Universal Orlando installs last piece of replacement Hulk roller coaster

I'm sorry, but I haven't been following this closely. Can someone tell me if there are any changes to the profile of the track? Did they just replace the first half of the track because it was worn?

The layout remains the same. They replaced most of the track and supports, presumably because of wear and tear. Some of the supports are slightly different, and I think the track looks slightly bulkier, although it is difficult to tell. The video confirms that the ride will also be getting new vehicles.

Interestingly, RCDB and most coaster geeks seem to be counting this rebuilt Hulk as a new coaster. As far as I know the track in the station and launch tunnel was not replaced. This would make the scope of the project similar to the work Disneyland did on Big Thunder Mountain RR, yet RCDB does not consider that to be a new coaster.

This project has had me a little perplexed from the beginning. Has a steel coaster (of this scale and so early in its life) ever been completely dismantled and then rebuilt just like it was before? I know I'm more than likely way beyond fashionably late to this party, but 1) the coaster seems a bit young to need to be replaced due to wear and tear (although I am in no way disputing that, just confused as to how that could be necessary), and 2) why would you do a complete rebuild and rebuild it in the exact same way? Why not offer something new? Perhaps it really is/was one of America's "beloved" coasters...

It was born in 1999. Has it just not been maintained properly, or was there some sort of odd design flaw that rattled its cages more than it should have?

Universal is a year-round park, so it gets alot more use than seasonal parks. 17 years on a year-round coaster is probably double that amount to a seasonal coaster.

Someone did the math for me, and it's possible that Hulk has operated more than any other B&M ever. From what I hear, there was a fair amount of welding and repairing going on almost on a nightly basis.

I wouldn't count it as a different coaster unless they went floorless with it.

This situation reminds me of my introductory philosophy class in college....if you dismantle a boat, piece by piece, and reassemble it across the room, is it still the same boat???

I'm guessing there will be enthusiasts arguing both sides of this, just like there was in my class.

Yes, but this isn't the same coaster rebuilt piece by piece. The old pieces are scrap. This is essentially a clone of the original.

It's a weird situation, no doubt. I don't personally think of it as a new ride, but it probably should be. If a park removed a Boomerang, for example, and sold it to another park, then bought another one and installed a couple years later it'd definitely be a new ride. That's essentially what Universal did here, just on a quicker timeline.

If it's the same exact ride experience in the same exact place, then I will not consider it a new credit if and when I ever get back down to Orlando to ride it. If they add new trains, I might consider it to be a new credit. YMMV.

Who doesn't love coaster enthusiast philosophical discussions :-)

I agree with kpjb: a park that sold a coaster, then several years later, bought the same model of coaster and installed it, would have a new ride. (So, if park A sold their Boomerang to park B, and you rode the ride at park A and after the sale went to park B and rode it, is it a new credit?)

But new Hulk is the same ride as old Hulk, in the same place. A park, over time, can replace all the wood on a wood coaster, but it's still the same coaster.

Just for the sake of argument (and I do love semantics):

If you're keeping a *track* record, and it's all-new track, then....

But it's the same attracktion! (groan)

Thabto said:

Universal is a year-round park, so it gets alot more use than seasonal parks. 17 years on a year-round coaster is probably double that amount to a seasonal coaster.

It must be the snow here in April that gave me seasonal-park goggles. I must admit this obvious fact never even crossed my mind.

Nothing to see here folks...

SVLFever said:

This situation reminds me of my introductory philosophy class in college....if you dismantle a boat, piece by piece, and reassemble it across the room, is it still the same boat???

I'm guessing there will be enthusiasts arguing both sides of this, just like there was in my class.

Of course it's the same boat. If I put together a jigsaw puzzle, take it apart and give it to my sister, who then puts it together at her house, it's the same puzzle.

A better example, that gets into some of the paradoxes we discussed recently in a different thread, (like the Heap Paradox) is the Classic Car Restoration. If I'm restoring my classic car and replace a fender because the old one is rusted, it's still the same classic car, right? Then I replace the starter when the old one gives out. Still a classic car, right? Then I re-upholster the seats. And on and on. At what point is my original classic car no longer an original car, even though it looks the same?

Personally, I am likely to think of Hulk as a new credit and will probably count it again if and when I ride the new one. They did it all in one fell swoop. Took every piece of that classic car right to the crusher and brought in a whole new kit. As stated above, hopefully they will make it Floorless or something, thereby making all of our decisions easier.

slithernoggin said:

I agree with kpjb: a park that sold a coaster, then several years later, bought the same model of coaster and installed it, would have a new ride. (So, if park A sold their Boomerang to park B, and you rode the ride at park A and after the sale went to park B and rode it, is it a new credit?)

But new Hulk is the same ride as old Hulk, in the same place. A park, over time, can replace all the wood on a wood coaster, but it's still the same coaster.

There've been a few instances of Zierer Tivolis being replaced in the last few years as the originals have reached the end of their service life. Plopsaland is a good example of that.

Your argument seems a bit odd to me – are you suggesting that the new installations would only be new coasters if there was no Tivoli on site for "a few years"?

Hulk is a new ride IMHO, and I'll be treating it as such.

I just think it's easier to grasp as being "new" if you see it move or disappear for some period of time.

If they tore down Hulk and built an exact clone on the studios side, painted it black, and called it Escape from Hootenville (or whatever the hell Harry Potter town is called) then everyone agrees it's new.

If they tore it down and waited 5 years and built another, everyone agrees it's new.

I think the only grey area in this case is because people saw it there, they went away, and it'll be the same ride in the same place when they return. That's why it feels like the same ride to me, even though new supports + new track + new trains = new ride.

Yes. Same ride in same place. For me, that means it's not going to be a new credit the next time I ride it.

Thabto said:
Universal is a year-round park, so it gets alot more use than seasonal parks. 17 years on a year-round coaster is probably double that amount to a seasonal coaster.

While I do agree, what has me thrown off by this entire project is it just seems like over kill. I can see replacing rails, section of track, etc but to tear it down to replace it with the same thing is sort of odd. Mainly in the sense that we don't see other parks doing this. While I applaud the park for trying to make the ride better, I am just wondering why they choose this path and others haven’t.

My other thought is will Dragon Challenge be next? Or like Jeff pointed to perhaps this was done to correct some issue long standing issues they had with the ride. But again it just seems over kill to me

Personally I wouldn't count this a new ride, for me it's the same track / same ride. When a wooden coaster has major work done I don't count this as being new. I forget the year and the amount, but when the Big Dipper (GL) went through an extensive rehab, I want to say that they replaced something like 70%-80% of the ride, I wouldn't think of this being an new ride.

Why would you think this is overkill? Do you really think the park or their parent company would be on board with spending this type of money if it wasn't necessary or it wouldn't save them money later on?

You know what's cool about the credit debate? Everyone is right. If you want to count it as a new credit, awesome. If you don't, suit yourself. What governing body is going to swoop in and rule on who's right or wrong?