Kinzel hints at 2011 ride in Sandusky Register

IIRC, Schwabinchen ended up at Strickers Grove. It was in such bad shape, it never got rebuilt. Similarly the Geauga Lake Spider went to Kings Dominion and also was in such bad shape, it never got rebuilt.

Oddly enough, Geauga Lake's Spider already had a significant amount of money and work poured into it before Geauga closed. I wonder where you draw the line on something like that...

One thing that nobody has mentioned yet...there has been a lot of talk about maintenance but what about operation? Flumes have a high operating cost because it takes a lot to pump that much water up 40 feet. (notice that the small flumes as at Camden do not pump their entire operating volume to the top of the lift hill, as White Water Landing did. Come to think of it, neither does Shoot the Rapids.). Also, how many crew people did White Water Landing require? Remember that in addition to the people loading the boats, there was an attendant on the first lift, and one or two attendants on the bridge over the final drop.

Cedar Point monitors the costs for a ride by computing the total cost for operating a ride, including maintenance, power consumption, crew costs, and other operating costs and dividing that by the number of rides given. That gives them a cost per ride given, and for older rides that are in good shape, that cost tends to be very low, even if ridership is low. But White Water Landing had a number of factors conspiring to keep the operating costs high. Removing it simplified the design and installation of Maverick, and with Shoot the Rapids, a ride which should have lower operating costs plus a little bit of "new ride smell" and a massive marketing push already green-lighted, I'm sure removing White Water Landing actually made good sense.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Operation schmoperation...there should be a law requiring parks to keep every ride! ;)

Jeff said:
Mike: Perhaps I didn't make my point clearly. Every point you disputed was in the context of a shrinking off-season and a ballooning overall maintenance budget. If you have less time to maintain rides, and more of them to maintain with essentially flat revenue, something has to give. The low hanging fruit immediately becomes a ride that needs a ton of work and already has a high cost-per-ride price to it (something I know CP keeps track of).

I guess within that context, the argument makes more sense. Of course, being a wet (relatively speaking, obviously) ride, the park could've simply closed the ride after each Labor Day if they needed more time to work on it. But I see what you're saying. And if maintenance costs are rising relative to revenue, that goes back to the argument I've made elsewhere, which is that the park is overbuilt -- or teetering on the edge of it.

Trust me, these kinds of decisions at CP are largely number-driven. Whether it was WWL or another ride, it doesn't matter... it was the cost. It's the same thing that forced Schwabinchen into retirement, and why they'd sooner get rid of Chaos and not the Scrambler.

Yeah, and I want to reiterate that I'm not pushing any kind of 'conspiracy' thing here (not that you're suggesting). It's funny how a few musings about how a park makes decisions about ride removals can turn into three pages of thread.

Rideman said:

Oddly enough, Geauga Lake's Spider already had a significant amount of money and work poured into it before Geauga closed. I wonder where you draw the line on something like that...

I remember that. In the park's last season, the Spider was completely disassembled for over a month. I assumed they were rebuilding the motor.

One thing that nobody has mentioned yet...there has been a lot of talk about maintenance but what about operation? Flumes have a high operating cost because it takes a lot to pump that much water up 40 feet. (notice that the small flumes as at Camden do not pump their entire operating volume to the top of the lift hill, as White Water Landing did. Come to think of it, neither does Shoot the Rapids.).

Really? I would think that the pumps for Thunder Canyon would take a lot more juice than WWL's little fiberglass trough.

Also, how many crew people did White Water Landing require? Remember that in addition to the people loading the boats, there was an attendant on the first lift, and one or two attendants on the bridge over the final drop.

I dunno. Many parks don't bother putting attendants on the lifts. By 2005, it would have been simple to put up a couple video cameras to monitor the boats. It doesn't seem like an exorbitant amount of staff for a semi-marquee ride. Probably no more than Sky Ride or CP&LE.

