Levithian

I needed to clarify something, but I was too late with the edit. What he commented on about the failure is not quite the meaning you seem to have taken. See the term "bolted joint"? it's actually the mechanical joint itself they are talking about, how it's designed. They also didn't under design the bolt like it sounds, he is talking about its use. Fasteners are produced with tensile and strength ratings you use in the calculating the compression forces of the mechanical joint you are designing to find out if they can provide enough clamping force to prevent failure and separation of the joint. You basically receive the information from the fastener manufacturer and calculate if your intended size fits your purpose through stress and FEA calculations. If not, you go bigger, a different grade or introduce more of them. There is so much more to it than just selecting a bolt that is tough or strong enough, because, basically, even if it was such a simple overlook there is a safety factor built into every component like this, typically 3:1 or even as high as 5:1 when human lives are at risk, so the fastener should never have even approached it's tensile failure point if their engineering calculations of the joint itself were right and it failed because the bolt failed under tension and came apart. It's actually an insight into how the failure happened without even meaning to be. A more appropriate sounding phrase might be to say the wrong fasteners were used, but you can't say that in a professional capacity like this because it implies someone used the wrong components and deviated from the design, which could have wrongly suggested the park was at fault. Regardless of all of it. People were very, very lucky and it could have easily resulted in either serious permanent injury or death. It might have even been a completely different industry 18 months later when the dreamworld accident happened if it had of resulted in a death and the whole industry was audited nationwide like what followed after the dreamworld deaths and findings during the inquest. The gross negligence found (but not prosecuted) at dreamworld would likely have been discovered under the heavy scrutiny of government regulators and the overhaul and changes to operating regulations of the amusement industry might have come earlier.

Go ahead and provide a report that details the worksafe investigation, the failure and the "redesign" that followed. I'll wait. Just for a moment, think about why or how some people seem to know more technical information than is ever usually talked about, especially when it contains specific details or terms even a lot of coaster fans don't know and seem oddly specific to one ride/type. Months after? funny that the investigation hadn't even been completed, it had just been moved behind closed doors. Do you know where the car was located? it just made it around the corner before c block brakes. There are plenty of supporting photos that show a wheel carrier in the grass directly next to the queue line. To make it to the grass it actually had to fall off the car and clear the queue line and station because underneath it is the maintenance bay with a load of concrete and gravel. The only place grass is found is the creek side of the queue line. But wait, the experts said this never happened and nobody was in danger? Seen this footage before? Can you see what is located in the grass at 20 seconds in? pay close attention to the shape of the walkway (the queue line) above and think about where guests are standing as the approach one of the unloader consoles. Second thing to pay close attention to is the front chassis, its location (angle) and can you see any wheel carriers on the inside? Just to note, Movie world never actually commented on the two bolts theory because its not the truth. That rumour apparently came from what rescuers told guests, but its not based on the components that came apart, because, evidently, stuff broken and fallen off suffered complete failure, it is actually something else. The park went with the statement that there are multiple contact points with the track, even though the images and footage clearly shows the car has completely derailed and the rear chassis is suspended in the air, resting against the front chassis. The joint didn't break, it came apart. It wasn't a bolt at all. It was actually multiple bolts of a stressed mounting block that failed. MULTIPLE. For a bit of reference, the attached image is the joint being talked about, each carrier utilises one at the bottom for upstops and one at the top for road wheels. The mounting block had no dowel or pins to locate it and movement was found between the mounting surfaces due to a design failure of the stressed joint, not a bolt. In short, it didn't have the required amount of clamping force to hold it together. The movement is a shear force and bolts under tension don't deal with shear forces very well and fracture or shear off. The entire purpose of the 4 mounting bolts is to compress the joint together, generating enough clamping force that will hold it in place and stop movement due to friction. Think the same way a wheel on a car is held in place. The movement in the joint itself caused failure of the fasteners and the joint came undone. It didn't break, it didnt snap and it wasn't a bolt that was the problem. Failed fasteners were a result and a visual warning something wasn't right. The problem was s&s didn't adequately analyse and stress test this component when they upsized the capacity of the cars for the 4 person layout. The joint failed because of the stress forces encountered allowed movement which lead to the failure of the bolted joint. The outcome was to machine out the mount and carrier frame to fit larger fasteners, fit an additional one to the middle, generating higher clamping force and ensuring it was capable of withstanding the additional stress of the wider cars with added riders without moving, so it would stop fracturing bolts in service. It always had multiple bolts in place, the notion that a bolt was upgraded because it was the cause of the failure just isn't true. Take it or leave it, I don't really care if you don't believe me. Look at the evidence, even speak to people who know these rides and see what they have to say. Or don't.

