Single Riders

[rob666]

Proportionate benefit over time.
Never straightforward when you bring in additional staff, repairs and maintenance.

 

[John]

If the hypothetical group is already in the SRQ, they have no bearing on how quickly the main queue moves. You're conflating ride throughput with queue velocity, which are two distinct, albeit marginally related, metrics.

I am comparing situations where a SRQ is added to ride where it did not exist before. In the first case, everyone joins main queue. In the second, some groups and some single riders join the SRQ. In the second case, the main queue has fewer groups and is therefore shorter in terms of time as well as length.

Checking a restraint on an empty seat is the often fastest action a ride host performs. They walk past, shove the bar down and move on.

This may be true for rides with ratcheting restraints. For hydraulic restraints, closing them often requires applying considerable force and even then they can't be moved quickly. On some rides the staff are also required to fasten a seatbelt even if the seat is unoccupied, slowing things down further. Rita restraints are particularly slow & heavy work for the staff, which is why I used it as an example.

 

[Bowser]

Leaving a seat empty makes the queue move faster, not slower.

Thats a real life variable that can go either way as illustrated above. My point is the theoretical benefit which is correct and the purpose of their existence.

Ok I’m definitely done I'm sure you’ll insist on the last word as always.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Thats a real life variable that can go either way as illustrated above. My point is the theoretical benefit which is correct and the purpose of their existence.

Ok I’m definitely done I'm sure you’ll insist on the last word as always.

I must hold my wings up here and offer an apology. Having re-read the thread, I entirely missed your core premise.

You were outlining a theoretical scenario where the SRQ does not exist at all, and every rider is held in the main queue. On the pure mathematics of system volume, you're absolutely correct. Extracting single riders from that main mass demonstrably reduces the overall wait time for the people behind them.

I was so hyper focused on the physical mechanics of an active SRQ, specifically how human boarding friction impacts dispatch intervals and queue velocity, that I completely missed we were debating two entirely distinct operational scenarios.

Crossed wires on my part, so I apologise for digging my talons in on the physics!

 

[Secret Weapon]

Oh how I miss the nemesis single rider queue.

The lucky and skilled could get off, jog round the stairs, smile nicely at the staff, and point out that the seat you just got off was still empty, and get back on again in the same seat, on the same train.
Quite often.

But it could slow things down.

For what it's worth, it has been brought to my attention (in the Flamingo Land topic - below) that Alton Towers apparently have a policy which prevents riders from immediately re-riding the same ride twice in a row (for safety reasons), so if people were using the Nemesis SRQ to re-board the ride a few seconds later then maybe this is part of the reason why the Nemesis SRQ was removed?

Flamingo Land: General Discussion

To be fair to Flamingo Land staff, the park has some very odd operational processes, which really slow down the queues. It’s not really the fault of the staff members themselves.

towersstreet.com

 

[owenstreet7]

For what it's worth, it has been brought to my attention (in the Flamingo Land topic - below) that Alton Towers apparently have a policy which prevents riders from immediately re-riding the same ride twice in a row (for safety reasons), so if people were using the Nemesis SRQ to re-board the ride a few seconds later then maybe this is part of the reason why the Nemesis SRQ was removed?

Flamingo Land: General Discussion

To be fair to Flamingo Land staff, the park has some very odd operational processes, which really slow down the queues. It’s not really the fault of the staff members themselves.

towersstreet.com

I believe that is a Towers specific policy and not sure if safety reasons is actually why or if it's operational reasons

With the SRQs, Nemesis Reborn, Rita and Wickerman would be most sensible to implement operationally. Possibly RMT as well.

I saw earlier in this thread about Congo and Sub Terra being suggested which probably wouldn't be optimal.

For Merlin, Thorpe Park should be higher priority right now for single rider queues. Chessington may do it for Minecraft and with Legoland, I'd say it's the least single rider friendly park where you're required to have a friend to ride the log flume. One adjustment I'd suggest for that is batching parties together so the single rides with another party which is actually what Congo River Rapids does (a single has to be batched with another party regardless of how quiet it is, Drayton Manor does the same).

For Towers, whilst more SRQs will be nice, I think I'd want to see Thorpe and to some degree Chessington get the same love first.

