• 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.

  • ⚠️ Online Safety Act Changes

    We've made some changes to the forum as a result of the Online Safety Act. Please check the post in guest services for further information.

Paultons Park: General Discussion

And yet the POV just posted of the ride is people laughing and clearly young people screaming (in a I like this kind of way)?

Is it possible that some people on here are simply choosing to hate it because it's not what they wanted rather than recognise that it is exactly what the Park need for their demographic?

I still see 2027 as being the flagship ride... which we all know is going to be water ride and so have no issues with a "budget" Eurofighter which will.be very well received by the usual Paultons audience.
 
And in this POV you can see the camera jolting about in places.


From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6UeGUK9vvc


A good lesson in how POVs can be deceiving. I promise you it is unpleasant.

The reason many are very sceptical is we've witnessed time and again this ride type offering a poor ride. I've done 6 Eurofighters, 3 Infinity Coasters and 2 launch coasters from Gerst using mostly the same parts. The best riding ones? The ones without the OTSRs, so Karacho, Fury and Tantrum. On those rides you don't get particularly good ride quality at times, but you are usually spared the headache as there's nothing to hit your head on, unless it catches you unaware and you hit the back of the seat. If Paultons were buying a ZL-42, should that be given time? Compact layout, inversion etc but Pinfari's attempt at it.
 
Themepark-newbie said:
Is it possible that some people on here are simply choosing to hate it because it's not what they wanted rather than recognise that it is exactly what the Park need for their demographic?
Click to expand...

I think both of these things can be separated.

Yes, enthusiasts are going to be disappointed when a park with a great reputation and aspirations teases a brand new family thrill rollercoaster, only for it to turn out to be a 20 year old model we've already seen in this country several times and moreover one many people have experienced as being uncomfortable.

We can then put that aside and address whether it is "exactly what the park need for their demographic". Personally i think there are a plethora of other coasters that would have been closer to "exactly" what their demographic need. The Eurofighter is a visibly intimidating ride with a bad reputation (in some circles) for its ride experience, which i think are both notable aspects that reduce its suitability.

Now obviously the park had other considerations such as budget and working with a specific manufacturer (for a variety reasons), which are understandable but even with those restrictions there are Gertslauer coasters that you could argue would have been more suitable. So i think it's fairly clear the park made a series of compromises which make it far from "exactly" what they need. That doesn't mean it's a bad choice per se but it is one which is open to fair criticism.

I imagine people will still go on with an open mind and if it turns out to be a fun and comfortable ride compared to other versions then people will say so.

Themepark-newbie said:
I still see 2027 as being the flagship ride... which we all know is going to be water ride and so have no issues with a "budget" Eurofighter which will.be very well received by the usual Paultons audience.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where this narrative has come from as i've seen it a lot. What has lead people to believe that the 2027 attraction will be a flagship ride compared to this? They're already spending £12m on this coaster and an entire themed land for 2026, is that really going to be the smaller project of the two?

I still believe 2027 will be a Mack Powersplash. Is that a flagship ride? Perhaps to some but not to me. It would still be an excellent addition.
 
Yeah the Eurofighter plus area is the new flagship ride. To believe some bigger is coming the year immediately after is probably copium.

The park gave their reasons for the choice. They're a business at the end of the day and its certainly far easier to deal with one manufacturer than two at once working on effectively two separate but interlinked projects.
 
A modern water ride will certainly be welcome and give the park something many parks don't have.

I think in the distant future when the park has run out of space to build whole new areas we may see a bigger and better coaster as the park transitions to individual ride investment and replacements.
 
Poisson said:
I highly doubt it'll be a rapids. UK HSE has pretty much killed them unless someone's come up with a restraint system.
Click to expand...

That is not really true, if it were no rapids would be open in the UK.

All that needs to be done is things that are reasonably practicable, and itbis knowledge that the rides can run where risk can only be reduced, not eliminated.