Im not disagreeing with issues with operations. Im talking about the fact if you travel to other major parks around the world you will find similar 2-3hr waits for major attractions at many parks too. The video made it seem like 2-3hr waits were only encountered at movieworld, when the reality is quite the opposite. We've also been over this multiple times before, the simple fact is village roadshow utilise additional safety measures, including operational procedures in the operation of their rides that contribute (not the only reason) to the slow load/unload times. Thats what I was having issue with. From what you are saying I can tell you don't know what actually failed, or the chain of multiple other failures that occurred afterwards. There weren't multiple bolts keeping people safe, there wasn't any safety feature or component holding it on track. The initial failure was caused by failure of multiple fasteners on a single stressed mounting block that attached the lower section of one of the wheel carriers to the main spindle on the front chassis. When people talk about "the failure" this is "the failure" people talk about (usually this is because they didn't know anything else happened), this is where the "design flaw" existed, this is what allowed a complete set of wheels to separate from the spindle and entirely fall away from one of the cars. In reality, it was only the source of the initial failure that caused the accident, but it was not the only one that happened during the event. Multiple additional failures resulted in damage to multiple wheel carriers allowing the whole car to move off the rails in the process of it grinding to a halt. Multiple sets of wheels came off both chassis and allowed the car to move on the track, with the rear chassis actually hitting the track with such force it leveraged the whole chassis up and tilted away from the track coming to rest against the front chassis completely in the air. You could see the whole underside of the chassis. Guide and upstop wheels are the only thing tracking the car and essentially holding it on track. The design of S&S cars places the wheel carriers outside the track rails with nothing inside, so if you lose one wheel carrier, if the chassis moves away from the missing side, the other remaining carrier slides off the track and the car is no longer attached as there is no sacrificial point of contact like a pin or spindle that can ride along inside the rail to hold it in place in the event of catastrophic failure like what is found on a lot of coasters. The front and rear chassis are tethered together through what are basically very large pillow ball joints allowing the front and rear chassis of the car to flex during operation as it passes through things like inversions. Neither the front or rear chassis (row of seats) that make up the car were still attached to the track and had to be mechanically anchored (ratchet straps) to the track and supports to stabilise the car before rescue as it was at risk of slipping and falling. It was only the friction of the front chassis that was stopping things from moving. So, yes, it was more than enough to cause a complete derailment because one actually happened, and in addition, hundreds of kg of steel fell from a large height that could have very, very easily fallen into the occupied queue line or onto the track at unload/entrance to unload. It was a miracle nobody was seriously injured or killed. The difference in reports between the dreamworld accident and the green lantern one is simply the coroner. In the event of a death, the office/court of the coroner investigates the deaths and the mechanisms of failure and any contributing factors that lead up to the accident. This includes everything, business operation, management, culture, work histories, not just the event or the ride itself. Frequently, if accidents are too gruesome and/or determined not to be in the public interest, the reports are often withheld. By comparison, investigations by worksafe are not released, with only compliance notices or prosecutions being made public. The coroner basically decided that even though the accident contained details of some horrific injuries, the failures were so systemic and such wide spanning, that it was in the publics best interest that the report be released. FYI. Even without any operator pushing any buttons, until a car passes through the current brake block zone, the car behind it cannot enter. So even if the operators did not respond fast enough, the stranded car still occupying a block would have caused a backup and the car behind it would have been held by the friction brakes at the previous brake block. It had nothing at all to do with the damaged car though. That is a fundamental difference between both rides. One operated entirely without a block systems, with only conveyor operation being controlled when fully loaded allowing rafts to bank up at the bottom of the conveyor, while the other is a roller coaster with a fully operating block system that monitors car position on the track at all times.

