Texas Cyclone demolished this morning

Just feel like I have to say good bye. That was a good woodie and the only coaster in the park any good.

---

Fun said:
I've ridden both Phoenix and Wild One; nonetheless I don't see the advantage to reusing old wood from a torn down coaster.

---

It's not like they take the wood apart piece by piece and reassemble it. They usually leave the supports in sections, at least the woodies that I've seen de/reconstruction photos of... It couldn't be that expensive, so it's definitely worth it, but if TC needed modifications, than this isn't an instance where it would be.

I never got to ride it, but wanted to very much...

27 years ago, when I was 5 years old, I visited Astroworld. I sat on a bench with my aunt for an hour watching TC while my Mom and some family stood in line and rode it. It looked incredible, and I have had a facination with it ever since.

I always dreamt of a day when I would get to go to Astroworld and give it a try. Sadly that day will never come to pass.

Maybe I'll meet TC in heaven...

---

Fun said:
A pile of steel track sections is worth putting back together as a coaster somewhere else.

A pile of wood is not worth putting back together as a coaster somewhere else.

---

I respect opinions that differ from mine but that is an idiotic comment made for the sake of being idiotic. Anyone who has ridden Knoebels' Phoenix, The Great Escape's Comet or Lakemont's Skyliner knows that there are many advantages to wood coaster preservation. There is a reason why those coasters were saved and Knott's Windjammer and Great America's Shockwave weren't.

And how can you not see the advantages to reusing pieces of a wood coaster? You save money on materials, save money on labor and you have the benefit of building a proven coaster. There is no mystery, no wondering if the coaster is going to be good- if it was good at it's first home, the only thing you can do is hope that you can make it even better at it's second home.

*** Edited 3/10/2006 2:06:09 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

Thing was, The Rocket had basically been lamed out before fetterman put back in the proper angles and bankings on the hills and curves.

I was lucky enough to get on TC quite a few times, as I had visited the park 3 times over the past few years. I have to say, although the ride was probably one amazing coaster in its heyday, and it was one of the better and more interesting cyclone layouts, this thing has been begging to be taken down for at least a few years.

It was nothing but a shadow of its former self as far as im concerned. Those morgan trains rattled around the track, and it had several sections where rollbacks were installed just to prevent those heavy trains from not making it over the hills.

I would venture to say that it might have been a great ride back in the day, but it is on the bottom of the list of cyclone clones that I have ridden.

I still show respect however, because its always sad to see a coaster demolished, but I think this ride was way past worth saving for anybody.

I'd like to think Astroworld is not a casualty of FS overzealous park purchasing strategy. If new management at Six Flags decides to unload a bunch of parks, there may not be enough buyers out there to save them. Amusement park demolition is too tragic a thing to witness with anykind of regularity. Hopefully an isolated event.

Hopefully we will see Ultra Twister ride again... *** Edited 3/10/2006 2:45:45 PM UTC by rc-madness***

---

Rob Ascough said:

---

Fun said:
A pile of steel track sections is worth putting back together as a coaster somewhere else.

A pile of wood is not worth putting back together as a coaster somewhere else.

---

I respect opinions that differ from mine but that is an idiotic comment made for the sake of being idiotic. Anyone who has ridden Knoebels' Phoenix, The Great Escape's Comet or Lakemont's Skyliner knows that there are many advantages to wood coaster preservation. There is a reason why those coasters were saved and Knott's Windjammer and Great America's Shockwave weren't.

And how can you not see the advantages to reusing pieces of a wood coaster? You save money on materials, save money on labor and you have the benefit of building a proven coaster. There is no mystery, no wondering if the coaster is going to be good- if it was good at it's first home, the only thing you can do is hope that you can make it even better at it's second home.

*** Edited 3/10/2006 2:06:09 PM UTC by Rob Ascough***

---

The Comet, moved from Crystal Beach to Great Escape, had a wood track but steel structure. But even though it was not just a pile of wood, it took a lot of effort to reassemble. It takes a lot of work to move a 'pile of wood' to recreate the a classic wood coaster. The fact that no major park chain has ever attempted moving a wooden coaster speaks volumes.

It does speak volumes. It explains why I'm really not all that interested in "major park chains" and that the smaller and independent parks know more than you think they know.

While I'm a bit leary to get into a debate about this, I will say that I don't belive your three points stand up:

Save money on Materials: Overshadowed by the fact that you have to move it hundreds of miles more than the nearest lumber yard.

Save money on Labor: How so? You have to pay to take it apart, as well as rebuild it.

Benefit of building a proven coaster: And the disadvantage of having a "new" ride, but much older structure that will eventually need to be replaced, but much sooner than if you had just built it all new.

Just seems to me that it would be more adventageous to get your own pile of wood, and make it look like the coaster that was demolished. *** Edited 3/10/2006 3:23:17 PM UTC by Fun***

Short list of wood coasters that deserve to be demolished. Texas Cyclone certainly was not one of them. *** Edited 3/10/2006 5:08:51 PM UTC by rc-madness***

---

Krypton said:

the track, and it had several sections where rollbacks were installed just to prevent those heavy trains from not making it over the hills.

to see a coaster demolished, but I think this ride was way past worth saving for anybody.

