• 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.

The Retrosquad: General Discussion

Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
The problem is it's not Towers allocating the cash to fix it, it's Merlin as their parent company. To secure it, Towers need to demonstrate that the additions would be worth it (i.e. increase guest numbers/improve KPIs). Retrosquad was a quick fix for additional capacity due to Covid, but as mentioned previously I have no doubt they'd have used guest feedback from them being added to further demonstrate permanent additions would be worth it.

Of course we're a while down the line from that now, so why haven't we got anything on the way just yet? I think there's a fair few reasons why:
  • Cost: Exchange rates have been volatile to say the least and the cost to import rides into the UK has soared. That soon brings the overall cost vs the benefit to the park into question. Costs for raw materials are crazy high, chip shortages in China are also causing price rises.
  • Reliability: The reliability of the Retrosquad rides has been....questionable at best. Rather than go down the route of getting something cheaper, the park may be thinking they need to spend more on a more quality ride to ensure it can manage the rigours of theme park operation. That then forces them to go back to the drawing board in terms of when to bring in new additions.
  • Uncertainty: Covid is very much still a thing and causing constant shutdowns in China, and no doubt resulted in a lot of medium-long term plans that we're not even aware of being cancelled or shifted around. That appears to be easing, but China is in for a very very difficult few months and lead times for new rides will still no doubt be sky high. You only have to look at delays to EP's new addition to see how this can affect things. Brexit and cost of living is still causing a lot of uncertainty as to whether guests are still going to keep visiting theme parks in numbers that can justify additional expansion at this time too. Let's not even get started on being able to recruit staff for any additional attractions too!
  • The state of current attractions: This is the main one I think. It's one thing wanting to add capacity to the park, but the existing attractions also needed urgent attention. Duel was an absolute mess, so the money being put into that was absolutely essential. As per the application for Nemesis, structural work was also needed for the ride to be viable in the long term. There's little point adding new attractions with one hand, if you're ultimately going to be forced to take away with the other when you don't look after what's already there.
Now I'm not saying the lack of flats is acceptable, or even defending Merlin as we've discussed the state of the flat ride side of things for years now. But I'm just offering a few reasons to why it's not just as simple as "allocate some money" right now. We've all seen the KPI points across the resort, as well as the specific questions they ask. Off the back of those surveys and the potential other factors I've mentioned above, there will be justifications as to why they're going down the route that they're going at present. It's frustrating, but I'm confident we'll get something in the next few years as things settle down.
 
I agree with everything that @Craig outlines, plus I think that there are a couple of other things:

Capex spending on other projects - with Horizon on the err, Horizon and the Nemesis rebuild, plus all the work that is going on with Duel, Merlin are demonstrating that they're not afraid to spend money - but they're doing it in a targeted way, as they should.

Furthermore, with the addition of all the coasters over the years, the CapEx but also OpEx has been largely focussed on those rides. They have provided the draw and the capacity for a long time and they're not cheap rides to operate or maintain. The annual maintenance budget for something like an Intamin Accelerator is well into six figures.
 
Last edited:
My take on this is that I’ve thought for a while I’d accept 3 years maximum of these temporary rides, as I had a feeling it wasn’t just going to be a one year thing, as things aren’t as easy as everyone likes to make out they are. “Put in a flat ride” - I’m sure they’d love to to various factors as above contribute as to why. Next year really does have to be the last though.
 
Alton Towers have no clear strategy. Or at least haven't.

Temporary rides for 1 year... becomes semi permanent.

Dark Forest scaffolding structure to keep guests sheltered from Rita's launch track... becomes permanent.

Walliams World... phase 2 seems to have vanished.

Heide-Park is exactly the same.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
 
Out of interest, was it ever confirmed that the RetroSquad rides were only intended to stay around for 1 year?

I’d assume that replacing them would be difficult at this stage seeing as the park has already agreed its CAPEX projects up to 2025 (Duel retheme for 2023, Nemesis retrack for 2024, Project Horizon for 2025). I guess it’s not out of the question that the rides could be replaced for 2024 or 2025, as flat rides can be agreed with very little lead time compared to a full-fledged major attraction (for instance, I believe that Sub-Terra was planned in only 6 months), but it might be a tough sell to Merlin when substantial CAPEX is already being spent.
 
Matt N said:
Out of interest, was it ever confirmed that the RetroSquad rides were only intended to stay around for 1 year?

