What do YOU want in replacement of the Thunderbolt?

[GoGoBoy]

Ofcourse the waterpark could have ANY theme Gazza. I just thought that since the area in question is adjacent to Ocean Parade it might be cool to tie the 2 areas in together. You would give it a different name, or at least a name that is an extension of Ocean Parade. Something that implies Ocean Parade is the dry section along the 'shore' whereas the waterpark is the actual beach/ocean itself. I always felt considering DW's Gold Coast home a nice Aussie beach themed waterpark paying homage would be the best

[clone_tk422]

ok seems im outvoted here.. I really thought people wanted to have a thrill ride park so the idea of a high thrill coaster sounded great as we dont have anything like that here.. I thought it went like this if you want water go to wetnwild if you want animals go to seaworld if you want family go to movieworld if you want high thrills go to dreamworld oh well time will tell

[GoGoBoy]

Ofcourse the waterpark could have ANY theme Gazza. I just thought that since the area in question is adjacent to Ocean Parade it might be cool to tie the 2 areas in together. You would give it a different name, or at least a name that is an extension of Ocean Parade. Something that implies Ocean Parade is the dry section along the 'shore' whereas the waterpark is the actual beach/ocean itself. I always felt considering DW's Gold Coast home a nice Aussie beach themed waterpark paying homage would be the best

[Gazza]

ok seems im outvoted here.. I really thought people wanted to have a thrill ride park so the idea of a high thrill coaster sounded great as we dont have anything like that here.. I thought it went like this if you want water go to wetnwild if you want animals go to seaworld if you want family go to movieworld if you want high thrills go to dreamworld

What you are forgetting is DW makes its decisons from a buisness perspective. Its not like DW managment goes and says, "well there is already a waterpark on the gold coast so lets not build one", the idea is to be competitve in buisness. Thats why parks cater to many markets. Why is MW building superman? To attract thrill riders, why is DW opening wiggles world? To attract families. If MW caters to families as you state, why does it have LW and SM If DW caters to high thrills as you state, why does it have nick central and AWE? If seaworld caters to Animal lovers as you state, why does it have Rides like corkscrew or a waterpark. These parks do have a sort of focus, but there is nothing wrong with straying from them, which is why DW could get a waterpark, to broaden its focus. Many people on these forums do like thrill rides, we just think that the thunderbolt site may not be the best for one. Personally, i would like a whole new waterpark as much as a new thrill ride. The point im trying to make is that if a waterpark was built on the TB site, it would be a seperate entity to ocean parade, so it could have a different theme to the overused ocean parade theme. Think of it this way, Blue Lagoon borders Rocky Hollow, but does it have a rocky hollow theme? No. So if a waterpark is next to ocean parade, why should it have an Ocean Parade theme? Apart from wave pools, its just hard to give anything else in terms of waterpark attractions an Ocean theme. A lazy river is a good exampe, how do you theme a river to an ocean?

[GoGoBoy]

How about theming it around a sewerage outflow, flowing out to the ocean? The base of the lazy river could be painted a yellowish colour and the inflatable tubes and rafts could be brown

[GoGoBoy]

A lazy river is a good exampe, how do you theme a river to an ocean?

How about theming it around a sewerage outflow, flowing out to the ocean? The base of the lazy river could be painted a yellowish colour and the inflatable tubes and rafts could be brown

[kennykoala]

Dreamworlds New water park that they were or are getting i was told would be a second gate park. e.g MW & WNW. but i havent heard the water park rumour around for a while, but i havent been to DW since march.

[thunder001]

I would not be thinking water park for next year, but the year after. Next year I would hope to see the new coaster at the park with the water park to come the year after. I have heard that one of the crane company's on the coast has a booking for one of the theme parks for almost the whole of next year, so I would think that what ever comes next year would be worth the wait. Just a thought....

[Bill]

I have to admit the Cyclone coaster is not very good at all. I cannot undersatnd why Dreamworld would waste all that money on that piece of crap. It's lame, its slow and the first dip is ridiculous. Even a child could not find this ride thrilling. It should of been destroyed after it was removed from Luna Park in Sydney. Dreamworld should tear it down and replace it with a true coaster!

[Gazza]

I have to admit the Cyclone coaster is not very good at all. I cannot undersatnd why Dreamworld would waste all that money on that piece of crap. It's lame, its slow and the first dip is ridiculous. Even a child could not find this ride thrilling. It should of been destroyed after it was removed from Luna Park in Sydney. Dreamworld should tear it down and replace it with a true coaster!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like one of these http://www.bolliger-mabillard.com/products/inverted_en.aspx

[joz]

Least they didn't waste much money on it.

