Filings show Kings Island ride will be a B&M hypercoaster

Posted Wednesday, July 9, 2008 1:17 AM | Contributed by Dane186

Drawings filed by Kings Island with the City of Mason Planning Department provide new clues about the ride under construction. They describe a coaster 4,200 feet long, based on scale drawings. It will span from just behind International Street and the Eiffel Tower and over the Rivertown area, between The Crypt and Potato Works and over into what appears to be a wooded area. It is designed by B&M and described as a hypercoaster.

Read more from The Dayton Daily News.

Related parks

Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:05 PM
I wonder how many media types are reading this thread looking for insight.

Looking at the mud pit behind Tomb Raider last weekend, the elevation goes WAY down and then back up and to the left where the turnaround will likely be. Most of the ride looks like it will be tree-less, since the clearing is quite wide.

Thursday, July 10, 2008 7:46 PM
I think if you look at the top view and see most of vortex and compare the span of this new B&M hyper coaster, you realize that this ride will be likely around 5000+ feet long. Vortex is 3800 feet long, and this ride takes up a much bigger footprint. I think Jeff and the others are right that its going to be a bit longer than the articles reported 4200 feet , especially if that value was based on just scaling the top view and not accounting for any elevation changes.

This ride really has the potential to be very good and a top 10 ride. The setting combined with the typical quality of B&M hyper coasters should make for a really good ride.

A few questions still remain for me, such as whether the entrance or exit to the ride will be on the pathway on the lake or will the entrance be on the side in rivertown (by the log-flume, etc). Also will it have a block brake and run 3 trains, or will it run 2 trains.

The general layout as well as hints of the name sort of end alot of the speculating of what they are getting. But now just have to wait for the details of the layout.

Thursday, July 10, 2008 8:26 PM
The ride doesn't need a MCBR to run three trains, it simply needs four blocks.
Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:10 PM
Well of course you need one more block than # trains, but if you look at most coasters that run 3, they typically have 5 or more blocks. Typically you want to be able to have safety and ready brakes, so you can have two trains on a brake run and one in station. That way the chances of the ride setting up on the block brake are very slim.

You could run 3, without a block brake efficiently if you have a seperate unload and load like a few rides have (Millenium Force being an example). If you look at a ride like Son of Beast, one of the real confusing things about its design is that they expected it to run 3 trains but yet can only have one train on the brake-run. If you had a longer brake run that could have two seperate blocks, than you wouldn't have to worry about it setting up in the block brake, and could have run 3 rather well.

Mamoosh, I think the only B&M ride that runs 3 trains that does not have a midcourse is Dueling Dragons, but it also has a seperate unload. I can't think of a B&M hyper coaster that has 3 trains and no block brake.*** This post was edited by Beast Fan 7/10/2008 9:10:44 PM ****** This post was edited by Beast Fan 7/10/2008 9:14:41 PM ***

Thursday, July 10, 2008 10:56 PM
Magnum has run three trains fine for 19 years without a true "midcourse" brake. IMO, the separate load/unload station thing is a waste of staffing and time, and makes the whole loose article thing a bigger issue.
Friday, July 11, 2008 12:57 AM
I can't think of a B&M hyper coaster that has 3 trains and no block brake.

Right....and? Before Hulk I couldn't think of a B&M looper that launched. Before Medusa I couldn't think of a B&M that was floorless. Before Oblivion I couldn't think of a B&M with a vertical drop.

What's your point?

Friday, July 11, 2008 2:54 AM
^Really, because I couldn't think of a B&M with a vertical drop until SheiKra...;)

Friday, July 11, 2008 7:26 AM
Just to give some idea on how much the 4200' length is wrong (assuming that's a measurement that doesn't take ride or ground elevation into account), let's turn to our good friend Pythagoras and his theorem

Let's say a hill in the middle of the ride is 45 degrees steep coming and going and is 100' tall and covers 200' on flat, level ground. The hill in this example is basically two right triangles that share a side. A little math tells you a hypotenuse of around 140'. That's 280' of track for the hill with very, very sharp transitions at the bottoms and top

Given that, my guess is that this ride will be over a mile long. Do I get partial credit for this story problem?? :)

*** This post was edited by ShiveringTim 7/11/2008 7:26:34 AM ***

Friday, July 11, 2008 12:44 PM

Before Hulk I couldn't think of a B&M looper that launched...

Perhaps it's not your intention, but you're coming off as awfully nitpicky.

Hulk was launched because it solved a problem Universal had (fitting in a large coaster without an exceptionally tall lift). Medusa was a new kind of ride. Neither is a very good comparison to what is being discussed here.

