Statement from Holiday World
I have one possible wrench to throw into your 'two train would add capacity theory', and I wonder what your thoughts are about it
Right now, when Raven hits the brakes before entering the station it does not completely stop. In fact, it retains quite a bit of speed as it enters the station. If they were to go to two train operation and always stacked, the waiting train would have to sit on the brakes until the first train cleared the station blocks, then be released and roll pretty slowly into the station. By the time the waiting train fully arrived in the station the first train would probably already be up the lift and on its way. It seems like the first train will be back on the brake run by the time the second one is fully unloaded. That's not going to create a huge capacity boost. At least not one big enough to justify extending the cost of moving the station forward the 20 or 30 feet it would require to make this happen.
By the way, nice to meet you at SRM (I was the guy holding the wetsuit in line for Legend)
------------------
Touchè, teacher, touchè.
I was at the park today; Raven was still closed, but the Legend was open. I'm not sure if I would call it stapling, they don't step on the bars, but they give you no extra room. They lowered my lapbar to 5 clicks.
--Ryan
Chuck, who remembers going UMPFF when the operator didn't do that once.
------------------
Charles Nungester.
It's official Lesourdsville Lake is closed for 2003
My point was that much of the time gained by having the second train would be eaten up by it sitting there waiting for train one to clear the station blocks, then being released and slowly rolling into the station, at which point train one would already be up the lift and on the course. Not that Raven is physically unable to come to a complete stop on the brake run.
------------------
Touchè, teacher, touchè.
Coasterbuf said:
After thinking about these situations, I've come to the conclusion that more needs to be done. I just find it strange that parks would be comfortable with restraints that can be rider defeated. It puts them at risk for higher insurance cost, lawsuits and can take a popular ride out of action for weeks or months resulting in lost revenue.I hear comments like "parks can't protect people from themeselves" and while that is true to some extent, having something rider defeatable...well... defeats the purpose of restraining in the first place doesn't it?
We have laws stating drivers and passengers in cars must wear their seatbelts. It's proven that seatbelts save lives. Yet there are people who do not wear seatbelts, and have increased their chances of getting seriously injured or killed in an accident. Should car manufacturers install automatic, locking seatbelts that will not unlock until the car is turned off?
The fact is we are all responsible for our own actions. The people who smoke and get lung cancer (who are now suing the tobacco companies), the people who eat loads of carb and fat filled fast foods and gain weight, clog their arteries and suffer severe health problems because of it (and are now suing fast food companies)...I could go on and on.
In this day and age, there are more people who always want to blame someone else, sue someone else for what is ultimately their own wrong doing. "You didn't warn me. You didn't stop me. You didn't pad the corners."
I'm sorry, I just don't buy that. If a ride is proven safe when certain posted and verbalized rules are followed, and no equipment, mechanical or operator error is involved, then I don't see why parks must go to further expense and extremes to protect people from themselves.
------------------
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
http://www.webtechnik.com/ebony/CPLady.htm
I don't see why parks must go to further expense and extremes to protect people from themselves.
They don't. My suggestions are not to protect people from themselves but for the parks to protect themselves from riders who don't follow rules. Protecting the actual misbehaving riders would just be a "side" benefit. And as I mentioned, a park protecting itself is not only guarding against lawsuits, but negative publicity and ride downtime/lost revenue plus the trauma of having a death in your park and the toll it takes on employees. Why wouldn't anyone want to avoid all that? I can't see any reason.
And as for the car seatbelt comparison...that's a whole different situation that doesn't affect a 3rd party hosting you as a guest. So should they make locking seatbelts? No. But I do think cars shouldn't start if you've been drinking. But the technology for that is too invasive (blowing into a tube to start your car) right now for that to be practical.
The interesting thing about comparing seatbelts on rides vs. cars is that people accept deaths in car crashes as just something that happens but would never accept the same principle on an amusement ride. If a ride killed as many people per year as autos do, it would be shut down and declared unsafe. Yet cars continue to run everyday.
You must be logged in to post
