Bush Beast Forever

I can't see them placing the carpark to the west of the range as this makes entrance and egress to entertainment drive more difficult than if it were placed to the east. The range is going to be very visible even across the carpark as the net surrounding the range is extremely high. Re the flare pretty sure already included it. Actually based the dimensions off those of centres in the US. That is a circa 700 foot long range and a circa 390 foot wide building.

Sorry but where was it stated that they would be building in the area marked Area A above? I would have thought it more likely that they end up building the TopGolf building and range roughly in the area marked B above and build the carpark in the area marked C. From my understanding the rollercoaster turns back towards the station before the east-west fence to the north of C above and so perhaps they will have the carpark somewhat extending to the north of this fence. I'd imagine this area is currently being used as an entry and egress point to the rollercoaster construction site hence why they wouldn't have fenced it off. The end result would look like the rough picture below with the TopGolf building and range in red and the carpark shaded in yellow. Area D is the area currently unfenced to the north of Area C that would also become part of the carpark (perhaps with a support or two within it...)

Okqy this is the last time i bother explaining this. It has nothing to do with the NUMBER of trams you have. It is about the maximum carrying capacity of the line from Main Beach to Broadbeach South. That line can carry AT MOST 20 trams an hour. I.e. it has to have a minimum 3 minute headway between trams to operate safely and keep the traffic from grinding to a complete halt due to the increased prioritisation that would otherwise be required at the traffic lights. If you run 8 trams an hour south from the Seaworld spur line (to have a tram running every 7.5 mins or c2500 passenger carrying capacity) and run them to Broadbeach South then only 12 trams from the main line from Helensvale can run from Main Beach to Broadbeach South. I.e. 12 + 8 = 20. The issue as I already stated is that in less than 25 years the line was already expected to be at capacity from the Southport Stations to Surfers Paradise in the PM peak. Reducing the maximum number of services you can run means you get to the line's capacity at the stations north of Main Beach much, much earlier. Potentially on day 1 of opening the spur line to Seaworld infact given Southbound passenger numbers will have risen significantly when Stage 2 gives commuters living on the Gold Coast beaches a simple interconnect to the Brisbane bound trains at Helensvale in 2018.

This is exactly what I meant Richard. Ride manufacturers need to sell a certain number of a new model to.make back the R&D they spend to develop a new ride. Launch customers do not pay for the full cost of a new ride. In fact they usually get a hefty discount to account for the fact they are taking a risk with an untested model. Re Huss, I would say the fact they are still around and not broke is victory enough...

There are a fair few reasons it isn't an ideal solution. First you do constrain future capacity on the rest of the line by the number of services you choose to divert. The technical reports on the light rail prior to its construction had 3 mins as the minimum headway of the system. It seems like the traffic lights along the line are the main constraint. The technical reports had south bound passenger numbers at Southport and Broadwater stations in the peak PM already marginally (c10%) exceeding system capacity by 2041. If you removed 8 services per hour from the Helensvale to Main Beach section in order to provide capacity for 7.5 minute headways from Seaworld this would only leave 12 services from Helensvale or roughly a shortfall of 2500 passengers worth of capacity. The second issue with simply building a spur line from the existing twin tracks is the small matter of having 16 trams an hour (8 northbound, 8 southbound) or one every 3min and 45 seconds crossing the 6 lanes of the Gold Coast Highway to get to and from Main Beach station. This would mean yet another set of lights on the highway and a substantial loss of carrying capacity for the highway at that point.

Have to say those buggies look like awesome fun. Looking forward to trying this out next time get to the parks.

That is a completely different situation to what is happening here. A half burned out building will be structurally unsound (raising risk of debris falling onto tracks/riders) and likely have hazardous air quality due to the effects of the fire. The ride may look terrible but here the theming is entirely decorative. The structure is absolutely sound. The ride is as safe as it would be with theming intact. The correct analogy is if they had built DD first and run the ride before the DC villain precinct was complete... Now I'm not saying VRTP management dont deserve a kick up the backside for royally stuffing up this work but their decision to reopen it TEMPORARILY over the summer peak makes perfect sense considering the significant unplanned capacity losses the group has had. Because let's be honest if they hadn't we would have people complaining about the even longer than usual queue lines due to rides being down...

Don't disagree with sentiments here. Unfortunately this is why highly unlikely they will ever build anything once they do the cost benefits analysis on the project...

Totally agree Slick. VRTP if you are reading this your digital team needs a kick up the backside. You would be better to outsource the lot to somebody that has a clue.