Full guidance here health-safety-river-rapids-rides.pdf https://share.google/Em3wtWpofr1kYZHb5

Risk control
35 Accident history suggests that incidents occur for several reasons, and it is important
that ride controllers are aware of the different types of accident. These include:
• boat collision in the trough or on the conveyor;
• boat ‘stacking’ (Figure 3);
• inadequate water depth;
• defects on the inclined conveyor;
• boat overloading and/or asymmetrical weight distribution within the boat;
• depressurisation/inadequate pressure in the inflatable ring compartments;
• passenger behaviour.
As previously stated, this document does not address issues of design, inspection and
maintenance which are taken to be well understood by ride controllers.
36 The nature of river rapids rides is such that the operator is unable to physically prevent
passengers moving out of their seats once the boat has left the station. Once the
passenger moves out of their seat, they are at risk of injury if they are thrown around in
the confines of the boat. However, if they are ejected, or fall from, the boat, they are at
significant risk of receiving a fatal injury depending on:
• where on the course this occurs;
• the presence of other hazards such as moving boats, ride machinery etc;
• how quickly the incident is detected;
• whether a successful rescue is possible.
37 If passengers leave their seats, there is an increased risk of a fall within the boat or
ejection. Ride controllers are therefore required, so far as is reasonably practicable, to
implement measures designed to keep passengers safe. The risks associated with the
river rapid rides cannot be eliminated, they can only be reduced. The effective control
of the risks requires a range of control measures which aim to:
• ensure passengers stay seated and remain within the confines of the boat but
• quickly detect and rescue any passenger who has not remained seated and who then
is ejected or falls into the water
• detect and rescue a person who has entered the water course in other ways, eg a fall
from the station area or a trespasser etc.

instructions. Ride controllers should ensure that station attendants have sufficient time
to fully brief passengers.
46 Ride controllers should consider the use of automated audio safety messages which
are triggered by the presence of a boat at key locations within the ride.
47 As part of the operational risk assessment process, ride controllers should ensure that
a competent person has assessed the boat design and ergonomics to determine the
range of passenger physical attributes, including the minimum height necessary for
them to be seated and adequately braced to resist the ride forces.
48 Ride controllers should consider the risk associated with passenger attributes and their
behaviours, and ride operators and attendants must be prepared and empowered to
refuse entry to the ride or take other measures if they consider that:
• a passenger’s physical attributes are not compatible with the boat configuration or the
ride forces;
• passengers, or their supporting companions where applicable, are unable to
understand the essential requirement to remain seated and hold on;
• passenger attitude is such that they are likely to ignore the essential safety instructions;
• children are inadequately supervised;
• the combination of passengers in a group exceeds the maximum boat loading
requirements or is likely to cause excessive asymmetric loading.
 
Okay, to put it in other words, UK HSE has imposed conditions of operation that make running a rapids ride a complete waste of time. There is no point in a new rapids installation if they can’t run a decent cycle and/or run without 500 members of staff present to watch the boats (the latter kills it from a logistical/financial standpoint if nothing else).
 
Leigh said:
Okay, to put it in other words, UK HSE has imposed conditions of operation that make running a rapids ride a complete waste of time. There is no point in a new rapids installation if they can’t run a decent cycle and/or run without 500 members of staff present to watch the boats (the latter kills it from a logistical/financial standpoint if nothing else).
Click to expand...

They absolutely can though. It's been done to death but there are other ways to stop people falling out of boats and mitigate risks, which is all that is required, risk mitigation not elimination. Every aspect of designing and running an attraction comes with a similar list of mitigation requirements.

The 'Health and Safety won't allow' trope is boring and wrong.

Not that I expect Paultons to build a rapids, nor do I expect the '27 expansion to be anything like as significant investment as next year. Surely it is a relatively minor add on to maintain intrest in the new area?
 
Last edited:
pluk said:
Not that I expect Paultons to build a rapids, nor do I expect the '27 expansion to be anything like as significant investment as next year. Surely it is a relatively minor add on to maintain intrest in the new area?
Click to expand...
Nothing captures the imagination of the casual visitor, or Thoosie, quite like a rollercoaster. They also have the additional benefit of being able to attract riders throughout the year, mostly independent of weather conditions.

Water rides are fun, but are only really exciting for 3/4 months of the year and pleasant for even fewer.

Drakon is more than likely to be the headline attraction of the new vikings area. 2027 will no doubt bring something, but it'll very much be a second tier attraction in comparison.
 
pluk said:
They absolutely can though. It's been done to death but there are other ways to stop people falling out of boats and mitigate risks, which is all that is required, risk mitigation not elimination. Every aspect of designing and running an attraction comes with a similar list of mitigation requirements.

The 'Health and Safety won't allow' trope is boring and wrong.

