Sam
TS Member
This is probably the last article I'm going to write for a while, due to me (hopefully) starting a job in the next few weeks. I hope you enjoy it, and please feel free to disagree with my conclusions. btw you should make a cup of tea before reading this. 
The Rise & Rise Of The Sectional Coaster
By Sam Gregory
If theme park attractions are still among the most limiting mediums of storytelling, the potential for more complex narratives has blossomed in recent years. Technological advances, particularly in the area of on-screen theming, have allowed dark ride storytelling to (relatively) greatly expand in complexity. While ride stories can still only be extremely simple in comparison to the potential of a novel or a feature film, they are at least starting to be able to tell stories more complex than the average fairytale. This has led to, for the first time, rides emerging with adult themes.
A gulf has emerged, not in the area of dark rides, but that of rollercoasters. A gulf between the increasingly complex demands of a coaster's theme and story, and the primitive simplicity of most rollercoaster ride systems. Despite the grand and dramatic build-up and queueline for Disneyland's Space Mountain, once the ride crests the lifthill, it reveals itself for what it underneath the make-up – helices in the dark. Over the last ten years, this has led parks and manufacturers (spearheaded as usual by Disney and Universal) to use advanced technology to create a new category of coaster - what I call 'sectional' rollercoasters. These break the through-line that has linked all coasters built since the 17th century Russian ice slides – that of gravity possessing a monopoly over the means of transporting ride cars from the high-point of a layout back to the station. Even rides that begin with a launch rely entirely on gravity once the train has reached the highest point of the layout.
What defines these 'sectional' coasters, as opposed to earlier rides with an identifiable story arc? The ride experience, and the ride system itself, is divided into distinct sections, with easily defined boundaries between them. Unlike earlier rides where this may have been achieved thematically, on sectional coasters it's done through special features of the ride system. The emergence of technologies such as backwards launches, 'booster' launches, freefall drops, turntables, 'tilt track' and switch tracks have rewritten the old model of coaster design. Orthodoxy stated that once the initial method of propulsion had done its work (either a launch or a lift-hill), the train would naturally navigate the remainder of the track without being interfered with, except occasionally by an MCBR here and there for safety reasons. The new elements mentioned above are a challenge to this traditional model - frequently intercepting and interfering with the train on its gravity-powered journey to the brake-run.
One of the earliest sectional coasters is the Arrow 'launched loop', though technologically it's obviously very primitive. Still, the ride is clearly divided into two distinct halves (forwards and backwards), with a sometimes lengthy pause between them. It was amongst the first rides to utilise a propulsive launch rather than a lift-hill, and almost certainly the first ride to deploy a backwards launch (this would go on to see a substantial revival and become a hallmark of sectional coasters, from Th13teen to Mummy). Blackpool's Revolution even includes a cheesy sound effect at the ride's interval, something along the lines of “Now see what Irn-Bru can do for you... in reverse!”, pre-dating the aural and visual special effects that would disguise and distract from the 'sectional transitions' of rides such as Big Grizzly Mountain Runaway Mine Cars.
The Arrow launched loop was designed “to meet the needs of parks who wanted the highly marketable looping roller coaster without spending phenomenal sums of money to build them and without needing the space taken by a full circuit roller coaster.” What's startling here is that in the 1970s, innovative new technology such as the reverse launch of the 'launched loop' was used to make rides cheaper for parks to build, not vastly more expensive as prototypical technologies do now. The wisdom of rushing to adopt new technology so quickly was questioned in 1987 with the tragic death of Karen Brown on the Lightnin' Loops (1978) coaster at Six Flags Great Adventure.
