No Coaster Con-SFGAM ?s
New rides (usually) don't work to "effectively increase overall capacity" because they work to draw in more people. Sure, if someone is in line for new ride A, they can't be in line for ride B. But if new ride A hadn't drawn in a number of people who wouldn't be there otherwise, then the line for ride B wouldn't be as long in the first place. That's why large parks need high capacity rides. Cedar Point seems to have a handle on that. Why can't you understand?
Joe: The 900pph was my mistake, as I was just going off memory alone. Still, to reach 700pph the crew would have to load and dispatch every twenty seconds. It's not going to happen. I'd be willing to bet the ride doesn't even get 500pph. And for a park the size of SFGAm, that's just poor.
Finally, I was simply rounding SFGAm's attendance up to 3 million. While it hasn't broken 3 million in awhile, (a) it clearly has the potential to, and (b) it usually comes a lot closer than it did this past season. After all, attendance was down this year *wish* a new ride. Normal attendance would be in the 2.7-2.8 million range. Next time I'll specify if you're going to nitpick. ;)
-Nate *** Edited 1/9/2004 8:38:46 PM UTC by coasterdude318***
I agree that the mouse won't touch 700pph, and I think 500pph is about what it will hit. But I think it's a perfect ride for the demographic SFGAm wants to target, so I'm willing to give up a two hundred or so pph for that ride (I'm a huge fan of capacity, too, mind you). Hell, if Deja Vu can't even do 500pph and its lines are about 1.5hrs long usually (right?), I honestly don't think the Mouse will be a problem, given the fact that a helluvalot more people will queue up for DV at any given moment. Thirty minutes average is my guesstimate, and no one can prove that wrong until the ride opens, so that argument is really over (we just agree to disagree there).
Rounding SFGAm's attendance up by 500,000 people eh. In that case, MiA did 1,000,000 this year, woo! Time for them to start playin' in the big leagues! ;) Just kidding - I really WISH SFGAm was up to the attendance it used to be at, I can't honestly think of one good reason why it's not. And like you stated, being down that much in a year that they received a brand new hi-tech B&M...well, I have no explanation for it.
At any rate, I totally understand your points about capacity and the need for it -- know one loves high capacity attractions more than I do (especially when they're run efficiently, ie Cedar Point). And I guess I'm hoping that this mouse will bring people in without having a horrendouse line. I think people will get off it with smiling faces like they usually do at other parks instead of complaining that they wasted 1.5hrs in line for it. :)
Joe "what were we talking about again?" C.
And I thought I specified that this time! :)
-Nate
redman822 said:
The way I look at it is this. If someone is in line for ride "A" they can't be in line for ride "B". Therefore, whether or not the new ride is "high capacity" or not, the PARK has increased capacity.
That's only true if the new rides' yearly capacity exceeds the new season's gain in attendance. If the new rides bring in more guests than the previous year, then the capacity of the park effectively decreases. If 2.575m people visited the park in 2003 (credit: AB), and if 2.65m people visit the park in 2004 (generous gain, yes), then the total capacity of the park's rides needs to increase by that amount as well.
I can't believe all the whining on here, as ClubXJeff stated, we are getting something new in a year where MANY of us expected to get NOTHING. last time I checked 4 is a hell of a lot better than 0.
I disagree. There are several rides I'd never want to see in several parks I like. In many cases, I think no ride is better than a poor ride. I realize some of you would cream over a new Chance Toboggan, but I'm not one of them (because I think logically).
Will I visit SFGAm in 2004? Yes. Why? Because I like the park, not because I care at all that they're adding 4 attractions I can ride elsewhere.
If it puts through 1/4 the people per hour, the park comes out ahead.
That's not necessarily true, either. If the park effectively pisses off enough guests by offering low-capacity attractions then they might not return, and that's not good for repeat business, especially if there are several other entertainment options in the area. I don't think that's necessarily going to happen in this case, but it's always a possibility when you install low-capacity attractions in highly-attended parks. At least this attraction isn't high-profile, and that might work to the park's advantage.
So if those four rides don't interest you why is their capacity concerns such a big deal to you? Go on a day when crowds are low, get your credit on the mouse, and then you never have to ride it again and be bothered by its long line.
mOOSH [was being sarcastic about the Toboggan]
Plagerists. :)
---------------
Man, that Theme song on "Joan of Arcadia" is awful.