Not that I expect Paultons to build a rapids, nor do I expect the '27 expansion to be anything like as significant investment as next year. Surely it is a relatively minor add on to maintain intrest in the new area?
Click to expand...
I'm thinking the chances of a Rapids over let's say a water coaster, super flume or a Mack Rocking Boat seems slim

The area of the Go Karts and the empty area to the left would lend itself well to a splashdown style water ride and with a rapids, it could be rather compact (although it could work)

I understand Rapids take up a lot of space but they can be compact, offer splashdowns and even a whirlpool i.e. Hafema (like Ragnarok at Tusenfryd or River Quest at Phantasialand).

I'd also be thinking the park may be cautious about adding a Rapids with the H&S requirements, staffing, power, space and the area the park is in. I'd imagine a rapids would need more space and I'd have said the area where Drakon is going along with the spare space that is going to leave would've been perfect for a Rapids.

One thing that seems to be in favour of a water coaster or rocking boat is that Mack footers were spotted at the site on different videos recently which will point to either one of the water coaster models or a rocking boat as Mack doesn't currently offer a Rapids. They have offered a Log Flume in the past however no new models appear to have opened since the 2000s so appear to have shifted focus to the water coasters in recent years.
 
Leigh said:
Okay, to put it in other words, UK HSE has imposed conditions of operation that make running a rapids ride a complete waste of time. There is no point in a new rapids installation if they can’t run a decent cycle and/or run without 500 members of staff present to watch the boats (the latter kills it from a logistical/financial standpoint if nothing else).
Click to expand...
Can't really blame them given the number of fatalities, accidents, and near misses that have occurred on rapids rides over the past decade or so.
 
pluk said:
They absolutely can though. It's been done to death but there are other ways to stop people falling out of boats and mitigate risks, which is all that is required, risk mitigation not elimination. Every aspect of designing and running an attraction comes with a similar list of mitigation requirements.

The 'Health and Safety won't allow' trope is boring and wrong.
Click to expand...

Nowhere did anyone say they're not allowed, they've just been heavily ruled on they're mega staff heavy to run so very expensive. Bit like how Tagadas are allowed in this country but can't run on anything approaching a decent cycle.
 
Poisson said:
Nowhere did anyone say they're not allowed, they've just been heavily ruled on they're mega staff heavy to run so very expensive.
Click to expand...

OK. For the sake of pedantry then, 'we can't because of health and safety' is boring and wrong.

Nothing in the HSE guidance tells opperators how many staff are required. If these things are considered at the design stage with sensible staff placement and sight lines then a couple of spotters could easily satisfy requirements. Those with an onload, offload, op and CCTV would put staff numbers in line with other large rides and not particularly prohibitive. Granted, it's much harder on existing rides, but is absolutely doable with reasonable budgets for new rides.

And again, I don't expect one at Paultons, or anything remotely on the scale of one.
 
Personally I was hoping for a POTC (Viking themed) type dark ride.

Perfect for their demographic, missing from their current line up and could be a real statement ride for the park.

Also hopefully wouldn’t be too difficult for planning given the brownfield nature of the site currently. Reasonably flat and square. Close to the new accommodation so wouldn’t want too much noise intrusion.

Look forward to seeing what they come up with
 
Ash said:
Personally I was hoping for a POTC (Viking themed) type dark ride.

Perfect for their demographic, missing from their current line up and could be a real statement ride for the park.

Also hopefully wouldn’t be too difficult for planning given the brownfield nature of the site currently. Reasonably flat and square. Close to the new accommodation so wouldn’t want too much noise intrusion.

Look forward to seeing what they come up with
Click to expand...
I definitely agree. Although Ghostly Manor exists, something ambient like the various POTC rides would be a great fit at Paultons.
 
Health and Safety is only a good thing, in my opinion. There's a reason water rides are some of the most hazardous. For obvious reasons, they don't have seatbelts and bars (if they float), but that does lead to lots of potential hazards, so it's better to tone them down a bit, in my opinion.

Regarding OTSRs vs lap bars on the Euro Fighter, I'm right in the middle with that one. OTSRs are great, in my opinion, as long as the ride is smooth. If a ride becomes rough, then banging into the OTSR can be genuinely dangerous (as on the compact loopers). However, the OTSR has stopped me from moving too much so many times on other, good coasters. With lap bars, I just can't see how there's enough bracing with them on a ride that has steep drops. The ideal solution, surely, is the rubber vest restraints? Locks at the waist, but gives your upper body enough bracing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top