The 19-year-old sat above her closed restraint, not below it, and Karen and boyfriend Rick “screamed to the operators to halt the ride.” Despite this, the coaster was dispatched as the primitive computer system correctly told the operator that all the restraints were closed. She fell out the car at the apex of the loop, and the ride car then “ran her over before pitching her mangled body 75ft to the concrete below.” Unlike traditional lift-hill coasters where the ride can be stopped at any point on the lift-chain, once a 'launched loop' is dispatched, it's impossible to stop it, due to what Arrow project engineer Steve Okamoto described as the “highly dangerous” possibility of the trains stalling upside down in the loop (Popular Mechanics, September 1987, p56). The ride didn't open with dispatch buttons which had to be pressed by all station hosts - these were installed after the accident. In the history of sectional coasters, the speed of technological breakthrough is sometimes not matched by the necessary accompanying advances in safety.
Two other very important proto-sectional coasters are the Beast (1979) and the Ultimate (1991). Neither ride system uses anything more complicated than a second lift-hill. But on both rides, the stretch of track after the second lift is so wildly different stylistically to the track after the first lift that they both resemble two completely unrelated rides bolted together. The first half of both is dominated by high-speed low-to-the-ground airtime hills. The second half of the Beast consists simply of an enormous double-helix, while the second half of the Ultimate has been described by Jeremy Thompson as “unquestionably! – the most insanely intense, white knuckle, balls-to-the-wall section of roller coaster track I have ever experienced.” One is universally acclaimed, and the other has an extremely strong fan-base. These two rides are so adored because they got the balance right between innovation and tradition, while recent sectional coasters have arguably sacrificed the latter for the former.
Fast-forward to today. The boom time for sectional coasters has taken place mostly in the last ten years. The best examples of the genre are Revenge Of The Mummy (2004, 2010), Expedition Everest (2006), Th13teen (2010), Verbolten (2012), Polar X-plorer (2012), and the slightly wordy Big Grizzly Mountain Runaway Mine Cars (2012). The upcoming Full Throttle (2013), Seven Dwarfs Mine Train (2014), and the Harry Potter Gringotts coaster for Universal Studios Florida also look set to expand the canon further. These rides constitute the 'new school' of coaster design. In many ways, Revenge Of The Mummy is the best example of a sectional coaster, utilising most of the tricks available in the modern designer's toy-box. Let's compare the Floridian iteration of ROTM to a more traditional coaster that opened in the same year at a major park - B&M's Silver Bullet (2004) at Knott's Berry Farm.
Once loaded, a Silver Bullet train is hauled up the lift-hill, at which point it is transferred into the hands of gravity until the brake run. The layout is a simple sequence of inversions, broken up by linking elements; drop, over-banked turn, helices etc. Revenge Of The Mummy begins with a dark ride section, the cars being propelled along the winding track at a constant speed. The ride then hits a brick wall, where it comes to a complete stop. The cars are then accelerated backwards down a short drop before being rotated back to face forwards again on a turntable. Riders are then dropped into a launched lift-hill, followed by a traditional section of free-riding coaster track. The cars come to a stop at a mock-up offload station, a 'false ending', before being launched again into a second shorter section of traditional coaster track. This is followed by the brakes, with cars then returning to either of the two onload-offload platforms by means of a switch track. Although opened in the same year, the complexity gap (without even mentioning the advanced special effects of ROTM) between the ride systems is astonishing.
Why the sudden boom in these rides in the last decade? The answer is partly technological, but that can't entirely explain it. Turntables and switch track would have been easily possible in the 1960s and 70s, with a little R&D, and the Arrow shuttle loops have been operating since 1977. Railways have used similar technology for hundreds of years. What changed is the demand. This is largely due to the decline of the traditional dark ride (until its current Potter-led renaissance), result of an over-production of standard, maybe even slightly boring, dark rides in the 70s and 80s. But instead of replacing them with something completely different (i.e. knocking down the show building and replacing it with a standard outdoor thrill coaster), a compromise is reached – the dark ride/rollercoaster hybrid, often using the sectional coaster for its ride system.
