• 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.

Thorpe Park: General Discussion

Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
It strikes me that Merlin and Mack are likely very different organisations in terms of philosophy. But then, if there's money to be made and Mack can make it work with Disney, I'm sure it would be more than fine.

Didn't BGW just install a new Intamin? I think it's Cedar Fair and Intamin who are on poor terms these days, what with the various injuries, deaths and defects over the past couple of decades. Still, Intamin's portfolio is so large, they're probably hard to avoid for most major operators.
 
Plastic Person said:
Didn't BGW just install a new Intamin? I think it's Cedar Fair and Intamin who are on poor terms these days, what with the various injuries, deaths and defects over the past couple of decades. Still, Intamin's portfolio is so large, they're probably hard to avoid for most major operators.
Click to expand...

BGW went for a long period after they installed Escape from Pompei where they would not purchase Intamin products, as issues with that ride really strained relationships. I suspect SeaWorld have made changes that mean this is no longer an issue.

I can't see any reason why Merlin and Mack would not work together on a major new project.
 
Come to think of it, doesn’t Mack sell GCI coasters in Europe in the same vein that Vekoma sells RMCs in Europe? So Wicker Man could almost be considered a Mack project by Merlin?

My money is on B&M, though; based on recent purchase trends within Merlin being strongly gravitated towards B&M, as well as how I know that rides within the RTPs are often bought from similar manufacturers (for instance, the spate of Merlin B&Ms in the early 2010s, and both Saw & Smiler being done by Gerstlauer), it does seem like a logical guess to me if the park were to build a hyper. I certainly wouldn’t rule Mack out, though.
 
Close business relationships can be built up when you own a collection of B&M's. I suppose with them, Merlin have a lot of experience working with them both for new projects as well as for parts and other maintenance and servicing needs for their older installations. The parks will be used to working with B&M technology as well.

They'll have some of this with Mack as well as many Merlin parks are crammed full of various Mack attractions. I suppose a B&M would be the dependable choice as they'll know what they're getting, but you couldn't rule out anything really. It's still just low level chatter and Chinese whispers at this stage.

Mack's, hypers (even a Mack hyper) and RMC's would all be logical choices for a new UK coaster installation. But then I'm surprised that Merlin could be building another B&M Wing (a ludicrously low capacity one at that) only a few miles down the road from their other one. So what logic they're using for whatever they're planning is anyone's guess.

Whatever it may end up being, it needs to be good. If they build a B&M hyper (at great expense by the way, the only thing that puts me off thinking that they will is just how much one would cost them) then fine but not just a cookie cutter of another one: or something that's not actually very good but laden with gimmicks.
 
One question I have is; would a Mack hyper actually cost any less than a B&M hyper? I was under the impression that Macks were pretty pricey these days.
 
Matt N said:
One question I have is; would a Mack hyper actually cost any less than a B&M hyper? I was under the impression that Macks were pretty pricey these days.
Click to expand...
To be honest I really don't know but I suspect it would buy just a little cheaper. B&M are very very expensive and there track uses more steel then Mack's does (or at least it appears to be) because of B&M's big track spine.
 
Matt N said:
One question I have is; would a Mack hyper actually cost any less than a B&M hyper? I was under the impression that Macks were pretty pricey these days.
Click to expand...
That's a good question actually. Mack's coasters do seem to have built a reputation for build quality and reliability. But B&M have been around for decades so is it a case of they're seen as a good old faithful option and that this is built into the price of them? B&M would be able to come to any negotiating table with a very large portfolio of proven high quality installations to justify their price tag.
 
With steel prices atm I could see a cheaper manufacturer being used, unless there was a bulk discount on offer (which goes back to the b&m deal speculation)

simple fact is we don’t know - so let’s hope they hurry up with planning
 
The issue I see with a hyper at Thorpe, that no one seems to have mentioned is height.

Due to Thope being so close to one of the largest airports in Europe. They are very very restricted on what they can build height wise. I am sure they had to get special permissions to build stealth. I cannot see them being allowed to go much higher for this reason.
 
Last edited:
DistortAMG said:
The issue I see with a hyper at Thorpe, that no one seems to have mentioned is height.

