Steel Taipan Construction - Dreamworld Mack launched roller coaster

[New display name]

Any theming for the launch would have been better than fence canyon.

 

ST is nice enough to look at from the outside but as from the perspective of the rider, there is nothing.   The attempt at building a cave highlights my thoughts because the cave has been left open to give people watching a view of the train which reduces the experience for the rider.

Edited November 1, 2021 by New display name

[Vidgamer]

4 hours ago, Gazza said:

Yes, I noticed the billboard at the front of the park was updated too.

I have a theory that they might go for a November opening and then advertise the Christmas event in December. A beat of excitement and something new every month.

I don't believe they are having a Christmas event.

[rappa]

 

3 hours ago, New display name said:

 The attempt at building a cave highlights my thoughts because the cave has been left open to give people watching a view of the train which reduces the experience for the rider.

It also more closely resembles a scaffold shed than a cave. 

[themagician]

15 minutes ago, Vidgamer said:

I don't believe they are having a Christmas event.

It might not be Christmas, but there is a summer event of some form 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 29/10/2021 at 6:51 AM, Slick said:

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. If they saved a ton of money by not modifying the support structure greatly, brilliant. Same goes for the launch, no doubt they saved a ton of money by having to buy only a third of the launch system traditionally needed for this kind of ride. And I think most enthusiasts are totally okay with them saving a buck, so long as they're using their savings to make the ride better elsewhere. I think then that the beef that enthusiasts have lies with the fact that they stick out like a sore thumb and not a lot has been done to minimise that, despite the extra capital available to do exactly that.

Given the saga that has been Dreamworld's construction of Steel Taipan - do you honestly believe the 'ton of money' they 'saved' by reducing the launch components was just shovelled into a dumpster waiting for them to buy theming with it?

Or if the 'saving money' part of reducing the launch more likely brought the pricetag down to a point where they could just afford it, leaving no money left to actually build it, requiring a loan from the government to do so...

I doubt they had much in the way of 'extra capital' to do anything with, beyond what we've already seen.

[Slick]

26 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Given the saga that has been Dreamworld's construction of Steel Taipan - do you honestly believe the 'ton of money' they 'saved' by reducing the launch components was just shovelled into a dumpster waiting for them to buy theming with it?

Or if the 'saving money' part of reducing the launch more likely brought the pricetag down to a point where they could just afford it, leaving no money left to actually build it, requiring a loan from the government to do so...

I doubt they had much in the way of 'extra capital' to do anything with, beyond what we've already seen.

I think you're being a tad revisionist in terms of the history of the ride. We know (thanks to the tender documents that were posted on here) that most of the design and theming was locked in before COVID-19 and is what we see now, despite the fiscal hardship.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

You're still assuming they originally had a bucket of money they could have thrown at theming instead of being tightly budgeted on just getting it built - with or without loans.

[Slick]

40 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

You're still assuming they originally had a bucket of money they could have thrown at theming instead of being tightly budgeted on just getting it built - with or without loans.

Am I actually assuming that though? Taking a step back, it’s pretty clear there was budget available for theming, and they spent that in a way that’s different to the way I would’ve spent it and, in my opinion, may have made it a far more iconic experience. It’s also just my opinion, we all know i’m passionate about the park, and just because they didn’t do it my way doesn’t make them wrong either. 
 

Putting aside what budget they actually had, why risk a 30 million dollar asset’s success over an extra 500k? It’s a theme park - experience matters, and not only is it a once in a generation investment, the whole park now relies on the success of this ride, so being austere at this point is borderline negligent, especially when it’s been proven that tactic hasn’t yielded results.  Sky Voyager is a great example of how delays, poor marketing and a mediocre pre-ride experience (and facade to boot) killed a 20-million dollar investment - why make that mistake again, especially when it literally casts a shadow over the new project?

Superman Escape was delayed and ended up having another four million spent on it. The end result though was that the park was transformed into a legitimate player against Dreamworld in the thrill ride space and drove a 9.5% increase in attendance. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Slick

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

That is not what you said. You said there was extra money available to spruce up other areas. You said nothing about taking it from existing theming and putting it elsewhere.

Quote

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. If they saved a ton of money by not modifying the support structure greatly, brilliant. Same goes for the launch, no doubt they saved a ton of money by having to buy only a third of the launch system traditionally needed for this kind of ride. And I think most enthusiasts are totally okay with them saving a buck, so long as they're using their savings to make the ride better elsewhere. I think then that the beef that enthusiasts have lies with the fact that they stick out like a sore thumb and not a lot has been done to minimise that, despite the extra capital available to do exactly that.

 

[Slick]

22 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

That is not what you said. You said there was extra money available to spruce up other areas. You said nothing about taking it from existing theming and putting it elsewhere.

 

So you don’t think they used the money they saved on that launch system and spent it on rock tunnels and diverting the train? In any case, I’ve shared some thoughts on how I would’ve themed it with the same budget, and made the case on why spending a bit extra is worth it, and cited some local examples. What would you rather they had done?