Cedar Point monitors the costs for a ride by computing the total cost for operating a ride, including maintenance, power consumption, crew costs, and other operating costs and dividing that by the number of rides given. That gives them a cost per ride given, and for older rides that are in good shape, that cost tends to be very low, even if ridership is low.

I get that. But could there be more to the decision than a simple cost breakdown?

But White Water Landing had a number of factors conspiring to keep the operating costs high. Removing it simplified the design and installation of Maverick, and with Shoot the Rapids, a ride which should have lower operating costs plus a little bit of "new ride smell" and a massive marketing push already green-lighted, I'm sure removing White Water Landing actually made good sense.

And there we go. All I was looking for. The operating and maintenance budget of the ride was an issue, but certainly not the only one, or even necessarily the overarching one, in opting for WWL's removal. Thanks, Dave! :)

Ensign Smith said:
Of course, being a wet (relatively speaking, obviously) ride, the park could've simply closed the ride after each Labor Day if they needed more time to work on it.

Between Labor Day and the End of the year, they pretty much have everyone working on Halloweekends stuff.

Yeah, that was something they talked about at CoasterStock @ Carowinds, and why you'll never see an Xmas event at the parks again.

White water landing could operate with 4 people. You need one at the top of the lift, another at the drop, and 2 in the station...one for load, and one for unload. There were some times durring colder weather, that the load person would do load AND unload. So you were down to 3 people.

You would need a 5th person durring the day to rotate lunch and break times.

This whole thread doesn't discuss why Cedar point didn't build a traditional flume to replace WWL. I get that the ride was old, and expensive to maintain. Another flume keeping with the same "feel" as the old one would have gone a long way with keeping me interested in the overall park.

...I know, I'm only one person. Maybe the newer technology, which still isn't working right by the way, is part of the new ride's appeal.

And so what if the ride was getting old and falling apart? Replace the trough with a new trough. Replace the broken pump with a new pump. If popularity was an issue, maybe a theme redo was in order. I think that they needed that land for their new coaster, and that was the biggest reason they got rid of WWL. Where else would they have put Maverick? The parking lot? lol

I can't wait to ride the flume at KI this Thursday! :) It doesn't even have a roller coaster track to guide it down the drops.

LostKause said:
This whole thread doesn't discuss why Cedar point didn't build a traditional flume to replace WWL.

Lord Gonchar said:

"to spite traditionalists."

Based on all this discussion, StR is a future money suck just waiting to happen. Someday this attraction will become too expensive to maintain, too costly to operate, etc.

"and the seasons they go round and round..."

When I think of CP, that's not the first Joni song that comes to mind. ;)

RatherGoodBear said:
Based on all this discussion, StR is a future money suck just waiting to happen. Someday this attraction will become too expensive to maintain, too costly to operate, etc.

"and the seasons they go round and round..."

Yes. Exactly.

And enthusiasts will complain then too.

Ensign Smith said:

Rideman said:

Oddly enough, Geauga Lake's Spider already had a significant amount of money and work poured into it before Geauga closed. I wonder where you draw the line on something like that...

I remember that. In the park's last season, the Spider was completely disassembled for over a month. I assumed they were rebuilding the motor.

My understanding is that significant work was done to the center cage, including the main tube, eccentric tube, and the all-important countershaft...the shaft with the brakes and clutches on it that drives the two back-end units to turn the main and eccentric rotations.

One thing that nobody has mentioned yet...there has been a lot of talk about maintenance but what about operation? Flumes have a high operating cost because it takes a lot to pump that much water up 40 feet. (notice that the small flumes as at Camden do not pump their entire operating volume to the top of the lift hill, as White Water Landing did. Come to think of it, neither does Shoot the Rapids.).

Really? I would think that the pumps for Thunder Canyon would take a lot more juice than WWL's little fiberglass trough.