I’d assume that replacing them would be difficult at this stage seeing as the park has already agreed its CAPEX projects up to 2025 (Duel retheme for 2023, Nemesis retrack for 2024, Project Horizon for 2025). I guess it’s not out of the question that the rides could be replaced for 2024 or 2025, as flat rides can be agreed with very little lead time compared to a full-fledged major attraction (for instance, I believe that Sub-Terra was planned in only 6 months), but it might be a tough sell to Merlin when substantial CAPEX is already being spent.
Click to expand...
It was a three year deal apparently.
 
Skyscraper said:
It was a three year deal apparently.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with the Retrosquad ever having been a multi-year deal when it was first announced.

The initial intentions were honourable. Boost outdoor ride capacity during Covid during a time when indoor rides were not guaranteed to operate and when some rides had reduced capacity due to social distancing.

In the time since the Retrosquad was announced (20/21 closed season) and now... permanent, embedded replacement rides should have been the minimum expectation.

As it is, they've not bothered. And to my knowledge there remains no immediate plan to rectify this issue. It has been 7 years since Ripsaw left and even longer since Submission went. Toadstool went too. And look where we are.

Merlin and Alton Towers simply don't prioritise these things.

It's the same at some other Merlin parks.

Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk
 
I think it is clear that even since the late Tussauds era that there has never been a long term plan for the park unlike in the early years of Tussauds which seemed to have a vision which for the most part was followed through. Yes, there was the LTDP a few years ago but much of it has changed in small part thanks to the Smiler crash and pandemic which caused many plans to fall to the wayside. While there might have been some sort of plan in place for the park when they did Thirteen but many things they have done have just been more short term fixes such as the Dungeons, TWODW and Retrosquad to try and keep the crowds coming back which even if you ignore how cheap they were to be built they still all look on paper just plain poor for the standards of the park and screams of poor management at the top who have no clue what they are doing. Yes, the RS were on a 3 year deal so they should leave after next season though if not, more bad management from the top

As I have said before, the failure to add any new flat ride for the park is a combination of the Smiler crash causing much of the park's budget slashed and ofc Merlin's own hubris of not wanting to add any new flat ride as they say they can't market them unlike a new coaster; the latter has certainly come back to haunt them and they have no one to blame but themselves and you can only hope that Merlin had at least dropped that mindset. Actually, did the LTDP ever mention any new flat ride within the next few years? For if not, that would just be utterly ludicrous on Merlin's part which shows their utter disdain for flat rides at that time though since then I wonder if it has eased off slightly.

Yes, there seems to be something of plan in place now with Duel's and Nemesis' overhauls as well as Project Horizon yet I feel the park does need to have a 10 year roadmap to follow a clear long term plan for the park which arguably its never had since the Tussauds days, one that doesn't include any short term fixes, so that when we get to the park's 50th anniversary that most issues - if not all of them - we have with the park currently are sorted one way or the other and one of them is more flat rides. I really didn't want to make this another Merlin bashing post but I have to be critical for their handling of the situation regarding flat rides.
 
Merlin’s attitude to marketability may well have changed with the private acquisition.

They are doing a dark ride retheme that is unlikely to utilise an IP for 2023. They are retracking a 30 year old roller coaster for 2024. Neither of those things are inherently marketable, but they’re being done.

I also refute the long-standing belief that flat rides aren’t marketable. I’d argue that they are very visually appealing rides in many cases, and there are many unique selling points that you could find within the sphere of flat rides. Merlin themselves have managed to market flat rides within RTP (KOBRA and Croc Drop come to mind).

That brings me to another thing; people talk about Merlin’s disdain for flat rides, but if they hate flat rides so much, why have they built flat rides within RTP previously? As I said above, KOBRA and Croc Drop at Chessington come to mind, and the World of Jumanji is also containing two flat rides alongside the principal coaster.
 
I’ve always said if marketing is a concern they should sneak in a flat ride alongside a large investment (so with The Smiler for example they could have done a Submission replacement).

I don’t think it’s so much that flat rides aren’t marketable, it’s simply that there’s not been a strong case to prove they are worth investing in compared to other ideas.

I always assumed the Retro Squad was intended as a 1 year deal, not sure where the 3 year deal rumour has come from. I can see them either staying indefinitely until it becomes unviable to keep bringing them back, or they will be scrapped in 2024 and there will be no permanent replacements.

There doesn’t seem to be any indication of building anything permanent at the moment. So I wouldn’t remain hopeful unless we see a culture change within Merlin.
 
Last edited:
I think there's a bit of confusion on the 3 years thing. There's nothing about RetroSquad being a 3 year deal, @Danscott22 was simply saying that he personally thinks that period of time for them to stick around is acceptable to him. It was an opinion rather than anything about any sort of contractual terms.

