Gazza

I dunno, ever since the Boxing Day Tusnamis it makes me wonder if a park will ever go near that theme again, there are already a few parks in the US that have changed ride names because of it. Hmm, Earthquake Bay? Maybe it could be themed around San Fransico...... Nah As long as the place has plenty of shady plantsand tasteful theming and is not just a concrete jungle i'll be happy. IMO the name should just be the one that sounds best and will get visitors rather than relating to a theme.

Yeah, you're spot on Joz, if it aint broke dont fix it. Whats the point of spending that much to replace it (Huss Giant top spins are expensive) when you could gain the extra capacity by spending the money just building a different ride. Anyway, DWs flats are not the problem, they both only get short waits. Its Cyclone, TOT and GD where the problems are.

Because they dont sound good? Just because it is next door doesnt mean it has to tie in, in fact im rather sick of ocean themed waterparks, try a different theme i say , some of the worlds best parks like Wild Wadi, Schlitterbahn, and Blizzard Beach have leant away from the generic sea theme. Remember it is a seperate park, and even though it will be with cylcone i dont thinks its reason enough to name it after an area that has a bad name already. It would be like saying Nick Central or Tiger Island should be Ocean themed since they are next to ocean parade.

Because the water mains on the other side of the park did not have the extra capacity to supply another waterpark (Eg topping up the pools and cleaning the filters, water used in Toilets/Changerooms ,water for the food outlets, irrigation for gardens; they would use a fair bit of water) Hence they built it at the other end where the mains could cope. Also, where is this new tower in the second pic?

It always makes me laugh when people accuse others of using the same photograph. Maybe the photos look the same because its the same object and because people all tend to take photos from the same spot because thats the best place.

Yeah, thats the way i felt too, im a very visual person so the parks upkeep really let me down. I think the park over uses moulded fibreglass which ends up looking tacky, as well as adding poorly inspired theming that doesnt suit (for example the lollipop things in the water at TR, the whipper snipper parts and rear end of a van at cyclone, the abra over part of the logflume) or worn out / non working (eg the generator in the cyclone queue) . Also, the parks cleanliness was an issue, i went on TOT very early in the morning (before 10am) yet there was litter in the TOT queue, it couldnt have been generated in the time the park had been open, so they must have simply chosen not to clean up. Now if thats the attitude they take towards their public areas, just imagine what their out of view areas (eg food prep) are like. The new areas of the park were ok but for the most part, dissapointing. Basically, what they need to do is paint/replace/ pressure wash/ cobweb brush everything that looks shabby.

But you also need to keep in mind the prices are low so those are measures to help with that since labour is one of the highest overheads for buisnesses so by reducing the number of people you need on by not having packers, trolley collectors they can save a bit. Thoug i do admit the product names are terrible, i mean Rialto Fresh as their toothpaste, makes me think of Rialto Towers. Anyway, back to the slide.

Plus who says that big rides are the best land use for the TB site anyway? I think a waterpark full of rides and shops has the potential to make more money in the long term than the money gained by a few more visitors after the opening of one new coaster to replace TB on that area. You have to trust their decison, it is most likey that they had cases for multiple uses of the area, but a waterpark came out as the best option after doing the figures. And also, who says another coaster cant co-exist with the water park, what if they did a hyper coaster that sort of encircles the water park? And just one more thing, what we are trying to say about it becoming more a part of the park is the fact it will have rides around it. Take the claw for example, it is great because it has gardens around it, paths where people can see it up close, other rides near by and buildings and to top it all off its the parks busisest area. It really makes it part of the park right in the action. Take cyclone on the other hand, on one side is a car park, on the other side is the back areas for the shops in ocean parade, there are no rides nearby, just some you can see in the distance, and it has no viewing areas or main paths so it is out of the buzz of the main park, and to top it off on the exit all you see is ugly stuff. Now by surrounding Cyclone with slides etc you bring it into the action, it may not be the same park but it will improve its atmosphere with more people, rides and theming around(presuming they theme the waterpark). It also could act as a link ,eg people on cyclone would see the fun of the waterpark below and the people on the park would get a good look at cyclone, this would establish a connection that could encourage people to visit the other park, working in their favour. Also the GP might see the two parks as one and the same, they might see the waterpark as part of DW, so again it wont work to make it "seperate".

It was in Kobe: Japan, but was destroyed in the Kobe earthquake But it just shows what you can do with limited space. Each pool in that complex has 6 slides and by the looks of it there are 6 or 7 pools so that means 42 slides (I imagine it would take over 2 hours without rest to ride each once , now say you changed the slide types around (because 42 of the same type is excessive, you could have 4 enclosed, 4 open, 3 open raft, 3 closed raft, 3 cloverleaf open, 3 cloverleaf closed, 4 turbo tunnel type slides, 2 open mammoths and 2 closed mammoths. thats 28 slides, and because some are wider i reckon you would have basically the entire tower full. So in a relatively dense place you could have a whole waterpark of rides. Then chuck a lazy river around the outside as they have done and hey presto, instant water park. So if they took an efficent approach like that who knows what they could do.

