Bush Beast Forever

Yeah I can't see that winning anybody's support on the GC: Check out the indicative built forms envisaged in the medium and high density zones (RD6 and RD8 above).

Fair enough djrappa but if it isn't a genuine spur line (i.e. same vehicle switches to a different track) then the shuttle service can be any technology as once you force interchange keeping the same tech makes little difference. That is a passenger wouldn't really care whether the interchange is with a another tram, or a monorail, or a people mover or a cableway. All they would care about is safety, comfort and travel time. Also only raised the dreaded spur as AlexB used it as a primary reason why cable tech wouldnt be of use on the GC.

Good point Gazza re spur lines usually being near the end of the line where passenger loadings reduce. If you look at Sydney the Illawarra line has a spur at Sutherland that serves Cronulla. If the line split further up e.g. Hurstville where passenger loadings are near their peak it wouldn't work nearly so well. I'd also note that the current proposal from the casino developers has the proposed spur in stage 2 of the works and even then as an "opportunity" along with a ferry service marked as an "opportunity" and a walkway from Broadwater Parklands to Southport CBD marked as an "opportunity". Call me cynical but I read "opportunity" as "give us the casino licence now and we'll make some noises about building this spur line/ferry/walkway but ultimately just end up running some courtesy buses for the gambling addicts."

Mate I know you feel the need to jump in on EVERY discussion but you should at least be consistent in your arguments with what you've said in the past. E.g. this time around you conveniently forgot about the time when you said a spur line off the existing tramline wouldn't work: On your broader point yes a cableway has some characterisitcs that make it really useful for what Disney is proposing but I'd argue it also has advantages in the case of the Spit. Namely a cableway has the ability to cross the Broadwater cost effectively and therfore link the tram and the major traffic generators of SW / the mooted casino resort / the mooted cruise terminal with a system roughly half the length of having to link to the tram station at Main Beach Station. E.g. Koblenz in Germany built a high capacity cableway spanning roughly the same distance as you would need to get from SW to either Broadwater Parklands Station or the Southport Station for only US$20m in 2011. For what it is worth I still believe if a cableway isn't chosen that a monorail (which I understand is your favourite solution) would work better than a spur line of the tram to provide public transport to the Spit. P.S. Just my view.

It could be even more extensive and link WnW, PC, TG/lakeside precinct/AOS, MW and the mooted hotel. This would create a half reasonable integrated resort for guests staying a couple of days at the hotel. One of the benefits of a gondola system is it can be easily routed over buildings as long as the support towers are tall enough.

Didn't want to start a new post on this given it isn't about one of our parks per se but thought I would post this here given it is relevant to our discussion about improving transit to the Spit/SW given the possible development of a 2nd casino to the south of SW and the possible development of a cruise terminal at the Council car park to the east of SW. Anyway it is looking increasingly likely (albeit neither confirmed nor denied by Disney) that Disney is going to build a high capacity cable car / gondola system to link 5 areas in Disneyworld: http://m.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2017/02/21/theres-a-strong-rumor-that-disney-world-will-be-getting-a-massive-gondola-system# System will supposedly look like this based on building permits showing what look suspiciously like turning stations: http://www.wdwthemeparks.com/rumors/2017/02/13/transportation-system-to-connect-hollywood-studios-epcot-caribbean-beach-pop-century-and-art-of-animation#prettyPhoto If true I think this is quite powerful validation of the technology given Disney will be paying for all of this out of their own resources and thus would have looked extremely closely how it stacks up vs alternatives with regards to capital and operating costs, capacity, reliability and needless to say safety.

I completely agree with you. Much better to keep your existing passholders and hope for them to visit to keep in-park spend up than to have them churn out and have to aggressively discount the headline pass price to replace those members. I'm just noting that because they book all revenue on first visit (unlike Village that apportion it across the pass validity period) this will hit the ticket revenue falling into 1H18.

I think that is a fair summation. Given Village's prodigious debt load (3.5x Net Debt / EBITDA) I'd suggest people also support their parks if they want any new rides post the hyper coaster (I'd suggest the banks are making some threatening noises currently).