They had pretty much all of this and drove the staff actually delivering on these ideals away over the last decade. Few people, unless working within a corporate environment and exposed to the decision making process understand just how much EVERY management decision is influenced by financial considerations. EVERYTHING you do, especially in this climate, comes back to cost. Want better scenery? want more immersive interactive elements? sure. You double the cost of the ride being developed. You also increase the maintenance budget to keep it running. Want an example of what happens when you put money into elements but don't step up the operational budget to keep things running? Look at pretty much every single ride or attraction at village roadshow over the last 20 years. I cannot think of any ride addition over the last 15 years that didn't have its budget amended prior to the build process being completed. Everything that was costed and agreed upon when approval to start the build ends up being reviewed and costs were reduced, usually at the expense of things they can control. Theming, visuals, operational stuff. Basically things they know will have an impact on guest satisfaction but don't rate the result high enough vs the cost savings. It's probably the single biggest reason why a wall doesn't exist, ruining any immersion left. Not because someone didn't raise it, or because it wasn't factored into it during the design or build process, but because someone likely said no. It's ok to see through to back of house or into nearby buildings. Same goes for shade and water. Someone, somewhere has decided it isn't cost effective, and it hasn't been implemented. I can imagine the pivot to this would have been to maximise retail options for people to purchase drinks instead. This is what drives the talented people away more than just wages. A lack of growth, a lack of improvements and basically just reducing everything to a budgetary consideration, results in those people leaving because their job satisfaction has taken a massive hit. Essentially, people just give up on the ideal of the business. Problem is, since covid, village parks have been having problems getting ANY staff, leading to major shortages across pretty much all departments. You can't get rid of people you consider underperformers if you trouble attracting anyone. I can tell you with 100% accuracy, that following the reopening period after COVID, a number of ride closures experienced had absolutely nothing to do with maintenance issues and everything to do with not having enough trained, experienced staff to open attractions. I would not be at all surprised if this is still going on today, operational decisions to reduce ride capacity based on cost reduction or staffing levels, not purely because of maintenance issues.

People blaming the takeover as the catalyst for change in management styles and the focus of the business really need to look closer at what was going on behind the scenes between John and Robert Kirby, and John Kirby and Graeme Burke too. It started long before talks of potential buy outs, before the sale of assets and the change in management. The accident at Dreamworld and the huge dive experienced by Ardent was just the final straw.

