Six Flags - Flagship Park?
Anywho, about the "stacking for the length of the course".. I think he was talking about time wise.. for example, TTD's course is about 15 seconds long. So, if the stacking is for longer than 15 seconds, that train probably is not helping, however. In general, ride lengths are approximately 2 minutes, so if a train is stacking for >= 2 minutes, then it's not helping capacity. If, however, it's stacking for 1:30, it is, indeed, helping capacity.. just not much (maybe 10 people per hour). At that point you need to think if it's worth making the guests unhappy that they're waiting in break runs that long.
people who talk about it the most have the least.
Po' folks rap about dey bling bling
'short' folks yap about their thing thing.
Toodles!
-CO
*** Edited 1/5/2005 9:38:37 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
coasterdude318 said:
As stated above, I am not a teenager (a simple check of my profile should reveal that information, but perhaps that's too much work for you).
I can't shake picturing everything you write as being spoken in the Simpsons "comics guy" voice.
The only person acting like a child in this thread is you, and that's more than obvious.
Ok, new rule. I'll only call you an asshole every time you use the words "obvious" or "idiot." Having said that, you're an asshole.
Ok, this has nothing to do with what you know or don't know. This has to do with what you witnessed on a given operating day.
No, you misunderstood. It has to do with figuring it out mathematically. As I said before, the cycle time of TTD is simply not long enough to allow for five trains to operate without significant stacking.
So. For the record. You're saying it's not possible, in any situation, for a fifth train to help TTD's capacity. They've been operating 5 trains all season for no reason. It's no help whatsoever. Ok...
The fifth may give an illusion of greater capacity, but it does nothing.
Better still, you are insinuating that they run the fifth train as a... trick for a gullible GP?
Your most recent post is really a gem - pure genius. Nothing says "mature" more than hurling jokes about penis size.
I was trying to lighten the tone of this nightmarish thread neither of us can pull away from. But I see you'd prefer to be a miserable bastard.
now, I sincerely try not to think about this stuff. I just like riding roller coastersAfter seeing your arguments, I'd recommend not trying to think about them. It's too much for you.
I pepper my posts with self-derogatory statements to hopefully get you to stop behaving like a gigantic asshole. But it doesn't work... oh well.
I mean, your statement implies that if a train stacks for longer then say, 10 seconds that it's then not doing any good.
No, that's not what I said. I said "significant" stacking.
I said you implied it, not said it.
You can't compensate for a poor crew by throwing on another train. If you want to improve capacity, you need to speed up your crew.
What are you arguing for precisely? Do you think there's tons of parks in the country that stack past the extra train(s) doing any good because of slow crews? Do you think this is an actual problem, or something? Dude, you're on crack. I just visited a whole lot of parks. The only rides where I saw a crew so slow they extinguished any good a 2nd train would do were Gwazi at BGT and Predator at SFDL. You're talking about rare instances. Even so, this isn't why Six Flags rarely runs their **** at full capacity, and I certainly hope that's not what you're implying.
If I am forced to think about it, in 2 train operation, that second train is helping as long as it doesn't stack for the entire length of the courseWell, that's incorrect, because in two-train operation, a train can't stack for the entire length of the course. As soon as a train leaves the station to proceed through the course, the second train moves into the station.
You're being an asshole again. What I mean is, in 2 train operation, if the train stacks for the amount of time it takes for an average course, plus people exiting, that's the amount of time passed where the exra train is being wasted. I'm not asking for you to think of it in a strictly physical sense, it's meant as a way to come up with how much time before the extra train is being completely wasted.
(2) A good-to-decent crew should be able to unload and load in between 60 and 90 seconds. On most rides, if that dispatch interval is being met, stacking won't happen.
You have a great talent for saying nothing, or just something obvious, and acting like you're saying something.
It's not until you get into the difference between 2 and 3 train operation that times get tight enough that this has any meaning. Let's look at a sample coaster, say, one from one of your favorite parks - Nitro at Great Adventure.
According to the rcdb, Nitro has a 4 minute duration. So how long would a second train have to be stacked on Nitro before it's being wasted? I'd say about 4:15. Because even if the second train stacked for an agonizing, full 4 minutes, it would still be helping more then single train operation, because in single train operation you'd still have to wait for the riders to exit, and that would be 15 extra seconds on each ride, and that's if the dispatch time was as long as 4 minutes!
Ok, now let's consider Nitro with 3 train operation. Now it gets tighter because we need to halve that time. So 2 minutes, plus however long exiting takes (about 15 seconds, I again figure). So as long as the train behind doesn't stack for longer then 2 minutes, 15 seconds (consistently!), the third train is helping capacity.