Edited November 2, 2021 by Slick

[joz]

46 minutes ago, Slick said:

they spent that in a way that’s different to the way I would’ve spent it and [snip] just because they didn’t do it my way doesn’t make them wrong either

I should get this printed out and put in my office, always need to remind myself of this.

[Gazza]

I don't think it would have saved money to do the triple launch? Less LSMs but more track, and its expensive tall track with deep foundations..

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

19 hours ago, Slick said:

Putting aside what budget they actually had, why risk a 30 million dollar asset’s success over an extra 500k?

You're assuming they had the extra available to spend. I don't think the general public are going to shun this ride because they can see its footers. This isn't the 1820s and the ride isn't a victorian lady. 

People are so quick to pick fault - does nobody remember the six foot tall concrete footers present between Vikings and Storm coaster? Where is the big debate about village doing nothing to that?

18 hours ago, Slick said:

So you don’t think they used the money they saved on that launch system and spent it on rock tunnels and diverting the train? In any case, I’ve shared some thoughts on how I would’ve themed it with the same budget, and made the case on why spending a bit extra is worth it, and cited some local examples. What would you rather they had done?

No I don't. I'm assuming the rockwork and train diversions formed part of the original package, and they were both 'must haves' on their shopping list (let's face it, the train diversion was necessary - removal really wasn't an option), and there was nothing left to do anything else. But these are all outsider assumptions based on guess work. We're not working with their actual financial position here.

What would I rather? I'm no park designer. I have friends who have awesome thoughts about what could be done, but end of the day that's not what they went with and I don't see that big of an issue with a plain corrugated roof not visible from outside the ride. I don't see an issue with concrete pillars rising 6 feet out of the ground to make a standard design 'fit' the land space (especially when nobody really took issue with the identical footings on Storm Coaster)

I'd have probably landscaped the lower pathway with some greenery or shade. But then that probably doesn't fit the 'theme' of the arid desert landscape of the non coastal taipan. A design choice, albeit a stupid one.

Maybe designed a pathway that lead directly from Taipan's viewing areas to giant drop without going around the world - with a loose items shield\net if necessary.

But i'm not unhappy with what is presented here. And if they take the time to add to it at a later date once the crowds start to pay the bills then i'm ok with that (the same as many have suggested will occur at Luna Park). If they leave it as is, i'm ok with that too.

A pensioner with a cupboard full of vita brits and ramen noodles isn't doing it for austerity - they're doing it because they can't afford anything else.

Cyclone wasn't designed for it's current home but they modified things and made it fit, and despite the stupid spiral queue we all loathe, it's fine. It didn't fail because of a stupid queue line or massively out of place layout due to topography.

 

I realise its been a while since we all walked past that part of vikings - so for those who don't remember - does THIS look familiar?

Vikings Revenge Rerouting | Parkz - Theme Parks

Storm Water Coaster | Parkz - Theme Parks

[Slick]

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

You're assuming they had the extra available to spend.

"At 29 June 2021, the Australian business has $18.1 million cash available and a further undrawn debt capacity of $49.9 million."

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

I don't think the general public are going to shun this ride because they can see its footers

Well that would be ridiculous if anyone did, present company included. But taking what I said out of context and using it to form a bad faith argument is a bit on the nose. Guests definitely noticed when the steam trains stopped rolling through, when Wipeout's pool was drained or when rides are left SBNO. They might not outright shun a park, but it's a theme park - these places should be destinations of escapism, not constant reminders that these days shopping centres tend to be better themed.

 

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

What would I rather? I'm no park designer.

Just because i'm not a Formula 1 driver doesn't mean I can't judge a driver's performance.

 

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

It didn't fail because of a stupid queue line or massively out of place layout due to topography.

Great execution often results in having the entire theme and name stripped out not once but twice. /s

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

21 hours ago, Slick said:

why risk a 30 million dollar asset’s success over an extra 500k?

 

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

I don't think the general public are going to shun this ride because they can see its footers.

 

8 minutes ago, Slick said:

But taking what I said out of context and using it to form a bad faith argument is a bit on the nose.

Another Slick cliche - call it a bad faith argument so you can avoid the obvious flaw that has been pointed out in your rhetoric.

Please explain to me what I took out of context. You stated that it was a risk to a $30M investment not to drop the extra $500k. 

9 minutes ago, Slick said:

They might not outright shun a park

If they don't shun it, is the success of the ride really at risk if they leave a few footers bare?

And if $500k absolves the risk, what would $200k do? or $750k? there has to be a line somewhere.

9 minutes ago, Slick said:

but it's a theme park - these places should be destinations of escapism, not constant reminders that these days shopping centres tend to be better themed.

Yes yes. We've all trotted this trope out. Movie World's roof. Sea World's penguin encounter. Sky Voyager. And just because a business has $18M in cash, doesn't mean that big Uncle Scrooge Money Bin style pile of gold coins is just sitting around unaccounted and unplanned for. Cash reserves are needed for a lot more than extra theming - especially in a covid, border closure, lockdown prone world. We're not out of this yet.