My friends and I think that your arguments were pretty much backing my statements. You gave me the same explanations that I gave (SF) Great American. But if that is what you think about the way that ride ops are supposed to be in the beginning-that is your opinion. And regards to the rides that are supposed to crank people in and out-then answer for Dragster and Cedar Point. Long lines and roll backs. Not every ride has rollbacks, but there are certainly drawbacks to operating a new ride, right away. If you think that Dragster had a pristine record, then Deja Vu wasn't the best new ride and it was and is hard to get people on and off the ride-another cause for the ride's line to be long. But ride ops are supposed to be on top of their game. They are from open to close and i think that you don't appreciate everything that they have done to give everyone a ride. Before you say something else about my knowledge of new rides and operating them-know this-it's not the fancy facts that get you through the tough times at the ride, it is the experience that makes you a GOOD RIDE EMPLOYEE!!
And as far as Great America, don't worry about them and the choice of rides that they put in the park. Be glad that they are still around to entertain you and all of your friends. It's a theme park, not heaven-you won't encounter perfection.
And BTW, Legendary-How's life treating you?
If 2.575m people visited the park in 2003 (credit: AB), and if 2.65m people visit the park in 2004 (generous gain, yes), then the total capacity of the park's rides needs to increase by that amount as well.
Good point, I never thought of it that way.
If the park effectively pisses off enough guests by offering low-capacity attractions then they might not return, and that's not good for repeat business, especially if there are several other entertainment options in the area. I don't think that's necessarily going to happen in this case, but it's always a possibility when you install low-capacity attractions in highly-attended parks. At least this attraction isn't high-profile, and that might work to the park's advantage.
To show how you may be wrong, look at PKI. They added Drop Zone and Face/OFF. Anyone who has waited in those lines know they are *excrutiatingly* slow.
Drop Zone, for example, I've clocked jus the ride cycle time at 2:00. I'll say about two minutes to load/unload (being *very generous* here) and that's 600pph. For such a "signature" attraction at one of the busiest seasonal parks in the country, that's abysmal. Yet, you constantly see people lining up for it, getting off, and having the biggest grins ever on their faces. This ride brings people back, even with its low capacity.
Same goes for Face/OFF. That ride is insanely popular, almost always has a full queue (yes, some of this is because of the low capacity, which I estimate to be around 600pph as well) but people really do enjoy the ride and will queue up for it regardless.
My point is, adding low capacity attractions, if they're GOOD attractions, will not piss people off and make them not visit. It's sad in a way, because it means parks will continue to install low capacity rides, but that's just the way it is I guess.
Vertical Fanatic,
Life is treating me very well, I can't complain...might I ask who you are? And will you be attending No Coaster Con?
VerticalFanatic said:
coasterdude318-I think that you are off base when it comes to ride operators and operating rides. I don't think you know what all goes into being a ride operator at a new ride. You think that you do but you don't.
And what gives you this exclusive, supreme wisdom? Because you've worked at SFGAm you know how ride operations should work? Please. It's YOU who think you know but don't.
I worked at Great America and I didn't work at a new ride but I have witnessed and heard stories about the trials that ride operators went through in order to maintain a safe environment.
Congratulations. I've also worked for an amusement park. So tell me how that makes me wrong and you right.
The ride operators are usually hand picked to work at the new rides but they aren't given the needed experience until the day of opening-because of circumstances that couldn't be resolved at an orderly time.
But this is where you're mistaken. It's *not* just operators of new rides who don't have the necessary experience, it's operators at *every* ride in the park. On the first day of operation, basically everyone is new. Everyone is in the same boat. If the crew is picked correctly, operators on new rides have no excuses for poor operations for several reasons. I explained those above.
My friends and I think that your arguments were pretty much backing my statements.
Please tell me how "There's absolutely no reason a new ride shouldn't be able to crank people through like an old one" supports your argument. Because that was the basis of my reply to you.
And regards to the rides that are supposed to crank people in and out-then answer for Dragster and Cedar Point. Long lines and roll backs.
The crew I saw on Dragster was extremely effecient. Ride breakdowns and rollbacks are irrelevant to this discussion.
If you think that Dragster had a pristine record, then Deja Vu wasn't the best new ride
Because clearly SFGAm stuck one of the worst crews imaginable on that ride. Loading procedures on Deja Vu suck, but that's no excuse for ride operators to be sitting around and talking while they should be working. I've never seen a worse crew on a new ride.
i think that you don't appreciate everything that they have done to give everyone a ride.
I appreciate and respect operators who do their jobs well. I don't appreciate or respect those who are inexcuseably ineffecient. If operating rides is so tough for you, I recommend you find another job.
