GoGoBoy

I think something along the lines of turbo tunnels or dark mammoths would be ideal but either way the slides should have some significant height and length. WWW really needs at least one selection of slides that offer a reasonably long ride duration. Considering the area is relatively large I think we'll see more than just 2 new slides built there in the long term. Certainly a lazy river surrounding the slides and other attractions would help with capacity

Thanks for the info mattcrombie. I would certainly like to see the park expand this year and I do think it's necessary. Particularly with the ongoing WnW expansions which will just leave WWW too far behind if nothing is done. However Richard put forward a pretty convincing argument suggesting that WWW will not be expanding this year. It will be very interesting to see what happens

I think that type of slide complex in the pic you posted Gazza would be PERFECT for WhiteWater World. I mean, just look at the colour scheme! Not to mention the fact that a slide complex like this is one of the things WWW is seriously lacking at the moment. Something really huge with a bit of length, rather than just over in 2 seconds. They could start with the massive turbo tunnels and then add dark mammoth slides off the same tower as another attraction a year or 2 later

If WnW builds a new slide this year in addition to the Half Pipe then I think WhiteWater World will seriously need to look at fast tracking their expansion plans. A lot of people are already swayed by WnW's current larger size but with these potential new additions there will be no competition. I just can't see WWW and Dreamworld keeping up at the moment... it is becoming clear that Macquarie Leisure is adverse to any major capital expenditure while Village can't get enough of it

Are you being sarcastic? I certainly hope so because the Matrix Exhibit was never 'good'. It was poor to say the least. And Spotty since when do armpits smell like a sewer? Maybe you should pay a visit to your GP and get that checked out

Very glad to hear that R-C.com.au and DW/WWW have been able to come to some sort of arrangement. It would be a shame to continue to miss out on coverage of both parks but thankfully it has been sorted. Thanks for the photos too

Oh my gosh just when I thought the forums had completely died over the last few days along comes an informative post with an update. Thanks matt

Thanks Gazza. I'll be interested to see how they film it considering it has all those shade sturctures etc. in front of it. I sort of pictured it being a bit closer to the Cave of Waves beach so the camera could pan from the water/beach straight up the the shack

I really don't think it's as bad as people are saying. I mean you can't really say it totally doesn't fit in. It actually fits the WhiteWater World theme perfectly and sort of adds more theming elements to the park. It's got surf boards and a boat out the front and it's meant to be a beach shack - how can you say that doesn't suit the park? It's also really colourful and there's no denying WWW is colourful. I'd like to see it in context with the rest of the park and its positioning before I make too many judegements. The only thing I am against is budget afternoon kids TV which is mostly of a really low standard. And I don't understand why this show 'The Shak' insists on having a shack in a theme park. Maybe because it is cheaper for them and they don't have to build their own shack somewhere? As far as I'm aware the building they used at Sea World was already pre existing but this one at WWW appears to be a specially built facade

Richard I noticed in your most recent article on the main site (attendances up across the board) that you referred to WhiteWater World as being off to a 'slow start' with reasoning cited by management as poor weather conditions. Yet the article relating to this thread is about WWW performing ahead of expectations. Can you clarify this please? My understanding is that the park did quite well throughout the January period with revenues of over $3 million

Wow some awesome shots. You are definitely showing us some sides to WhiteWater World that we haven't seen before in photos. Nice job Gazza. Without being heavily themed the park has still made a considerable effort with presentation and I think it comes across really well

Great report/description thanks Gaz. Was really nice to have it followed up with those photos aswell. I was interested to see the pic which shows the vacant land behind FlowRider where the park is likely to expand. The area looks a bit smaller than I originally thought... I'm not sure how many attractions they could fit in there

I've been hoping for a while that even though Dreamworld's strict capex budget is $6.1 million per year, if they waited a few years before adding each major new thrill ride it would allow them to spend the big bucks again ($20 mill etc. for somethung huge). Unfortunately it doesn't appear to be working this way. It has been 3 years between new rides and the park is installing a relatively small coaster. As we are all aware there have been other smaller/family additions over these 3 years however. When I look at the park map I can't help but think the park should be bigger than it is by now, esepcially considering its success. I feel their expansion should have happened at a greater rate particularly seeing the park is so busy and could use additional capacity. I worry if they continue with this philosophy of wait 3 years then add a relatively small ride the park is just going to go backwards and we will end up with a smalltime park like Adventure World in Perth in comparison to other parks around the world

Just wondering if anyone has any clues as to why Sea World's attendance levels jumped by a massive 22% in the 6 months to December 2006 compared to the previous cooresponding period. I found this figure in Village Roadshow's most recent half yearly report. Considering Movie World's attendance only grew by 4% and they are the park that has received the most capital investment of late. It just doesn't make sense to me... any thoughts?