This regeneration process has seen Kongfrontation (1990-2002) ripped out in favour of (Floridian) ROTM, E.T. Adventure (1991-2003) in favour of (Hollywood) ROTM, Jaws (1990-2012) in favour of the Gringotts coaster, World of Motion (1982-1996) in favour of Test Track, E.T. Adventure (2001-2009) in favour of Space Fantasy, (German) Gremlins Adventure (1996-2004) in favour of Van Helsing's Factory and (Australian) Gremlins Adventure (1991-2001) in favour of the Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster.
This is all very well and good when in the hands of Disney and Universal. But what are the problems that sectional coasters face when they venture outside the Big Two? Firstly, without extremely extensive theming (especially an indoor setting), they fare poorly. Unless the special effects are world-class, they have to fall back on the track and train itself, which is often just not good enough. Disjointed, chopped up and without the 'flow' of great rides such as Bizarro or Nemesis, these are often lacklustre coasters. Take a look at Th13teen, or Polar X-Plorer. Secondly, they may also fail as they are too mechanically complex for smaller parks (and by smaller, I mean anything less than Disney and Universal) to handle. They are often plagued by technical difficulties, as in-house engineers struggle to cope with ride systems so complex that they wouldn't have been available to the most senior Imagineer ten years ago. Verbolten has been particularly troubled by technical difficulties, including a crashed train.
At the same time as the emergence of sectional coasters, is a trend in exactly the opposite direction - the increasing specialisation of rides that seek to refine their best point and discard anything else as superfluous. The best example of this is the Intamin Mega-Lite, engineered precisely to wrench every drop of airtime from the layout, with nothing else considered important. Corners and turns simply transport the trains from one stratospheric airtime hill to the next. Given that these two trends – sectional coasters and specialist coasters – have dominated the industry landscape for at least ten years, how do they fare when pitted against each other?
Looking at recent trends, it's difficult to imagine that sectional coasters will be troubling the Mitch Hawker poll anytime soon. Most of the top ten of the most recent steel survey focus on one task, and do it exceptionally well. Expedition GeForce and Bizarro make no attempt at forceful laterals or inversions, while Nemesis and Katun have little time for airtime. These specialist coasters are raved about, and frequently hailed as being the finest 'generation' of rides built since the days of Harry Traver.
Let's take a look at the latest Mitch Hawker data available, 2010's Steel Poll. Of the top 20, 11 could be classified as 'airtime machines', rides that almost entirely aim to deliver negative g-forces and nothing else (Bizarro [#1], Expedition GeForce [#2], Kawasemi [#4], Piraten [#6], Goliath [#7], Millennium Force [#8] Behemoth [#15], Goliath [#16], Goliath [#17], Nitro [#18] and Diamondback [#19]). A further seven could be classified as designed exclusively around positive g-forces and inversions (Nemesis [#5], Katun [#9], iSpeed [#10], Pyrenees [#11], Maverick [#13], Blue Fire [#14] and Montu [#20]). This leaves only two (Intimidator 305 [#2], Atlantis Adventure [#12]) that don't wholly specialise in either positive or negative g-force.
It's very difficult to think of an acclaimed steel coaster that aims to deliver airtime and inversions in equal measure - perhaps why there hasn't been an inverting hypercoaster since Kennywood's Steel Phantom had its loops ripped out in 2001. None of the Mitch Hawker top 20 are major sectional coasters, with the semi-exception of Maverick, which seems surprising given that parks have spent so much money on these rides. Th13teen clocks in at a slightly pathetic #153, Expedition Everest not much better at #91, Revenge Of The Mummy at a disappointing #73. Was it worth $100 million for this, as was allegedly spent on Expedition Everest, or the $80 million spent on the Floridian ROTM (Popular Science, June 2004, p26)?
The making of REvenge of the Mummy the ride
"We're throwing everything we can possibly think of at our guests."
Why do sectional coasters get such a lukewarm critical reaction? In many other art forms (and I don't wish to step into the debate here about whether rollercoaster layouts constitute an art form, though they are clearly a form that can be critically assessed and judged), works divided into startlingly distinct sections, often bearing no relation to previous sections, are abundant. For example, the [noembed]Beatles' A Day In The Life[/noembed] progresses through radically different musical ideas, marked by abrupt transitions between them, and is widely hailed as a masterpiece. Many of the greatest works in painting are triptychs.
