Could Dominator (dorney) open 3rd tower?

Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:40 PM
I read a crazy rumor on another site that said that due to the popularity of Dominator, they would open the third tower. While I don't believe it, I was curious, is it even possible to open the third tower?
+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:44 PM
That's what its there for, AKAIK. I would think that the only things needed would be the mechanical bits and the vehicle... the tower and its foundation (what I assume is the most expensive part of that type of project) is already there.

Does anyone know if the switchbacks are there, or would queing have to be installed as well?

+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:52 PM
From what I understand, there is quite a bit of work that has to go on underground, underneath each tower.
+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:04 PM
It's there just for looks and structural support. If you look at this picture, you'll see that the cylinder and all the other crap is missing.

They could hook up the 3rd tower, but it'd be a lot of work.
*** Edited 2/18/2004 8:05:47 PM UTC by rOLLocOASt***

+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:10 PM
I was always under the impression that moving parts were the most expensive in ride construction - the trains and the motor.
+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:19 PM
In order to open the third tower, I would think the tower would probably have to be disassembled in order to add all the mechanical components to it. There is no queue for the third tower, and the base of the tower (boarding area) is just used to store maintenance equipment. I'm not sure what exists (or doesn't exist) underneath that tower, however.
+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:31 PM
While I am not sure about the actual price of adding the mechanics for the third tower, I think that they added the third tower for a reason. When originally building the ride, it would have been much cheaper to just build the two towers.

Although for marketing reasons, if they did decide to use the third tower, I think that they would need something different than the other two towers. If one tower shoots up and the other shoots down, maybe the third tower can use one of S&S's new tilting seat options.

+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:46 PM
From the original November 11, 1998, press release:

Developed by S&S Sports Power, Inc., Logan, Utah, the three-column structure will house two gravity-defying rides, one launching passengers from ground level straight into the air, the other blasting riders down from 17 stories high at faster than free-fall speeds; a third column will serve as a support structure.

+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 4:11 PM
Exactly Draegs, a 3 legged structure is much, much sturdier than a 2 legged one.

About making the third leg functional, I think that would involve too much effort. I think they'd have to completely disassemble the tower just to get the large air cylinders inside of the column. If they could find a way to do that, they'd still have to install all of the control systems, actual mechanical parts, and such...all of which would have to be purchased seperately from S&S. I really don't think it'd be worth the work and cash, but that's just my opinion.

+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 4:23 PM
Didn't Cedar Fair build a two-legged tower at WOF? I imagine that some extra structure was added to Dorney's for a reason.
+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 4:29 PM
The theory I've heard is that the original intention was to have 3 operating towers but for whatever reason, the park changed their mind but not soon enough to change the design of the 3 legged structure.

Perhaps the 3rd leg could be a "double shot."

+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 4:43 PM

mantis man said:
About making the third leg functional...

Heh Heh ... my third leg is perfectly functional thank you very much ... and no input from S&S!!

Sorry, had to say it ;)

But on a serious note, I was curious why the third tower didn't have a car on it. I figured it was just down for maintenance or something. It doesn't seem like it'd be all that complicated to get the compressors in the tower - just take off the top? Isn't the thing hollow inside?

+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 5:18 PM
If I remember correctly, the 3rd tower was originally designed to hold another space shot, but the park decided they didn't want that much of a high capacity for the ride. It was so far into the project that it would have cost too much money to redesign the entire project, so they just left it an open tower. I think this was their first mistake right from the get go. Anyone who has been to DP can tell you that 95% of the time the green side has a much longer line than the red. They should have originally designed it for another turbo drop.

As far as reopening the 3rd tower, my guess is as good as anybody elses. But I do agree, it would cost a LOT of money to get all the necessary components installed IF they could do it.

+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 5:36 PM
The third tower on Dominator was definitely built as an option to increase capacity in the future if so desired. It's so obviously NOT a structural feature. S&S built a 2-tower complex at Worlds of Fun, so there's no need to just randomly build a third tower and not use it.

I've seen S&S press releases that state the 3rd tower was installed in case the park decides they need a higher-capacity attraction.

I believe the ride at Lagoon has the same arrangement, as well as a few others.

+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 5:47 PM
I remember e-mailing S&S Sports Power a few years ago inquiring about The Dominator's odd third-wheel leg and the lady that responded told me it was built like that for additional structural support, to make the entire ride structure look more aesthetically intimidating and impressive, and for a future ride installation if the park chooses to do so.
+0
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 7:09 PM

VolcanoTBC said:
The third tower on Dominator was definitely built as an option to increase capacity in the future if so desired. It's so obviously NOT a structural feature. S&S built a 2-tower complex at Worlds of Fun, so there's no need to just randomly build a third tower and not use it.

I've seen S&S press releases that state the 3rd tower was installed in case the park decides they need a higher-capacity attraction.

I believe the ride at Lagoon has the same arrangement, as well as a few others.


The Rocket at Lagoon was built to have a 3rd Operating Tower. It opened with 3 Compressors (1 for each tower) and all of the Compressed Air Lines, Storage Tanks, Shot Tanks, and Electrical Conduit in Place. From what I know, Lagoon wanted to install the First 185ft Double Shot on the 3rd Tower, but we'll see what happens in the Future.

+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:06 AM
I could have sworn I read years ago that they would decide on the third tower based on which of the two proved most popular. Of course, that is just conjecture because I have absolutely no proof other then my memory.
+0
Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:58 AM
Regardless of whether it's feasible - I've never seen the lines at Dominator long enough to warrant the need for the third leg to be used.

Of course, I rarely hit the park on the weekends. But the last two seasons, the line was only more than 5 or 6 cycles a handful of times when I was there.

Neat rumor and it sounds like it could be done, but my first thought is "why bother?"

+0

You must be logged in to post

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