[taronga]

I have to admit the Cyclone coaster is not very good at all. I cannot undersatnd why Dreamworld would waste all that money on that piece of crap. It's lame, its slow and the first dip is ridiculous. Even a child could not find this ride thrilling. It should of been destroyed after it was removed from Luna Park in Sydney. Dreamworld should tear it down and replace it with a true coaster!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you ever ride it when it was @ Luna Park? It was custom designed to provide maximum thrills for the site it was on at LP not Dreamworld, that was the mistake they made!!

[shootmagpies]

There are some major reasons why they wouldn't put a rollercoaster into the old thunderbolt site. For example: Noise Pollution Noise is a major factor involved. If noone lived nearby, the Thunderbolt would still exist. The TB could be heard 3km away, it was so noisy. Thats why they had to make the claw so guiet Money If they build a rollercoaster at the TB site, it would mean themeing, etc for a large open space, ontop of the price of the rollercoaster, unlike at the blue lagoon site, where they could build a rollercoaster into the existing mountain and give it a volcano theming, after all, it is meant to be based on Krakatoa. Competition Dreamworld needs something to compete with Wet'n'Wild. And if WnW is already constructed, DW can learn of their mistakes Intergration With a resort planned, its alot easier for people to just go to the closest waterpark. And sure some people at the resort will still go to WnW. So what, at least some of their customers are being stolen. It will also intergrate with Ocean Parade which stops them having to think of scenery. Making the most of other rides With a rollercoaster, etc. at the Blue Lagoon site, this could attract people past Gold Rush Country and Rocky Hollow, which encourages people to ride rides in a sometimes ignored part of the park. Well there you go, just some reasons why a waterpark would be probably the best possible solution.

[Skipper]

I think putting one of these at the opposite end of the park to the old thunderbolt site would be an awesome idea!!.... Mmmmmm B&M Dive machine!!! http://www.rcdb.com/ig2662.htm

Edited August 29, 2005 by Skipper

[Gazza]

Personally, I would like the waterpark to be at the thunderbolt site, but there would be nothing stopping a roller coaster going through the waterpark: have a look at these situations: http://www.rcdb.com/ig158.htm?picture=9 http://www.rcdb.com/ig92.htm?picture=2 http://www.rcdb.com/ig11.htm?picture=11 http://www.rcdb.com/ig158.htm?picture=12 http://www.rcdb.com/ig158.htm?picture=8 So really you could still have a coaster at the thunderbolt site as well as at blue lagoon. Though if there was a coaster with a waterpark, ideally you would want the coaster to have an open layout that goes all the way around the waterpark. As for sound being an issue, Tracks can be filled with sand to dampen any sound. But just a question, would there be space for a coaster over the storage dam for thunder river.

[Slick]