Until 2006, Alton Towers had never built what could be defined as a 'sectional ride'. Since, they have built three: Charlie (2006), Th13teen (2010) and Sub-Terra (2012). The former even has two completely separate and unconnected ride systems under the same name. Looking at Charlie and Sub-Terra, it'd be a fair comment to note that the park lost confidence in themselves to create a single great ride. Instead, they decided to hedge their bets. These rides are the jack of all trades, but masters of none – an accusation that can be levelled at sectional rides and coasters more widely. Ride designers must have the conviction and the guts to put all their eggs in one basket – to build rides that do one job, and do it amazingly. No ride is ever going to be loved by everyone, and it's pointless trying.
As theme park/coaster enthusiasts, we should be advocating better rides at better parks. This might not be as far-fetched as it sounds. The Mitch Hawker poll has been running since 1994, and has become the de facto standard for ranking the quality of rides. Noticing what sort of rides did well on the poll, it's highly likely that Intamin and the respective client parks designed Bizarro (2000) and Expedition GeForce (2001) with an eye to the top-spot of Mitch Hawker. Holiday Park even advertise EGF's poll successes in a boastful banner in the station. Both rides seem designed to wrench the maximum amount of critical acclaim from enthusiasts, after all, the general public probably aren't going to be able to tell why New England's Bizarro is any better than Darien Lake's Ride of Steel (2000), but the superior quality of Bizarro may have a positive subconscious effect.
The recent renaissance of lapbars on inverting coasters (led by Mack's Blue Fire (2009)) may also be an effect of enthusiast pressure influencing the design process. Just from first-hand experience, I can think of several parks (Europa-Park, Alton Towers, Lightwater Valley) where enthusiasts have risen to management and creative positions within the ownership structure.
Big Grizzly Mountain Runaway Mine Cars POV Hong Kong Disneyland Roller Coaster On-Ride
How do enthusiasts have such influence? As a group, we're vastly more active on social media, praising or slating a new ride. This influences our non-enthusiast friends, and contributes to creating a ride's reputation in public consciousness. If an enthusiast posts on Facebook that they've just ridden Th13teen and it was rubbish, that'll create a wave, as the ride's poor reputation quickly spreads outwards in concentric circles. Enthusiast opinion had a large part to play in Th13teen's lukewarm reception amongst the general public. How many times did you hear a non-enthusiast friend say “Oh, I hear that new one at Alton Towers is rubbish”, probably passed on from a geeky friend?
The harsh truth is, sectional coasters have failed to live up to their potential so far. We're seeing ever-more expensive rides that are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. When in the hands of Disney and Universal, they usually turn out reasonably well (though hardly as lauded as some of their simpler work). But as we see more smaller parks, even those of the size of Alton Towers, embracing technology that they're not ready for, we should prepare ourselves for more mediocre rides, ballooning budgets and lengthy downtime. As a group, we should remind parks that new coasters should be a great ride in themselves, not just an impressive tech demo.
Maybe by looking to the legendary designers of the past – Harry G. Traver, Anton Schwarzkopf and late-90s Intamin – parks will rediscover the art of great layout design. I've got nothing against gimmicks per se, as long as they don't come at the cost of a great layout. But at the moment, with the obsession for technological fads, we could see the slightly depressing situation where in ten years time, the Mitch Hawker Top 10 is almost the same as it is now. If parks are going to embrace sectional coasters, they must remember the 'coaster' bit of the name. The pendulum has swung too far the other way. What we need is a marriage of technological innovation, and layout artisanship.
Sam Gregory
If you're new here, I've written a few more that you might be interested in.
