Geauga Lake wood coasters listed for sale

Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:03 PM
Well hopefully this squelches the rumors of Villian going to CP. Ugh.

It would seem to me that a wooden coaster would be much more complex to "move" than a steel coaster. I have a feeling these won't move very easily in the market.

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:07 PM
I don't see them moving at all. I'm not sure why Cedar Fair would offer the coasters for sale. Hardly anyone will ever know about the site so it can't be a move to save face... which they probably wouldn't move to do anyway, going by how they handled the closing of the park in the first place. Maybe they're hoping there's a slim chance some park will be interested and a sale will mean the company won't have to pay for demolition?
+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:18 PM
I still dont see why they couldnt try to incorporate Big Dipper into the park, much like the Columbus Zoo is doing with the Sea Dragon. This is a piece of American roller coaster history.
+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:32 PM
Three questions:

1. How much is BD selling for?

2. How much cash could we scrape together? I'm thinking primarily of us non-members, since paying members already have their money tied up in secret, noiseless forums. ;)

3. Who has a big enough back yard? Better have a wife with the tolerance of a saint, because you, lucky future back yard BD host, are going to be the most popular fellow in all of coasterdom.

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:42 PM
How silly to sell coasters without trains. Don't the trains cost millions by themselves?
+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:42 PM
I'll chip in the understanding wife if somebody else can put up the money and the land.
+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:42 PM
This is an honest question about something we started to touch on in this week's podcast.

If someone bought BD and carefully tore it down and moved it to another park, then rebuilt it and opened it to the public they would have 'saved' it and that's a good thing.

But what if that same person built an exact replica?

The Big Dipper's structure has been replaced several times over in the course of its life, for sure.

In a weird sort of abstract sense, it is already a replica of itself. Wood coasters have a 'life' like that - always changing.

So what's the big deal in 'saving' the ride (like Knoebels did with Phoenix) as opposed to recreating the ride (like Knoebels with Twister)? Especially as it's slowly been recreated time and time again over the last 83 years in the very spot where it sits.

Does that make sense?

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:45 PM
^^^^ re: #2.

Good one!... Though some (the non "riff raff") would consider that in itself noise.

^^^^^^ re: Not moving at all.

But it doesn't hurt to try... not from the sake of preservation, but for the sake of at least making some $$$ of of them.

^^^^^ re: Incorporated like Columbus Zoo.

But that is assuming that the land on that side of the lake is even going to stay as part of Geauga Lake and not become Lake View Apartments or The Park Shopping Center.

(This post has been specifically condensed as to eliminate as much noise as possible as to not upset those who are sensitive to things like that) *** Edited 11/7/2007 5:46:41 PM UTC by SLFAKE***

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:53 PM
Just can't help but believe that it would be *reasonable* for M-V to keep their ride brokerage business separate and distinct from the business of building/rebuilding/maintaining wooden coasters.

Keeping distinct "subdivisions" has many benefits, (accounting, legal, and otherwise) for those companies who know how to take advantage of the practice...

edit: Saw millrace's post/link. "Family coaster", as pictured, is in fact Triple Hurricane. Terrible name, pretty good coaster for the family crowd. The more M-V work I get to sample, the better I like them. Wonder if they're hiring? ;)

*** Edited 11/7/2007 5:59:15 PM UTC by rollergator***

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 12:56 PM

But what if that same person built an exact replica?

My guess: the amount of effort it would take to get the detailed measurements for a *precise* replica would come close to equaling the deconstruction costs.

As an aside: Occam's Razor fails me again. *** Edited 11/7/2007 5:57:35 PM UTC by Brian Noble***

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:04 PM

Lord Gonchar said:
Does that make sense?

It makes complete sense. I think the only difference is wether or not the wood is in a condition worth saving or not. When Meteor was rebuilt at Little A-Merick-A, it was almost all new wood. Does that mean it isn't the same coaster? Has the soul of the coaster been destroied? I don't think so. If BD were bought and moved, there's a high probablity that a lot of wood would get replaced even if they didn't start from scratch. Just by virtue of the fact that wood needs to be replaced from time to time.
*** Edited 11/7/2007 6:10:26 PM UTC by Jason Hammond***

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:26 PM
That brings up another good point.

How much has to be used from the original before a coaster is 'rebuilt' and not 'saved'?

Could someone go nab a single plank off of Big Dipper, then rebuilt it to the same specifications and dimentions and call it relocated and claim to have saved the ride from extinction?

Is a rebuilt or recreated coaster worth as much as a relocated or saved coaster? Why or why not?

