Adding on to rollercoasters.

Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:15 PM

I was thinking and came up with an idea as crazy but possibly just as effective as the Six Flags ride rotation program.

What if, a smaller park, that did not have a ton of money to spend, but wanted to get some revenue, consulted a ride manufacturer to design a coaster out of their price range. When the park approved of the coaster, they could remove enough of the final leg of the coaster for the coaster to be affordable.

So, after a few years, the park gets a ton of revenue from the new coaster but it's beginning to die out a little. With the money the coaster earned the park, the connecting track from the end to the station is removed and the original design is completed introducing an almost brand new coaster and bringing guests back for another ride. And, on the flip-side, if the coaster does not do the expected revenue, the park is not required to add on to the coaster at all.

Is this idea far fetched? The only problems I could think of is that the addition would take away from the coaster with maybe a less unique finale or something. Has this ever been done or has anybody else considered this before?

-----------------
The below statement is true.
The above statement is false.

+0
Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:18 PM

Technically, Kennywood has done this twice, with brilliant results. I'm not sure if I understand your question entirely, but making "significant alterations" to a coaster has proved immensely successful for the park, which probably could afford a new coaster but lacks the room.

+0
Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:32 PM
An interesting idea. Something similiar was done when the Great Americas converted their Turn of the Centuries to Demons. Your exact scenario has never happened (as far as I know), but I suppose it could. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that most of a ride's expenses are found in the station, tranfer track, lift hill, trains, brakes, and the first couple of hills/elements (the largest), so it might not be as pratical as it first seems.
+0
Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:46 PM
Getting rid of just the final leg of the ride is not gonna reduce the cost by much at all. Also if only the end is replaced it will not make the ride so much better than it was originally.

-----------------
Riding the Bull anywhere but the back is merely going for a walk.

+0
Sunday, January 19, 2003 12:50 PM

Your thinking of the end being maybe 250 extra feet, I mean somewhere around maybe another 750-1500' that would be a significant difference.

(SF) Great American, yeah, I guess that a lot of the cost does come in at the station and trains and that mechanical stuff, but it doesn't have to be just because the park can't afford the big bad one at first, it could be for two pretty big waves of crowds and in comparison to one big wave of crowds and cash.

-----------------
The below statement is true.
The above statement is false.

+0
Sunday, January 19, 2003 1:04 PM

I don't know for sure but isn't that kinda what the rollercoaster at the MGM Grand did? I beleive they added onto the end of it to make it longer.

-----------------
Mike
Favorite Wood: Viper at SFGAM,Shivering Timbers
Favorite Steel: Magnum and Raging Bull

+0
Sunday, January 19, 2003 2:25 PM

As previously pointed out the savings would be limited maybe 20% at most. Not the kind of radical difference that would persuade a park to do this.

Building one side of a racer might save a bit more.

+0
Sunday, January 19, 2003 3:58 PM

coaster895 said:

I don't know for sure but isn't that kinda what the rollercoaster at the MGM Grand did? I beleive they added onto the end of it to make it longer.



Yes, a roller coaster called Lightning Bolt at MGM Grand Adventures was originally built as an indoor coaster by Intamin, and then was extended by Arrow. If you go to http://www.rcdb.com/installationdetail105.htm , you can get a little more information, and pictures.

-----------------
Intelligence is a God given gift: Know how to use it.

+0
Sunday, January 19, 2003 4:14 PM
Of topic but........My question is............Is their any difference between the Intamin part of Lightningbolt and the Arrow part? Meaning is the Intamin part smooth and the Arrow part rough lol, or did Arrow do a good job on adding to another manufactureres coaster?
+0
Sunday, January 19, 2003 4:24 PM

CoasterXfreak -

No, both "parts" (Arrow and Intamin) are smooth. You see, this is what happens when you stereotype certain manufacturers with pain or smoothness...Not all Arrows are rough.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...