Given B&M's history, and the fact that there's really no logical reason why the new ride at Kings Island would need a separate unload station, I think it's probably safe to assume that if the coaster runs three trains, there will be a midcourse. Yes, it's technically true that a coaster doesn't need a midcourse to run three trains. But it is certainly more likely than not that a three-train B&M will have a midcourse.


Friday, July 11, 2008 12:50 PM
Perhaps it's not your intention, but you're coming off as awfully nitpicky.

The point I was making is that just because we've never seen something from B&M doesn't mean their next new coaster won't have it. Prior to Behemoth would anyone have suspected we'd see a train with 4-across split seating?

So just because all their speed coasters that run three trains have a MCBR does that automatically mean Mustang will? No.

The fact that I came off as nitpicky or an a-hole is just a bonus :)

Friday, July 11, 2008 1:06 PM
No, the PKI ride won't automatically have a midcourse if it has three trains. But I think it's pretty likely, and that's the point I was making. After all, what's the point in spending the extra cash on a separate unload station when it's not at all necessary (and would actually hurt capacity in this case)?


Friday, July 11, 2008 1:23 PM
So if it has no MCBR that means it has to have a separate load/unload? What color is the sky on the planet you live on? lol
Friday, July 11, 2008 3:33 PM
If it runs three trains? Yes, there would be two stations, because otherwise there's no point in running three trains in the first place.

*** This post was edited by coasterdude318 7/11/2008 3:33:37 PM ***

Friday, July 11, 2008 3:40 PM
OK, lol.
Friday, July 11, 2008 3:52 PM
Am I missing something obvious? Since you apparently find a lot of humor in this, I'd love for you to provide an example of a single-station coaster that runs more than two trains without a midcourse. Especially with an extremely easy-to-load hypercoaster, the only reason to build a 3-train ride without a midcourse is when a midcourse isn't a viable option, in which case a second station is used (see Millennium Force).


Friday, July 11, 2008 4:13 PM
Hey Nate:

Friday, July 11, 2008 4:46 PM
Hmm...I didn't think about Magnum. My hunch is that it would be a higher capacity ride with a midcourse, since dispatch intervals could be smaller. It would also eliminate the need for the looooong, meandering trip back to the station.

I'm not really sure why Arrow chose to set up Magnum the way they did (but then again, many of the things Arrow did don't make any sense to me). I can't think of another example (stateside at least) where it's been done again.

More to the point, would it really make any sense for PKI to build a hypercoaster with three trains and a single station? What would be the point? Just based on what B&M has done in the past, I think it's far, far, far more likely that they won't change a formula that was worked for them since the beginning.

-Nate*** This post was edited by coasterdude318 7/11/2008 4:48:34 PM ***

Friday, July 11, 2008 5:04 PM
Magnum's limitation is the lift, and a mid-course wouldn't help. When the train crests the second hill, they can dispatch the next. That's like five seconds after it clears the lift. When the second train is half way up the lift, the previous one is coming in through the safety block adjacent to it.

In other words, unless you could have two trains on the lift, no other block would help.

And I agree, Nate, that there isn't a good reason to deviate from what they've been doing.

Friday, July 11, 2008 5:41 PM
I don't doubt that Mustang will have a MCBR to accommodate three-train operation. I never said it wouldn't. I just don't buy into the notion that it must have one to run three trains because, well, that's what B&M has always done.
Friday, July 11, 2008 7:27 PM
Mamoosh, your missing a big part, the large reason that you either have a block brake is that it is the most logical solution. Magnum is sort of the exception in that it runs 3 trains, and does not have a block brake or seperate unload or load. It is probably due to it having a very long lift. The other exeption of running 3 trains and no block brake is having a 2nd lift, such as mine trains or some suspended coasters, etc. In that case the 2nd lift is the other block and seems to work fine.

The ride is having 1-lift so that is not a consideration.

There is a reason B&M and most other companies have designed their rides in such a manner.

The main concern if you do not have a seperate unload and load and have no block brake, is that there is a good chance that a train will be stacked in the brake run. The unload station can help solve this problem since the stacked train is no issue since the guest get off at that point.

Based on the drawings, the station appears to be where unloading and load gates takes place. I don't see a seperate unload station, so do not see that coming.

Its not so much the logic of they have never done it before so they will not do it, but its more the concept of what is the best way to design a coaster with three trains and what is the most logical approach.

*** This post was edited by Beast Fan 7/11/2008 7:31:45 PM ***


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC