Stations in the Sky

Yes, it would. If the top of the lift is the same elevation between two coasters, the train will enter the brakes at a lower speed at 1 foot off the ground than it would if the brakes were 17 feet above it. It wouldn't be a whole lot, but if you look at the wear over time, then that adds up.

I'm still not saying if you build on ground you need a basement. You do NOT. I just pointed out the SUF (SFOG) is built right on the ground, the computers and electronics, and machinery are also on the ground, right next to eh station or under the brakes (due to it being built into a hillside. The track of SUF at SFOG actually goes "negative" (my term for below the station track elevation. The train comes back up and loses speed before it returns to the brakes.

There are exceptions to everything, though. Space can be a "limiter" to determine the station and brake line elevation.

I think it's a simple way of maximizing what you have.

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

How many of you guys have ever been under a station. It's pretty busy under there. Especially under a station that is really complex like a floorless.

Great Bear and Apollo's Chariot both have stations that are built on hill sides. The only major coaster I can think of that has a station built on the ground is Volcano. Everything complex is overhead though on Volcano.

As for lift length, a foot of elevation in the station saves about 2' of track length on the lift with normal slopes.

If a station is on the ground and you use two sided loading, then you either have to build a bridge over the track, or a tunnel under. Bridges are cheaper and are often seen on log flumes and raft rides where the vehicles pretty much have to be on grade.

I don't think there's really much of a reason for it. Less wear and tear on the brakes doesn't do it much good either... As mentioned, TTD hits the breaks at incredibly high speeds. Many new Intamins rides hit the breaks coming off a hill, Overbanked Turn, etc. I have however noticed that most, if not all B&M rides ascend into the break run.

------------------
Never Has Gravity Been So Uplifting.

Did you notice that the aforementioned Intamin rides use magnetic brakes, resulting in no wear at all?

But I do concede (if my theory is accurate) that there will exceptions where different factors will lead to different placements of brakes, station height above ground, and so on.

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Exactly. You can throw out *any* Intamin ride with magnetic brakes from this argument, because magnetic brakes have no wear and tear. That's *exactly* why B&M rides ascend into the brakes while Intamin rides don't - there is wear and tear with the B&M rides, and not with the Intamins (magnetic brakes).

It's not a difficult concept, and GP explained it pretty well. Basically, the higher the station the slower the train is going when it hits the brakes, as long as the lift does not change height (in relation to the ground...ie elevation) in either case. And the slower the train when it hits the brakes, the shorter the brake run can be, and the less wear and tear on the ride (assuming friction brakes).

It would do some of you well to read the thread before you try to wow the rest with your ill-informed rebuttal.

-Nate

Wow... for once, we didn't butt heads in the same topic!

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Right. And so Nitro's trims brakes which are hit going, what 65 MPH, have to be replaced every other train. C'mon. These brakes are doing just fine.

------------------
Be polite and ignore the idiots. - rollergator
"It's not a Toomer" - Arnold Schwartzenkoph

Trims don't stop the train and they certainly don't undergo the stresses that the main brakes do.

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

---

ApolloAndy said:
Right. And so Nitro's trims brakes which are hit going, what 65 MPH, have to be replaced every other train. C'mon. These brakes are doing just fine.

------------------
Be polite and ignore the idiots. - rollergator
"It's not a Toomer" - Arnold Schwartzenkoph

---

Trims slow the train down marginally whereas the main block brakes slow the train down to a near or complete stop. Look at B&M brakes when you stop on them and you can hear and see the type of wear and tear they go through.

I am well aware of what the purpose between trims and block brakes are. However, if brake wear were a big issue, why would Nitro's brakes be at the bottom of drops rather than at the tops like Bull's? And no, the answer is not because it kills the air. The train will still travel the crest of the hill at the same speed (if the brakes are set correctly) whether the trim is at a low point or a high point.
------------------
Be polite and ignore the idiots. - rollergator
"It's not a Toomer" - Arnold Schwartzenkoph

I've seen B&M trims all over the place (top, bottom, middle). I'm sure there's a method to the madness, but it's probably not related to the topic, either.

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
*** This post was edited by General Public 5/17/2003 1:10:14 AM ***

Sure it related to the topic. If brake wear is a problem, then trims should all be at the tops of hills, according to your logic.

------------------
Be polite and ignore the idiots. - rollergator
"It's not a Toomer" - Arnold Schwartzenkoph

No, it's not directly related. Trims are trims, and brake runs (as in, pre-station, bring-the-train-to-a-stop brakes) are different. As others said, trims shave off speed. Brake runs bring the train to a complete stop.

