Top Thrill 2 4/28/2024

Yes, they can dispatch a train out of the station while the switch track is still in "high speed" mode. Although I think the computer limits how quickly they can send the next train into the holding block. There were a couple of times when they would have the train fully loaded, and waited 10 seconds or so for something. I can only guess that the high speed train has to be on its final forward pass before they can send the next train.

Another thing I noticed, is that when the final lights turn on (light 4 on the tower, light 5 on the tree) the train moves slightly. I would guess that they are energizing the stators to get the train properly aligned before the train launches when the lights turn off.

PhantomTails:

Queues went faster too in the days before IROC and ever-shortening seat belts.

Interesting how you mention IROC, because I think it’s a valid observation. For mostly good reason, and intent, IROC (and Ellis on the water park side) has added a level of detail and sophistication to the training and operational processes of running an attraction.

But it does beg the question of “how much is too much”? Is it really that much safer?

I get it. Programs like IROC and Ellis exist for good reason, and the safety side of the industry has benefitted. But watching some of the detailed processes IROC or Ellis trained operations go through just to dispatch a ride can be mind boggling. Efficiency has clearly suffered as a result all in the battle cry that safety trumps everything.

With IROC, it’s check this, check that, then check again and cross check the other operator. And check again…. It’s exhausting to watch and you have to wonder if it’s actually making things more safe or just part of safety theater.

Same can be said for the aquatics side with Ellis. The program has evolved to embrace scanning as a core competency and somewhere along the way, it became robotic head bobbing and pointing to the point where you wonder if a lifeguard can actually process what’s going on in front of them at any given moment.

I think some of it is safety theater. Every time I'm going to look at Disney, which has an exceptional safety record, yet does "less." I mean, you check your own restraints on coasters. I'd love to hear someone from that agency explain why what they teach is "better."

Which of Disney's coasters would kill you without a restraint?

Jeff:

Every time I'm going to look at Disney, which has an exceptional safety record, yet does "less."

Certainly true in the theme parks. Less true at the resort pools. I noticed a definite Eilis-ization among the life guards at Kidani this past winter.

And that's fine. That training doesn't slow you down getting into the pool or reduce capacity. I've seen them jump into the pool quite a few times, and I assume that's because of the training.

Bakeman31092:

Which of Disney's coasters would kill you without a restraint?

All of them if you're a child who doesn't understand the risk of not sitting (or their oblivious parents). But I assume you mean what rides could toss you out without a restraint. Off the top of my head, Space Mountain, Big Thunder, Guardians, Tower of Terror, Rock-n-Rollercoaster, maybe Everest.

Take me back to the days of Blue Streak being dispatched with folks still trying to buckle their seatbelts and the operator checking lap bars on the way out of the station. Good times and no safety issues!!!

IROC might be good for some parks who didn’t have great operations departments but everyone considered Cedar Point the industry leader in ride operation safety/efficiency. IROC should be learning from CP and the current operations leader and Asst Park GM, Colleen, instead of imposing the draconian regulations on parks.

I recall as well that way back in the 70’s/80’s/early 90’s Six Flags Great America had a really strong ride operations department, probably due to the employees who left CP and went there when Marriott built it and poached employees. One policy I can recall was no single riders in the front or last row of coasters, if an accident occurred they wanted two eyewitnesses….this was before video cameras recording trains/riders.

One of the owners is from Cedar Point originally.

Yes, I'm assuming a rider that remains seated and upright the whole time. I'd also clarify that I'm talking about rides that would toss you out, not could (splitting hairs, maybe). I know you go all the time and are much more familiar with these rides, but I'd push back on Everest and Big Thunder (haven't ridden the others). I would think you could ride both of those with no harness and survive it just fine.

My point is that using Disney as an example doesn't work in many cases because their coasters are simply not as dynamic as the ones at Cedar Point. There's no way you could have a lap bar self-check policy on something like Steel Vengeance, because I know there are people that if they were allowed to would keep the lap bar as loose as possible, and that would spell disaster on a ride that is trying to toss you out at every turn and hill.

I don't agree at all. And frankly, the dynamics of the ride are irrelevant. The intent is to verify a restraint is secure. It's a binary condition. It is or it isn't, regardless of whether or not a ride op tugs on it (sometimes twice) or a rider pushes up on it and the op sees that.

So on a given ride, the smallest allowable rider with the restraint at minimum verify will still never be tossed from the ride? I was originally inclined to agree, but am remembering, on Mystic Timbers I've noticed I can leave the T-bar loose enough that I can almost stand and could easily get out of the car. I don't think something like SV could allow similar, but some rides indeed run pretty loose.

Jeff:

And frankly, the dynamics of the ride are irrelevant.

That may be the most wrong thing you’ve ever said on this site, my friend!

If it's not, then what you're implying is that dynamic rides are more OK to kill people than those that aren't. Explain to me why a Disney-style visual check is inadequate on TT2.

There are two pieces to this.

The first: is the restraint locked? I'm not sure why the rider's push/pull can't demonstrate that as well as the operator can. I would not be surprised if an insurance underwriter would give a park better rates for an operator checking vs. the guest. That might matter to CP more than it does to Disney, particularly if the latter is only selling secondary risk to its insurer.

The second: is the restraint positioned in a way to adequately secure the rider? On most rides, you can tell that by looking. On some, it might require ensuring that the restraint is snug against the rider, which may or may not be possible by visual inspection.

