I'd really like to hear a little more substance from your comments and statements bella. This scenario does not make sense - either the parks insist on some form of exclusivity clause, which most parks in Aus wouldn't want to pay for, or the manufacturer sells to as many people as they want. If anyone is chucking the tantrum here, its the park\s involved, not the manufacturer.

Could well be true. Hmm, since when was it the job of manufacturers to go announcing stuff before the park does though

I'm fairly sure Proslide had Dreamworld listed as a client before DW or WWW officially announced anything. So there certainly seems to be a precedent. I hope it's not an Aqua Tube- those things just look nasty to me. I really wish WWW would go ahead with their initial planned expansion. More than anything the park needs more attractions that take a longer time to complete such as a lazy river and family mammoth

I'd really like to hear a little more substance from your comments and statements bella. This scenario does not make sense - either the parks insist on some form of exclusivity clause, which most parks in Aus wouldn't want to pay for, or the manufacturer sells to as many people as they want. If anyone is chucking the tantrum here, its the park\s involved, not the manufacturer.

I'd love too, but unfortunately I cannot - you're right though - It doesn't make sense. All I've heard is that the manufacturer had sold an attraction to park 1 and then park 2 said they will buy numerous attractions as long as they do not sell anything to park 1.

Well that does make a little more sense - I didn't quite read it that way from your last post. At the end of the day, it basically IS an exclusivity clause of sorts. For the manufacturer - it's simple - do I commit to the guys that came to me first with an order for one attraction, or do I agree to the terms of park number 2 who wants to spent more money on more attractions, giving my employees more work through the current financial stresses that some businesses seem to be experiencing? Its perfectly logical - and not rude, just business. Duplication is getting to annoying levels in our parks at the moment - drop tower \ spaceshot. Moto-cycle \ Jet Ski, Tornado \ Tornado... we have two of a lot of things on thec oast because each park wants to one-up the other. Its great to have competition because each is striving to beat the other - but with diverse and varied attractions - not relatively close facsimiles of the one that got built first...

But when you are within a week of signing a contract.....

Until there's pen to paper, nothing is certain. Lesson to be learnt: Sign quicker with less procrastination.

Whitewater west merely distributes on behalf of Hartwigsen ( http://www.hartwigsen.de/ ) But Klarer ( http://www.klarer.com/ ) also distribute it....Would it be possible for "park 1" to purchase via another distributor?

Edited November 22, 200916 yr by Gazza

An Aqua Loop? Hmm I think I'd prefer WhiteWater World stuck with their original expansion plans. I think the park is in much more need of a longer lasting attraction such as a lazy river and mammoth slides as opposed to another over-in-2-seconds slide like an Aqua Tube. The park needs to give people reasons to stay there for longer and make it a full day destination

An Aqua Loop? Hmm I think I'd prefer WhiteWater World stuck with their original expansion plans. I think the park is in much more need of a longer lasting attraction such as a lazy river and mammoth slides as opposed to another over-in-2-seconds slide like an Aqua Tube. The park needs to give people reasons to stay there for longer and make it a full day destination

I'm sure WWW are going to stick to the expansion but needs $20 million for the project and in the current climate it's coming no time soon. Where as an addition like an Aqua Loop would cost much much less - using existing towers. WWW no doubt in the long run will be a full day destination but I believe Ardent Leisure are happy with it at the moment running off the back of Dreamworld with the World Passes. I personally think this sucks as it was WWW these past holidays that consistently bought in the numbers into the parks and not Dreamworld. Oh well - have to wait and see now.

Gazzas picture just show almost exactally how i could tell that its now WWW- not enough points on the sign.

I would be looking for this project to finally go ahead, geared up, for next xmas. Dreamworld has at long last got the negotiated decision, for the approval, from the G.C.C.C.

Very interesting... thanks for that update. I'm wondering if Ardent Leisure will find the new levies acceptable now. I note they took issue with having to pay what they saw as excessive water and sewerage fees which were both over $1 million each... in the renegotiated decision these have been reduced to around $500,000 each. Hopefully that will be acceptable to WhiteWater World and we will finally see this project happen. At this stage it's looking like 2010 could be a good year (fingers crossed!) and would certainly fit in with my assumed timeline

WhiteWater World will be receiving a new attraction early this year - like March. Unfortunately though it is not part of phase 2 and even though those plans are still ready to go - money is still the bugbear for stage 2.

WhiteWater World will be receiving a new attraction early this year - like March. Unfortunately though it is not part of phase 2 and even though those plans are still ready to go - money is still the bugbear for stage 2.