A Short History of Theme: The rocky road to immersive nirvana
Secret Weapon 7: The Schwarzkopf Connection
Sam's Europa-Park review
The Sanctuary, SW7 and Donald Ewen Cameron
The Rise & Rise Of The Sectional Coaster
By Sam Gregory
If theme park attractions are still among the most limiting mediums of storytelling, the potential for more complex narratives has blossomed in recent years. Technological advances, particularly in the area of on-screen theming, have allowed dark ride storytelling to (relatively) greatly expand in complexity. While ride stories can still only be extremely simple in comparison to the potential of a novel or a feature film, they are at least starting to be able to tell stories more complex than the average fairytale. This has led to, for the first time, rides emerging with adult themes.
A gulf has emerged, not in the area of dark rides, but that of rollercoasters. A gulf between the increasingly complex demands of a coaster's theme and story, and the primitive simplicity of most rollercoaster ride systems. Despite the grand and dramatic build-up and queueline for Disneyland's Space Mountain, once the ride crests the lifthill, it reveals itself for what it underneath the make-up – helices in the dark. Over the last ten years, this has led parks and manufacturers (spearheaded as usual by Disney and Universal) to use advanced technology to create a new category of coaster - what I call 'sectional' rollercoasters. These break the through-line that has linked all coasters built since the 17th century Russian ice slides – that of gravity possessing a monopoly over the means of transporting ride cars from the high-point of a layout back to the station. Even rides that begin with a launch rely entirely on gravity once the train has reached the highest point of the layout.
What defines these 'sectional' coasters, as opposed to earlier rides with an identifiable story arc? The ride experience, and the ride system itself, is divided into distinct sections, with easily defined boundaries between them. Unlike earlier rides where this may have been achieved thematically, on sectional coasters it's done through special features of the ride system. The emergence of technologies such as backwards launches, 'booster' launches, freefall drops, turntables, 'tilt track' and switch tracks have rewritten the old model of coaster design. Orthodoxy stated that once the initial method of propulsion had done its work (either a launch or a lift-hill), the train would naturally navigate the remainder of the track without being interfered with, except occasionally by an MCBR here and there for safety reasons. The new elements mentioned above are a challenge to this traditional model - frequently intercepting and interfering with the train on its gravity-powered journey to the brake-run.
One of the earliest sectional coasters is the Arrow 'launched loop', though technologically it's obviously very primitive. Still, the ride is clearly divided into two distinct halves (forwards and backwards), with a sometimes lengthy pause between them. It was amongst the first rides to utilise a propulsive launch rather than a lift-hill, and almost certainly the first ride to deploy a backwards launch (this would go on to see a substantial revival and become a hallmark of sectional coasters, from Th13teen to Mummy). Blackpool's Revolution even includes a cheesy sound effect at the ride's interval, something along the lines of “Now see what Irn-Bru can do for you... in reverse!”, pre-dating the aural and visual special effects that would disguise and distract from the 'sectional transitions' of rides such as Big Grizzly Mountain Runaway Mine Cars.
The Arrow launched loop was designed “to meet the needs of parks who wanted the highly marketable looping roller coaster without spending phenomenal sums of money to build them and without needing the space taken by a full circuit roller coaster.” What's startling here is that in the 1970s, innovative new technology such as the reverse launch of the 'launched loop' was used to make rides cheaper for parks to build, not vastly more expensive as prototypical technologies do now. The wisdom of rushing to adopt new technology so quickly was questioned in 1987 with the tragic death of Karen Brown on the Lightnin' Loops (1978) coaster at Six Flags Great Adventure.
The 19-year-old sat above her closed restraint, not below it, and Karen and boyfriend Rick “screamed to the operators to halt the ride.” Despite this, the coaster was dispatched as the primitive computer system correctly told the operator that all the restraints were closed. She fell out the car at the apex of the loop, and the ride car then “ran her over before pitching her mangled body 75ft to the concrete below.” Unlike traditional lift-hill coasters where the ride can be stopped at any point on the lift-chain, once a 'launched loop' is dispatched, it's impossible to stop it, due to what Arrow project engineer Steve Okamoto described as the “highly dangerous” possibility of the trains stalling upside down in the loop (Popular Mechanics, September 1987, p56). The ride didn't open with dispatch buttons which had to be pressed by all station hosts - these were installed after the accident. In the history of sectional coasters, the speed of technological breakthrough is sometimes not matched by the necessary accompanying advances in safety.