-Nate
Legendary said:
My point is, adding low capacity attractions, if they're GOOD attractions, will not piss people off and make them not visit. It's sad in a way, because it means parks will continue to install low capacity rides, but that's just the way it is I guess.
I can agree to that to a certain extent. I definitely agree that Face/Off and Drop Zone are crowd-pleasing attractions, and I particularly love both of those rides. Face/Off is low-capacity by nature, but Drop Zone should be a high capacity ride. The ride operators were painfully slow the day I was visiting, so I don't know if the ride always has low-capacity or if I was just riding while a bad crew was operating. I've only been there once, and I think it's a nice park, but efficiency just doesn't seem to be stressed at that park, and Cedar Point certainly does a better job in that department.
I guess my counter-argument is that a Reverchon Spinning Mouse is not an attraction that will make people smile after they wait a long time. I've been on two Reverchon spinning-mouse clones- Exterminator at Kennywood and some outdoor installation at an absolutely terrible family entertainment center in Myrtle Beach, SC. I really love Exterminator, but I think the outdoor version is lame.
Now, just as coasterdude has been saying, why not a higher-capacity family attraction? We all know that children, of all people, don't like to wait in line, so why add a low-capacity attraction that's supposed to be good for families? Mamoosh keeps saying that families spend money, but if the kids become cranky after waiting in line for a long time, then will they really be spending money? I think there are better, affordable family attractions for family rides. Actually, look at SFGAd's Skull Mountain. That's a wonderful attraction. It's small, it has the ability to run 3 trains (it ran 3 in 1996 and 1997), and it's a pretty fun ride, especially if you don't have to wait more than 15 minutes.
Anyway, just more thoughts.
If operating rides is so tough for you, I recommend you find another job.
Look, operating rides wasn't a tough job. The responsibilities that came along with it weren't as hard as staying true to the job title. If you can't do that, then all you are doing is taking up space, slowing the loading and unloading procedures. I was a damn good ride operator right up through the last day that I worked at Great America. I loved my job as more than the next guy. I, just like you enjoyed hearing the compliments and seeing the smiles of the riders as they got on and off the rides. Thank you for worrying about me and advising me to get a new job. I didn't think that you cared so much.
And the next time you want to argue about ride operators, remember what you said, "Everyone is in the same boat." No matter the years of experience, we are the people that get blamed for stolen items, broken rides, bad weather, bad attitudes, and everything else that is wrong at a theme park. But we all have to grin and bear it. Nothing separates us apart from each other,because we are all ride operators. Guests genuinely don't care about us. The only people that care about us, are the other ride operators. Think about that!
P.S. I never congratulated you on your promotion from sweeping midways in the park services department to PUSHING A BUTTON in the rides department. Be careful, it's a tough job, hereon out!
2) Being a ride op entitles me to no special privileges, like you seem to think it should. I still don't stand for lously crews, and I still don't stand for poor capacity. No truly good ride op shoud.
-Nate
Please.
The above paragraph is aimed at the SF chain as a whole.
We are going to have sit back for the "wait and see" approach with the new additions to SFGAm. Whether this new mouse is a good addition or not will be dictacted by the people that come through the gates for the 2004 season.
No-one here can say what is going to happen whether it be positive or negative.
See ya all on May 1st. :)
My favorite MJ tune: "Billie Jean" which I have been listening to alot now. RIP MJ.
When we or are kids(in my case) go on a ride we do depend on the ride op to do his job properly and make sure all restraints are on and hopefully by being observant they may detect problems and bring it to the attention of his supervisor before something bad can happen( as an example on the Big Thunder accident at dl if reports are true the ride ops did hear funny noises before the accident and were going to remove the train after the run that killed/hurt people, if they had done this prior to the accident the tragic incident could have been avoided, im not using this to blame them but how many times do ride-ops detect something wrong that could have resulted in injuries.)
When the ride-ops tell parents their kids are too small to ride(which is for their own good) i have often seen them cursed out and treated in a very crappy manner.
I think we should all appreciate the jobs that they do and dont be afraid to tell them when you think they are doing a great job im sure they hear alot more complaints then they do at-a-boys when they do a good job.
As for SFGAM i think the ride-ops overall do a very good job and i thought the crews for RB/Viper did a excellant job and showed excellant hustle as well as concern for the people riding the rides.
BTW: Im just asking so don't beat me up coasterdude318, what park do you work at? *** Edited 1/11/2004 9:30:18 PM UTC by Fanatic***
You must be logged in to post