Let me explain it a different way. Trims are speed-sensitive. That is, the trims on a hypercoaster are set to slow the train to a specific speed. Therefore, it does *not* matter where they are placed! Take, for instance, Nitro vs Raging Bull. Let's say the first trim on each ride is designed to control the maximum speed of the ride (as in, the top speed in the valleys of the hills) to 60mph. Raging Bull's trim is located near the top of the second hill, so let's say it has to slow the train to 30mph. Nitro's trim is in the valley, so it has to slow the train to 60mph (according to the rule above). Now, normally Nitro would be traveling at 65mph in the valley and Raging Bull 35mph at the top of the hill. See my point? It does *not* matter where the trim is, because it has to take off 5mph *regardless* of placement.

Any questions?

And GP, it's nice to be on your side for once. :)

-Nate

Use your arm to slow a runaway "shopping cart" from 8mph to 3mph. Try the same, only slow a 40mph "cart" to 35mph.

I'm pretty sure your arm may need more ongoing repairs for the second over the first.

------------------
So what if the best coaster in Australia is a second hand Arrow?

Total Thrills Amusement Guide
Australia's Premier Source for Thrills!
*** This post was edited by auscoasterman 5/17/2003 2:32:19 AM ***

Um. I don't know how to say this politely, but you're wrong. Since E=1/2mv^2 (notice the squared on the v) trimming 5 MPH from 35->30 is a very different amount of energy than trimming 65->60. Thus, trimming 35->30 actually takes a lot less energy out of the train than trimming 65-60. This, of course, has nothing to with the issue at hand, which is brake wear.

If I get your previous post correctly, you're saying that brake wear is the same for trimming 65->60 as for 35-30. This (and the rest of your post) would lead me to the conclusion that the incoming speed of the train for the station brakes is not relevant in determining brake wear.

Regardless of this, the brakes in the station are the same brakes as those used for trims afaict. Sure, trims are only used momentarily, but they still have to be able to squeeze the center "thing" (it's not really a fin on B&M's) to apply friction to generate a braking force, just like station brakes do. In fact, all but the last caliper of the station brake are effectively trims, shaving speed, allowing the train last caliper to actually stop the train. (For instance, in RCT you set up regular brakes before your block brakes to allow the block brake to stop the train. And what a coincidence! They're the same brakes as the ones you use for a trims!)

You were saying earlier that the slower a train is going, the less wear on the brakes (which is why a station is higher). I am saying that if that is the case (which I agree it is) and is actually significant (which I disagree with), than all brakes, trim or block, should be at the highest points possible to reduce as much wear as possible. A trim is not so substatially different from a block/station brake that it can hit an 80MPH train and not experience wear while the first caliper of a station brake can't hit a 30 MPH train, and trim it down to 25 MPH for the next caliper without wearing down.

------------------
Be polite and ignore the idiots. - rollergator
"It's not a Toomer" - Arnold Schwartzenkoph

That's where I would have taken my analogy, if it wasn't a Saturday afternoon, with me getting ready to go out soon. :)

------------------
So what if the best coaster in Australia is a second hand Arrow?

-Total Thrills Amusement Guide
Australia's Premier Source for Thrills!

Sadly, since trims don't perform the same duties as your typical block brake, it's hard to compare them to each other in this respect.

Also.... chill out Andy.

------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

Apollo Andy- The laws of physics don't exist on coaster trains. So there! (kidding) But seriously, great response. Glad to see someone produce some numbers to back themselves up instead of the old DippinDots Guy told me line of bull....Could it be possible that coaster trains are built high up for a combination of all these reasons? Nah, someone here has to be absolutely right and the rest are all idiots.

Could it just be that a park wants to conserve space so they build their stations above ground and have room for electrical/technical stuff below without having to build another structure? I honestly think that having a station in the sky will have no effect on brake wear. Just think like General Public said that the ride will go negative (below station level), so if you took the same coaster and designed it with a station on the ground some parts of the ride would be below grade.

------------------
I see Superman!
*** This post was edited by NegativeG-Force 5/17/2003 8:31:22 AM ***

a think a higher station is much more easily accessed. I also agree with the fact that a raised station would be cheeper to build, with the fact that if there is a problem with the motors etc.. you don't have to dig down to get them, or have to go to an off site position such as TTD (it is off site the station). also, a 10 ft rised station would have over 15ft shorter lift hill if the angle of ascent was around 35-40 degrees which is steep for most coasters

... anyways, water table probably also plays a key role, and perhaps there is something we have overlooked.

------------------

Colossus [1]
Nemesis: Inferno [6]