Two other very important proto-sectional coasters are the Beast (1979) and the Ultimate (1991). Neither ride system uses anything more complicated than a second lift-hill. But on both rides, the stretch of track after the second lift is so wildly different stylistically to the track after the first lift that they both resemble two completely unrelated rides bolted together. The first half of both is dominated by high-speed low-to-the-ground airtime hills. The second half of the Beast consists simply of an enormous double-helix, while the second half of the Ultimate has been described by Jeremy Thompson as “unquestionably! – the most insanely intense, white knuckle, balls-to-the-wall section of roller coaster track I have ever experienced.” One is universally acclaimed, and the other has an extremely strong fan-base. These two rides are so adored because they got the balance right between innovation and tradition, while recent sectional coasters have arguably sacrificed the latter for the former.
Fast-forward to today. The boom time for sectional coasters has taken place mostly in the last ten years. The best examples of the genre are Revenge Of The Mummy (2004, 2010), Expedition Everest (2006), Th13teen (2010), Verbolten (2012), Polar X-plorer (2012), and the slightly wordy Big Grizzly Mountain Runaway Mine Cars (2012). The upcoming Full Throttle (2013), Seven Dwarfs Mine Train (2014), and the Harry Potter Gringotts coaster for Universal Studios Florida also look set to expand the canon further. These rides constitute the 'new school' of coaster design. In many ways, Revenge Of The Mummy is the best example of a sectional coaster, utilising most of the tricks available in the modern designer's toy-box. Let's compare the Floridian iteration of ROTM to a more traditional coaster that opened in the same year at a major park - B&M's Silver Bullet (2004) at Knott's Berry Farm.
Once loaded, a Silver Bullet train is hauled up the lift-hill, at which point it is transferred into the hands of gravity until the brake run. The layout is a simple sequence of inversions, broken up by linking elements; drop, over-banked turn, helices etc. Revenge Of The Mummy begins with a dark ride section, the cars being propelled along the winding track at a constant speed. The ride then hits a brick wall, where it comes to a complete stop. The cars are then accelerated backwards down a short drop before being rotated back to face forwards again on a turntable. Riders are then dropped into a launched lift-hill, followed by a traditional section of free-riding coaster track. The cars come to a stop at a mock-up offload station, a 'false ending', before being launched again into a second shorter section of traditional coaster track. This is followed by the brakes, with cars then returning to either of the two onload-offload platforms by means of a switch track. Although opened in the same year, the complexity gap (without even mentioning the advanced special effects of ROTM) between the ride systems is astonishing.
Why the sudden boom in these rides in the last decade? The answer is partly technological, but that can't entirely explain it. Turntables and switch track would have been easily possible in the 1960s and 70s, with a little R&D, and the Arrow shuttle loops have been operating since 1977. Railways have used similar technology for hundreds of years. What changed is the demand. This is largely due to the decline of the traditional dark ride (until its current Potter-led renaissance), result of an over-production of standard, maybe even slightly boring, dark rides in the 70s and 80s. But instead of replacing them with something completely different (i.e. knocking down the show building and replacing it with a standard outdoor thrill coaster), a compromise is reached – the dark ride/rollercoaster hybrid, often using the sectional coaster for its ride system.
This regeneration process has seen Kongfrontation (1990-2002) ripped out in favour of (Floridian) ROTM, E.T. Adventure (1991-2003) in favour of (Hollywood) ROTM, Jaws (1990-2012) in favour of the Gringotts coaster, World of Motion (1982-1996) in favour of Test Track, E.T. Adventure (2001-2009) in favour of Space Fantasy, (German) Gremlins Adventure (1996-2004) in favour of Van Helsing's Factory and (Australian) Gremlins Adventure (1991-2001) in favour of the Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster.