 

[rob666]

For what it's worth, it has been brought to my attention (in the Flamingo Land topic - below) that Alton Towers apparently have a policy which prevents riders from immediately re-riding the same ride twice in a row (for safety reasons), so if people were using the Nemesis SRQ to re-board the ride a few seconds later then maybe this is part of the reason why the Nemesis SRQ was removed?

Flamingo Land: General Discussion

To be fair to Flamingo Land staff, the park has some very odd operational processes, which really slow down the queues. It’s not really the fault of the staff members themselves.

towersstreet.com

No.
It reduced throughput efficiency, and the space was required for other queuelines at the time.

My limit on nemesis was 5 rides.
6 on the Big One was more than enough on an hours ert.

 

[Secret Weapon]

the space was required for other queuelines at the time.

Queues for other rides, or for Nemesis?

 

[rob666]

Nemesis.
The single rider queue was the worlds shortest for a long time, usually less than a dozen people, who constantly got in the way of people getting off and the rap queue.
There were no other ride queues nearby.

 

[Dave]

For what it's worth, it has been brought to my attention (in the Flamingo Land topic - below) that Alton Towers apparently have a policy which prevents riders from immediately re-riding the same ride twice in a row (for safety reasons), so if people were using the Nemesis SRQ to re-board the ride a few seconds later then maybe this is part of the reason why the Nemesis SRQ was removed?

Flamingo Land: General Discussion

To be fair to Flamingo Land staff, the park has some very odd operational processes, which really slow down the queues. It’s not really the fault of the staff members themselves.

towersstreet.com

Towers don’t care about you circling around and re-riding, they just won’t let you hold your seat and take the next dispatch.

I don’t know for certain but my guess is someone at some point has not wanted to re-ride but an assumption was made they did (maybe a restraint not opening), and they complained. If you walk off the ride, walk to the gate and walk back on again then your consent to ride again is evidenced.

 

[Skyscraper]

(maybe a restraint not opening)

I don't think this was likely, as a lot of rides require the restraints to cycle (open fully then close again) between each dispatch. Smiler id a good example, as the computer will flag a fault and require Tech Services to reset it if a restraint is held down after being unlocked.

 

[Dave]

I don't think this was likely, as a lot of rides require the restraints to cycle (open fully then close again) between each dispatch. Smiler id a good example, as the computer will flag a fault and require Tech Services to reset it if a restraint is held down after being unlocked.

The no re-ride rule massively pre-dates Smiler.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

The no re-ride rule massively pre-dates Smiler.

To this I can attest, having spent an afternoon being the only person or goose riding Ug Bugs... Run around the queue, ride, exit, repeat.

 

[John]

Using the Nemesis SRQ to get straight back onto the train you'd just got off was often possible, but supposedly this was permitted as, by doing so, you'd proven to yourself that you were still capable of walking in the direction you intended.

Re-rides at Towers without exiting the train are still allowed (and actively encouraged) for the last train of the day on Thirteen, due to minimum weight requirements

 

[Kraken27]

The "no re-ride / miss a ride cycle" rule has been in place at Towers since at least 1998 when I started working there. It was mainly used to stop the disabled guests [as they were then] from abusing the system. They were forced to get off the train and miss a ride cycle before presenting themselves at the exit again immediately for another ride. It did not stop the ones really taking the proverbial who could get loads of rides in, but it discouraged a few.

I was in Florida last week and whilst I knew it had happened, Universal have removed single rider queue from Velocicoaster (with no plans for it to return). In my opinion this speeded up operations. They did deploy a staff member near the very front of the queue to direct single riders down the very last bit of the SRQ so the load assistant knew there were single riders to fill empty spaces. However, as the single riders had waited the normal queue time, they were very pro-active and if single spaces were not available on the next train, they would load the one after with multiple riders from the SRQ, You could also request to join the queue for the front row as you had waited the normal queue time.

SeaWorld was very relaxed on re-riding... we did several hour long+ stints on Mako without even getting out of our seat as the park was quiet & due to Mako's location, the first two hours are normally quiet on a low attendance day. Just avoid the front or back row and odds are you'll return to the station to see no guests behind the air-gates for your row, so just remain seated.