There are some major reasons why they wouldn't put a rollercoaster into the old thunderbolt site. For example: Noise Pollution Noise is a major factor involved. If noone lived nearby, the Thunderbolt would still exist. The TB could be heard 3km away, it was so noisy. Thats why they had to make the claw so guiet Money If they build a rollercoaster at the TB site, it would mean themeing, etc for a large open space, ontop of the price of the rollercoaster, unlike at the blue lagoon site, where they could build a rollercoaster into the existing mountain and give it a volcano theming, after all, it is meant to be based on Krakatoa. Competition Dreamworld needs something to compete with Wet'n'Wild. And if WnW is already constructed, DW can learn of their mistakes Intergration With a resort planned, its alot easier for people to just go to the closest waterpark. And sure some people at the resort will still go to WnW. So what, at least some of their customers are being stolen. It will also intergrate with Ocean Parade which stops them having to think of scenery. Making the most of other rides With a rollercoaster, etc. at the Blue Lagoon site, this could attract people past Gold Rush Country and Rocky Hollow, which encourages people to ride rides in a sometimes ignored part of the park. Well there you go, just some reasons why a waterpark would be probably the best possible solution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where do you get your information from? It's as if you can't put anything anywhere else apart from where it's been "RUMOURED" to have been said it was going to go. But just to prove my validation, let's look at this step by step... 1) The Thunderbolt's main reason as to its noise problems and infact what lead to its demise was the disregard for track maintenance. In the final six months of the Thunderbolt remaining open before it was put up for sale (which no one bought so it was scrapped, which we all know by now) it was clearly evident that the track had not only had patches were the the steel had become wafer thing, but even most of the connecting joints to the catwalk were only have welded on or not at all. Then there was train maintenance, but I just won't go there. But even so, not all roller-coasters are like this "Magpie...whatever your name is". Just look at Alton Towers. They have proved that even large scale roller-coasters such as Nemesis can not only be hidden but quiet as a mouse. 2) And I guess if they put the coaster anywhere else the themeing for a large open space would change dramatically, especially since we have... how many hectares northbound of Dreamworld being prepared. And what's the go with this "build it through Blue Lagoon" idea. If you knew anything about the engineering of the mountain, it's basically designed for waterslides, and for the price for an artificial building like that to be re-designed, you may as well go out and buy a better one tailored to the needs for half the price. Oh, by the way, Krakatoa's just the name of one of the slides. Example: You wouldn't theme the Thunderbolt to a thundering bolt's, it's just the nature of the ride that gives it that name. 3)Just because they might build a roller-coaster in the southbound half of Dreamworld, doesn't mean they just can't have to stop a waterpark. Considering Dreamworld's land south of Tiger Island is almost as much as the area between BB and the ampitheartre, there's plenty of space to fit both our water park and special new roller-coaster in. And even if they overlap, why does that need to matter? Hundreds of coasters go over pathways, water parks, other attractions... you name it. Daemon, Montu, Kumba, Top Thrill Dragster.... hello? Just because our Australian Thrill ride industry is slightly lacking doesn't mean it hasn't been done before. However I do agree with you with the whole "rocky hollow area going untouched" idea. However, considering further attractions will be going into that site once BB and Blue Lagoon have finished up, there'll be plenty of ideas that can be put in there. A couple of last notes on the matter... Yes Gazza, there's plenty of room for over the storage area. Infact, contrary to what it looks like, the water level only rises around a metre more when the rides are emptied. That being said, there's several metres of space above the water that just looks like it's supposed some mega mammoth amount of water, so yeah, knock yourself out with station ideas there. And one final thing, the reason why Blue Lagoon wasn't considered to be expanded instead of building a whole new park was that the southbound water connections and plumbing system for Dreamworld's Southbound half is already capped with Thunder River Rapids, Log Flume, BL and AWE, so building it northbound was the only choice given the water flow up that end is much more easy to tap into. And hey, would you want to spend millions upon millions closing several attractions just to upgrade the water system to expand Blue Lagoon?

[rappa]

Hey good to have you back here SK. How's things been progressing with your site? You raise some good points, interesting to hear about the plumming issues.

[taronga]

I'd like to see a large scale attraction similar in size to Wild West Falls, because that end of the park already has too many smaller things crammed into it. I'm trying to say if they put something big in there it won't look so cluttered.

[Slick]

Cheers DJrappa, good to see your Sea World video on TPR, great stuff there. I'll agree with you taronga provided you're talking about Dreamworld's Northbound section i.e. The Claw onwards. As for the Claw's positioning, I think it was a bit stupid, especiall when you have a dead zone in Nick Central less than ten metres that could've been used to either place The Claw further back in an unobtrusive position for passing guests or either house a better queueing area. And as for Ocean Parade, it's just rediculous for me really. For me, I see Ocean Parade as beaches, water, waves, waterfalls etc. however all i'm seeing is a small shallow pool around Wipeout and some shrubbery plus a few fish on poles. Ontop of that, the positioning of rides is just atrocious for someone who wants to specifically get from one place to another. And personally the current TOT area is just deplorable, and it's going to get worse. Kids wanting to get from Nick to Wiggles will not only have to pass one major attraction which is very loud these days but they'll have to pass atleast one major smoking area. Good work Dreamworld. The easiest idea would be to get rid of CatDog's Snack Shack's and Main Cafe's "semi dirt/storage area" and place it into front of house. From there we have a large space of land where you can place the Skull, extension pathways and suitable themeing without crossing the railway, becoming obtrusive to any connecting areas, and when the time comes to update the area to a more suitable themeing idea it'll work perfectally given it can have it's own sub area in a 15mX30m square. It'll be like the old Tower of Terror but in an enclosed space. But yeah, back to the main point. Dreamworld does need to draw guests away from Ocean Parade into the Southbound and eastbound parts of the park, and that will be planned in the next decade. **Wink wink. But as for this waterpark, it will be a seperate entrance fee exactly like Hurricane Harbour and SFMM, which is a bit low considering somebody like Disneyland wouldn't do something like that, however, seeming the waterpark will extrude onto the carpark (apparently) the entire car park region will have a new area of parking just south of the current parking area, slowly moving the emphasis down the park into it's new attractions area. Wait and see kiddies, as Stephen Gregg said himself, "Dreamworld will be the Disneyland of thrills...." or something like that.