Don't be so quick to jump on the "whinging residents" bandwagon people. I agree that the residents around Luna Park have no right to complain about the noise from Luna Park from any of the rides WITHIN the parks original boundary. However the rides at the subject of current complaints (ie. Ranger/Spider) were only positioned in that particular location in 2004. In 1995 this area was just used as the overflow of the Big Dipper and before that there was nothing there. So in fact a large majority of residents around that area were actually there BEFORE the rides got put there. In that case I think they have all the right to complain. So you have to take it on a case by case basis and get all the facts

There is nothing worse than a low budget afternoon kids show. My understanding of the whole premise of 'The Shak' was the fact that the show was set in a shack next to a lagoon with dolphins in it (they used a building at Sea World for the external shots while interior was a set in a studio). So what are they using at Dreamworld as a replacement shack? I don't think these shows do much to bolster attendance at the parks, considering their relatively low viewership. Shows with massive demographics like Big Brother on the other hand...

I certainly hope they get this ride up and going again soon. I don't think it's acceptable just because Dreamworld is getting a new family coaster that the mine train is allowed to stay closed. The park needs as many coasters as it can get

My WWW source told me something similar. Although this person is no longer working on the project (finished up when construction finished) he managed to get a bit more info before he left. From what he was able to gather he thinks the expansion will actually be happening this year. All of his info has been totally accurate so far. However this is somewhat contradicted by one of R-C.com.au's latest articles which mentions there will be no expansions in the near future due to no capital being set aside. I also haven't seen any references to it in any of Macq Leisure's reports and financials (although they don't specifically mention DW's new coaster either).

It's quite sad in a way because it seems like Wet 'n' Wild is now attempting to become a Jamberoo style 'action park' with a mix of wet and dry attractions. But even Jamberoo is trying to get away from the dry side of things and eventually develop into a full blown waterpark. Such a strange choice for WnW

Thanks for the article. Certainly some good news there considering some of us had concerns that the performance of the park may have been below expectations. Sounds like WWW has done quite well in its opening season and should certainly improve as the word spreads. I was looking over the reports and specifically they mention that Queensland attendances were above forecasts while interstate were below normalised levels. As mentioned in the reports and in R-C's article, the interstate should improve over the next few holiday periods, particularly with focused marketing attention. Interestingly the food and beverage and also merchandise sales have been higher than Macq Leisure was expecting. The 1000 visitors per day mark over December doesn't sound like a lot but it should be noted the period before christmas is always fairly quiet. Over the month of January the park apparantley did well and while I'm not sure of exact attendance levels, the park generated over $3 million in revenue and over $1.5 million (or thereabouts) in earnings

Interesting that on the DW website they have used the same 'safety audit' excuse they used for the mine ride for the closure of the vintage cars. It makes the place look dodgy... I think they would have been far better off saying 'temporarily closed during construction of an exciting new attraction"

The above quote makes perfect sense. If only everybody thought like that. There is only one thing that frustrates me in regards to WnW's continued high attendance levels even with the opening of WWW... I believe that a large number of WnW's visitors have already been to the park many times over and yet are still making the choice to go again rather than visit WWW. This to me doesn't make sense. If you have been to the same park a thousand times why on earth wouldn't you want to try something new and pretty special down the road? I can understand if some of those people already hold WnW annual passes. I can also understand someone making the choice to visit WnW after they have been to WWW and decided they like the original park better. But not to give a brand new park a go at least is just ridiculous

Gazza I'm not sure why you have a real issue with the fact that a number of members prefer WWW over WnW. I understand some of the reasoning is a little strange but I don't see why you've suddenly become this big WnW supporter. Obviously WWW even in its opening phase is a quality park. Not only are the attractions new (the latest innovations etc.) but they are also very much hitting the mark with the parks visitors. This is evidenced in the various trip reviews on this site. Every review we have seen on WWW so far has been extremely positive with people clearly laying out their reasons for liking the park. It is obviously giving people a good time and I think it will only get better in the near future

I certainly hope the park attendance levels are not too far below expectations otherwise they will be less inclined to invest in new parks etc. in the future. There's no reason why even if the park isn't doing so well now it can't become very profitable in the future. If more people are visiting WnW simply because it's bigger, WWW is just going to have to expand and then they could do just as well if not better than WnW. I will be interested to read Macq Leisure's upcoming financial reports

I love it - your illustrations just keep getting better and better Gazza. I really hope you send it in to the park... just to at least show them what they COULD be doing (but we all know they won't!). If you were working for a theming consultancy hired by a park and you sent something like that to them as a proposal I can bet you they would accept it on the spot