He was pushed out because some of those people were promoted AHEAD of him, not in his place after he left. Heh. What safety features do you think stopped the car? I'll give you a hint, it hit the cross ties in multiple places and ground along the track rails until it stopped. People complaining about shifts based on original opening attractions have absolutely no idea what was happening behind the scenes. Rides like LTRR were closed because 1) the attendance had dropped to levels questioning its viability 2) it was exceedingly expensive, and even quite complicated and border line unsafe to maintain. Think, lots of mechanical components, very, VERY poor access. These two major issues run true for just about every attraction closed by village. There comes a point where if it was to even continue operation it would need to be completely overhauled. Sometimes the requirements to bring it forward to current standards aren't even possible. Youd have to destroy the ride to do it and it's just not worth it financially. They literally crunch the numbers and look at the boost in attendance new attractions bring. There is absolutely an expectation from the public that new rides are frequently developed. Every time you get complaints on social media its almost an even split between those complaining about the good old days and demanding they bring back old rides they loved the last time they visited 15 years ago; and those complaining they still have the same old rides and they should build something new (frequently heard even when they literally are building new rides). Everyone going on and on and ON about the lack of anything relating to studios/movie magic, etc, just have to face the reality it is never going to happen again. There is NO relationship with the studios next door, they are separate entities, they are booked out by production companies who manage their own site presence and demand control over site access. Members of the public even existing within a working production facility is a risk. Not just to the privacy and all the shit you have to put up with when members of the public try to break onto set and take photos of back of house stuff, but it's a huge safety risk too. I jumped ahead to recommendations and this dude has cherry picked every, single suggestion raised by people on this site previously. Problem is, over half of his demands are already done or have been done by current management and none of it improves the employee experience. You know what will see the biggest boost in morale and quickly reduce apathy? Start paying them properly. They have used enterprise agreements to criminally underpay staff for exceedingly long periods of time. It's a big part of the reason why they have issues retaining experienced operations staff. Few now see it as a career choice, and lots move on once they finish their studies at uni or tafe, or go on to start families and never return once they have had kids. It's a job that often works for people based on the varied shifts on offer, especially weekend work. It's not somewhere filled with a lot of career progression, especially if you aren't part of the in crowd and all the little cliques that go on within different management teams. When he jumps forward to saying guests should be able to experience a minimum of 8 rides per day based on throughput, i switched off. Just couldn't listen to the ramblings anymore. For someone apparently so well traveled, he acts like he has never experienced the 2-3 hour waits for attractions are parks overseas. Where Australian parks let people down is in the queue line experience vs those same 2-3 hr waits overseas. There is nothing to keep them comfortable and ABSOLUTELY nothing interesting to try and keep people amused. Pretty much every suggestion surrounding the visual look, and especially things like merchandising and characters throughout the park is seemingly made with no understanding that even something like a person looking like a director walking around with a bullhorn can be a licenced image. All the seasonal theming, all the specific imagery used in events like fright nights and white christmas exist because of a large number of licencing and production agreements. You can't just build a water tower and stick a WB logo on it. Even without the WB logo, the water tower itself is likely iconic and has a trademark based on its image. Thats the level of detail you start to get into when some of the imagery experienced has been in use for decades. I have to pull him up though on suggesting staff are unsafe or your safety is at risk based on apparent attitudes though. Thats absolute BS and you should be ashamed for saying things like this, especially since you know the park are never going to respond publicly to bullshit like this. It's a pity people feel like they can say and do anything they want, because it would be great for the parks to fact check so many of the mistruths people spread on social media. It's all well and good to make demands costing hundreds of millions of dollars, but where does the operational budget come from? Every time parks even look at rising their entry fees or passes they are crucified by everyone. If they try to maximise attendance numbers during peak season or during events, they are crucified by people for allowing too many people within the park. You have to get the money from somewhere, and not enough people actually seem to understand this. The figures were publicly available in every end of year report while the company was still listed on the stock exchange. You could literally see where the budgets go, how much turnover the parks generate and how little actual profit this results in. Any suggestions to change in direction, change of operation and complete overhauls to attractions and facilities has to keep in mind the realities of what can actually be accomplished. Especially in very, very short periods of time.

Its not even full power. The launch system is capable of developing more horsepower than its limited to due to track design/length and speed restrictions.

Brake sections basically require a straight section of track to fit them and any drive motors in place. So, something like scooby is going to be limited by the number of straight sections of track available if there were upgrades to the number of cars available.

For reference, this is the actual flood map of the area, not a specific one released for a weather event. More accurately shows what happens in flooding around the area. It can be worse than that in a "once in 1000 year flood" we seem to be getting every 5-7 years too. It wasn't very long ago the carpark looked like this. https://www.instagram.com/p/B7b_8HWpf_J/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

For reference, they demolished the old carpenters shed and carport to errect this. I hope they utilised the grassy hill that was behind it too so they could get as much space as possible. It probably would have been built right to the access road behind HSD if it wasnt for the energex feed in/substation right on the corner where they are building. Thats whats in the block building to the bottom right of the first photo, behind the demountable site office.

