Richard

One of the key operating benefits of the WWW/DW partnership is their close proximity and ticketing ties to each other, means that both parks can leverage off capital investment. There is no point in them competing against themselves for the same attendance by opening two attractions/expansions in the same year. The company's stated goal is to be able to invest in one park and drive the other park's attendance through World Pass sales, similar to how WVTP have operated for the past decade or so. Dreamworld has a confirmed thrill ride for this year. Having just spent $56.4 million on a water park, the possibility of investing further into it so soon, despite no knowledge of how successful it actually will be in the long-run, is slim-to-none. The fact that is WhiteWater World is far too new to be in a position, financially or attendance-wise, to be going ahead with further investment. With under three months of operating experience and the effects of their advertising expenditure not yet apparent, it's simply not logical that they go ahead with any expansions at this stage.

Most people don't have the luxury of being able to schedule their holidays around ride maintenance. The best answer is to keep checking the website because these things do change, and with this maintenance so far down the track there is a chance that it could change. That aside, Sea World is a fantastic park which you'll have no trouble spending a full day at with your family, with or without Corkscrew operating.

There's little question at all that the Vintage Cars will be back. Don't expect it to go too far from its current location; when Tower of Terror was built the ride's course was altered accordingly.

Article: WhiteWater World performs above expectations Wednesday 28 February 2007 - WhiteWater World Despite an unseasonably cold first half of January, Dreamworld's new water park addition WhiteWater World has performed with Queensland attendance ahead of expectations. Read On...

Museum and behind-the-scenes type attractions are some of the most popular at parks like Universal Studios and Disney-MGM Studios and make up a significant percentage of the total attractions. To me there's no doubt that they convert these parks from being half-day to a full day experience. Sea World and Dreamworld both have a wide array of non-ride attractions - in both cases animal exhibits. There are very few people in the scheme of things who want to just queue and ride all day and this style of self-paced attraction creates an opportunity to rest and do something different while still being very much a part of the theme park experience. I think there's no denying that there's a lack of this type of attraction at WBMW. They've made massive strives in recent years by introducing rides that continually set the standard for Australian theme parks and have done a lot to make the park better recognised as a serious theme park on par with Sea World and Dreamworld, but they still have a bit to go in my view before they're truly recognised as a full 1+ day park. Reintroducing a revised special effects show would be one of a handful of things that could be done to inject this element.

Article: Parts arrive for Wet'n'Wild's latest Thursday 22 February 2007 - Wet'n'Wild Water World Track has been spotted outside Wet'n'Wild Water World as the water park prepares for vertical construction on the first non-water-based attraction in the park's 22 year history - a half pipe roller coaster. Read On... Gallery: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.php?gid=162 Thanks to joz for getting these pictures for us!

No one is anywhere close to attacking anyone here. No one is slamming anyone for liking one park over another. People are simply questioning your unjustified dislike for one park. The fact remains that at Wet'n'Wild you can still do more rides in a smaller amount of space than you can at WWW. All you have to do is stick to a section of the park. For instance, if you stay to the North of Buccaneer Bay you have the following rides in an area smaller than WWW: Calypso Beach Whirlpool Mammoth Falls Tornado Blackhole Mach 5 (3 slides) Wave Pool Buccaneer Bay (w/ children) If you do the other half of the park you have five more attractions, and to make an area the size of WWW you still have access to Buccaneer Bay, Whirlpool, Calypso Beach and the Wave Pool. When WWW inevitably expands are you going to start disliking it too because it's also too big? I can understand liking WWW because it has fresh new rides and you've grown tired of what WnW has, but you're stretching things if you're saying you don't like it because it's too big, regardless of your condition.

Basic common sense dictates that if you have a park with more attractions, then it'll be larger than a park with less. If you're fussed with how far you have to travel between slides break the park into sections. Might I also suggest getting into shape if the distances you have to walk in a day at Wet'n'Wild are too much for you. Complaining about having to walk too much at a water park is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I have never had a single problem at Wet'n'Wild with reriding every ride I want to within a single day as many times as I want. I don't know how you guys find it hard to do this but it's pretty clear from your comments that you have a very biased viewpoint.