Back when Dragster was built, Thunder Canyon was singled out as the #1 electric power consumer in the park, with its three (or is it four) giant pumps. White Water Landing didn't move as much water, but it had to lift it to a much greater height. Likewise, I suspect that Snake River Falls has some pretty wild power use but then most of the water in its upper channel does NOT necessarily get spilled down the drop.

Also, how many crew people did White Water Landing require? Remember that in addition to the people loading the boats, there was an attendant on the first lift, and one or two attendants on the bridge over the final drop.

I dunno. Many parks don't bother putting attendants on the lifts. By 2005, it would have been simple to put up a couple video cameras to monitor the boats. It doesn't seem like an exorbitant amount of staff for a semi-marquee ride. Probably no more than Sky Ride or CP&LE.

I was never entirely sure what the attendants on the lifts were for, but I think the person over the final drop was technically the ride operator.

But White Water Landing had a number of factors conspiring to keep the operating costs high. Removing it simplified the design and installation of Maverick, and with Shoot the Rapids, a ride which should have lower operating costs plus a little bit of "new ride smell" and a massive marketing push already green-lighted, I'm sure removing White Water Landing actually made good sense.

And there we go. All I was looking for. The operating and maintenance budget of the ride was an issue, but certainly not the only one, or even necessarily the overarching one, in opting for WWL's removal. Thanks, Dave! :)

I am, of course, only presenting a somewhat educated but uninformed guess. Why Cedar Point does what it does has always been rather mysterious.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

This whole thread doesn't discuss why Cedar point didn't build a traditional flume to replace WWL.

We can't discuss that because we don't know the exact reason. Only the suits at CP know.

I'm still not getting why they needed to replace WWL with a traditional flume, but that's just me.

LostKause said:
This whole thread doesn't discuss why Cedar point didn't build a traditional flume to replace WWL. I get that the ride was old, and expensive to maintain.

I gather that at least part of the reason the old flumes are so expensive to maintain has to do with the materials used in their construction. The traditional, elevated flume is made of fiberglass, which in comparison to concrete, is not durable, and will undoubtedly need to be repaired and/or replaced during the ride's life. Concrete lasts much longer, especially when it's not subjected to the same freeze-thaw cycle that roads are.

Obviously, it's not feasible to elevate a concrete trough for a number of reasons, so the trough is placed at grade level.

The only other major change was the boat, which is probably an inevitable change in this day-and-age. I suspect that even a "traditional" modern flume (elevated, fiberglass troughs) would have boats similar to StR's.

Another flume keeping with the same "feel" as the old one would have gone a long way with keeping me interested in the overall park.

Well, perhaps it would have kept you interested, but as has been noted countless times now, it's not like people were lining up in droves to ride WWL.

And so what if the ride was getting old and falling apart? Replace the trough with a new trough.

That still doesn't address the maintenance costs, though. That simply addresses the maintenance. That's akin to adding oil to a car that constantly burns it, rather than fixing the oil leak itself.

I think that they needed that land for their new coaster, and that was the biggest reason they got rid of WWL. Where else would they have put Maverick? The parking lot?

No, Maverick (or whatever name they would have given to the similar Intamin Mega-Lite) would have been designed to fit in wherever they decided to put it.

I know how Cedar Point feels. When I bought my first iPod I received all kinds of criticism. "Why didn't you buy the traditional Walkman," they all asked me incredulously. "A Walkman still works great and many others are still using them."

Hang in there, Cedar Point. ;)

And now that you're on your 5th iPod...

;)*

*Kidding! I'm an Apple Fanboy.

LostKause said:
I can't wait to ride the flume at KI this Thursday! :) It doesn't even have a roller coaster track to guide it down the drops.

Are you sure you want to do that? After all, KI took out its "good" flume in 2001 and replaced it with what is now a Rainbow in a box. By your standards I think that merits a lifetime boycott.

No, you only boycott the park when they take out their flyer...oh, wait.

Nevermind.

Buh-Zing!