-size wooden coaster. I can imagine something like a mid-size GCI fitting great at Paultons; maybe about 70-80ft tall or a little bigger, with some nice fun turns and pops of airtime. Heck, they could possibly go a little over 80ft and claim the UK woodie height and speed records (I know that doesn’t sound like something Paultons would do, but the current UK woodie height record is 85ft, only 19ft taller than the current tallest coaster at Paultons (Pterosaur) and only 3ft taller than the current tallest ride (Magma)); that would add real marketability and thrill seeker appeal, but it would also have a low height restriction, not be too intense or too much of a drastic departure from the current lineup and ultimately would also have an element of whole family appeal too, which I think fits Paultons down to a tee, personally. Such a ride would be a definite step up from the likes of Storm Chaser, but wouldn’t be so intense that it would put families off.

In terms of the parking and road infrastructure, what problems do you feel the park has in this regard, and does Paultons have the land and financial means with which to do this? Infrastructure work can be expensive, and I wasn’t sure I could see any obvious way in which they could upgrade this when I went in July… am I missing some huge plot of land they could use here?

One point I do feel needs to be raised in the context of more thrilling rides at Paultons, though; what are the park’s planning restrictions like? Are they on green belt land, so unable to build above the tree line? Do they have neighbours close to any part of the park limiting them in terms of noise? (The site certainly looked pretty out on its own, and like it didn’t have any particularly close neighbours, when driving by, but I don’t know what things are like over on the other side of the park from where you come in…)
P.S. Sorry for the long post; I rambled on more than I was anticipating there!

 

[Rick]

If they want to go down a thrill coaster route that doesn't stumble too far from their roots, something like Copperhead Strike would be ideal.

It has the inversions/launches, but is carried out at a tamer speed. Still under the 1.4m height restriction posed by other major thrill coasters in the country, and doesn't look intimidating at all. Heck, Copperhead Strike with its current theming wouldn't look out of place in Tornado Springs. It's a fun, solid high-tier family thrill coaster that would truly highlight how dull Icon is compared to the other Mack Megas.

A $26m coaster feels like too much ride for that park at this time, or any time soon. I think it's hard to do one big statement ride like that alongside the existing lineup. It would be far more sensible to enter the thrill market with a ride costing a fifth of something like CS and take it from there.