Eureka Mountain Mine Ride reopening discussion

[iwerks]

Looks like that Indiana Jones coaster from Disneyland - they just need to add a temple and some vines and they'll be set.

[New display name]

20 hours ago, Adventures With JWorld said:

Not much to be removed now

DW keep going and remove this outdated pile of rubble that you want to call a coaster.  DW should've bulldozed it instead of wasting their money.

[pushbutton]

Absolutely. It's very obviously well beyond saving.

[New display name]

Even if you can save it why the hell would you @pushbutton?  The ride was crap.  After the TTR incident DW shouldn't be staying away from thrill rides they should stay away from in-house rides. 

Edited November 12, 2017 by Skeeta

[pushbutton]

I don't think I've ever been on it. I certainly don't remember it. It looks very ordinary though, to say the least. 

They should have just put a bulldozer through it at the same time as the rest of the demolition is done. 

They've also had a whole year to plan a fantastic new attraction to replace it.

 

[Gary86]

So much land around the old Mine Ride. They could build a bigger indoor/outdoor  coaster to replace it. Why do they want to open a 30 year old ride that was built at the same time as another ride that killed 4 people?

[Brad2912]

Craig’s comments in the interview where he says unless the engineering assessment shows the ride will last another 10 years or they won’t proceed, for me, is the nail in the coffin for the ride. That would put it at what, 41 years old in a decade.

I wouldn’t go on it now, let alone in another 10 years 

[pushbutton]

32 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

Craig’s comments in the interview where he says unless the engineering assessment shows the ride will last another 10 years or they won’t proceed, for me, is the nail in the coffin for the ride. That would put it at what, 41 years old in a decade.

I wouldn’t go on it now, let alone in another 10 years 

Agreed. Complete waste of time and money.

[red dragin]

"we're ripping the mine ride down" "no, don't do it" 

Vs

"we took the cover off, but sorry, doesn't look good" "oh, ok then" 

[Brad2912]

Never heard “don’t knock it down” from me. 

Or from many on this platform for that matter. 

The reality is that the rough, uncomfortable and overwhelmingly blah ride of over a decade ago has simply been replaced in its idle state by nostalgia seekers by some ‘Disney-Esque’ themed dark coaster in their mind. 

A decade ago this coaster rode like a poor mans SDSC. A decade ago. The money spent to pull that mish-mash of a mountain (which literally looked like there was no structural or architectural rhyme or reason to its interior construction) would have been better spent being saved in favour of a wrecking ball...

[Mc coaster]

I understand that it looks like a pile of crap now, but would you rather them relaunch the mine or have no ride there at all.

[red dragin]

41 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

Never heard “don’t knock it down” from me. 

Or from many on this platform for that matter. 

The reality is that the rough, uncomfortable and overwhelmingly blah ride of over a decade ago has simply been replaced in its idle state by nostalgia seekers by some ‘Disney-Esque’ themed dark coaster in their mind. 

A decade ago this coaster rode like a poor mans SDSC. A decade ago. The money spent to pull that mish-mash of a mountain (which literally looked like there was no structural or architectural rhyme or reason to its interior construction) would have been better spent being saved in favour of a wrecking ball...

Meant that more from the general public perspective. My point being that they are taking the soft approach. 

I'm curious to ride it without the mountain there, but having never ridden it wouldn't miss it either. 

Edited November 13, 2017 by red dragin

[Naazon]

12 hours ago, red dragin said:

"we're ripping the mine ride down" "no, don't do it" 

Vs

"we took the cover off, but sorry, doesn't look good" "oh, ok then" 

They needed to remove the mountain so they can recycle the steel

[pushbutton]

Nothing to see here!

 

[JeffreyMoore]

On 13/11/2017 at 10:45 AM, pushbutton said:

I don't think I've ever been on it. I certainly don't remember it. It looks very ordinary though, to say the least. 

They should have just put a bulldozer through it at the same time as the rest of the demolition is done. 

They've also had a whole year to plan a fantastic new attraction to replace it.

 

the problem is if DW did bulldoze the whole thing they would then replace it with nothing in true ardent style 

i would be happy there is a chance of a new dark ride been made out of the mine ride site 

[jjuttp]

It could also be condensed to combine the areas of the Cinema and Eureka for a ride/Simulator.

[red dragin]

1 hour ago, jjuttp said:

It could also be condensed to combine the areas of the Cinema and Eureka for a ride/Simulator.

Coming soon to Dreamworld:

"Standing But Not Operating 4D" 

[New display name]

7 hours ago, JeffreyMoore said:

the problem is if DW did bulldoze the whole thing they would then replace it with nothing in true ardent style

Seeing a dormant ride is so much better then seeing noting.  ((((sarcasm))))

[JeffreyMoore]

16 minutes ago, Skeeta said:

Seeing a dormant ride is so much better then seeing noting.  ((((sarcasm))))

atleast there takeing the steps to see if the ride can live on before just knocking it down and replaceing it with nothing witch is what will happen if it is deemed to far gone 

[MickeyD]

What is so amusing about all this;

For years and years the GP have been begging DW to bring back the Mine ride based on a notion of how good it was. Management today seem almost as misguided as the legions of fans in bringing this thing back. The GP (especially in Australia) are hardly experts in theme parks - even DW themselves can run a better Park!

Bringing back the Mine Ride using the existing system is a complete waste of money and if it will take another year to open it is bound to disappoint those who wanted it back so badly. The cost involved in this project would include structural reinforcements, track detailing work, new cars, PLC, safety, braking and all other OCC systems BEFORE they begin to inclose and God forbid, attempt to theme it.. All this would have to be comparable to buying a replacement outright so why the fuck are they making this so hard and really what are they actually  going to save?? 

All this just shows what complete and utter tight arses Ardent really are.

[jjuttp]

5 hours ago, Skeeta said:

Seeing a dormant ride is so much better then seeing noting.  ((((sarcasm))))

And how many people saw the ride vs how many just saw mountain theming?

[Brad2912]

It’s even more obvious they have a SBNO attraction now. In the past non-enthusiast/first time visitors would have had no clue an old ride resided in that mountain, it’s not like the tracks in the open areas were THAT noticable unless you were looking for them. 

[themagician]

And there it goes

[pushbutton]

Good to see they've at least managed to do exactly what they said and remove it by the end of the year. I'm assuming the rubble will be cleared very soon. 

It worries me that they thought they could save it when it was so obviously beyond repair. I'm also sorry to see they don't so far appear to have a clear plan for the site. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

30 minutes ago, pushbutton said:

Good to see they've at least managed to do exactly what they said and remove it by the end of the year. I'm assuming the rubble will be cleared very soon. 

It worries me that they thought they could save it when it was so obviously beyond repair. I'm also sorry to see they don't so far appear to have a clear plan for the site. 

You don't just decide to demolish an asset without first determining whether it is viable. Much of the mountain was covered in foam, wire and crap, and not all structural components could be conveniently inspected. They didn't say they thought they could save it, they said they would see if it were viable, and were leaning towards that being the case - although as it turns out, it wasn't.

That's very different to your implication.