[themagician]

Something to note is that the park are going to see how guests utilise areas and whether or not they need to add additional amenities. To my understanding, once BuzzSaw is removed, that area will remain closed off and the park are going to evaluate whether they need to construct a viewing area of the coaster. Which makes sense because why spend extra money on an area that people might not even use. If additional shading and seating is required over time it will be added. Same with the connection path under the track to the Giant drop. If they find a lot of guests stop to watch the coaster, then they’ll make better use of that space

[Gazza]

For what its worth I'm not too fussed about the lack of an enclosed turn at the start.

So many coasters do it:

 

 

 

[Slick]

I'm not suggesting or implying they spend every penny they have in cash and available loans on theming. By definition, that is taking what I said, which was merely that they had cash and loans available, and using it back against me in bad faith. It's a "Slick cliche" because you keep taking people's words and twisting them to suit your point and it's exhausting having a conversation about semantics instead of the topic at hand when those who engage in discussion aren't engaging in good faith.

1 hour ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

is the success of the ride really at risk if they leave a few footers bare?

What do you strip back before it's too barebones? What do you add that could create an infinitely better experience for not a lot of cash? That's a far more interesting conversation, imo.

3 minutes ago, themagician said:

Something to note is that the park are going to see how guests utilise areas and whether or not they need to add additional amenities. To my understanding, once BuzzSaw is removed, that area will remain closed off and the park are going to evaluate whether they need to construct a viewing area of the coaster. Which makes sense because why spend extra money on an area that people might not even use. If additional shading and seating is required over time it will be added. Same with the connection path under the track to the Giant drop. If they find a lot of guests stop to watch the coaster, then they’ll make better use of that space

This is the kind of positivity I like to hear. Based off how they handled guest feedback from Happy Halloween, it looks like they're making some big strides in quickly adapting based on feedback.

@Gazza I also don't mind the turnaround being outdoors. I actually think it'd be cool for the train to be able to leave the station and have an opportunity for guests to see people's nervous faces before entering a launch tunnel of sorts.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Good onya mate. 

20 minutes ago, themagician said:

Something to note is that the park are going to see how guests utilise areas and whether or not they need to add additional amenities. To my understanding, once BuzzSaw is removed, that area will remain closed off and the park are going to evaluate whether they need to construct a viewing area of the coaster. Which makes sense because why spend extra money on an area that people might not even use. If additional shading and seating is required over time it will be added. Same with the connection path under the track to the Giant drop. If they find a lot of guests stop to watch the coaster, then they’ll make better use of that space

That is actually really positive to hear!

3 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

But i'm not unhappy with what is presented here. And if they take the time to add to it at a later date once the crowds start to pay the bills then i'm ok with that (the same as many have suggested will occur at Luna Park). If they leave it as is, i'm ok with that too.

 

[joz]

Devil's advocate: if you're DW no way would you open a path to GD as all that does is bypasses the ice cream parlour, candy shop and cafe. It's one of those things where you go 'It'd be nice if' but the business case really isn't there.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I can't argue with sound business logic on pedestrian traffic flow - but they did have a path leading there from Goldrush once upon a time. The BB Cafe and its predecessors were the likely revenue funnel for that area. In the short term some carts along the way (especially if there were a few seats in a good place to watch the coaster) could even improve their per cap, with a view to including a kiosk or other outlet down the line when they expand onto the logride site. Village have shown peak-trade carts in high traffic flow areas are obviously profitable. (As a matter of fact I don't think i've had anything to eat or drink from a bricks-and-mortar outlet at Sea World in forever)

You're right - if they're going to spend more money, it needs to be in such a way that they're going to increase revenue - perhaps that is a way they could have done that, without the foolishness of an 'exit shop' though? Then that would make the business case viable, simultaneously reducing guest frustration at dead-ends?

[Gazza]

Also I just want to say that I'm neither here nor there on enclosed launches.

The thing that ruined enclosed launches for me was Do-Dodonpa. Its phenomenal launch in terms of forces, but because its a featureless black tube with a bit of light at the end of the tunnel, you lose a lot of the sense of speed.

Needs some lights or at least some points of reference on the wall.

On the other hand Top Thrill Dragster and Xcelerator are great because you have a line of people along it, fences, palm trees, grand stands etc and its so cool seeing all those things warp past.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

14 minutes ago, Gazza said:

On the other hand Top Thrill Dragster and Xcelerator are great because you have a line of people along it, fences, palm trees, grand stands etc and its so cool seeing all those things warp past.

...until it hits you in the head...

[joz]

16 minutes ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

if they're going to spend more money, it needs to be in such a way that they're going to increase revenue - perhaps that is a way they could have done that, without the foolishness of an 'exit shop' though? Then that would make the business case viable, simultaneously reducing guest frustration at dead-ends?

Well there were spending opportunities in Gold Rush Country like old time photos and F&B. The design philosophy was very different back in those days too. With ST I'm just going to pretend that the entrance is next to SV, and that there is no dead end. I feel better already 😃

 

FWIW I also don't mind exit shops, but just put some effort in. There's a difference between ToT's/Scooby's exit shop and Jet Rescue's.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I'd ask about Superman's exit shop but it doesn't exist anymore. lol.