It always amazes me the stuff you can find on RCDB. Check this wooden coaster built completely over water. Anyone given this thing a ride? The construction and engineering that went into it must have been ridiculous. http://rcdb.com/ig1243.htm?picture=1 *** Edited 7/22/2005 10:07:04 PM UTC by DorneyDante***
Perhaps Peabody, Nasai, or someone else who's been there can comment but I think only a portion, albeit quite large, is built over water.
But building over water is nothing new. Hoosier Hurricane's out portion is built over water and it open six years earlier. I know there were wooden coasters built in the 20s and 30s that were partially over water.
Edit - looks like Peabody beat me to the punch. So P...is it completely over water?
*** Edited 7/22/2005 10:16:38 PM UTC by Mamoosh***
Buckeye Lake Dips was a 1920's out-n-back coaster built almost entirely over water too. But wooden coasters sure do look beautiful when positioned when they are built over bodies of water like Regina. Omne reason why I like the Great American Scream Machine so much. Even The Beast was better looking when it had the lagoons under it. I hate the way it looks now because it appears bland, with no character or charm like it used to display.
Unfortunately, I doubt you'll ever see a coaster built over water in PA again. The permit process (to "encroach upon waters of the Commonwealth") would probably take years, and the precautions the state would make you take (to ensure you don't muck up the water at all and cause pollution 100 miles downstream) would increase the cost horrendously. Maybe some creative patient soul would figure the time and money was worth it.
RGB, who just went through a four-month process to convince the DEP that an existing man-made ditch was not a waterway and did not contain any endangered or threatened species of plant or animal.
That's what I had heard Peabody. That originally the design called for piers to be drilled in the stream channel, but was changed when they found out how much of a rigamorole the permit process was going to be. IMO, would have easily added 18-24 months to the process, translating to how much extra cost for construction. Plus what park wants to announce a ride and not have it show up for two or three seasons? How much lost revenue would that be?
But good old PA maintains that economic factors are NOT feasible grounds for expediting or waiving any part of the permitting process.
At the same park there is a coaster that doesn't seem to have the continuous walkway around the course that I thought was required on all coasters in Japan. Perhaps the rule only applies to rides of a certain height.