Oh-oh! Sounds like it could end up being a 'filler' attraction along the lines of the various recent additions at Dreamworld. Some sort of interactive skill attraction or something similar. As far as I was aware there was no budget for a new ride or slide in the first part of the year which makes me think this will be something minor

ok, any evidence to support this announcement?

Oh-oh! Sounds like it could end up being a 'filler' attraction along the lines of the various recent additions at Dreamworld. Some sort of interactive skill attraction or something similar.

Where as an addition like an Aqua Loop would cost much much less - using existing towers.

If I can be optomistic for a moment, perhaps the new attraction could just be a reworking of the aqualoop plans...If an aqualoop was planned for a certain place in the park using an existing tower, then something like a freefall slide, turbo tunnel, probowl etc should fit in the same footprint without too many dramas. My bet is that they might just scramble for one of these alternatives.

If I can be optomistic for a moment, perhaps the new attraction could just be a reworking of the aqualoop plans...If an aqualoop was planned for a certain place in the park using an existing tower, then something like a freefall slide, turbo tunnel, probowl etc should fit in the same footprint without too many dramas. My bet is that they might just scramble for one of these alternatives.

Gazza, you are very close - As for evidence, rival 81, around the area of the park where this slide will be placed are footer markings etc on the ground and when you see the development team for new attractions standing in the same place with plans you know something is going to happen. Plus I work at the park and know.

Is there any space on the existing towers for this? I would have thought they were all pretty much full with at least 2 attractions on each. How can they cram in anything else? I'd also be surprised if this new slide was launched in March as they normally launch around September

Is there any space on the existing towers for this? I would have thought they were all pretty much full with at least 2 attractions on each. How can they cram in anything else? I'd also be surprised if this new slide was launched in March as they normally launch around September

Not really space but expanding onto a tower so they can use the existing stairwell etc. The slide is coming early this year not September - So you WILL be surprised.

We're talking about the tower at the front of the park right? And tipsy_bella although you are not willing to reveal the type of slide can you at least reveal what you think of it? Do you think people will be impressed? Will it be a worthwhile addition? I don't mind WhiteWater World expanding one attraction at a time. I think if they had gone ahead with the whole phase 2/3 expansion all in one hit then it wouldn't have left much up their sleeve. In saying that though the park really does need to expand outwards so it's no longer such a small park. They really need an attraction which is going to suck up some people and give them more to do for longer periods such as a lazy river

Yes, It's a tower toward the front of the park. I think people will enjoy something else to do in the park and offer something a little more thrilling for the older guests. Now in it's third year WWW can do with any type of new attraction for something else to do. It will not be a huge crowd soaker and low capacity which will be it's downfall and also having to share a queue line. In saying that it's fast and exciting. I totally agree with you on the phase 2 section - but if parks don't add new attractions people get upset - simply look at these forums at times - But yes they need to expand outward for a large number soaking attraction. By not using the old thunderbolt site they are saving money. No new pipes, stairwells, amenities, food outlets etc. I would love more than anyone to have the phase 2/3 section going ahead - then it will be a true all day destination. But as I've mentioned before money is the big issue.

Is that tower at the front of the park really tall enough to accommodate a particularly thrilling attraction? Seems a little small to me for any type of freefall slide or turbo tunnel. I also can't imagine it working very well with a shared queue line. Are there any other examples of this? Imagine how long the queues will be if people are actually lining up in the same line for 2 major attractions. Surely they are better off to construct a new tower for this

The Green Room is 20m high, which is perfect really: http://www.whitewaterwest.com/template/pdf...ed-Slides_9.pdf That collection of thrill slides is 19.3m high As for sharing the queue, well it happens already on Mach 5 at WnW, but the bonus here is that you wont have to deal with those people carrying huge rafts up the stairs since they have the conveyors.

Edited January 10, 201016 yr by Gazza

Hmm interesting point Gazza. A turbo tunnel combined with an open speed slide as shown in that WhiteWater West schematic could work well. They would have to somehow build it over parts of the hydrocoaster. From what I can work out the splashdown area would almost run into the wavepool unless they can somehow angle it to run into that vacant area next to the pool. It is certainly an attraction that would go well at the park as there is a need for these types of slides. It may not be a major drawcard however. One would not be enough they would certainly be better going with both of them as shown in the illustration. I would also be happy with a boomerango

Just having a play around, there's not really the run length to fit in a straight freefall slide, but some twisted ones are fairly feasible. Again, the diameter of curves and length of the runout troughs are scaled off the manufacturers drawings: