What AstroWorld rides will see 2007 openings?

Friday, January 12, 2007 4:07 PM
Just trying to follow up with the rides from SFAW that were salvaged, specifically Greezed Lightnin'. Are there any updates on it's construction @ Joyland? Has there been any activity surrounding the other rides that have been relocated to different sites?

Thanks in advance!

Friday, January 12, 2007 4:53 PM

Well, along with the sale... I think that the Batman stand-up from Astroworld which landed a spot in Darien Lake's lot is probably going to keep its happy home there.

When will it be installed? Probably not for 2007, there's no time... it's still in pieces scattered throughout their property.

Also of note is Tidal Wave & Serial Thriller from Astroworld which made its 2000+ mile journey to The Great Escape. Again, this ride is sitting idle in pieces scattered throughout Great Escape's property. It has absolutely no intention of being put up in 2007, but 2008 may most likely see the light of day for the SLC. Problem is, the park has to make the necessary infrastructure upgrades FIRST before they can put the ride in.

I heard Tidal Wave takes up a huge footprint for a shoot-the-chutes... so it's still up-in-the-air in regards if Great Escape will put it up, but I'm sure they have plenty of room if they tried.

As for the rest of the rides, I do not know.

Friday, January 12, 2007 8:22 PM
Actually from what I heard SFDL/DL may lose the intamin standup as SFI may keep it in the chain & send it off to another park.
Friday, January 12, 2007 11:46 PM
Rumor is that Batman may go to SFA because Ultra Twister may be damaged and they wont fix it to install it again.
Saturday, January 13, 2007 2:13 AM
I can tell you from seeing it in person that Tidal Wave is a monster. Think along the lines of Tidal Force at HP, or one of the Arrow twins at CF/DP.
Saturday, January 13, 2007 4:21 AM
I live in Lubbock and drive past Joyland once or twice a week. It does not appear that they have done any ground prep at all if the map on their website is correct in showing where it will go. I have yet to see any pieces of the ride at the park either. Hopefully, construction will begin soon.
Saturday, January 13, 2007 11:51 AM

Actually from what I heard SFDL/DL may lose the intamin standup as SFI may keep it in the chain & send it off to another park.

I can't believe that they would want to keep that rough thing in the chain. I can understand that SF owns the coaster as it sits on the property at DL, but I would have thought that they would have thrown it in with the sale of the park. It's going to cost lots of money for them to ship that ride to another park as the nearest spots it could go would be SFA or SFNE or TGE.

Don't get me wrong, I don't really want it at DL either, as I have heard that it is extremely rough, but doesn't SF owe DL at least one coaster???

Saturday, January 13, 2007 3:18 PM
I was thinking the same thing myself.

It would be less of a hassle for SF to just leave it there rather than move the ride yet again only to have it get "damaged" like UT did,or sit in a field at another park without being installed & put into operation as it's close to,if not over 20 years old.

Funny thing is,now that DL is out of SF's hands,as is EG that leaves SFA as the only park remaining that has yet to recieve a coaster after 2001....aside from DL of course.

Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:28 PM
Well how much is the coaster worth? I doubt the costs of relocating a ride in pieces would be more than the value of it. If they "threw it in" with the cost of the park, that would assume that PARC would want it and be willing to pay incrementally for it. If they aren't willing to "pay extra" for it, SFI has 2 options: Throw it in for free and insist that it's part of the park property in order to get rid of it, or pay $x to move it somewhere else. Either way, they lose. At least by moving it they don't lose as much. For a company so far in debt, that's an asset they can later sell for more cash to pay down the debt (Argentina? Mexico? Don't they always take our old rough coasters? :) ). If they gave it away for free as part of the park purchase, they would obviously lose that asset for no more monetary gain. Also, they can always erect it elsewhere down the line if they move it elsewhere for storage.

This may sound like a crazy idea, but this could happen: After chopping the size of the company down, and the relatively recent change to new management, SFI finally "gets it" and rebounds. Their parks are clean, friendly, enjoyable places to visit and are profitable. Shares are around $25-$30 and the company has started paying out dividends. To further grow shareholder value, they SLOWLY start buying new parks (or even creating new parks?) Those parks have a token woodie and kiddie coaster and not much else besides flats. It would be fitting in those parks for a coaster like this one. This would be a relatively low-cost alternative to purchasing a brand new coaster.

