Richard

I think that's part of the problem... "the parks" refers to two operators that have very different standards and procedures. While at that point in time all the parks were suffering, I don't think it's fair to lump them together anymore. The Log Ride changes are just one of a handful of situations and incidents that I've witnessed first-hand in recent months that has made me personally decide to no longer ride anything at Dreamworld.

@webslave that page is no longer linked on the site. We very consciously stepped back from it when it became apparent that the park most needing of support wasn't deserving of it in that manner. Remember at the time it was almost daily coverage of stoppages and animal nutjobs on top of Dreamworld's woes. It served a purpose at a particularly dark time. @AlexB all I can really say is that you know us and you know our track record. We've been doing this a very long time, have been consistently accurate and have proved time and time again that we know things. It was described to me as elitist yesterday, but I'm pretty confident in how history will judge it.

I don't think anyone's suggested that Dreamworld has done these modifications without having the work signed off by engineers. It's absolutely certain that they did. But this is not a new thing. For many years they have relied on qualified internal and external engineers to sign off on all manner of work, yet the incident and the ensuing audits made it abundantly clear that processes simply weren't adequate in the past. If you think what they've added to the Log Ride represents best practice in the industry and that it is the level of engineering Dreamworld should be aspiring to, then that's where we differ.

@AlexB despite the length and conviction you write with, it's probably best that you go and check things out for yourself. The article is a collection of thoughts based on aspects of the design that can be very easily observed. At what point did the article make any claims to have any answers? You say that the article's heart is in the right place, but what heart exactly? Your response reads like it's debunking some brazen "gotcha!" type article but really it's a summary of observations and draws fairly straightforward conclusions: Witnessing the whole frame warp under the gentle pressure of an attendant checking it's locked. Witnessing the canopy rattling to such an extent that it's clearly visible and audible from 20+ metres away. Witnessing the pinch points in easy reach, created by those U-shaped brackets and the way they freely rattle up and down. Witnessing staff standing on one foot, leaning over the boat with one hand on the frame and the other on the canopy. Witnessing the difficulty of four riders squeezing through the gaps between the frame and maneuvering over the side braces to lower themselves into the seats. Witnessing that bar at neck height for most adult male riders. Probably the same way that people have reacted to Sea World or Movie World's ongoing SBNO flume rides? Vague indifference coupled with vague disappointment coupled with vague excitement for their respective replacement and reopening? Parkz has never faulted a park for taking the time to do something properly.

Well, nothing on this website really matters in the scheme of things, @elemist, but I'd say most here would find this an interesting topic of discussion given how unique these modifications are. @Brad2912, not sure the roll cage idea holds much water, so to speak. The frame is certainly not load-bearing, it's bolted to the fibreglass shell of of the boats (maybe passing through a steel frame within the fibreglass, but this certainly wasn't engineered for this purpose ~35 years ago). The logical purpose of the frame is to simply keep riders seated. Either to stop people standing up and hitting their head on beams and/or falling out, or because standing riders can make the boats unstable. As for why not something as simple as seatbelts? Either difficulties in attaching them to the existing boats (the shared seating arrangement would perhaps make this a challenge), or because of requirements surrounding how restraints can be utilised on water rides.

Commission a reputable ride manufacturer to modify the existing boats? Commission all new boats? Rebuild sections of the course deemed troublesome? Replace the entire ride with a modern flume? The option that they settled on isn't just cheap and noticeably DIY, but also something that no other theme park has done.

That sign is wrong. The original Eureka Mountain (as the link @Adventures With JWorld posted indicates) was a steel-tracked Schiff mouse, not a wooden mouse like Blackpool's. For what it's worth the Schiff design was built at several Butlins parks across the UK in the 50s and 60s, which is possibly where Dreamworld's originated.

The flat bottom and low displacement makes all flume rides unstable by design. This problem is taken care of with the depth of water and ensuring that the wheels on the boat bottom out long before a critical angle can be reached. The idea that the frame has anything to do with capsizing or preventing something like Thunder River Rapids needs to stop now because it's pretty dumb and ignores the basic design principles of flume rides.

Not sure how that happened but the article somehow got set to hidden yet this topic wasn't updated/removed accordingly which happens automatically when articles are hidden. Everything should be fixed again...

Those pipes were always there, connected to the original slide tower. I tried to find an older, clear photo of it but the best example is actually Google Maps: I believe they've been in place since Shark Bay was built... the logical conclusion is that they are infrastructure unrelated to the old slides (or the new area) that needed to remain.

OK I'll rephrase in slightly more definitive terms: one of the Big Four was commissioned for a full-scale review of VRTP pricing strategies. I don't think anyone needs convincing that I'm a skeptic when it comes to our parks, but there's little doubt in my mind that this is a course correction that might hurt in the short-term but is the right play long-term.

Look at the Groupon deal again. It expires in June 2018 and has none of the add-ons. It's a completely different pass... and not much of a deal at all.

It's wrong for a business to select their target audience and price themselves accordingly? Beyond that, it's a bit hard to believe that this decision was made without exhaustive market research and external consultation to back up such a sudden shift.

The following quote from Craig wasn't included in the final published interview. If you're reading between the lines, it sounds like they were originally aiming to launch this Christmas but it was knocked back by Universal/DreamWorks. Certainly they wouldn't be so far advanced with construction if it were always planned as an Easter addition.