---

Actually, Morgans are pretty light. That's why they are so slow and clanky. Texas Cyclone had many rollbacks with both it's 4 and 3 bench PTC's as well... I remember pictures of those big heavy trains stopped on the turn arounds...

I think part of the "coolness" of moving an old woodie (like Phoenix, Starliner, etc.) is that it's been given a new life. It will already have a 'history' to talk about in it's new home.

Other than the first drop - which was reprofiled at least twice - most of the ride was pretty close to what it originally looked like. Add some super efficient kick butt 6 car/2 bench PTC's, and you gotta top coaster again.

The Texas Cyclone's curves were very tight. That will not be built again. Structurally, the coaster was stunning. Slightly unique in some ways. That won't happen again.

In our current state of De-volution, us humans tend to do pretty dumb things. It's a bad gene or something. Six Flags has proven this without a doubt. Poor Shockwave could have been converted - look what became of Steel Phantom.

Rebuilding a previous coaster from scratch is a far more daunting process then having it moved. This is why Knobels worked so hard to move Twister from Denver. It is labor intensive and expensive to move wood coasters. It speaks volumes about the parks willing to take on the challenge when building a new coaster is a much easier process. It is the ultimate honor to pay to a deceased attraction. Does Texas Cyclone deserve such reverence? If it was the original cyclone layout, then Texas Cyclone would ride again without a doubt.

rc madness, I think you need to reword that opening statment to Worked so hard to bring back Twister from Denver. Not move it.

Nothing from Denvers Twister to Knoebels except for one bolt is original

John Fetterman got the blueprints to the original, Redesigned it to fit the area and Knoebels Twister is it's on unique ride with TWISTER ELEMENTS INCLUDED.

Phoenix however was moved and was put back to the original blueprint spesifications durring the reconstruction.

Chuck

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info. Charles. Do you know if it is more common to move wood coasters or to recreate them from scratch? *** Edited 3/10/2006 5:44:11 PM UTC by rc-madness***

---

Fun said:
While I'm a bit leary to get into a debate about this, I will say that I don't belive your three points stand up:

Save money on Materials: Overshadowed by the fact that you have to move it hundreds of miles more than the nearest lumber yard.

Save money on Labor: How so? You have to pay to take it apart, as well as rebuild it.

Benefit of building a proven coaster: And the disadvantage of having a "new" ride, but much older structure that will eventually need to be replaced, but much sooner than if you had just built it all new.

Just seems to me that it would be more adventageous to get your own pile of wood, and make it look like the coaster that was demolished. *** Edited 3/10/2006 3:23:17 PM UTC by Fun***

---

Disagree point#1: If you've seen pictures of steel track being transported to a park, they can usually only get one section or so on a trailer at a time. You can also only get a few supports on a trailer. Unfortunately, my video tape got destroyed, but I believe the building of Drachen Fire took 50 trailers (or more) to get all the pieces there. Each track piece or support is very, very heavy.

Now take a look at pieces of wood. It's pretty obvious that you can get multiple bundles of wood together on one trailer (50-100?/way more?). So you would use far fewer trailers (I think) to transport the materials, hence saving costs in labor for the drivers, and in gas because you're hauling a lighter load. I also doubt that the builder's are getting their materials from the local 84 Lumber/Home Depot/Lowes.

Agree point#2: But where Fun does have a valid point is that it takes a lot of labor to painstakingly number every piece of wood for reassembly. Then you add in crane rental and workers required at the deconstruction site to load the materials onto the trailers. Then you need people on the other end to unload all the materials, prepare the land, put down new footers, rent a crane, and have them put it all back together again, plus maybe paint it as well.

Disagree point#3: Where I will disagree with Fun is that even if you bought a whole new structure that resembles the old one, whose to say it'll still be exactly the same?

Here are some pics of the deconstruction.

http://sixflagshouston.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1294

Have all the rides been ripped down? What ever happened to Greased Lightning??

Yes, everything is down by now. Cyclone was one of the last to be wrecked.

Greezed Lightnin it was announced yesterday will find a new home in Lubbock for 2007.

It's far more common to move a existing coaster than recreate ones from the past. Much cheaper also.

Aceonline.org click on preservation has a list of relocated coasters. ACE had a hand in many of these, Getting parks to consider it. It's far more cheaper (Depending on the condition) to move a existing coaster than to design a complete new one, purchase all the materials needed.

There are instances where rides have been recreated. Both Grizzly and Wild Beast are loose recreations of Coney Island's Cincinati Wildcat.
Mighty Canadian Mindbender and Timber Terror loose recreations of Cincy Coneys Shooting Star.

Little Americka in Wisconsin is currently in the process of relocating a PTC jr. Woodie and has also purchaced and restored the NAD trains to the Lincolin ParK Comet with plans to recreate it, In the next five years or so depending on how well their park does.

Chuck