This is all very well and good when in the hands of Disney and Universal. But what are the problems that sectional coasters face when they venture outside the Big Two? Firstly, without extremely extensive theming (especially an indoor setting), they fare poorly. Unless the special effects are world-class, they have to fall back on the track and train itself, which is often just not good enough. Disjointed, chopped up and without the 'flow' of great rides such as Bizarro or Nemesis, these are often lacklustre coasters. Take a look at Th13teen, or Polar X-Plorer. Secondly, they may also fail as they are too mechanically complex for smaller parks (and by smaller, I mean anything less than Disney and Universal) to handle. They are often plagued by technical difficulties, as in-house engineers struggle to cope with ride systems so complex that they wouldn't have been available to the most senior Imagineer ten years ago. Verbolten has been particularly troubled by technical difficulties, including a crashed train.
At the same time as the emergence of sectional coasters, is a trend in exactly the opposite direction - the increasing specialisation of rides that seek to refine their best point and discard anything else as superfluous. The best example of this is the Intamin Mega-Lite, engineered precisely to wrench every drop of airtime from the layout, with nothing else considered important. Corners and turns simply transport the trains from one stratospheric airtime hill to the next. Given that these two trends – sectional coasters and specialist coasters – have dominated the industry landscape for at least ten years, how do they fare when pitted against each other?
Looking at recent trends, it's difficult to imagine that sectional coasters will be troubling the Mitch Hawker poll anytime soon. Most of the top ten of the most recent steel survey focus on one task, and do it exceptionally well. Expedition GeForce and Bizarro make no attempt at forceful laterals or inversions, while Nemesis and Katun have little time for airtime. These specialist coasters are raved about, and frequently hailed as being the finest 'generation' of rides built since the days of Harry Traver.
Let's take a look at the latest Mitch Hawker data available, 2010's Steel Poll. Of the top 20, 11 could be classified as 'airtime machines', rides that almost entirely aim to deliver negative g-forces and nothing else (Bizarro [#1], Expedition GeForce [#2], Kawasemi [#4], Piraten [#6], Goliath [#7], Millennium Force [#8] Behemoth [#15], Goliath [#16], Goliath [#17], Nitro [#18] and Diamondback [#19]). A further seven could be classified as designed exclusively around positive g-forces and inversions (Nemesis [#5], Katun [#9], iSpeed [#10], Pyrenees [#11], Maverick [#13], Blue Fire [#14] and Montu [#20]). This leaves only two (Intimidator 305 [#2], Atlantis Adventure [#12]) that don't wholly specialise in either positive or negative g-force.
It's very difficult to think of an acclaimed steel coaster that aims to deliver airtime and inversions in equal measure - perhaps why there hasn't been an inverting hypercoaster since Kennywood's Steel Phantom had its loops ripped out in 2001. None of the Mitch Hawker top 20 are major sectional coasters, with the semi-exception of Maverick, which seems surprising given that parks have spent so much money on these rides. Th13teen clocks in at a slightly pathetic #153, Expedition Everest not much better at #91, Revenge Of The Mummy at a disappointing #73. Was it worth $100 million for this, as was allegedly spent on Expedition Everest, or the $80 million spent on the Floridian ROTM (Popular Science, June 2004, p26)?
The making of REvenge of the Mummy the ride
"We're throwing everything we can possibly think of at our guests."
Why do sectional coasters get such a lukewarm critical reaction? In many other art forms (and I don't wish to step into the debate here about whether rollercoaster layouts constitute an art form, though they are clearly a form that can be critically assessed and judged), works divided into startlingly distinct sections, often bearing no relation to previous sections, are abundant. For example, the [noembed]Beatles' A Day In The Life[/noembed] progresses through radically different musical ideas, marked by abrupt transitions between them, and is widely hailed as a masterpiece. Many of the greatest works in painting are triptychs.