Attendance was down 63.5% in December from opening vs same time last year (i.e. last 20 days of each period). Then down 44% in Jan y-o-y. Then down 35.5% in Feb to date y-o-y. Rate of decline is clearly easing but hit is much, much worse than 10-12%. As a comparison Village's decline in Feb is running around 8%. Also need to remember that Ardent book 100% of pass revenue on the first visit. Given pass promotion is in May/June (end of fiscal year) this means a far higher proportion of ticket revenue is booked in 1H and 2H relies heavily on in park spend (which is directly linked to visitation). Given they have extended passes another 6 months also the revenue impact of the incident is also going to be felt in 1H18 as many passholders will have no need to renew until Dec 17. Re new rides I wouldnt hold my breath. Ardent's Main Event business is now underperforming so in addition to c$120m of expansion capex for new centres they will have to spend a lot of capex to refurbish centres and get back to positive same centre sales.

Don't you hate it when the so called experts don't take random unqualified people's advice? Just the other day I made a suggestion to the Roads and Maritime Service in Sydney about the main span on the Sydney Harbour Bridge and was surprised and disappointed the next day when the RMS didnt take my gratuitous advice!

Firstly just want to say this is a horrendous incident and I feel deeply for this girl's family. I'm not sure how one moves on from the loss of a child in an entirely preventable incident like this but I hope they eventually find some measure of peace. Secondly I find it concerning that this Chinese Top Spin rip-off either didn't have a back up safety system or it failed along with the primary mechanism. I know that the Huss Top Spin's that I've been on have all had a belt that attached from the seat to the bottom of the OTS harness to prevent it from separating entirely in the event that the primary locking mechanism fails. You can see it 38 seconds into the video on Huss' website page on the Top Spin Suspended ride: http://www.hussrides.com/en/classic-rides/top-spin-suspended Personally I think any ride that generates sustained negative g's (i.e one that wants to lift you out of your seat) should by law have a secondary restraint system to prevent complete ejection from a ride in the case of a restraint failure.

The vast majority of people going to the night events would be annual pass members using their 1 free ticket to the event so not sure how the die hard person visiting the events multiple times is representative. In any case in response to your question yes I suspect if overall attendance were to drop you probably would see the per cap of remaining guests go up somewhat. There is very little chance though that the increase per guest would offset the drop in overall spend seen due to the reduction in attendance however. You just have to look at the recent history of the park financials to see that. VRTP aggressively expanded season passes during their FY10 season as a response to the GFC. Per caps fell (probably would have anyway given the GFC) but the double digit attendance increase saw them deliver their best result ever as inpark spend rose in absolute terms. Ardent initially held off on replicating the strategy but followed suit about a year later and also reaped the benefits. Btw I'm not saying they have nailed the ticket price vs. attendance trade-off. I happen to think they could probably extract some more ticket revenue overall from season pass holders without smashing attendance. Recycling this extra revenue to pay for more F&B service capacity + attractions (e.g. an extra Maze at Fright Nights) would be a smart move by both improving spending and improving guest satisfaction.

You've ignored the not so small matter of inpark spend. I'm not sure the exact makeup of revenue for the night events in isolation but on a total basis VRTP get around 40% of revenue from F&B and Merchandise sales (which have very low cost of goods sold btw). Lifting gate prices MIGHT offset the lower attendance for TICKET revenue but I can guarantee it wont see overall revenue hold given the impact of lower inpark spend. This is precisely what they have seen over this season's summer peak due to lower local visitation following the DW tragedy and the media beat ups - i.e. ticket revenue steady (because most locals have passes or memberships) but overall revenue down due to reduced attendance and therefore inpark spend. There is ZERO chance they will seek to replicate that experience on purpose for their night events any time soon!