Plus everyone seems to be forgetting that waterparks need MUCH less space than a theme park, I think people have just got the wrong idea because WnW is so spread out and the slides seem to follow a more serpantine layout down the hill (Eg like the white water mountain slides). I mean they could seriously save space and just have only a few towers with like 8 slides coming off each tower that all wrap tightly around it to save space. And take super 8 at WnW for example, there is a huge amount of space below it you could use to tuck a few slides under. Also, T bone is right, its not foolish because the area around cyclone cant really be used for much else and because its just more space for the waterpark, slides would work well because they can be easliy intertwined with cyclone (fingers crossed for a slide through the loop or in the helix). I can just imagine a mammoth rafting slide winding its way through with some enclosed ones twisting down through the loop, or maybe a speed slide that races paralel with the first drop, the possibilities are endless. It could also have the benefit of them sprucing up the area a bit. Also, add this to my wishlist of attractions.

The most likely outcomes would be: A ) The camera being simply being knocked off the track or smashed into a thousand bits B ) The camera getting jammed Neither of these would result in a derailing, and anyway, coasters have more wheels, so if one derailed the others would stay on. And anyway, coasters dont need a camera to derail, they do it all by themselves (Steel Dragon 2000) And with the cameras on ride thing, i think its OK if its secured properly.

So do the pictures show any rides, attraction, concept art or anything that hints of what's to come.

Yeah, im hoping for them too, but i reckon the Master Blaster is better because the Proslide Rocket uses belts rather than water jets, which arent as good because they arent as smooth, are noisy and aren't a pure water attraction. One thing i would love to see though is an enclosed mammoth type slide. I loved mammoth at WnW because of all the air you got on the walls, and terror canyon was cool because of the darkness, but its lines can get very long. Now combining these would give you a very awesome ride (Unique here too) but capable of high thoughput. The other thing i want to see is a decent body slide complex, with regular flumes, enclosed slides, toilet bowls, turbo tunnels , free falls etc.

Lol, it probably will do better in terms of capacity than cyclone. A few things to keep in mind though: -People tend to wipe out straight away so that keeps capacity resonable. -It may be an upcharge attraction -It could be a dual flowrider, bascially a normal one with a little divison down the middle which would double capacity. -It could operate in DW for a few months with access in from ocean parade (currently the ride is near the TB station), but when the water park opens they may close off acess from ocean parade and make it a water park only attraction. In a water park setting it would be fine for capacity.

Thats what i thought too, it could have been like a proving ground for new products, but that seems to have shifted to WnW in recent years.

Was the place popular with Rastafarians?

I think the best thang to mayke teh channil out of is some srt oF clay that culd be molded into the shaype of the channil, you culd then apply a finish to it too give it a concreat look. As four the lift, i thing teh best ting would be neopreen or sumthing like that, just sew it into a loop, then have a cuple of spools at eech end with a motor attached to one. If youy wanted youy could attach little strips of wood to amke it look relasitic. The rafts wuld indded be a challenge, mayBe you could get the inner tyube out of a whelbarrow wheel, or use those clown balllouns but curl it around into a ring shape. From there you could make a balsa wood circile and attach it too the top and make the seats out of whatever you felt like.

Yeah, thats the thing, if you wanted to recycle the Wonderland name people would expect the park to be as good as, if not better than the original.

Check out http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ , it should have all the info you want.

I didnt think it was possible to take a photo of an intangible concept such as ease in operating a ride.

I thought infinity was nice, I liked that ball room with the strobes, and the light bridge was cool, it was fun making it bounce, and i stuck my foot off the side, its prehaps 30cm down to the floor off the edge. But that bit with the fluffy things was freaky, i took it so slowly going through that.

No, those ones you described are called clover leaf rafts, and yes the do seat 4 people (or 3, they make one in a 3 person shape too). The ones i want to know about are whirly wheel rafts, according to the Proslide website they were developed this year and hold 2 people.

That has to be one of the most original slides i have seen in a while, cant wait to see one built. Though what are these whirly wheel rafts they speak of, are they like a mini version of the ones on mammoth falls but only holding 2 people?

I think its just an attempt at a theme, they were called black hole back in Brazil (like all of the WnW parks over there), so its probably an attempt at themeing (eg black hole <-> stars) Slides dont really need vent holes to my knowledge, i mean there are those indoor waterparks in snowy places and the entire slide is out of the building so they cant have vent holes on them or heat would leak out which is bad since its hard keeping the whole place warm anyway. And even so, the vents could be made to not let light in (just have a sort of bend in it to keep light out) So yeah, im saying theming, though i do agree with what you are saying, i prefer a pure unadulterated dark run without lights. The waterslide at MSAC was like this for a while but they ended up drilling holes making it less dark.

Yeah, good point. But after my visit i was a bit dissapointed, it was basically just a big pool, which isnt all that great since thats not exactly special and there was nothing to to in it. The water slides lines were waaay to long, but the slides were too short, though ill rate krakatoas. Plus there was not much for kids, just one slide and a wading pool. The other bad thing was there were no short stay lockers, they only had all day ones, but nobody would be there all day. So yeah, bring on DWWP, there will definitley be ample replacement for the rides so it wont be too bad.