VRTP deserve some strong criticism for not having completed this work prior to peak season. Seems like this isnt the only project that has slipped either (e.g. Super8 Racers took longer than should have also.) One thing in my strong opinion they dont deserve criticism for is re-opening the ride over the summer peak however. Some of the comments here are naiive and frankly a little selfish. Naiive because VRTP are hardly going to keep a ride that is perfectly safe to operate closed over the peak when they have had two unscheduled ride outages take out capacity already (VR at SW and DD at MW). They need all the capacity they can get over the summer! Selfish because at the end of the day if you feel upset by seeing the ride in that condition you have an alternative. Don't ride it! There are plenty of people (e.g. the interstate tourists that drop the big bucks over summer) that might feel disappointed that the ride looks in that condition but will still appreciate the ride's sensations if they do go on it and the capacity it offers to the park if they don't...

Maybe so but design inherent in Top Spin is why there are dozens still in operation. The numbers dont lie... I dont want to sound like a kill joy. Happy to see parks get different rides just want them to be inherently reliable (i.e. not gimmicky), proven models. E.g. would love to see a S&S Power Swing at Sea World to fill ride hole.

They will only ever build this line as a shuttle with interchange required given capacity reductions to north it would entail. Given this if cable is a step too far I would go for monorail like AlexB proposed (a proper Hitachi or Bombadier transit monorail though not a toy train). At least that tech is fast to build, could have the station at Main Beach directly over the light rail one and could make use of the median on seaworld drive for the pylons. Dont want to sound like a hater on trams. Just dont think they work well in this instance.

1) No reason why it couldnt be fully integrated into fare structure. The tech has nothing to do with the ability of the fares to be integrated. No reason the cable car couldnt be under the same zone system as the tram. See the forthcoming Toulouse 3S system that will interchange with Light Rail and Metro: http://gondolaproject.com/2016/12/22/3s-urban-gondola-approved-in-toulouse-telepherique-urbain-sud-south-urban-cable-car/ Plenty of other fully integrated fare systems involving cable around the world also (see Roosevelt Aerial Tram in New York). I.e. essentially cable solving last mile problem where topography makes it the most suitable tech. 2) Aleady explained to you why it is highly unlikely they would just build a branch line for any tram line built to the Spit due to massive loss of capacity entailed north of Main Beach. With all due respect did you even read my post before responding? They will have to run a shuttle on dedicated platforms at Main Beach = your mooted tram line will require an interchange with far longer wait period than a cable car given c8 minute headway on a 2.5km long spur. As to the public's mentaility against interchange that only really applies if there is an alternative that doesnt require interchange. Stage 2 of Light Rail is entirely predicated on interchange at Helensvale with heavy rail. Think people won't use it? Also in this case you have to account for the fact a substantial number of the riders will be tourists (many with kids). Judging by my kids' reactions to the cable cars they have been on I'm pretty sure they'll be happy to interchange. 3) Private operators will do whatever they are incentivised to do. Logically the G-Link consortium should build it and run it for a capacity payment under a Build Own Operate Transfer agreement and State Govt would keep farebox revenue (as they currently do on G-Link) as part of a fully integrated fare structure. I would have ASF, Sunland and Seaworld make a capital contribution, with Council, State Govt and the Feds also maybe chipping in. I am NOT proposing a standalone privately owned system outside of Qld Govt fare structure. I'm merely saying that in this particular case a cable car is easily the lowest cost solution to the Spit's current transit issues (which will only get worse with a casino and Sunland's development). This is because the presence of the broadwater (and cable technology's unique ability to cheaply go over it) make other technologies much more expensive as they have to travel 2x as far to interchange with the closest light rail station (2.5km to 1.2km). 4) The Koblenz system I linked to cost only $20m USD. I already increased the cost by a factor of 120% to get to A$66m. Again did you even read my post? Toulouse is building a 3km, 3 station, 3S system for USD$57m so the math for Koblenz (1km, 2 stations) seems about right: http://gondolaproject.com/2016/12/22/3s-urban-gondola-approved-in-toulouse-telepherique-urbain-sud-south-urban-cable-car/ In any case though even if my estimate is out by 100% a cable car will still be cheaper than a spur line on the tram, have higher capacity and importantly much lower interchange time (and similar transport time).