I didnt fail to include those rides that closed I merely stated that if you go back as far as 2008 (when the waterpark ceased to be an included part of the park) then you have to include Jet Rescue on the plus side. BT was the next ride to close in 2010 so I looked at spend since then. Fact is since 2010 they have invested in rides 3 times (and yes Castaway Bay and the Nickolodean area do count). Is it enough? No clearly not and I already stated that but that is mostly because of how many rides have closed on the other side (two of which appear to not have been within their control) not from a total lack of spend. Additionally they have added two animal attractions which while not being rides are attractions (and the key reason why most of the target market comes to the park by the way). DW for instance hasnt added a ride in 2016 but has completely refurbished Tiger Island. Nobody would say they've done nothing this year. To be clear I am not saying SW have done a good job with keeping up their ride count. Clearly they have misallocated their spend and left themselves in a position where unexpected ride closures (SV in 2014 and VR in 2016) have left them with a far too small ride count.

I had just used the capacity quoted on Parkz (400 for Claw, 720 for DD) but to be honest I think Claw's is incorrect given intamin give the capacity of the 40 passenger version as up to 1000. Might be that Claw runs a longer cycle though than the minimum possible (and hence max passenger throughput). Either way doesnt change my conclusion that Claw is the better ride.

A toss up between Claw and Doomsday Destroyer but Claw wins it. By far the most forceful of all the rides and a reliable and robust design. Themeing is crap and capacity ordinary but the ride experience itself makes up for it. DD on the plus side has fantastic themeing (yes the area as a whole does count) and good capacity. Loses points for how controlled it feels and so far rubbish availability. Surfrider is an okay ride but themeing is pretty minimalist and capacity ordinary. Seems fairly unreliable too. As to Wipeout I just can't get excited. Inversions in and of themselves really do nothing for me. The forces on the thing are modest when compared to an original Huss Topspin, capacity is ordinary, reliability pretty poor and themeing average. I think riding Talocan at Phantasialand and experiencing just how much better it is on every front has just ruined this ride for me:

That's a bit harsh when you look at the facts. As far as SW guests go the waterpark went in 2008 when it became an upcharge (or only for resort guests). If you use that date as your starting point you have to add Jet Rescue on the plus side of the ledger. BT closed in 2010 (earliest of your list of lost attractions ex waterpark). SW built Castaway Bay in 2010. SW built Penguin Encounter in 2010. SW built Storm in 2013. SW built Seal Harbour in 2013. SW added the Affinity show in 2014. SW completely rebuilt the kids area (almost all rides brand new) in 2015. SW built Creatures of the Deep in 2015. In CY16 SW clearly spent a tonne of money on a total overhaul of the dining precincts. VRTP have actually spent quite a lot of capex in the park over the years. The problem in my view is: 1) They've spent too much on non ride attractions and nice to have guest amenities vs rides for families and enthusiasts. 2) They've had too many attractions bite the dust whether on purpose or due to unforeseen circumstances (e.g. seems like they were keen to keep both SV and VR judging by the extended maintenance that occurred prior to closure). Either way they've failed to build in a buffer for unforeseen circumstances. 3) Arguably the spend on the MW hyper in 2016 and 2017 should have been budgeted across the parks for a number of smaller attractions with SW in particular being head of the queue. VR going has shown the folly of putting all eggs in one basket.

These parks are still much larger than ours attendance wise. Especially when you factor in most being seasonal parks and therefore only being open (and having operating costs for a part of the year): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amusement_park_rankings

That capex figure doesnt include Top Golf. That spend will be across the FY17 and FY18 years. Even adjusting for the fact that Village is the bigger operator it has demonstrably spent more money on every metric: capex / $ of revenue capex / admission capex / depreciation. I happen to agree that SW is getting the short end of the stick particularly for ride enthusiasts. I think though part of that reflects the fact that the park is but one of a portfolio of offerings that are most commonly sold together and I suspect they have been getting better returns on incremental investment on new rides at MW. I also think they have made some poor decisions in the past that have come back to haunt them. E.g. Getting rid of a perfectly good pirate ship! My frustration is how enthusiasts that are supposed to be supportive of parks seem to jump at the opportunity to blame Village for every woe that befalls them. This despite the fact that they are clearly the more committed company to the industry and that the parks havent been a great investment for them for some time now with earnings peaking in FY10. i.e. 7 years ago! By the way increased insurance premiums are an opex item not capex. It hits the earnings statement as soon as it is spent. Moreover I doubt the increase would have been a one off. More likely than not the ongoing increased cost made the ride completely financially unviable to continue to operate. When you have incidents like this premiums can go up A LOT. Like multiple times what was previously being paid. I dont think it is a coincidence that the log ride at DW (also a self built ride) is not on the new park map.