After years of seeing theme park industry observers questioning Ardent's ability to operate theme parks (a major component of Ariadne's argument for board representation), it was interesting on Monday to hear a bowling industry expert criticising that arm of the business too. It's clear that Noel Ambler takes a traditionalist view of tenpin bowling; the business model he espouses is one that probably just can't compete when Strike Bowling and Ardent's own Kingpin capture the youth and corporate crowd. Certainly these two businesses are all the proof you need that bowling is a popular activity and a viable business. The real question would be why haven't Ardent been remodelling the decrepit AMF chain and offering something more akin to Main Event that can compete with other modern family entertainment offerings people can choose -- everything from modern cinemas to escape rooms to trampoline centres like Bounce Inc. The answer is familiar of course... they're starving their Australian businesses and throwing everything at Main Event in the USA.

The ground level is essentially a typical driving range aimed at hardcore golfers. This is definitely a significant part of the market for Topgolf despite the attraction being about much more. I think there is validity to questions about its location. Look at Topgolf in the USA: locations in tourist towns like Las Vegas or Orlando are reasonably close to the main strip. 5-10 minute Uber/Taxi from most hotels. Then look at other cities, where the Topgolf audience is more corporate. They are built away from the CBD where land is cheaper, but the difference is most USA cities have significantly better highway systems. I have every hope that it'll be successful but getting folks there is definitely going to be a challenge: Theme park guests are tired at the end of the day. It's not an easy trip there and back for tourist staying at Surfers. It's not an easy proposition for after-work drinks. I see it being quite lucrative with conferences that can bus guests out and back for a night of drinks. I think it'll work with a certain type of locals too but at $35 million it is very clearly banking on being a tourist attraction.

Dreamworld as an entity is certainly capable of bouncing back. The real question should be, is Ardent Leisure in a position to facilitate this recovery? How do they justify the tremendous capital injection this will require over say the next 3-5 years, when they're neck-deep in an aggressive Main Event roll out across the USA. Why would they divert funds away from a business that is capable of delivering ~30% ROI? The two year recovery that Ardent Leisure touts is a pipe dream. A year (or even two) from now I don't think even VRTP will be back to where they were before the accident decimated the industry. I don't see anyone expecting Dreamworld to be back to normal. No one is calling for investment in new attractions right now nor expecting business to be going gangbusters. But there is plenty to suggest that Dreamworld are floundering and throwing inadequate resources at too many inconsequential projects. Physically the park is in worse shape now than it was after it reopened and went through numerous audits... there's no logical reason for that. The strategic benefits to Rivals will be seen over the next decade or two. It was always a long-term play and the ride was locked in well before the accident. At the same time however, I think there's plenty to suggest that it has been a jolt of energy that changed the narrative for Movie World and will perhaps help them bounce back sooner rather than later.

Those sections of track out on the grass are the maintenance track that ran between the ride's lift hill and the (now exposed) brick wall at the back of the cinema.clear the area around the mountain. I wouldn't get too excited about them being out in the open like that, they've simply been moved to get it out of the way while they take down the mountain.

They stated October in their late-August investor presentation as well. The odd thing is that it was pretty clear in August/September that this was never going to happen yet all formal mentions of the attraction around this time said the same.

Or, y'know, they could also post it on a forum that management reads very regularly. You do realise that "we'll pass it onto management for review" is corporate jargon for "k thx bye", right? @AlexB I'd assume the main coffee shop inside the park is open first thing.

You're not asking yourself what the hell Splashtacular, SWNR Scout, SAW, Ice Age, The Polar Express or The Walking Dead are doing on that page as well? It's clearly out of date. If Movie World had any legal rights to the Harry Potter universe, you don't think they'd use it? It's a remnant from the old themed shop. Lying? It's stating that Harry Potter belongs to WB and JK Rowling. No more, no less. You posted this same non-story six months ago and were thoroughly debunked at the time. It's an out of date page buried on their website... probably time to give it a rest.

Honestly this is an utterly absurd debate. No question that you ticked every box by way of fair dealings and copyright law. You took a whole lot of amateur content and and re-purposed it into something new that stepped on no one's toes in any meaningful way. Chalk this up as yet another display of thuggery and short-sightedness from those still clinging to Wonderland.

Hey folks, we don't want or need a mega-thread to talk about this. Feel free to head over to Parkz Nights and start a topic for each specific event.

You want proof that a relatively low budget roller coaster doesn't have a feature that exists on no other comparable coaster before or since? The only thing unique about Superman Escape from a design perspective is the length, speed and heavily curved nature of its friction tyre section. You feel it immediately upon dispatch because it cranks up to full speed right off the bat so there's a lot of friction. You feel it leaving the station in the front rows more than others because the main tyres are located at the front of the station. You feel it throughout the curved sections because Intamin places tyres on curved sections of track, which means there's some side-to-side skidding because the trains don't travel over them perfectly straight on. Rhythmic and timed? It's almost like it travels at a constant speed with tyres placed at equal distances? Crazy I know...

There's not a chance this vibration/rattle is intentional. It's a bit rough because it's... a bit rough. You've got a fairly rapid speed tyre-driven section through a series of tight turns. There's going to be vibration. It's just a happy coincidence that it contributes to the theme.