What's funny is, we're not even arguing anything here. The only reason I've bothered to explain this is I wanted to get across that "significant" stacking is indeed pretty ****ing significant. If you stack even for a full minute in three train operation, it's still pretty likely that third train is helping on an average coaster.
What we want ideally is for 2 trains to leave the station and to have two trains coming right in to load up more victims, I mean riders.Right, but with TTD's short cycle is just isn't possible to accompish that because it means you have to dispatch two trains every 40-45 seconds.
I think the fifth train does help with pairing, because you want two stacked and waiting to move in while the fifth is on it's course.
In four train operation on TTD, you can run into a circumstance where two trains move out, but a single train enters the station. Why? Because there are still people getting off the fourth train. So now, train 3/platform 1 starts loading in, but train 4/ platform 2 doesn't. It's a few seconds behind. Ideally, I think they want to dispatch those 2 trains from the 2 platforms together. If both don't enter the station together, having "stacked," then either they need to wait for the second platform train (train 4) to come in and load, or dispatch each seperately. It seems like the system is set up to dispatch them together as the easiest option. This is where the fifth train helps, there's then never any waiting for that second train, they are always stacked together, waiting to come in as the first two move out.
I keep being accused of being wrong by you 2 when all I've generally said was statements of opinion.Not exactly. You've argued some basics of capacity and blocking that you don't understand. For instance, earlier in this thread you essentially stated that an additional train ALWAYS helps capacity. That's simply not true.
I did? Actually, I think I made fun of someone that suggested that more trains decreased capacity with a bad crew. I would say, as I did earlier in this thread, that it's a very rare instance, in my experience, where I witnessed an extra train not helping capacity. And shockingly, both times I did witness that it was with 2 train operation, not 3.
I see this is all very difficult for you to understand, much like the basics of blocking and capacity. You should read through it slowly a few times to make sure you understand before proceeding with another post filled with "asshole" and bad penis jokes.
I see you continue... to be a giant asshole. Congratulations. And since you requested a bad penis joke:
sorry, I'm out of time. You'll have to wait till my next post for a bad penis joke. :)
-Jim;)
*edit* - even being waaaaay over here, Nate can get on my bits at times but he does it in a knowledgable way. Sure, he is the Walter Matthau of Buzz at times but that's what makes him loveab, er crabby and it's all that that gives me a warm(ish) glow about this place ;)
-Jimvy, that will be all for now lol - maybe I should stop drinking beer now ;)
*** Edited 1/5/2005 10:40:43 PM UTC by invy***
rdreaming said:I think the fifth train does help with pairing, because you want two stacked and waiting to move in while the fifth is on it's course.
In four train operation on TTD, you can run into a circumstance where two trains move out, but a single train enters the station. Why? Because there are still people getting off the fourth train. So now, train 3/platform 1 starts loading in, but train 4/ platform 2 doesn't. It's a few seconds behind. Ideally, I think they want to dispatch those 2 trains from the 2 platforms together. If both don't enter the station together, having "stacked," then either they need to wait for the second platform train (train 4) to come in and load, or dispatch each seperately. It seems like the system is set up to dispatch them together as the easiest option. This is where the fifth train helps, there's then never any waiting for that second train, they are always stacked together, waiting to come in as the first two move out.
please forgive the quote of the immediately preceeding post, I just wanted to make it easier for people to skim past the nonsense to the pertinent information.
rdreaming, the funny thing is that I agreed with your arguments, but you've succeeded in alienating one of your "allies". I agree with the part that I quoted, but the rest of your post is, mostly, sophomoric and uncalled for. Especially since you've graduated into the swears that DO get *'ed out. Yes, we may be adults. But there ARE kids who read the board even if they don't post. It's not a matter of the quality of their being raised, but decency. Regardless, why resort to acting like a kid and thinking profanity magically helps people understand you?
dannerman said:
rdreaming, the funny thing is that I agreed with your arguments, but you've succeeded in alienating one of your "allies".
No need for allies so no worries. I can take care of myself. As for cussing, I just type the post, the curse censor will take care of any words that the mods/owners don't want here, and for my part I avoid trying to "beat" the filter. And really, I don't think cursing helps or hurts my arguement, it's just how I write and speak.
Wow, I'm still angry at that guy. Jeesh.
