RabbiJody

Could the freed up space perhaps be used partly for a memorial area for the TRR victims?

I was rather disappointed with the way MW handled the rollout of Rivals in terms of Social Media marketing. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall any construction videos or similar content. The hype I saw was all here on Parkz. Once opened we got two jerky POV’s. Compare that with the promo vid for Flash which cut between POV, drone shots, riders faces, offride footage etc and got me fired up for a coaster I’ll likely never ride. Of course I love a straight POV, but I think MW could have done a better job promoting such a huge investment.

Quality 80’s advertising jingle.

Personally, I think WnW never looked better than out of a bus window in 1988

The company who did the Waterworks actually built three of them: Manly, Mount Druitt and Cairns. All three had the similar 4 enclosed slides and were built in 1980/81. Cairns in the 80’s didn’t have much for us kids to do and going to the Waterworks was the greatest. The best thing about these types of slides is that the water could be blocked at the top by a few people and their mats sitting side by side, creating a dam. Then when the water was high enough everyone would launch into the slide. You and ten mates and a torrent of water with arms and legs going everywhere. You could get pretty beat up, especially when you hit the ‘big’ corner on the fastest slide. The Cairns Waterworks closed in about 1988 to make way for an office tower but the slides themselves were relocated to Sugarworld, a small park in the Cairns suburbs next to a sugar mill. They lasted until 2010 when they were removed due to rusting steel supports. The fibreglass slides were offered for sale for $22 000. Unfortunately the slides at Sugarworld were replaced by modern but low capacity open air flumes and a four person racer. That was the great thing about the old slides, high capacity and a crap load of fun, not to mention barely enforced safety rules. The good old days I guess.

Best I can put together so far: One of the two water pumps shuts down, causing the water level at the top of the ride and around the end of the conveyor to drop. This water level drop is not noticed by ride ops. An empty raft comes off the end of the conveyor. In normal operation this raft would float a few meters until is stops at the unload station. But because the water level has dropped this empty raft stops directly after the conveyor, resting on the submerged metal frame. The stopped raft is likely not noticed by ride ops. A sensor to detect a raft stopped here either doesn’t work or is not noticed. The sensor should stop the conveyor if a raft is stuck here for ten seconds. The accident raft approaches the end of the conveyor. It then contacts the empty stuck raft. The moving conveyor (modified with 2/3 of its slats removed) is pushing on the accident raft making it tip. In the court hearing there are discrepancies as to whether an e-stop was ever pressed by ride ops. A alarm to notify if a pump failed had been turned off.

This was the 2001 incident I believe, during testing with no guests. The below is a summary of the 2014 incident with guests on board. From the New Zealand Herald:

Can anyone recall how the rafts were stopped for loading/unloading?

Was the metal platform there in the 2001 photo? I would assume it would have to be in order for the first raft to stop in that location. I apologise for being pedantic. I had thought that if that platform was added in June 2016 along with the rails, it would have caused the first raft to get stuck when the water level dropped. It doesn’t help that the gap between the platform and the conveyor is just big enough for another raft the get wedged in. This modification, coupled with the removal of two thirds of the slats on the conveyor, allowing the conveyor to ‘grip’ the second raft, lead to the accident. Just my musing. Should take a nap now.

Thanks magician. Those may be the rails they’re talking about in court. Are those towards the end of the ride? I thought they may be talking about these ones, but maybe these have always been there. I can’t see how a similar incident (in 2001) could happen if this frame part wasn’t there.

Thanks so much Jdude95, we appreciate your hard work. It’s been reported that the ‘rails’ were installed in the trough in June 2016. I assume these are the train track looking metal rails throughout the load/unload section of the ride, installed to prevent the rafts from bottoming out if the water level drops. Photos of the accident show the first raft sitting on a metal frame that appears to be an extension of those rails. This is obviously where the raft stopped when the water level fell due to the pump failure. Im wondering if this metal frame is indeed a part of the rails and was installed at the same time (4 months before the accident)? It would seem that if this frame wasn’t there the first raft would still have been bouyant enough in the water to not get stuck even if the water level dropped. Jdude95, your report says the court was shown a photo of the similar 2001 incident. Did you see that at all? If so are you able to explain how that looked? Thanks again.

No, thanks Alex. I’ve searched a long time for a simple explanation on how restraints actually work.

Almost certain it's the metal connecting arm. You're right, metal fatigue seems to be a good guess. To to the right of the broken arm you can see the far left seat of the gondola opposite, which appears to be mostly intact I had originally thought the two people falling had come from that seat and the one next to it, with those seats breaking apart or the harnesses failing upon impact with the detached carriage. As mentioned in the last post, I now the two people came from the detached seats.

Hi. These are my observations from looking at the vids and photos. It looks as though the gondola that detached had the full four riders in it during the ride, judging by the riders legs that can be seen. Immediately after the accident, with the gondola on the ground, only two people are in it. My thought is that the two people seen falling came from the detached gondola, were ejected as it detached, hit the opposite gondola and were then thrown, making it look as though they were ejected from the second gondola. I don't think the detached seats hit the floor of the ride at all, neither to cause the accident nor after they detached. The photos show no apparent damage to the floor, and the detached seats easily cleared the red barrier at the end of the ride. As for the cause, this photo from TPR may show a potential fault.