I'm not entirely sure what's wrong with presenting rides in a minimalistic way. My opinion has always been that there's only one kind of acceptable theming - fully immersive theming. This is theming that takes the rider in from the moment they step into the area or queue. Token efforts really don't impress me, and haven't for a while. A clever or attractive sign and some fibreglass sculptures don't really do anything to serve the concept of a ride or further the ride experience. Does a fibreglass octopus statue and a matching shade cloth actually make you feel like you're somehow fighting or within said octopus? Wet'n'Wild however has in my view unfailingly provided attractive landscaping and neat presentation of all attractions throughout the years. I have always had quite a bit of concern for the general upkeep of WnW and I'd most definitely concur with the idea of spending a period of time significantly overhauling aging elements of the park's attractions and infrastructure. This isn't however to say that their new additions have ever been done in such a way that they're ever unattractive or lack presentation. I can't think of a single new attraction in WnW's 20 year history which hasn't been presented properly. Furthermore, the ride has been purchased directly from Intamin and will be a brand new model. Even if it were second-hand I'm not sure what the problem would be as it's a proven ride concept and unique to Australia. WVTP purchased a ride which they saw could be an asset to any of their parks. I totally agree that it's a ride style that's not entirely appropriate for Wet'n'Wild - at least the Wet'n'Wild we see today. The Wet'n'Wild we see today is also one that hasn't had to compete with a directly competitive cloned park. What if, hypothetically, Wet'n'Wild changed its entire image. Bumped prices up to midway between water and theme park prices and included a blend of each concept to create, as I mentioned earlier, more of an activity park. Akin to say a big-budget Jamberoo. Then they're not stuck in a rut to compete to see who can build the biggest slide every two years, and they're actually contributing something positive to the Gold Coast tourism industry, not diluting another park's efforts. Water-based attractions will always dominate WnW, but that's not to say there's not room for other styles of attractions to complement them, allowing the park to offer a more diverse and varied product. Sea World, with its strictly limited land, should ideally head down the path it has been for the past decade with largely animal and family-oriented attractions. Warner Bros. Movie World dominates the Gold Coast as a "theme" park but with a constant need to create immersive movie-based experiences, it's not financially viable to add major attractions more than every 3-4 years. I believe there is room for one more major park in the VRTP camp in the near future, but with the buyout of WB and Nara and the associated debt, for the next few years it will most likely be all about consolidating their existing parks before developing anything new.

I think it's still far too early to determine the effects - negative or positive - of the new water park. This is the first time in the Gold Coast's theme park history that an attraction has been doubled up. Up until this point, every time a new park was built, it's contributed something different such that each park was value-adding to the Gold Coast experience. At the moment the market has been blitzed with ceaseless commercials for both parks so the true damage (or lack thereof) that the introduction of a park that directly competes with another isn't known yet. I'm not sure we'll ever see any negative effects because WnW are being smart about it by branching out in ways that WWW simply can't. I think it's a bit disappointing to see WnW have to modify their overall strategy because a competitor chooses to copy their existing one, but that's business and obviously on the plus side we'll see WnW become a better park than it ever possibly could have been without this kind of nudge. One of the primary goals with WWW was to facilitate the sale of multi-park tickets. The reason they want to sell these is because they were previously losing a lot of patronage to holidayers who purchase the WVTP three-park pass and then don't visit Dreamworld because they've already spent so much on theme park tickets. Regardless of what's been said in press releases etc., their goal is to capture a portion of a market dominated by WVTP up until now.