Presume you mean a dedicated spur line... In any case I have some issues with your post. Firstly you don't support your argument why a dedicated spur line is the way to go. Contrary to what you imply a spur line wouldnt be all that simple or cheap. 1) Simply joining the spur line to the existing tracks just north of Main Beach Station and running a portion of the trams to the Spit would impose unacceptable future capacity constraints on the existing line. Essentially you would be sharing the capacity north of Main Beach with the Spit when the Stage 2 expansion is just about to massively increase patronage of passengers on this segment of track. As a result even if trams eventually ran every 3 mins from the Broadbeach South Station they would only run every 6 mins from Helensvale and The Spit. E.g. Sydney's Eastern Suburbs Light Rail demonstrates this. Trams will depart every 4 mins from Circular Quay but only every 8 minutes from each of the Kingsford and Randwick spurs. At 304 passengers per tram on G-Link (80 seated + 224 stading at 4 per sqm) this would limit capacity to 3040pphpd on each of the Helensvale and Spit spurs. 2) Given simply splitting the capacity and using the existing station infrastructure is unattractive you would need to build dedicated station platforms adjacent to the current Main Beach Station (if you can find the space) and run a shuttle service between Main Beach and the new Spit station. The problem with this is cost. At 2.5km the alignment would be more than a third the length of Stage 2 light rail (7.3km) and would see essentially 2 new stations built (Main Beach duplication + The Spit.) vs 3 new stations for Stage 2. Additionally it would need at least one new tram set (which I estimate would be enough to provide 8 minute headways or 2,280pphpd of capacity - 50kmh average speed between stations + 60 seconds load unload time). Given Stage 2 is $420m of capex I think a conservative estimate of cost for a Spit spur line would be $150-200m (2/3rds the station infrastructure required + c35% the track length + construction in a much more congested corridor with existing utilities highly likely to be present.) Now compare the alternative of a high capacity cable car like Dopplemayr's 3S installation in Koblenz that crosses the Rhine. https://www.youtube.com/embed/khPeFLSDpMw http://gondolaproject.com/2010/09/13/the-koblenz-rheinseilbahn-part-1-introduction/ It is a fairly comparable alignment to what could be built to link Seaworld / the new casino to the Broadwater Parklands Station. I.e. Koblenz is 1km in length and two stations vs c1.2km needed on the GC and two stations. Koblenz cost $US20m in 2011. Converting at $0.72 = $27.8M. Say we add 20% for length (although added station and gondola numbers are the key cost drivers in cable systems not cable length). Then we add 100% for.the Australia tax. This would still see a similar system on the Gold Coast come in at $66m vs $150m + for a spur line. This for a system that moves 3700pphpd (could easily be 5000 if they just ran the line speed at the 3S system's capacity of 8m/s) + vehicles arriving every 34 seconds (important when you are interchanging). So explain how that's crazy again?

I have done both. Personally I prefer the more vigorous actions (higher G forces) on Top Spins but I can see how the more complicated maneuvers a Waikiki Wave is able to execute may make it more "interesting". Does it make it 'better' though? I'd argue a ride isnt better if: 1) It costs themeparks more money to acquire and maintain, has low ride capacity and has low levels of reliability/availability. I.e. it has a poor return on investment. 2) It doesnt make its manufacturer money on a full life cycle basis. Think of it like the 747 vs the Concord. Both were groundbreaking passenger aircraft with first flights in 1969. An aviation enthusiast might say the Concord was the better plane given its unique supersonic flight capability. Any airline or aircraft manufacturing executive though would say the 747 was/is a massively successful programme for Boeing and its airline partners while the Concord never recovered its development costs and didnt have an acceptable return on investment for Air France and British Airways. While an enthusiast might say who cares if the parks or the manufacturers make money as long as parks install new and interesting rides, ultimately this is a short sighted perspective. The parks won't be sustainable if they install rides with poor return on investment and ride manufacturers will go broke if they develop rides that don't recover their development costs.

It is an advancement but I would hardly call an articulated joint a "major advancement" or a "huge feat" of engineering. Fact of the matter is there are 2 of these things left operating globally vs dozens and dozens of Top Spins. At the end of the day what makes a successful ride is if parks buy it in the first place and feel it is worth paying for the continued maintenance. Having ridden both I can hazard a guess why the Top Spin has been the more commercially successful. Namely the Waikiki Wave just isnt that much better a ride for the increased complexity (and no doubt R&M) the articulation entails. I found while the Waikiki Wave is more varied in its movement it also has less aggressive rotational forces than the Top Spin which takes away from the ride experience (for me anyway).

1) Dreamworld's wipeout is just a Vekoma ripoff of a Huss Top Spin. The Top Spin was already a highly successful ride by the time of Wipeout's opening. In comparison the Twin Hammer had been around for quite some time without much success before MW picked it. 2) Not sure that would really be much of a loss frankly. I would trade both Wipeout and Shockwave for instance for a Mack Wild Mouse any day of the week. More interesting ride than either of the other two, better total capacity than both put together plus I'd be willing to bet substantially lower R&M and power costs.

