-
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.
Scarefest 2012
- Thread starter PeteB
- Start date
I was on park on saturday, it was my second time attending a Scarefest event and personally I found it was 10x better than the first time I went a few years ago, however the last time I went I didn't try any of the mazes, tbh I can't even remember them being there!
This time i did lose my scare maze virginity, all 3 mazes managed to make me jumpy, but then again I jump at the slightest thing ;D
This time i did lose my scare maze virginity, all 3 mazes managed to make me jumpy, but then again I jump at the slightest thing ;D
James
TS Founding Member
DiogoJ42 said:
I've been very confused by the decision for themed badges. Sure, it's a nice touch. Although it's hardly a priority is it? The bigger picture need to be addressed first. Lighting should have been priority, just after mazes and entertainment - with themed badges being an extra choice that is only made reality when there is left over budget to add this detail.
It's just like they were in an office and went:
Manager 1: "Right we have £X amount left for the 2012 Scarefest event"
Manager 2: "Ooo I was just looking online and there's these really awesome themed badges, lets get them for the staff!"
Manager 1: "I don't know, couldn't we spend the money on the park ligh-..."
Manager 2: "THEY GLOW IN THE DARK"
Manager 1: "...done"
PG Ricey
TS Member
If the ride staff have to pay to decorate their own ride stations then shouldn't they be given a little bit of motivation, say 'the best decorated station throughout scarefest, the ride hosts win say a day of the ride non stop?' Or even just silly prizes but something to get the staff enthusiastic about 'their ride'. The guests could get involved as well, they could choose which station they think is decorated best by filling out a voting form adding another activity to the scarefest map for little cost!
The same goes for the badges I mean rather than buying new ones why not run a park wide competition for all employees 'who can make their badge most halloweeny before scarefest' then the winner get a bonus or just a small prize.
Things like this would raise the enthusiasm of scarefest so easily, I can just picture the ride staff getting the guests involved and voting which ones they think are the best! We need stuff like this to bring the magic back to scarefest as its certainly lacking at the moment.
The same goes for the badges I mean rather than buying new ones why not run a park wide competition for all employees 'who can make their badge most halloweeny before scarefest' then the winner get a bonus or just a small prize.
Things like this would raise the enthusiasm of scarefest so easily, I can just picture the ride staff getting the guests involved and voting which ones they think are the best! We need stuff like this to bring the magic back to scarefest as its certainly lacking at the moment.
Sazzle
TS Administrator
- Favourite Ride
- Steel Vengeance
Just to let you know I've split the Reviews from the Scarefest topic as best I can, as its easier for everyone to find the information they need (both people planning to go, and those looking for feedback).
Some posts may not make sense as they are replies to posts that have moved!
Any questions, drop me a message
Some posts may not make sense as they are replies to posts that have moved!
Any questions, drop me a message
A
Anonymous
Has anyone managed to unlock the Scarefest sounds? If so what are they as in general Resort sound tracks or just Halloween ones?
Rose Of Dawn
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Eejanaika (Fuji-Q Highland)
Zak said:
I'd guess they might have something to do with the Sanctuary.
Even though I won't be going to Scarefest, I've been playing around with the soundboard. I just love getting Franklyn to utter such classic lines as "hello" and "you're my best friend".
Ian
TS Team
- Favourite Ride
- Dizz, Bobby’s Yarn Land
I don't think it'll be Merlin directly cutting the lighting. Obviously, they'll determin the overall budget Towers have for the event, but then I would expect it's up to Towers to decide where the money goes. This year, with the new mazes, and tighter budget they no doubt decided to cut the easiest thing they could; lighting. I'm not saying I condone any of it, but rather I think park managment have made this decision due to the tight budget forced upon them.
It does beg the question though as to how much they have to play with, and how much is wasted. I mean Lightwater Valley will have a fraction of the budget Alton have for Frightwater. But if they can do this:
On it, it makes me wonder where Alton's money goes. Evidently, a lot is squandered on silly little things like name badges ???
I still think it's absurd that the park hire the countless amount of lighting rigs they do each year. Sure, installing a perminant infrastructure wouldn't be cheap. But considering most of the year it wouldn't even be being used surely once the initial outlay is covered the cost per year to have them would be much less? I realise that these are used to light the areas for visibility, and not dress purposes, but all the money spent on those could go towards dressing up the areas with decorative lights and theming.
Lets say 1 generator costs the park £300 to hire for both Scarefest and Fireworks combined, then another £100 in fuel to run it. That's £400 per rig. Now, they no doubt receive some kind of discount due to the number hired. So lets say they have 100 rigs, and they get 10 of those for free as a discount.
That's £27,000 used to light the park with them.