I know all that sounds like a fairy tale, but it could happen.

Sunday, January 14, 2007 11:58 PM
^That really seems like a fairy tale. They are in a heap of debt, and it's only getting bigger. They can't be buying new parks, or creating them. That's why they have sold them. There is not enough cash flow.

They are also spending a ridiculous amount of money on marketing. That doesn't help with the cash. You can advertise, but you shouldn't have to overdue it.

Monday, January 15, 2007 8:02 AM
Yes, that second paragraph of dannerman's statement is all a bunch of bologna & la-la land material. If any of that were true, it'd be at least two DECADES (ie: 20 yrs) before any of that enveloped.

They need to concentrate on the parks that they own, and get themselves out of debt. Once they are out of debt, and actually start turning over a profit... they can start investing that money back INTO the parks they own and possibly give them larger "signature" attractions. This isn't going to be a 1yr, 2yr, or even a 5yr fix. To successfully get out of debt, even with 7 less parks... they're going to have to spend-to-earn & learn from past mistakes. Some of those mistakes include:
- Not jacking up prices astronomically from one year to another across the board to every park, treating them virtually equally.
- Having inconsistant goals such as the initial focus soley on families & day-passes, and then later changing your mind and focusing on thrills & season-passes.
- Investing large amounts of money on single attractions while only getting a trickle of that money back in RoI.
- Treating some parks much better than other parks.

If you want to get in the black... each park deserves their own individual attention to flourish. Attention to detail on Great Adventure & Great America, but a complete lack-of-focus on Kentucky Kingdom or Great Escape because they're smaller parks is no excuse. They can each generate their own dollars to help get the entire chain out of debt.

Monday, January 15, 2007 8:42 AM
I would hope the next decade would be filled with smaller attractions (new simulator films, small flats, family coasters) and a biggie here or there. It's totally possible for them to turn around the brand, and create an inviting family environment, but I can't see them buying or creating new parks for the foreseeable future.
Monday, January 15, 2007 3:15 PM

If you want to get in the black... each park deserves their own individual attention to flourish. Attention to detail on Great Adventure & Great America, but a complete lack-of-focus on Kentucky Kingdom or Great Escape because they're smaller parks is no excuse. They can each generate their own dollars to help get the entire chain out of debt.

Well said and exactly what I'm hoping is happening at SFKK in '07 with the new additions. I really hate when people say the smaller parks don't deserve new attractions. Clearly an untrue statement. When there are the 3 parks in your backyard that SFKK has, it's clearly time *NOW* to step up to the plate if you want to compete for dollars.

Monday, January 15, 2007 4:06 PM
Batman the Escape a.k.a. Shockwave could be a really great ride with new trains. Heck, for all I know, the chassis's are fine. If you changed the upper restraint system, I think you'd have something workable. It's all about those stupid headblock-pads that make the SLC's seem like five-star hotel pillows.

I do think if the ride were salvagble, that the station would need to be enclosed again or hearing protection will be required. I have very vivid memories of the ops wearing earplugs back in 91' at Great Adventure. Most of this was due to the midcourse brake which was obnoixously loud.

Monday, January 15, 2007 5:22 PM
I wasn't talking about that happening next year or the year after. Please read the post... I'm talking AFTER they've turned the brand around. The asset of holding on to the coaster is a good one, IMO. Either to sell for cash in the future, or expansion FAR into the future.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:32 AM
I doubt the coaster was included in the sale, or was a major factor. Not like the value on an old Intamin standup is that high...
Tuesday, January 16, 2007 3:28 PM
Here is "swat"s" new home.


Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:23 PM
^Most of us know that already.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007 4:39 PM
Well excuse me for posting that!!!

If you do not have anything constructive to say, please don't say it.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:01 PM
Look at who you're talking to ... he'd have to delete his account.

Having that coaster sitting around for years is not a good idea. The amount of money that would need to be invested in the trains would probably override the cost of the ride in general. Movable parts sitting outside not moving for years at a time? That's not a recipe for a good ride.

I think they should just melt the thing down. Saves transportation, saves installation, saves innocent people's ears and boosts their accounts.


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2019, POP World Media, LLC