Stations in the Sky
General Public said:
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.
What leads you to that conclusion? Seems to me like both brakes are slowing the train down.
Also, if you haven't seen my posting habits in the past, this is what I do. I'm chill, but if I don't think someone's point is valid, I'll bring all the evidence I can to bear on it.
------------------
Be polite and ignore the idiots. - rollergator
"It's not a Toomer" - Arnold Schwartzenkoph
This has been covered in other threads, but the action of trim brakes is much less noticeable when they are located at the bottom of a hill than at the top. Ride Nitro, and you will hardly notice the action of the trims which are computer controled and only slow that train when needed. (They don't operate at all on a cold morning when the trains are slow.)
The reason for this is that coasters are energy devices, not speed devices. As previously pointed out, for kinetic energy, E=mv^2. This means that if trims act when the train is traveling 50 mph at the bottom of the hill, to remove the same amount of energy, the trims only have to reduce the speed by ~1/6 as much as they have to do if they are positioned at the top of a hill where the train is traveling only 20 mph. I hope that makes sense.
The wear on the brakes will be slightly higher when they are at the bottom of the hill since the energy if removed in less time resulting is higher temperatures on the brake pads.
The worst design of trims is shown on Mean Streak. At the top of the lift hill there is essentially no kinetic energy to remove, so the trims hold on the the train forever, easing it down the hill essentially removing potential energy rather than kinetic energy.
------------------
Tease Alert!
*Something* wicked this way comes...to the west coast in 2004!
Other then those Indiana Beach has Hoosier Hurricanes and Cornball;s station way off the ground, and Sonny's station at PKI has to be a good 50 feet off the ground.
------------------
God bless Intamin, Company that I love. Stand beside her, and ride her, from the opening to the closing of the day.
Zeus' station is also sky high (I'd guess 50-60').
-Nate
*** This post was edited by coasterdude318 5/17/2003 2:34:28 PM ***
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.
Not necessarily. All you have to do is route the path under the lift (assuming it comes right after the station).
And my two cents as to why stations are built this way... I'll go with the access arugument. Rides would be much easier to work on this way. And also I think it's due to flooding potential. Yhah you can put in pumps, but if a pump fails and water gets in, your expensive equipment is ruined.
That being said, there are a number of rides I can think of where the station is either at, or close to grade. Montu, Xcelerator, DejaVu, Boomerang (at Knotts), Demon, most wild mouse rides, the aforementioned Avalanche, some rides in Europe, and quite a few kiddie coasters. :)
Ugh. I think I'm going to stop posting to this topic. Not because I think I'm more right than anyone, but because nobody's actually paying attention.
------------------
Be polite and ignore the idiots. - rollergator
"It's not a Toomer" - Arnold Schwartzenkoph
So, over time, you'll probably have more wear on brakes that have to stop a faster train than even a slightly slower one. That can be reduced by slowing the train down somehow, or adding more brakes that spread out the energy reduction over a longer distance.
------------------
Is that a Q-bot in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
Could it be to shorten the lift hill(s)? God knows chain hills (probably) cost more than non-chain hills, in cost to build, and in cost to run. It may be more cost-effective to raise the station a little than to build a somewhat longer lift hill. I think that the argument about trim vs. block brakes is rather moot. But think of this: If coasters are kinetic energy devices WHEN RUNNING (and they are) then when they are not moving, they are kinetic energy devices. If you are going to run the bottom of the coaster's track to the ground (or a little below) then if you raise the station, that is that much LESS energy that you have to put into the ride via the lift hill. The access argument is also valid, but that can be addressed via other design choices, except in coasters that need to have active floors, like B&M suspended or floorless coasters. For what it's worth, I don't think anybody is being ignored, per se, but I think some people are communicating across each others' bows, so to speak.
------------------
I am the TickTockMan
What you've now lost is x number of feet off of the coaster's height (which shouldn't bother too many parks since the arms race for coaster height is over for most coaster thanks to TTD). One argument I can see against this explanation is the additional excavation needed for where the track dips below station level.
Anyway, the original intent of this post was meant to discuss cost (both initial and maintenance) versus convenience to the customer over the long run.
You must be logged in to post