So um... my guess (totally a guess) is SF doesn't think in terms of "flagship park." But if I had to pick the star of the chain from the ones I've visited, it would be Six Flags Over Texas. Fiesta Texas was the best operated and had the best vibe, but Six Flags Over Texas combined that with a great collection of rides. Just my opinion. :)
But to hell with the facts! Stick your head back in your favorite undeleted word and say whatever you want.
I'm sure it sounds really official with an echo and all.
-CO
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
rdreaming said:I'm still angry at that guy. Jeesh.
Stop and thinking about this. You're arguing over the internet about two roller coasters' capacity... yeah that's something to get all fired up about. And if he makes you that mad, just don't come back to this thread or at least don't reply, because like always, it only makes things worse. I know I've ruffled some feathers before, but I didn't turn it into this.
Props for liking SFOT though! ;)
*** Edited 1/6/2005 3:47:25 AM UTC by The Shy One***
CoastaPlaya said:But to hell with the facts! Stick your head back in your favorite undeleted word and say whatever you want.I'm sure it sounds really official with an echo and all.
I was aware of that post when I wrote what I wrote. But I'm dropping it. The echo chamber comment, however, rocked. Peace and love. :)
rdreaming said:
I pepper my posts with self-derogatory statements to hopefully get you to stop behaving like a gigantic asshole. But it doesn't work... oh well.
-----------------
Snobs really piss me off. Which is, I think, what is rubbing me the wrong way about you 2, and compelling me get into this mega-*****fest with you.
-----------------
Is this a reference to your penises? And their current state? Cuz I'm creeped out now.
-----------------
Wow, I'm still angry at that guy. Jeesh.
Wow. Did I just step back into 8th grade? Penis insults. Angry over an argument with someone you've never met. Profanity. That, to me, really shows your maturity level.
You say nate has a knack for saying nothing and making it sound like something. You have a knack for saying nothing and making it sould like an angry little kid using big expletitives to make yourself look 'cool' and 'adult' in front of your friends. I don't need to hurl insults, I think everyone here can see just fine that you've shot yourself in the foot every time you've vomited letters onto the screen. Nice job.
Oh, and Tuan, I am the dramaqueen;).
Meanwhile, back at the ranch...
-CO
*** Edited 1/6/2005 5:09:39 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
rdreaming said:According to the rcdb, Nitro has a 4 minute duration. So how long would a second train have to be stacked on Nitro before it's being wasted? I'd say about 4:15. Because even if the second train stacked for an agonizing, full 4 minutes, it would still be helping more then single train operation, because in single train operation you'd still have to wait for the riders to exit, and that would be 15 extra seconds on each ride, and that's if the dispatch time was as long as 4 minutes!
That's insane. Do you realize what you're saying? If a train stacks for four minutes, the ride cycle becomes eight minutes long. There can't even be eight trains sent an hour.
Your logic fails, however, not because it's incorrect, but because it's incomplete. If the implication is that it takes eight minutes to load a train, a second train can never be "wasted." The dispatch interval can be defined as time to load (and dispatch) a train, t, plus the time between loadings, say b. When t is constant, it becomes quite obvious that dispatch interval (thus, capacity), becomes decided by the amount of time between loading trains. Obviously, b with two trains must be smaller than b with one.
I did? Actually, I think I made fun of someone that suggested that more trains decreased capacity with a bad crew. I would say, as I did earlier in this thread, that it's a very rare instance, in my experience, where I witnessed an extra train not helping capacity. And shockingly, both times I did witness that it was with 2 train operation, not 3.
More trains may very well decrease capacity, but it's based on the fact that it disallows a crew the chance for a breather between loading.
Now that I feel so high and mighty as I'm not arguing, put me in my place.
Sirloindude, who is here for the love of coasters (and who thinks Tekno is far too modest about his skills in comedy).
13 Boomerang, 9 SLC, and 8 B-TR clones
CoastaPlaya said:
Of course you could always READ THE THREAD back on page 2, where Mr. Burke himself told everybody publicly last month that SFGAM and SFGADV were the key markets and SFGadv's spending plans were the key to the future.But to hell with the facts! Stick your head back in your favorite undeleted word and say whatever you want.
I'm sure it sounds really official with an echo and all.
-CO
And you actually buy that speil? Next year he'll be saying the same thing about two "other" key parks in the chain. He absolutely has to justify why SFGadv and SFGam are receiving such large capital investments in a time when the company should be making chain wide cuts. Not that these parks aren't major players, but if you look closely you can clearly see SF's new plan of attack. Hymmm... I wonder which *two* parks will be receiving $20 plus-million investment next year.... ;)
You must be logged in to post