Anecdotal evidence would suggest that WWW has underperformed over the summer. It's too early for official reports, but a few things point to this: The introduction of $10 return passes midway through the holiday period. Annual passes being extended to 12 months. The DW/WWW gate wasn't planned to open until after the peak season. Initially they were very cautious about the park's capacity and had planned some very strange things for holidays in this regard. Most of these things seem to have been lifted, which suggests that the period was not as strong as had been anticipated. The public is biased towards WnW because it is an established icon that everyone knows well. WnW advertising was increased to coincide with WWW. Both parks advertised like crazy over the holidays, creating a general buzz for water parks - putting the idea of going one in a lot of people's heads. A lot of people will simply visit WnW because it's a proven park and their ads highlighted two very important things which will ultimately win over many people - the size and the quality. Water parks to me are not like theme parks. Getting wet and staying cool while having fun is the first priority. WWW has a lot going for it, but it doesn't have size, which to many people is a key deciding factor. Spending half the day - or more - queuing at a theme park is part of the experience. Spending the half the day queuing at a water park isn't what most people want. It'll be capacity monsters like Calypso Beach in particular that keep WnW in front, no matter how cutting edge the rides elsewhere are.

There seems to be a bit of a misconception floating around that Wet'n'Wild isn't performing well since WhiteWater World opened, or that they're in trouble with the advent of the new park. The fact is Wet'n'Wild has come off the back of one their strongest summer periods ever. Over the course of the holidays attendance was consistently 2-3 times (and higher for a few days) greater than WhiteWater World's maximum daily capacity, including some record-breaking days. Macquarie Leisure chose to develop WWW as a park that is identical to WnW in terms of the basic concept. They offered nothing that WnW didn't already offer; from a overall business perspective, different styles of water slides wouldn't be considered product differentiation. So WnW has been put in a position where they need to create points of difference, that allow consumers to make better and more informed choices about which product they will choose. Currently it's "newest" (WWW) versus "biggest" (WnW). WnW has also been cashing in on a number of auxilliary attractions such as skate displays, beach volleyball and teen-oriented night events while WWW continues to pitch itself as a new generation of the generic water park. Their goal is to diversify so as to minimise competition. If they were to reposition their product to create perhaps more of a "water-based activity park" (with slides, pools, rides and other activities) rather than a conventional "water park", then there won't be any competition with WhiteWater World anymore because the two offer vastly different things.

Parks make their rules and it's up to them to enforce them. If they choose not to or don't have the resources to enforce them the entire time, then it's not our responsibility here to enforce rules for them. We certainly don't encourage the breaking of rules, but at the end of the day the onus is not on us to enforce them.

There's no reason why you can't set your gender. It's accessed by either clicking your name at the top of the page (click "Logged in as: Username" at the very top) or by clicking your own avatar. You'll see the forums are back looking normal again. I've opted for a wider design, removing the left menu to make the forums sit better. I know it'll be an adjustment (I have to adjust too), but I think it makes the forums look better and it also facilitates some future changes that'll be happening.

As you'll notice we're back to the default template for the Forums as part of a major upgrade to the forums this morning. I'm working at getting things back to normal, but in the meantime there are a whole heap of new features with the forums to play with - take a look at the new user profiles for instance.

You can naturally expect that the air conditioning for the animals down in the enclosure is a lower temperature than it is up on the viewing area where you're exposed to wind and sun. It's cooled to replicate a warm tundra summer similar to that experienced by polar bears in North America, which are actually quite warm in their summer. In the past when they have experimented with colder temperatures, they've found the bears less active and unwilling to play and swim in the water. Don't forget that the majority of their time is spent in the back-of-house enclosures where it's indoors and able to be more extensively cooled.