I disagree with Jeff on the dynamic forces question: they do matter, because the more extreme they are the higher the risk of injury or death in the context of some other failure. If I had to depend on my grip strength to stay in Steel Vengeance, I'd never ride it. I don't think I could say the same about any Disney coaster.

Edited to add: However, I am not sure if visual checking plus guest confirmation of restraint lock is any worse in the event of such a failure--at least on rides where an operator can visually confirm the restraint is in a sufficient-to-work position.

Why is the risk greater if the ride is more dynamic? Again, it's either closed or it's not. Regardless of the risk of a restraint failure, the act of confirming its closedness is the same no matter how you do it. If a restraint fails when a ride op has checked it with hands, or it fails when a guest visually pushes up on it and the op sees it, the result is not different. The intent of both is to make sure that the restraint is locked. Both methods are arguably equally effective. A failure and its result are a secondary outcome that is the same no matter how you check the restraint.

Gunkey Monkey:

“I can remember MF dispatching trains while the previous train was still out on the course. Now it's just a question of how long you're going to sit on the brake run.“

I worked on Millennium Force in 2006. Our goal was to have the train ready for dispatch as the one on the course was cresting the last hill coming back from the island. If we were fast enough, we could have that train come right into unload without parking. To speed things up and get around the watch the big person try to buckle the seatbelt, we would buckle in anyone's seatbelt, regardless of their size. Additionally, if the other loader was dealing with an issue, we could check more than just the cars we were assigned. We would go down the line, touch the other person, and let them know they were good up to that point. I think now, they can't check cars they aren't assigned to. We put up some really good capacity numbers that year, although we didn't achieve a great final number due to all the lift issues. The ride was down a lot. We nicknamed ourselves the "MF Sweep Crew" because that's where they sent us while we were down for weeks at a time. When we were up, we would hit max cap all the time. It was good times.

Jeff:

If it's not, then what you're implying is that dynamic rides are more OK to kill people than those that aren't.

WHAT?!

As someone who’s committed to being as charitable, understanding, and benefit-of-the-doubty as possible, and who rereads comments multiple times to make sure I’m not missing something, I honestly have no idea where you’re getting this.

Jeff:
Explain to me why a Disney-style visual check is inadequate on TT2.

Because as we’ve seen numerous times, people can be ejected from a ride without a restraint or computer failure. And I think that’s where the disconnect is. So first, some common ground: I agree that there’s no need for a ride op to tug upward on a restraint to verify it’s locked. But you seem to be narrowly focused on this as the only thing that needs to be considered, whereas I’m arguing that for certain types of rides, there’s more to it than that. The mechanical lock and the sensor/ride controller, along with the guest giving it their own push, can confirm that the restraint is secure, but that does not guarantee that the rider is secure, because the go light on the control panel is agnostic to the physical characteristics of the person in the seat. So I believe having a ride op give an up close check of the restraint is a means of double checking that the restraint is far enough down. And my main point is that this is not as critical for rides that are not trying to eject the rider.

There is no way in hell that a park like Cedar Point, home to half a dozen coasters that will throw you if you’re not properly secured, can cycle millions of riders through those coasters every year while relying on them to check their own restraints without any up-close ride op double check.

You're not drawing a meaningful comparison. A poorly design restraint can be checked visually or physically by rider or op with the same outcome. To your own point, if the machine gives you a green light, the way the operator checks it doesn't matter. The machine said it's good.

Explain to me how the rider pushing up, with the operator seeing it, is different from the operator doing the same thing and seeing it. The outcome is exactly the same. There's no difference. And again, on the new "dynamic" rides, the machine won't even let you dispatch if the restraint isn't in the right position (you said this yourself), which makes the method of human confirmation even more irrelevant.

Maybe you're suggesting that the range of "good" varies based on rider size, but Intamin rider-tossing trains aside, and given that I'm not a human factors expert, I don't believe that this is true. If knees are above your butt, and the bar is below your knees, geometry dictates that you're not going anywhere. The range takes this into account.

And by the way, this doesn't even take into account the silly "you check only these seats" and "stand on this circle" and "don't forget to scan every seat as it leaves!" nonsense.

Bakeman31092:

So I believe having a ride op give an up close check of the restraint is a means of double checking that the restraint is far enough down. And my main point is that this is not as critical for rides that are not trying to eject the rider.

As opposed to the rider doing it? Ultimately, assuming the machine doesn't override you (and it does on the "dynamic" rides), you're saying that who touches the restraint matters. I'm saying that it does not, in a world where the machine decides and geometry dictates what is possible in terms of rider escape.

I’ve never been a ride op but I’ve often wondered what kind of toll is taken when one spends 10 hours a day for an entire summer stooped over pulling on an immovable object. Coaster restraints are low and the seatbelt employees are obligated to touch is lower. I guess amusement park jobs are best suited to the young.
Maybe Disney has figured out how to assure guest safety while being mindful of the employees’ health annd well being. Injury claims are expensive.

I look at it this way. If you ride Everest or Big Thunder Mountain with a lapbar that is five clicks 'too high' for the rider in question, in theory, nothing happens. If you ride Steel Vengeance with a lapbar that is the equivalent of five clicks too high (but falls within the 'green' as far as the mechanics of the automated onboard restraint monitoring) and you have a certain body type, there is the possibility of being ejected from the train. A physical check of the lapbar seems more necessary on a ride like Steel Vengeance as something like this has the potential to not be noticed in a visual check as a rider lifts up on their own lapbar.

Do they need to be IROCing? Absolutely not. But I do think there is merit in an operator physically checking restraints on intense rides.