Richard

No different from Sea World's dreadful excuse for a ski show. These contracted shows must be a pretty good deal for the parks... they're after all giving year-round business that would help these companies retain staff, as well as decent training facilities. The latest dolphin show proves that there is simply no writing talent within VRTP anymore. I don't know what perplexes me more: that they think that these are even vaguely worthy replacements for their predecessors, or that VIP pass holders actually line up for this crap on repeat visits. Here's a troubling thought... Fish Detectives is now the best produced show at an Australian theme park.

Countless attractions in the past have been mentioned or foreshadowed through ASX and shareholder meetings. This has long been an effective way to get hints about future development at our parks. Official websites and Facebook are normally the last place you'll hear anything...

As others have said we've got this covered over here:

1988 is almost certainly the year that Eureka Mountain was replaced. A 1988 TVC shows the old ride system (this is likely 1987 or 1986 footage of the ride): A 1989 TVC (advertising Mothers Day so certainly first half of 1989) shows the new ride system: On top of this, some sources claim 1988 as the ride's opening year -- though we know for certain it debuted in 1986 with the rest of Gold Rush Country. The most reasonable explanation for this is that some investigation in the past has pointed to 1988 as the year that HyFab built a new version of the ride to replace the original wild mouse coaster that opened in 1986. As for why it was replaced? The most likely scenario (as I explained a few pages back) is that the original ride was a B.A. Schiff & Associates model from the US built in the 1960s when this company was active. The technology on this style of ride has more in common with pre-WWII wooden coasters than that of a modern 1980s steel coaster. I'd say they wouldn't need to look too far for reasons to replace it, and evidently management at the time decided it was better to quickly replace it with a modern version rather than let it sit there and rot.

I think it's absolutely true that Dreamworld is often seen as the fuller or more complete theme park offering. But my point was more that Movie World aren't adding minor attractions every year but are spending the equivalent on their night events. You can be sure that the combined budgets for Halloween, Christmas and Carnivale would be in the millions and rival a ride like Tail Spin. These events are quite deliberately a selling point for annual pass renewals; in the same way that Dreamworld are using investment in smaller additions to drive annual pass sales, Village Roadshow are using the popularity of night events. The question then is, why does Village Roadshow then find room in the balance sheet for a major $10-20 million attraction at Movie World every 2-4 years on top of annual (event) attraction expenses in the millions, but Dreamworld doesn't? This on top of the fact that Village Roadshow are also investing in major attractions at Sea World every few years as well to drive pass sales.

I absolutely agree with everything you're saying. The only thing wrong with them spending that much is that it just isn't likely to happen. That's why I dismissed that option; if Eureka Mountain were to be replaced it would be off-the-shelf and there would be no discussion of how creatively they can use the space. This doesn't explain why Dreamworld stopped installing major attractions long before the advent of competitively priced annual passes, or why their direct competition in the same market with the same pricing strategy are still able to install major attractions on a regular basis. While also running regular night events that would certainly have total production costs that at least equal – if not exceed – the investment in mid-sized rides like Tail Spin.

We'd be talking a $20+ million custom designed coaster to do that area justice. And in my view it could be done just as effectively with or without Eureka Mountain remaining in place -- removing the chairlift platform and/or the abandoned Big Brother cafe would free up the whole area much more viable land than Eureka Mountain. The biggest problem I see with a coaster over the reservoir is that the water level fluctuates when Thunder River Rapids isn't operating, so the ride couldn't get very close to the water (defeating the purpose of it being a coaster built over the water), and you'd end up with a lake dotted with concrete columns standing high out of the water. If Eureka Mountain ends up not reopening then yes, knock it down swiftly and move on. But to me if it's viable to keep it then it's not really in the way of anything and certainly doesn't change the potential to do other more exciting things in the area.

What would you replace it with? Eureka Mountain fits into a remarkably small area.

That's pretty much it. In case anyone is unsure about the status of the project, it's a fact that Dreamworld are working on the attraction. Whether it will result in its opening is another matter and where the wait and see game is.

If there were any issues with the ride causing injuries then we wouldn't be having this discussion because its return simply wouldn't be an option. It was a typical intense wild mouse coaster with sharp turns and sudden drops; nothing I'd characterise as rough or painful, especially because the cars were open and well-padded. Compared to Thunderbolt, which had significant track and train issues its entire life that caused its roughness, Eureka Mountain had none of these issues. The track was smooth and the cars coasted perfectly without vibration. It was just a naturally intense ride. I suspect we'd see a few more trim brakes on the ride and possibly some more light in the pitch black final section if it reopened.

