Richard

We've merged all these threads into one. Apologies to @Baconjack who was first with the news, as your post was replaced by the auto-generated Parkz post in the process.

I wouldn't describe Mack as affordable. These days there's essentially no daylight between them and say Intamin or B&M in terms of price. B&M have been on the radar of Australian parks for quite some time now. They pitched for Rivals and have been on the list for AA's "billboard coaster" replacement. Price might have been a factor in the past but it isn't why we haven't seen one here yet. Not entirely sure the criteria "must please enthusiasts" and "will have a significant impact on attendance and revenue" are actually different. Certainly the attractions our parks have built in the past decade or two that didn't please enthusiasts also didn't have a lasting impact on profitability, and conversely those that are beloved did. Scooby, Superman, Rivals versus Motocoaster, Doomsday or Buzzsaw... there's a reason our parks are happily dropping $30+ million on great coasters now.

The physical model was provided by M&V and reflects the final layout. I thought this was fairly common knowledge? Here's pretty much everything you would want to know about Leviathan...

You can guarantee there was a debate about whether to significantly delay it or even pull the plug but ultimately they went ahead on schedule and there were no significant delays as a result of TRR. Name/theme/marketing changes sure, but groundwork was underway prior to the incident, track showed up a few months later and it was assembled like clockwork, save for a few design/fabrication hiccups. No doubt the certification/approval process was more involved and a few things were changed, rushed or scrapped but it was always destined for a September 2017 launch.

Not sure you’ve read what I’m saying correctly. Here’s the important bits:

... or M&V are currently overseeing a local crew as was always going to be the case? Village have said outright that they have specialists here for the project. For what it's worth, my original point was that despite the incredibly simple construction of wooden coasters, the skill and IP is in successfully managing the project. I'd also hazard a guess that Taft had very well versed project managers out from the US overseeing Bush Beast in much the same way that M&V are overseeing a local construction crew.

In-house job. But a concrete channel is a concrete channel, and that new section that snakes under Storm is all that would remain on a resurrected flume. If it's to spec in terms of dimensions/gradient/water depth then no reason a manufacturer and/or local engineers wouldn't sign off on it. And you can bet given it was built in 2012, actual engineering with a solid paper trail went into its design and construction.

Yes — the flume dimensions on Vikings Revenge is industry standard so Intamin/Mack/etc could bring it to life. From a structural perspective the castle is likely toast in terms of supporting a ride like this, but that’s a good thing. The boats, station, lift(s), drop(s) and splashdown would all need to be new so the flume you’re reusing to save a few hundred thousand is that thoroughly unremarkable section that meanders through the gravel under Storm. This was part of the big plan pre-Atlantis. I think bringing back the (or a) flume would be easiest and most cost effective win possible for SW but the concept was so thoroughly overthought and destined to be both heinously expensive and underwhelming that everyone should be glad it never happened. It’s why the flume wasn’t swiftly removed and likely why it’s not one of the attractions earmarked for removal this year, so there’s hope yet.

It's a bit hard to debate on the merits when you preemptively dismiss any rebuttal with this kind of petty garbage. The webcast/Q&A completely echoes the presentation in its substance. This article isn't mourning the loss of rather uninspiring attractions nor ignoring the fact that it's a time for drastic measures across the board, but rather it is questioning the stated strategy behind closures and downsizing as a whole. Unprecedented trading conditions have halted things like the ABC Kids expansion, which ostensibly would have included a replacement for the Big Red Car Ride, but when they're caught with their pants down for the umpteenth time in a few short years regarding long-term retirement and rejuvenation plans it starts to become a bit of a boy who cried wolf situation.

Virtually all the modern advancements in traditional wooden coasters come down to computer design and better trains. All the big manufacturers share near identical specs that have remained unchanged for a century. Even RMC uses the same track gauge and basic specs on their hybrids as just about every wooden coaster in existence. There's really nothing to a wooden coaster at its core. Measure, cut, bolt, repeat. Tolerances aren't critical until very late in the piece and are easily corrected; even then we're not talking millimetre precision like on a steel coaster. Martin & Vleminckx as a manufacturer would certainly have their own preferred methods (and Gravity Group would have their own design preferences that other designers wouldn't) but they aren't bringing some magic recipe so much as a history of delivering wooden coasters on schedule and budget. More so than Vortex or Dreamworld's coaster where there's local firms skilled at building these rides, I'd be inclined to say that neither SW nor M&V would be too keen for significant progress without that wooden coaster expertise on site.

I don't think anyone's argued that Dreamworld is not a fundamentally viable business but those impressive figures are the product of Ardent's objectively unsustainable business model. EBITDA really isn't a great measure of anything given that this is a capital intensive industry and just how neglected Dreamworld was. Free cash flow for that five year period amounts to about $112 million. There's actually not a lot of liquidity had they been properly maintaining the park and planning for the graceful retirement of TRR, Log Ride, Wipeout and TOT and more. Jury is still out on their recovery plan: Australia lenders wouldn't give them the finance while USA lenders ring-fenced Main Event debt facilities. That's not a great start. As for book value: they'd been actively trying to sell for years. Any number of would-be buyers would jump at a park delivering those margins but I suspect due diligence and an understanding of the immediate capital requirements killed discussions with the Wandas/Merlins/Villages of the world.

I missed that front page story too. Tagging error fixed!

Obviously Ardent’s own announcements that suggest that they’re getting similar funding but it is worth noting that QTC is a state owned investment body whose obligations are to ensure a good return on investment for Queensland. It’s not a case of fairness.

How about we cool it with the faux outrage? Nothing here comes anywhere near personal attacks, gate-keeping or passive aggressive, so this whole exchange is thoroughly uninteresting.

It's been pretty obvious from day one that Vortex was a calculated move based on the demise of Wipeout. Opportunistic sure, but the opportunity was there for the taking... If the public perception is "there's one like Wipeout at Sea World", then how exactly is that a bad thing?