As for flat rides being marketable, Kobra was as part of a large scale retheme of an area rather than just a flat. Croc Drop was out of necessity since Ramesees was knackered and I wouldn't really say it set the world alight when it opened. The two rides are relatively low capacity, and it's unlikely they would add enough capacity or pull to the point where it would result in a substantial increase in visitor-ship. I don't think anyone is saying they're entirely unmarketable, just that versus a coaster, they're leagues apart in terms of the attention they draw.

I agree with @James in that the mistake they've made is that rides should have been added/replaced as headline attractions were added, and an opportunity was missed when The Smiler was installed to do something there. Likewise when Thirteen was added, a replacement for Ug Swinger should've been installed. Elsewhere at Thorpe with Swarm, we had a coaster and nothing else in a dead end area. Ideally, a coaster adds the big pull to increase visitor numbers, the extra/new flats increase guest satisfaction - especially in the first few years with the inevitable huge coaster queues.

Coming onto Jumanji, perhaps this might represent the start of a change that you suggest with the addition of some flats to go with the headline attraction. Or the alternative argument would be, does it just acknowledge that Chessington have been starved of any real investment aside from hand-me-downs and cheap additions in recent years? In any case though, the absence of the flat rides in the promo image only serves to demonstrate the original point:

1671897608368.png
 
Craig said:
I agree with @James in that the mistake they've made is that rides should have been added/replaced as headline attractions were added, and an opportunity was missed when The Smiler was installed to do something there. Likewise when Thirteen was added, a replacement for Ug Swinger should've been installed. Elsewhere at Thorpe with Swarm, we had a coaster and nothing else in a dead end area. Ideally, a coaster adds the big pull to increase visitor numbers, the extra/new flats increase guest satisfaction - especially in the first few years with the inevitable huge coaster queues.

Coming onto Jumanji, perhaps this might represent the start of a change that you suggest with the addition of some flats to go with the headline attraction. Or the alternative argument would be, does it just acknowledge that Chessington have been starved of any real investment aside from hand-me-downs and cheap additions in recent years? In any case though, the absence of the flat rides in the promo image only serves to demonstrate the original point:

1671897608368.png
Click to expand...
Yeah, the failure of sneaking in a flat ride for when Swarm, Thirteen or Smiler opened was overlooked on their part and now that you mention how Jumanji might show a different plan in which they will include flat rides for a new area/coaster which if true is the right path to go down. Makes me wonder if during Nemesis' overhaul and how much they are going to town with it is that if this new plan of sneaking in new flat ride in the budget alongside a new coaster could be done for Towers here in which we see the return of Ripsaw or some other flat ride maybe? Suppose that would all depend if World of Jumanji is a hit and that would give Merlin the green light to use this plan elsewhere.

I do wonder with Thirteen if there was plans for a flat ride for Dark Forest from some of the concept art to start with (the robo arm ride remember) but due to how much the actual coaster was going to cost that this was dropped in a attempt to not go over budget or was there never a plan full stop?
 
Poisson said:
I still don't buy flats aren't marketable. Buy a proper flat ride, market it as part of the usual AT TV advert and they'll come running.
Click to expand...
Again of course they're marketable, just a coaster or possibly even a major dark ride is on a whole different level - there's no big "wow" factor with flats versus what is almost a prestige that coasters carry. The sort of "filler flats" that Towers desperately needs will go great in an advert, but could you honestly say that people will see them and say "I HAVE to visit" off the back of a shot of one versus say, shots of the park's major coasters being in the same ad?

Away from the ads, coasters are far more likely to get the additional coverage in newspapers and things like TV spots too. A flat or basic dark ride, unless it does something incredibly unique (and therefore considerably more expensive) is unlikely to attract that sort of thing. I mean can you remember any memorable coverage not generated by the park themselves on TV/newspapers about Gangsta Granny? Meanwhile I can reel off plenty from Thirteen (thanks again for the spoilers GMTV!), Wickerman and even Nemesis when it closed.
 
I think the argument that flat rides are not marketable, serves to highlight the severe lack of creativity and vision within the marketing department, more than anything else. They are still running on ethos and standards set in the Tussauds days.
 
Last edited:
John said:
Re Smiler and lack of support rides - it simply wasn't an issue back then. They spent a fair chunk of cash on refurbing Submission. Only problem was they removed it the next year.
Click to expand...
Didn't Towers manage to get both Submission arms working in 2013 as part of the refurb?
 
zeock said:
Didn't Towers manage to get both Submission arms working in 2013 as part of the refurb?
Click to expand...
They actually did and it pretty much was that ride's last hurrah before it would get the chop shortly afterwards. Yeah it was pretty bad and many others would agree with that statement but you'd rather have that compared to no flat ride in that area.

Even Enterprise IIRC got work done on it too.
 
Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
Top