This is my recollection of the layout. It's a very standard wild mouse: hairpins followed by a series of drops. I've annotated a few key elements. Like reanimated35 red is first, followed by blue, followed by green. I've added arrows at the joins of each colour section to hopefully make it easier to follow. Load station, and unload in its final few years. Lift hill. The exposed turn seen from outside at the top of the mountain (photo). This straight section is a drop, followed by a bunny hill, followed by a climb. The end of the bunny hill and climb up over the station was outside of the mountain and visible from the queue. (photo - where track changes from brown to black is the end of the bunny hill). 180º turn above the station and queue. You could catch glimpses of the cars from the queue as they went overhead. This straight section is a drop, followed by a small bunny hill, followed by a climb before the final 180º turn into the brake run. This whole section was in pitch black, though at times they did try various dim lighting effects in here. Brake run (photo - the lower, open section with a corrugated awning). Unload platform. This was decommissioned in later years, and all unloading took place at the main load station (photo). The ride control system was replaced quite near the end of its run with a modern system. This is why some folks have recently reported seeing the ride's control panels looking like they're in very good condition. They were essentially brand new when the ride shut. When the system was upgraded the unload platform stopped being used. I don't know whether it was a limitation of the new system, or simply because by this point Dreamworld had run the ride into the ground with fewer and fewer operable cars and minimal staffing to warrant the separate unload platform.

It would appear that the track is the same design as B.A. Schiff & Associates, who built wild travelling/semi-permanent mouse coasters in the 1950s and 60s. The front bumper also matches their cars. http://rcdb.com/362.htm The possibilities as I see them: Eureka Mountain was originally an off-the-shelf Schiff or Schiff-licensed wild mouse that Dreamworld purchased and partially enclosed. The track design was licensed or "borrowed" from Schiff and HyFab built a custom design using this crude 30-year old style of track. The only reason a company would choose such an outdated track style for a custom ride is that it would perhaps be much easier to fabricate than a more modern tubular two-rail style track. But if this were a custom built ride (by Brisbane's HyFab), then we are to assume something went wrong with the design in its early years and they went back to the drawing board to redesign it. If that's the case, then this company very quickly learnt how to build a modern tubular steel coaster where only years before they had to resort to a very dated track design... seems a stretch. Gary86 last year a crude schematic of Eureka Mountain's layout that's on the wall in the cinema: That layout is noticeably different from what's in the TVC; the ride that exists today has none of the tight hairpin turns shown in the video. The most logical conclusion I'd draw from all of this is that Eureka Mountain was originally an off-the-shelf, likely second hand, B.A. Schiff wild mouse coaster when it debuted. At some point very early in its life the ride was closed and completely replaced with a new ride with a different layout. i suspect this is where HyFab come in. And possibly where the 1986 vs 1988 discrepancies come in. Station, lift-hill and brake run remain where they roughly were and the course still follows a pretty standard wild mouse layout, but the patchwork on the mountain indicates they used what they could but had to make a lot of changes to the facade with the new version.

You're right... I did initially think the gap between the cars looked a bit wide and strangely devoid of couplings. Looking through the clip, it would seem that a few other sections show the distance between the cars varied. Which means someone in their wisdom decided that the safety of blocks wasn't needed in this case. Perhaps only in the first half, separating the two cars for the series of drops and bunny hills at the end? Or they set the ride up like this just for filming TVC, which seems unlikely. Another interesting thing is that the original track looked to have a track configuration like a wooden wild mouse, whereby instead of upstop wheels on the main rails there's a smaller set of rails in the centre of the track under which there would be a steel flange or sets of wheels. There's no evidence in the TVC of the cars tilting, but this is generally the case with this style of upstop. Do any early riders recall any slight tilting around the hairpin turns in the two-seat configuration? Also note the large spring bumper on the front of each car. Again pointing to a very primitive ride system.

The track shown in the original format of the ride (two two-seater cars linked together) looks to be a very different gauge than what exists right now. Wider track and thinner rails. Clearly the ride was completely rebuilt at some point very early in its life. The postcard above is evidence that the new track and the accompanying four-seat cars appeared pretty early on-- that postcard looks to be late 80s/early 90s. If I had to guess, given the ride was engineered locally, they got a few things wrong the first time around that warranted a complete overhaul of the ride system. In particular, that original track looks to be particularly flimsy. Outdoor sections of track were slowly enclosed over the course of the ride's life. The last remaining section of outdoor track wasn't enclosed until 2002.