Yeah, but it doesnt match their own flood mapping overlay which isnt event specific. The only way they dont match is if they dont think its going to rain enough to flood the creek (thats a pretty big gamble because the creek rises meters after thundestorms). It used to catch out staff who were parked in the corner of the carpark closest to the tech services building. If we get the rain predicted, its not going to remain a small stream.

That flood map of movieworld and wet n wild is wrong. Saltwater creek is known for extreme flash flooding, right down the side of movieworld and actually through wet n wild BOH and across the front of outback spectacular. Both streams converge in the far corner of the movieworld carpark as the creek travels under the highway and heads left through helensvale and eventually drains into the coomera river. Im extreme rain events movieworld can experience flooding in the park due to the storm water drains backing up as they cant flow into a swollen creek. The security bridge (and the old security entrance near green lantern/rivals) often floods over multiple times a year. The saving grace is it can go down very quickly when rain eases, but the problem with a cyclone is extended rainfall expected, high falls of 500-700mm are possibilities through those parts of the coast right into saturday.

At a guess, given the height and the fact that they were frequently stored outdoors, or at the best, under the carport attached to the old carpenters shed, im going to say its for floats.

people actually had to climb inside the tubes which was completely unacceptable as it's pretty much the worst confined space ever. 🤦‍♂️

You could visually sight the restraint is down far enough by literally just looking if it's in contact with a guest, there are few rides I can think of that actually require you to confirm minimum closed. Really, the only concern you should have is if the restraint stays down when in the closed position. You aren't checking any of this to confirm it is locked or latched as once it's no longer in the released state, every position of the restraint cylinder is a closed position and cannot travel the opposite direction. You are checking to make sure it hasn't failed hydraulically and released the cylinders, hence the pull up. The minimum closed part is done and confirmed electronically and won't allow a dispatch until achieved. The cylinders cannot function without power and the closed position is effectively the off position preventing the fluid to return to accumulator and the other side of the cylinder. Electrical faults for contactors and relays are monitored for state changes, so if a relay or contact is sticking or has failed, it will flag a fault for the circuit being in the wrong state and you'll see the position on the panel. It doesn't just know what position the restraint is in based on the flag, it also can see what state the circuit is actually in too. So really, the only way a restraint can release without warning is in the event of a hydraulic failure. If the hmi tells the seat it's no longer released, the control valve closes, and the restraint cylinder can only be moved in one direction towards fully closed position allowing you to close the gap when loading (the press down), or to account for body mass shift when the ride is in motion. The nitrogen accumulator in the system keeps the fluid pressurised, so once it's in the closed position it should be impossible for it to move towards open until power is cycled. Especially when using two cylinders for redundancy as any one cylinder is designed to be strong enough to keep the harness closed in the event of failure. It's why left and right tests are done during daily inspections because you'd never know one has failed until the second one did too and you had a catastrophic release. Newer coasters went further to combine everything with a flagged sensor of some description to provide double redundancy of harness position, usually with an optical or magnetic sensor. So the manufacturers really only want a physical pull against the restraint to confirm nothing weird has gone on. Additional locking devices like seat belts are a secondary feature and the locked position of the tongue is also monitored in the mechanism itself. So there's not even a reason to worry if the crotch belt is done up, it already knows it is regardless of who fed the tongue into the latch. It's like checking your checks have been double checked in the case that a failure of a 2nd or 3rd redundant system has also failed. For most manufacturers they are happy to trust the machine element over the human one. So a physical pull up against the restraint is usually good enough for them to be happy that the guest is more likely to be injured or die of pretty much anything else you can dream up before the ride control system fails.