Say what?! Village has historically and continues to spend the vast bulk of its capital expenditure on the Gold Coast theme parks. Since FY09 Village have spent over $300m of capital expenditure on their Gold Coast parks. In the same time period Ardent / Main Event have only spent $72m. i.e. VRL have spent 4.1x as much! In FY16 Village spent $59.2m out of a company total of $98.9m of capex on the Gold Coast parks (the remaining capex was only that high because they rolled out a couple of new cinema sites). In FY16 Ardent spent $9.6m out of a company total of $158.7m (!) on DW/WWW. The vast majority of expenditure went to Main Event. Ardent / Main Event have spent tonnes of opex on the guest experience in DW/WWW this Summer because the year is already a total and utter write-off from an earnings perspective in DW/WWW due to the late October tragedy. Following the sale of their Gym business and Marinas they have a comfortable enough financial position (almost no debt) that they can afford to subsidise the parks to help them recover from the tragedy more quickly (probably in order to sell it for a better price and become a pure exposure to the Main Event business in the US). The evidence shows however that it is Village and not Ardent / Main Event that has historically cared about its theme park business and invested to keep it sustainable. Ardent / Main Event has used DW/WWW as a cash cow to first fund its foray into Gyms and then more recently fund a headlong rush into rolling out the Main Event business in the US. I know you are a big fan of Seaworld and obviously disappointed at its current low ride count but I put it to you that this is colouring your judgment. You aren't privy to why Vikings Revenge was closed (I suspect massively elevated insurance costs on a self-built ride) or why they didn't finish the refurbishment of Scooby-Doo (I suspect an excess of caution post the DW disaster has generated more work than originally expected).

This makes me excited about what VRTP plan for the eventual lakeside precinct (assuming that is the "future development area"). While initially it struck me as odd that VRTP would place the building to the west of the film tank I can see two advantages for doing so that outweigh the potential disruption to studio operations and the greater distance for customers of AOS wanting to go enjoy some hitting time pre or post show: 1) Having customers hit eastwards avoids them facing into the setting sun. I notice the US centres either are oriented eastwards or northwards (hitting northwards avoids low winter suns in the US). 2) The building being to the west will presumably help draw a critical mass of customers to the future attractions/entertainment options located around the lakeside precinct. My guess is we'll see a fairly impressive restaurant and bar precinct eventually built around the area perhaps with a second park entrance/exit near to the hypercoaster that would allow guests leaving MW in the evening easy access to the precinct.

The picture obviously had the flared end on the western side. If the orientation isnt north south as I initially thought, I think it would be more likely that the building would be on the highway side as AlexB has (forcefully) suggested. 1) The proposed western building envelope currently isnt fenced and as discussed they build the building before the range. 2) It would make more sense to have the carpark where the AOS staff park currently is (i.e. southern one) given it minimises traffic interaction with the studios west of the outdoor tank and increases the odds of punters making their way after a show at AOS (or a day at WnW) to TopGolf to rent out a bay for an hour or two.

You're correct if the building is on the eastern side. The Edison, New Jersey TopGolf site picture that is currently on google maps clearly shows they build the building first. My confusion stemmed from reanimated35's schematic having the building on the western side of the plot.

Fair point re the temporary set. Wrote my comment on a phone so difficult to get great detail as to what that was. It isn't any skin off my nose which orientation is correct. Just pointing out that if themagician's map re the construction fences is correct then an east/west orientation of the TopGolf building and range doesn't make much sense (as the western fence cuts right across the range). Also by my calcs the distance from the eastern edge of the western carpark above is fractionally too short for a TopGolf building + the range to actually fit (at just under 700ft). Building + ranges in the US are about 740 feet so the building would need to be within the eastern part of the carpark to fit. Given I imagine the building will have the longest construction time it doesn't make much sense for them to start construction unless the set has already been moved along already. Has this already happened?

The carpark to the west of your proposed location has already been built on. Also the construction fence that has been erected to the west of the enclosed area cuts across your proposed TopGolf range.