Ok, so lets imagine the park say over this closed season they are going to install a perminant system across the park. We'll assume that each area is going to have the same level of lighting they hire each year, but lets say they are going to use large pylons like in X-Sector and Adventure Land. So they will have less lights than they would generators, but get the same amount of coverage.
So lets say they are going to install 50 large lighting rigs around the park, at £1000 per rig. They will then spend another £50 per rig on infrastructure, connecting it to the power supply and making any upgrades to it to ensure they aren't going to interfere with anything else. They will also spend £50 per rig on repaving, etc where they have dug up cables and so on. £1100 on each rig. They've spent £55,000 in one go on putting perminant lighting in place of the generators.
Each year when it is used the rig will cost £50 to maintain for new bulbs and so on. This will be spent every year on the rig, to ensure it peforms as needed. So that's going to cost the park £2500 each year, but won't need to be spent during year 1 as they are new.
Ok, so that's quite a lot to blow in one go. However, in two years, the generators have cost the park £54,000 to hire and run. By year three the park have spent £81,000 hiring generator rigs each year. That doesn't even account for any inflation or fluctuations in price (Which would no doubt increase it). By the same point the perminant rigs have cost the park £60,000 in construction and upkeep.
They're £20,000 better off that year! That extra money saved can go towards more decorative lighting and theming for the park, and on more mazes, etc. In year 4 instead of spending the usual £27,000 the park will have spent only £2500 on maintaining the lights they have (That figure can vary obviously, but hopefully not too much). An extra £24,500 more to spend!
I'm not saying any of these figures are accurate, but rather just using them to get the point over. I have no idea how much a perminant lighting rig costs, but simple logic and common sense says that in the long run it will cost less than hiring lighting each year! The break even point may be different, but it comes sooner or later.
Considering that the park have used these generators for some time now sure they must have spent more than they would have if they'd install more perminant lighting some 6 years ago?! It just seems to be a much more cost effective solution in the long term, rather than each year using a cheaper get out, which over the years all mounts up.
Again though, it probably all comes back to the fact that they seem so reluctant to part with large sums of money on these types of investments. If cost is such a large issue then do it as a program. Each year one park area has a perminant lighting option put in place. Over the duration of the scheme they'd end up saving something I'd imagine, as each year the amount of generators needed will be much less than the last.
It does beg the question though as to how much they have to play with, and how much is wasted. I mean Lightwater Valley will have a fraction of the budget Alton have for Frightwater. But if they can do this:
On it, it makes me wonder where Alton's money goes. Evidently, a lot is squandered on silly little things like name badges ???
I still think it's absurd that the park hire the countless amount of lighting rigs they do each year. Sure, installing a perminant infrastructure wouldn't be cheap. But considering most of the year it wouldn't even be being used surely once the initial outlay is covered the cost per year to have them would be much less? I realise that these are used to light the areas for visibility, and not dress purposes, but all the money spent on those could go towards dressing up the areas with decorative lights and theming.
Lets say 1 generator costs the park £300 to hire for both Scarefest and Fireworks combined, then another £100 in fuel to run it. That's £400 per rig. Now, they no doubt receive some kind of discount due to the number hired. So lets say they have 100 rigs, and they get 10 of those for free as a discount.
That's £27,000 used to light the park with them.
Ok, so lets imagine the park say over this closed season they are going to install a perminant system across the park. We'll assume that each area is going to have the same level of lighting they hire each year, but lets say they are going to use large pylons like in X-Sector and Adventure Land. So they will have less lights than they would generators, but get the same amount of coverage.
So lets say they are going to install 50 large lighting rigs around the park, at £1000 per rig. They will then spend another £50 per rig on infrastructure, connecting it to the power supply and making any upgrades to it to ensure they aren't going to interfere with anything else. They will also spend £50 per rig on repaving, etc where they have dug up cables and so on. £1100 on each rig. They've spent £55,000 in one go on putting perminant lighting in place of the generators.
Each year when it is used the rig will cost £50 to maintain for new bulbs and so on. This will be spent every year on the rig, to ensure it peforms as needed. So that's going to cost the park £2500 each year, but won't need to be spent during year 1 as they are new.
Ok, so that's quite a lot to blow in one go. However, in two years, the generators have cost the park £54,000 to hire and run. By year three the park have spent £81,000 hiring generator rigs each year. That doesn't even account for any inflation or fluctuations in price (Which would no doubt increase it). By the same point the perminant rigs have cost the park £60,000 in construction and upkeep.
They're £20,000 better off that year! That extra money saved can go towards more decorative lighting and theming for the park, and on more mazes, etc. In year 4 instead of spending the usual £27,000 the park will have spent only £2500 on maintaining the lights they have (That figure can vary obviously, but hopefully not too much). An extra £24,500 more to spend!