+1. This isnt VRTP saving opex this is VRTP dealing with the fallout of installing an unreliable ride. This sounds harsh, but personally I think somebody needs to go for choosing this ride model. Only one other example had ever been built (shouldn't that alone have raised a red flag?) And it was SBNO before DD was even built! Additionally both the Zamperla and Verkoma clones were also duds commercially. VRTP should have gone with the original plan of a windseeker (or similar tower ride) or at least a looping/spinning ride with a demonstrated track record of reliability. Reckon buying the updated Huss Enterprise 2G (where gondolas are replaced with open suspended seats) would have been a better bet. With a relatively small number of comparatively well themed rides VRTP should have reliability/availability as the #1 consideration on their checklist (safety being a given).

No worries yeah understand how can be difficult to get tone across in the written word. Am not holding out much hope they end up going with something like what I've suggested though. Aussie planners not the kind to look outside the box. Much more likely that they'll spend 3-4x as much as a gondola system would cost to build another vehicle bridge that does nothing to resolve the congestion on the GC Highway. Would be cool if they did though. Kids would love going on it (e.g. how many kids have ever asked to go by car to Taronga Zoo in Sydney vs taking the Ferry?). A public transport solution would also mean you wouldnt need a designated driver if going to the casino and enjoying some beverages or if Seaworld were to develop some nightime events (e.g. how about an Oktoberfest event?).

What other solution is as cost effective, environmentally sustainable and will increase utilisation of infrastructure that retains capacity for significant growth (light rail should be able to see headway reduced to as little as 3-4 minutes if this ever became an issue)? Once the northern light rail extension is completed a public transit solution that links the transit constrained GC Spit to the light rail seems like a no-brainer to me (effectively links the spit to the entire SE Qld rail network). It isnt as if these solutions arent being built elsewhere. Literally dozens have been built or proposed worldwide since the first urban system was built in Medillin, Columbia in 2004. For the State or Local Govt to not be aware of cable transit as a solution requires some willful ignorance on their part. Isn't that what all those 'study tours' MPs and Councillors go on are for?

Why is it that nobody within ASF, VRTP, Gold Coast Council or the Qld Govt have seen fit to suggest the fairly obvious solution of a modern cable car / gondola system from the Broadwater Parkland Light Rail Station to the southwesternmost corner of the Seaworld parking lot? This solution is: - cheap for a public transport solution; - good for the environment being driven by electricity; - a tourist attraction in and of itself; - has potential to be extended to service the mooted cruise terminal if that goes ahead; and - is actually fairly high capacity. An MDG system (Mono Detachable Grip) for instance can transport up to 3000pphpd: http://gondolaproject.com/mdg/ A funitel up to 4000 (and also boasts better wind resistance): http://gondolaproject.com/funitel/ Or a top of the line 3S system up to 6000 (along with terrific wind resistance): http://gondolaproject.com/3s/ To put that in perspective the G-Link Tram has a minimum headway of 7.5mins and carries a maximum of 309 passengers currently (i.e. less than 2500pphpd capacity).

BTW WVTP have put up the new Wet n Wild Phoenix website which has a full list of attractions and a pretty nifty park map: http://phoenix.mywetnwild.com/Park-Info/Interactive-Map.htm

Just noticed this story about WVTP's new waterpark in Phoenix Arizona that is opening in mid-June: http://www.azcentral.com/community/northva...x-wild0425.html WVTP picked up the long term management rights for it mid last year and have spent US$30m updating the park. Think what is interesting from our perspective is that apart from the ubiquitous speed slides and Tornado the park will have: 1) Maximum Velocity a duelling water coaster (description sounds like a Whitewater West master blaster); 2) a Superbowl (again Whitewater West); 3) Desert Racers (looks like a Proslide Octopus racer in the pictures that link from the story); 4) Mammoth Falls (what sounds suspiciously like a Whitewater West family boomerango); Is this maybe a sign of attractions to come for WnW Gold Coast?

Vilage Roadshow's result release today mentions that the park is getting a proslide octopus racer and a WhiteWater West Raft ride this year. Unfortunately don't mention anything about a new WnW ride. Given the WWW expansion seems to not be happening anytime soon I really hope WVTP aren't going to be spending all their money overseas this year!

Hmm sorry but looks like you were suggesting it wasn't...