To my knowledge it hasn't been mentioned in the forums. We routinely receive information outside of the forums, and sometimes that information is worth mentioning in an article. Anyone who has followed Parkz over its history would know that we don't engage in rumours or wild speculation. You're possibly overestimating what is needed to get this ride functional as a basic proof of concept for management to decide whether it's feasible to press forward with the project or not. As an example (and this is pure speculation), a manual winch to get a car to the top of the lift and a portable air compressor to fire the brakes could be all the work that's required at this early stage.

The forum profile count is synced automatically twice a day; give it a few hours and it should update correctly.

It's a new feature that's quietly being tested to iron out the bugs before we make any announcement. But by all means feel free to rate/review any attractions with the new system.

Let's call it a day on this one. In future let's try and move away from these 1000+ post megatopics and not be afraid to start a new topic if what we're saying isn't immediately relevant to the discussion above. I've long wanted to see this thread drop off and have other Dreamworld discussions take its place. It makes browsing and finding content down the track so much easier.

Seemingly the reason they do the grouping at this point is because the automatic doors they've installed are not secure in that they can be forcibly pushed open and as such don't meet the safety requirements like traditional air gates would. I figure the only reason they opted for this unusual style of door is to preserve the Superman-pushing-the-train illusion so that onlookers can only see this during the outdoor coaster section. Given the stringent height and loose item checks done at the entry, I'd be in favour of losing the entire system currently in place and rebuilding the area with individual queues at each (safety compliant) air gate that allow riders to choose the row they want, with longer queues for front and rear seats. Riders benefit from being able to watch multiple cycles before their turn which Disney and Universal will tell you dramatically increases the speed of dispatch because riders know what they're supposed to do. They'd lose one key theming element -- though at the same time introduce air gates that are far more on-theme for a metro station than doors -- but see a significant increase in capacity with reduced staffing that could offset the power and maintenance cost of running additional cycles. And you'd have to think that hairline fractures or similar will eventually necessitate the removal of the Superman figures from the trains...

Welcome along Mark. We get plenty of theme park management from around Australia reading these forums, but it's not too often that a CEO decides to jump on board and say hey.

Use

I was once in the studio audience for a US sitcom. That multi-billion dollar industry paid us with a bit of candy and the promise of hearing ourselves laugh at unfunny jokes on national TV. I ended up falling asleep for a good portion of the filming, and the show was cancelled a few weeks later so the episode never aired. There are plenty of situations where companies abuse the desirability of their product for the sake of free labour, but I'd be looking more at unpaid internships in the entertainment industry etc. rather than borrowing a few hours from willing participants for the sake of filming a TVC (or a sitcom).

Perfect... what's not to love about a ride that focuses all its wetness squarely at your socks?

Are we just plucking numbers out of nowhere? Six Flags Magic Mountain only operates around 250 days a year. By the figures quoted above, Six Flags Magic Mountain averages around 11,600 guests per day. Dreamworld's attendance is about 3,500 per day. Evidently, Dreamworld should have 30% the number of coasters that Six Flags Magic Mountain has, which works out to 5.4 roller coasters. With TOT, Cyclone, Madagascar, Motocoaster and Buzzsaw, we're only short 0.4 coasters. Or does Eureka Mountain count as 40% of a coaster? While I'd agree that the price of daily tickets to our theme parks borders on ridiculous, the discounted annual passes they offer now are compellingly priced for locals, and certainly make up a significant percentage of total business. Dreamworld's per capita spend is AUD$49. Six Flags as a whole has per capita spend of about USD$43. Converting for currency, these are pretty much identical per-guest spending figures. But then when we factor in operating expenses like wages (an $8/hr ride attendant in the USA is making around $20/hr in Australia), electricity (roughly 50% higher in Australia than California) and the capital expense for rides (Buzzsaw cost about 50% more than identical rides overseas as an example) and the idea of comparing the two parks becomes absurd. I would tend to agree that Australian theme parks are generally lacking in their ability to offer a full day of activities and would love to see every park here get become more proactive and actually build on the total experience they offer instead of replacing old rides with new. However I don't think comparing Dreamworld to one of the world's largest and most-attended regional theme parks is really all that logical.

Probably worth just quickly noting that the above post is the 100,000th on Parkz.