A few years ago I was an avid supporter of the idea of orcas at Sea World (I'm sure you'd be able to dig up a few posts of mine supporting the cause). In recent times however, having spent a long time researching the creature and its history in captivity, I'm 100% against the idea of keeping orcas in captivity. Because of the low numbers of these creatures kept in captivity around the world (only 186 ever), there are some very good sources that have tracked every single orca kept in captivity. From this there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that keeping orcas in captivity is detrimental to their health. The life expectancy of an orca in the wild is 30 years for males and 50 for females. In captivity, more than two-thirds of those kept haven't lived past 10 years old. Less than 20 have ever lived beyond 20 and only two (females) have made it beyond 30. I'm sure you've all seen the orcas with dorsal fin collapse (the fin bent over). The reason most experts suggest for this is the lack of deep water means the males (who exhibit the collapse) aren't subjected to the higher pressures of deeper water in their adolescence when the fin is hardening. Smaller dolphins like the Bottlenose on the other hand generally live out their full life expectancy in captivity. Their smaller size means they don't need anywhere near as much space to be able to live comfortably. Orcas are amazing mammals, but I believe ones which are in no way suited to life in captivity. Interestingly, Sea World did have plans back in the 1980s to develop an orca exhibit, modelled after those in the USA SeaWorld parks. They ultimately went down a different path and short of reclaiming more of the Broadwater there's no way they'd be able to fit any enclosure that's even remotely capable of comfortably housing any orcas.

Superman Escape ranks in worldwide coaster vote Wednesday 24 January 2007 - Warner Bros. Movie World Warner Bros. Movie World's newest roller coaster, Superman Escape which opened in December of 2005 has ranked in the top 20 steel roller coasters in the world in the 2006 results of the critically acclaimed and scientifically grounded "Best Roller Coaster Poll". Read On...

Capital expenditure goes exclusively into new investments such as new rides or new equipment. Operating expenditure is costs associated with maintenance, repairs etc., such as most of the other costs that have been mentioned. It's not quite as simple as what's left over this year goes into next year's kitty. There are many variables associated - think of it as more of a long term strategy than anything else.

I'd probably expect the Shanghai park to be another Magic Kingdom rather than a new concept park. When expanding into new markets, it's logical that they delivering their archetypal theme park experience (i.e. the Magic Kingdom concept) because of the universal appeal and recognition of this park. New concepts are best left to second/third/fifth gates, relying on the pulling power of the original parks. A new gate for Walt Disney World might be the most appropriate placement for that new park. It's certainly time they looked at expanding the resort with a new offering. A new Test Track style attraction is certainly overdue. They invested huge amounts into the amazing technology that drives the original - each car has its own engine that's required to perform for in excess of 12 hours a day. It's about time they paid it off with another installation.

For what reason though? These companies aren't here to cater to the curiousity of a few fans. The point of their websites is merely to maintain an online presence. Anyone who is looking at spending millions on an attraction isn't going to be browsing a company's product line on the Internet to find information. It's just not in their interests to develop and maintain an in-depth web presence.

Vekoma do indeed use their own hydraulic system for the launch, making nothing really 'world first' about the Intamin version (the first from a particular manufacturer doesn't really qualify it for any particular ovation). Interestingly on the topic of Rock 'n' Roller Coaster, this attraction actually features an LSM-powered sled launch.

This is something I've been meaning to do for a while. Probably wouldn't have bothered if I'd seen tom's post before I decided to make this but at least it didn't take too long to make. It's been about five years since I did any Flash animation but I think it does the job. SDSC_lift.swf Be sure also to check out our Scooby-Doo Spooky Coaster construction gallery here: http://www.roller-coaster.com.au/gallery.p...d=84&page=2 It shows a few shots of the lift and carriages exposed to give a closer look at how they work. Though it's an elevator, it's still entirely chain driven. I'm not sure why Mack didn't opt for a more maintenance-friendly cable driven system, but can't argue with results I guess.

The father said Fedelem intentionally hit his son "on or about the head," said sheriff's spokesman Carlos M. Padilla. "The tape only shows a fraction of what happened. Now it's up to us to find out what led up to that." Translation: "Disney is rolling in money and I want a piece of that." The fact that he says the tape only shows a fraction of what happened leads me to believe that it's definitely an attempt to get some money out of Disney for something that didn't happen or has been massively over-exaggerated.

Australian parks have purposely decreased their reliance on international visitors in recent years because with things like terrorism, SARS, bird flu etc. popping up every six months, it's just no longer a viable market to go after.