Due to Thope being so close to one of the largest airports in Europe. They are very very restricted on what they can build height wise. I am sure they had to get special permissions to build stealth. I cannot see them being allowed to go much higher for this reason.
Click to expand...
Apparently Thorpe’s maximum height limit is actually 500ft, so that wouldn’t be an issue. They have to apply to the FAA if a structure exceeds 200ft (I think?) but there’s nothing stopping them building a structure of up to 500ft.

John Wardley himself has previously said that a Thorpe hyper is doable within the local planning restrictions, so as much as Thorpe is near Heathrow, it’s not near enough that a hyper would be an issue.
 
It is pretty close to Heathrow mind, the busiest airport in the world. Don't they stack air traffic above Thorpe? And it's worth noting that Stealth has both red lights on top and is painted on the top hat to blend in with the Skyline, presumably due to visual intrusion for the locals. Not saying a hyper isn't doable but I still think they'll have a battle on their hands planning wise and wouldn't be going much over 200ft.
 
Matt N said:
Apparently Thorpe’s maximum height limit is actually 500ft, so that wouldn’t be an issue. They have to apply to the FAA if a structure exceeds 200ft (I think?) but there’s nothing stopping them building a structure of up to 500ft.

John Wardley himself has previously said that a Thorpe hyper is doable within the local planning restrictions, so as much as Thorpe is near Heathrow, it’s not near enough that a hyper would be an issue.
Click to expand...

You mean the CAA. The United States has the FAA. Interesting comments from Wardley, can you show me exactly where he said that. Even so, he could have said that a long time ago, regulations can and do change to keep upto date with an ever evolving world.

What I do know is that while Thorpe itself is outside of what I know as the approach and climb surfaces of the airport, as defined by the CAA. It is well within the obstacle limitation surface zone of the airport.

Any substantially tall development within this zone is very very difficult to get through. Obviously the risk to planes is there but as the park is not on the approach, takeoff and climb surfaces that is lesser a risk. A coaster of significant height inside this obstacle zone pose a risk to causing interference with radar. Heathrow has been updated alot since they built Stealth, regulations have changed. It is unclear how much this will effect Thorpe, but Heathrow does operate equipment that make the rules for any tall structures planned in this zone very different to how it was 14 years ago. More difficult intact.

There are exceptions, London city airport being a prime example, buildings around that airport have different rules than your typical airport. So cannot be compared..I cannot see a super tall structure being built, sorry.

They will not get much over 200ft. Stealth is almost at their limit I would have thought. As for 500ft, with the equipment and traffic heathrow use. Not a chance.

Maybe they may have got higher structures years ago. But rules have changed, planes have got bigger, ect ect.
 
Last edited:
The Big One is actually 213 feet tall, with a drop of 205 foot.

So even if Thorpe can only build to the height of Stealth, by digging a hole/pit they can market it as the coaster with the biggest drop in the country.
 
DistortAMG said:
You mean the CAA. The United States has the FAA. Interesting comments from Wardley, can you show me exactly where he said that. Even so, he could have said that a long time ago, regulations can and do change to keep upto date with an ever evolving world.
Click to expand...
Sorry… I think I must have gotten confused!

In terms of where Wardley said it, it was a comment made within Making Thorpe Park regarding a B&M Hyper that Wardley and B&M had strategised for a 2012 coaster instead of The Swarm. The source was cited as an interview with John Wardley himself conducted as part of the research for the book (the source is cited as “Interview with John Wardley, 20 July 2020” in the book’s bibliography). Here’s the exact comment (relevant part is in bold):
Making Thorpe Park said:
When [B&M] was approached to suggest ideas for the first of the new development islands, they were strongly against using the new Wing model. The flat piece of land didn’t really play to the strengths of the concept, and Wardley felt that a different B&M option should be used instead. His preference was a Hyper Coaster, a tall ride that offers high speeds and massive airtime. Having good knowledge of local planning restrictions, he was confident that permission would be agreed and it would be the perfect complement to the four major rollercoasters already in operation at Thorpe Park.
Click to expand...
For context, this would have been a few years after Stealth, perhaps around 2009-2010.