I'm not saying any of these figures are accurate, but rather just using them to get the point over. I have no idea how much a perminant lighting rig costs, but simple logic and common sense says that in the long run it will cost less than hiring lighting each year!
The break even point may be different, but it comes sooner or later.Considering that the park have used these generators for some time now sure they must have spent more than they would have if they'd install more perminant lighting some 6 years ago?! It just seems to be a much more cost effective solution in the long term, rather than each year using a cheaper get out, which over the years all mounts up.
Again though, it probably all comes back to the fact that they seem so reluctant to part with large sums of money on these types of investments. If cost is such a large issue then do it as a program. Each year one park area has a perminant lighting option put in place. Over the duration of the scheme they'd end up saving something I'd imagine, as each year the amount of generators needed will be much less than the last.
Scott
Former TS Team Member
- Favourite Ride
- Nemesis
Some interesting calculations there Ian, but it's typical Merlin behaviour... Why would they look for a long-term plan which could save them money when they are too interested in short-term profiteering. It's so infuriating because were they to just spend some damn money now they could save so much hassle in the future - but it's as if they don't care... like they hope their mistakes will come back to bite someone else. Presumably whoever buys the most shares on the stockmarket.
Ian
TS Team
- Favourite Ride
- Dizz, Bobby’s Yarn Land
Exactly. Most concerning is that these things can be linked to almost any aspect of the park these days. Over time costs mount up.
For example: You can spend £50,000 cleaning and repairing Nemesis' station this year. Next year it will be £55,000. The year after that it will be £60,000. And so on. This keeps on happening until in five years time when the building is condemend and you have to flatten it and start from scratch.
If you nip these kinds of problem in the bud it saves money in the long term where it will amount.
In a more simple way, the builder says you have damp in your house and offers £5000 to fix it and you say no. Don't be surprised when the ceiling falls down on your head and you have to pay £20,000 to repair it (And on top of that, have a sore head!)
But anyway, we're wandering off topic. Back to Scarefest
For example: You can spend £50,000 cleaning and repairing Nemesis' station this year. Next year it will be £55,000. The year after that it will be £60,000. And so on. This keeps on happening until in five years time when the building is condemend and you have to flatten it and start from scratch.
If you nip these kinds of problem in the bud it saves money in the long term where it will amount.
In a more simple way, the builder says you have damp in your house and offers £5000 to fix it and you say no. Don't be surprised when the ceiling falls down on your head and you have to pay £20,000 to repair it (And on top of that, have a sore head!)
But anyway, we're wandering off topic. Back to Scarefest
Just to let you know, on speedy hires website the generators they use cost "from" £700 a week.
I imagine they get a discount cos they hire so so many of them, but still, really makes you wonder if installing permenant lighting really costs more than renting all the rigs for a month?!
I imagine they get a discount cos they hire so so many of them, but still, really makes you wonder if installing permenant lighting really costs more than renting all the rigs for a month?!
Dave
TS Founding Member
I disagree that the name badger ect are a waste of money, I like the little touch and if they are sensible they will keep for future years.
One point about the lighting gens is if there is a power cut they don't lose lighting. For perminant lighting you would also need a generator UPS system which isn't cheap. I agree it's still worth doing though
One point about the lighting gens is if there is a power cut they don't lose lighting. For perminant lighting you would also need a generator UPS system which isn't cheap. I agree it's still worth doing though
Ian
TS Team
- Favourite Ride
- Dizz, Bobby’s Yarn Land
They are a nice touch, yes, but if money is going on these things instead of the more pressing priorities, and comes at the expense of the event's perception as a whole then something is wrong in my opinion.
The little details can always come later.
___
Ok, so each rig costs about £700 to hire per week? Each one has 4 1000W floods on it. Now I don't know how dissimilar these are (I'll leave that to Maggie and Diogo ), but one 1000W flood is about £360 here. Not sure if these are the kind of things, but perminant lighting can be much more flexible than the rigs they hire. Surely they would use less of these per area than there are on each generator? Plus, Towers would probably be able to source them cheaper than that as they are a large company looking for a high quantity?
The little details can always come later.
___
Ok, so each rig costs about £700 to hire per week? Each one has 4 1000W floods on it. Now I don't know how dissimilar these are (I'll leave that to Maggie and Diogo
), but one 1000W flood is about £360 here. Not sure if these are the kind of things, but perminant lighting can be much more flexible than the rigs they hire. Surely they would use less of these per area than there are on each generator? Plus, Towers would probably be able to source them cheaper than that as they are a large company looking for a high quantity?