Until 2006, Alton Towers had never built what could be defined as a 'sectional ride'. Since, they have built three: Charlie (2006), Th13teen (2010) and Sub-Terra (2012). The former even has two completely separate and unconnected ride systems under the same name. Looking at Charlie and Sub-Terra, it'd be a fair comment to note that the park lost confidence in themselves to create a single great ride. Instead, they decided to hedge their bets. These rides are the jack of all trades, but masters of none – an accusation that can be levelled at sectional rides and coasters more widely. Ride designers must have the conviction and the guts to put all their eggs in one basket – to build rides that do one job, and do it amazingly. No ride is ever going to be loved by everyone, and it's pointless trying.
As theme park/coaster enthusiasts, we should be advocating better rides at better parks. This might not be as far-fetched as it sounds. The Mitch Hawker poll has been running since 1994, and has become the de facto standard for ranking the quality of rides. Noticing what sort of rides did well on the poll, it's highly likely that Intamin and the respective client parks designed Bizarro (2000) and Expedition GeForce (2001) with an eye to the top-spot of Mitch Hawker. Holiday Park even advertise EGF's poll successes in a boastful banner in the station. Both rides seem designed to wrench the maximum amount of critical acclaim from enthusiasts, after all, the general public probably aren't going to be able to tell why New England's Bizarro is any better than Darien Lake's Ride of Steel (2000), but the superior quality of Bizarro may have a positive subconscious effect.
The recent renaissance of lapbars on inverting coasters (led by Mack's Blue Fire (2009)) may also be an effect of enthusiast pressure influencing the design process. Just from first-hand experience, I can think of several parks (Europa-Park, Alton Towers, Lightwater Valley) where enthusiasts have risen to management and creative positions within the ownership structure.
Big Grizzly Mountain Runaway Mine Cars POV Hong Kong Disneyland Roller Coaster On-Ride
How do enthusiasts have such influence? As a group, we're vastly more active on social media, praising or slating a new ride. This influences our non-enthusiast friends, and contributes to creating a ride's reputation in public consciousness. If an enthusiast posts on Facebook that they've just ridden Th13teen and it was rubbish, that'll create a wave, as the ride's poor reputation quickly spreads outwards in concentric circles. Enthusiast opinion had a large part to play in Th13teen's lukewarm reception amongst the general public. How many times did you hear a non-enthusiast friend say “Oh, I hear that new one at Alton Towers is rubbish”, probably passed on from a geeky friend?
The harsh truth is, sectional coasters have failed to live up to their potential so far. We're seeing ever-more expensive rides that are throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. When in the hands of Disney and Universal, they usually turn out reasonably well (though hardly as lauded as some of their simpler work). But as we see more smaller parks, even those of the size of Alton Towers, embracing technology that they're not ready for, we should prepare ourselves for more mediocre rides, ballooning budgets and lengthy downtime. As a group, we should remind parks that new coasters should be a great ride in themselves, not just an impressive tech demo.
Maybe by looking to the legendary designers of the past – Harry G. Traver, Anton Schwarzkopf and late-90s Intamin – parks will rediscover the art of great layout design. I've got nothing against gimmicks per se, as long as they don't come at the cost of a great layout. But at the moment, with the obsession for technological fads, we could see the slightly depressing situation where in ten years time, the Mitch Hawker Top 10 is almost the same as it is now. If parks are going to embrace sectional coasters, they must remember the 'coaster' bit of the name. The pendulum has swung too far the other way. What we need is a marriage of technological innovation, and layout artisanship.
Sam Gregory
If you're new here, I've written a few more that you might be interested in.
A Short History of Theme: The rocky road to immersive nirvana
Secret Weapon 7: The Schwarzkopf Connection
Sam's Europa-Park review
The Sanctuary, SW7 and Donald Ewen Cameron