If they applied to the CAA, I could possibly see them getting permission for something of, say, 250ft or so. That’s not a huge amount taller than Stealth. Something like a giant giga coaster, I could maybe see facing difficulties, but a hyper in the 200-250ft range shouldn’t be too difficult, surely? As much as Stealth did have to have special permission gained from the CAA, they have already set a precedent of how high rides can be built on the property by building Stealth in the first place; Thorpe could certainly argue that a structure at least as tall as Stealth should be allowed given that Stealth has existed for 15 years with no issues.
 
Last edited:
Jb85 said:
Guy 500ft is incredibly tall let’s be honest

anything over 200ft is a hyper with the Big One around 240ft
So if they went to 250ft they’ll be fine for the uk record
Click to expand...
240ft was an educated guess. Point still stands then, they don’t need to go anything over 215ft for this to be a record breaker
 
If I'm being honest, 250ft was just sort of a number I threw out there; such a ride could well be smaller.

My point was more; Stealth has set a precedent for the minimum height that rides can be built to at Thorpe Park. Its mere existence is something that the park can use to their advantage if their request to build a similarly heighted or slightly taller ride encountered obstacles.

One potential point to raise is that I think the scale that a UK height record breaker would need to get to in order to gain the height record depends on which source you go with for the Big One's height. RCDB says 213ft, which is only 8ft taller than Stealth. Blackpool says 235ft, which is a bit more noticeably taller than Stealth. Personally, if I were Thorpe Park, I'd want to err on the side of caution and top Blackpool's own claim; if they built a ride of, say, 220ft and marketed it as the UK's tallest coaster, Blackpool might well make a fuss, or they might get reported to the ASA for false advertising Wicker Man-style. As much as RCDB says that the Big One is 213ft, your average punter watching both parks' adverts may not know that, so they could quite legitimately ask "How is Thorpe's new coaster the UK's tallest at 220ft when the Big One at Blackpool is 235ft?". Also, I feel like a 235ft+ hyper coaster would give off a greater impression of size compared to the rest of Thorpe's lineup than a hyper that only just pips Stealth in height, which would give more gravitas to the park's inevitable "UK's tallest coaster" marketing campaign and the ride's actual record in the eyes of the general visitor.

Another thing I think is worth pointing out is that a bigger hyper coaster also opens itself up to stealing other UK records besides height. Take Shambhala at PortAventura as an example; that ride is 249ft tall (14ft taller than even Blackpool's Big One height claim, and 44ft taller than Stealth), reaches 83mph (3mph faster than Stealth) and has 5,131ft of track. If Thorpe built a clone of Shambhala (hypothetically, of course), it would be the tallest & fastest coaster in the UK, and it would only be 366ft short of the European length record of 5,497ft (due to the Ultimate's likely demise, the Big One now holds this). I certainly think a ride that gains all 3 major UK coaster records (tallest, fastest and longest coaster) is quite doable, personally. Taking B&M as an example (I use B&M as they've built far more hypers than any other manufacturer); excluding the giga coasters, they've built 2 hypers that top the billed UK height record of 235ft (Silver Star and Shambhala), 3 hypers that match or exceed the UK speed record of 80mph (Nitro, Diamondback and Shambhala) and 3 hypers that come within 200ft of the UK/European length record (Nitro, Silver Star and Behemoth). I don't know about you, but I think "tallest & fastest in the UK and longest in Europe", or just "tallest, fastest and longest in the UK" for simplicity, would be a pretty big deal, and I think Merlin could have an absolute field day with the marketing; they've got those records as their "compelling proposition", and surely the raw size of the thing would be a "killer image"? (Those are the 2 requirements for any Merlin ride to get considered for the green light, if anyone's wondering)

In terms of planning restrictions; I'm admittedly unsure how high Thorpe could feasibly go within the 500ft ceiling, but if Wardley of all people says that a hyper is doable within Thorpe's planning restrictions, I'd certainly be inclined to believe that it can be done!
 
Thorpe are likely only to get one shot at a traditional hyper coaster. If planning permits, they should be really looking at hitting the 300ft mark for maximum impact. If they do this route though, I hope it comes out more interesting than B&Ms recent showings such as Fury and doesn’t peter out long before it’s potential energy is used up
 
Status
This topic has been locked. No further replies can be posted.
Top