Just trying to understand. :)

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:29 PM
To me, if they built the coaster to the exact specifications of the existing (including the station) and used the same trains, it would be good enough to say it was Big Dipper.

But, I think that's subjective.

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:31 PM
It's just like the guy who went to a flea market and found George Washington's hatchet for sale. "Is that really George Washington's hatchet?" he asked incredulously.

The seller assured him that, indeed, it was. "Although it's had some work done. First, the handle rotted away, so it was replaced. Then the blade rusted to nothing, so we had to replace that too. But it occupies the exact same place in space/time, so it's still his hatchet."

There is something about this concept of continuity that is logically askew, yet somehow makes psychological sense. If I go to see the Platters or Drifters in concert, and all the original members have one by one died off or retired, and been replaced by singers that sounded like them, I still get the feeling that I'm seeing THE Platters or THE Drifters. Much more so than if I had gone to see what was billed as a cover band of the Platters. Even though the former has no more claim to legitimacy than the latter.

So I guess if the Cyclone ever gets moved and rebuilt from the ground up, it'll still be the Cyclone. But if an exact replica gets made, like Psyclone (okay, not exact, but you get it) it's only a replica. Same with BD.

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:35 PM
Good points, Gonch... especially about wood coasters more of less taking on a life of their own. I remember talking to someone at Dorney who told me that there is no original material left on Thunderhawk. Geauga Lake's Big Dipper was rebuilt many times, including a complete tear down and rebuilt in 1980 or 81, I believe. It brings up an excellent debate:

What makes a wood coaster original, and at what point does the best preservation option go from relocation to replica?

Lake Compounce's Wildcat was completely rebuilt in 1986. I am 99% certain I remember reading somewhere that 98% of the ride was replaced and the 2% that remained was enough to qualify the coaster as original instead of replicated. That makes no sense to me whatsoever, leading me to wonder if I'm getting those facts all messed up. I'm inclined to believe that a coaster remains "original" if the location remains the same during a rebuild or the profile remains the same during a relocation.

Silly as it sounds, I have to think that the idea of preservation matters more than the preservation itself. If you followed the relocation of the Hillcrest Little Dipper to Little Ammericka, you know that much of the original wood was replaced. Something tells me the same can be said of the Starliner at Cypress. From a construction standpoint, those are really new rides that incorporate some older material, yet because the attempt was made to relocate them, they are actually rebuilt. Dos that make any sense? (not that I'm saying that's the way things are, just offering a little perspective here.)

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:35 PM
If I've ridden one Batman: The Ride, is that the same as saying I've ridden them all?

Maybe not for a purist. Most people consider location differences sufficient for adding to their track record. But if it looks and feels the same, I say it is the same.

*** Edited 11/7/2007 6:38:12 PM UTC by Pagoda Gift Shop***

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:45 PM
During the CF conference call, somebody mentioned that after costs of dismantling, moving, pouring new concrete, reassembly blah blah blah, GL's steel attractions cost roughly '50 cents on the dollar' compared to buying them new.

Makes sense with a $8-9 million Impulse or a B&M costing in the teens of millions, but at some point, there are diminishing returns on dismantling and moving a coaster. Perhaps with a hybrid like Villian, it may be worth doing at 50 cents on the dollar. Little A-Merrick-A got the Dipper for tens of thousands, if memory serves me correctly. But at what price/savings point is it no longer worth doing?

-'Playa

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:45 PM
The thing with cloned coasters is that most have subtle details and nuances that play a big part in the overall experience. Location, atmosphere, maintenance, park operations... they're all stuff that can make or break a ride. For all those reasons, I love Morey's Sea Serpent boomerang but pretty much despised Knott's ride.
+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 1:56 PM

Ensign Smith said:
There is something about this concept of continuity that is logically askew, yet somehow makes psychological sense.


Rob Ascough said:
Silly as it sounds, I have to think that the idea of preservation matters more than the preservation itself.

Oh no! It's the thinker vs feeler thing again! ;)

I don't really have a point to the whole thing. Like I said, it kind of came up in brief on the podcast and this was the perfect opportunity to ask some of you guys who are all about the preservation thing.

I'm not sure there is a single 'correct' answer.

+0
Wednesday, November 7, 2007 2:01 PM
There really isn't. That's why I suggested that the "intent" might have a lot to do with it. We all know that Little Ammerricka relocated the Little Dipper and turned it into Meteor, but what if it was announced that the park was building a new wood coaster and the Little Dipper was purchased merely for parts? If it wasn't put forth as a preservation effort, would it be a preservation effort?

If anything, it makes for an interesting discussion.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...