DaptoFunlandGuy

i don't think there is anything more worth trying to get out of the correction. Its unnecessary overanalysis, given the details we already know.

I've not taken my tape measure with me, but if you compare it to say - Silver Bullet at Knotts, it is far more comfortable, roomy and accommodating. Additionally, as i've found with many of the Disney coasters - more room is available because they allow for loose articles (ie backpacks) to ride with you, so they design for that too. In all honesty, even if Grizzly is PRECISELY the same size as Silver bullet it doesn't matter - my point is that just like airlines, all any park has to do is SPECIFY certain minimums. I know a lot of coaster manufacturers have certain standards, but surely it wouldn't be too difficult to customise here and there.

No - first suggestion was a coaster car without the divider. Second suggestion was to work with a manufacturer to develop a coaster car with a nice accommodating seat. There was an 'or' between the two lines you've quoted.

Classic woodie without the centre seat divider - thereby allowing plus sized guests to occupy an entire row if that is what is necessary. Or just work with a coaster manufacturer to produce seats that are realistic for many theme park visitors these days, instead of designing them only for waifs. Take Big Grizzly Mountain as an example of a nice accommodating seat:

the one thing to remember is that those great nostalgic films from our generation do have some staying power with our children's generation - part of the reason why PASS lasted so long - because things our Parents enjoy watching inevitably becomes something we enjoy too. So us as first generation to watch it will ensure we share it with the next generation... the tie in continues and then the kids see the attraction and recognise from the film, or vice versa.

Firstly, the analogy wasn't mine. I simply translated it, and corrected JF's poor attempt and translating it in another way that was wrong. An also ran isn't an insult... but acknowledging that even with Samsung's problems, they are still a market leader - LG is not something that immediately comes to mind for most people when they start thinking of what product to buy. I know if i am thinking of buying a new TV, my first thought goes to Sony, second to Samsung, and third to LG - yet I have 2 LG TVs and one Sony in my house. It doesn't make them a poor product, it just suggests (correctly in my opinion) that they aren't the first thing that comes to mind when most people think 'Water Park'. Australia now has two Wet N Wild parks owned by the same company. The brand is strong, it's well known, it's assisted by great passes that work in both parks if you spend enough money. I'm sure if Grant Denyer surveyed 100 people and the top two results were on the board, 'Name an Australian Water Slide Park' - Wet N Wild would be the top answer. I love Jamberoo. I spent many days as a kid there where it was all about the toboggans, and getting lost in the lattice maze, leaving your watch and bus pass as a deposit to hire grass skis, and never venturing up the hill to the old brick restaurant that never looked like it was open, but the fact of the matter is (and this leads me to my next point) the bulk of the population of Sydney don't get home at 4pm on a sweltering summer day and go 'who wants to drive 2 hours to go to Jamberoo for a quick swim?' Onto my second point - the very first thing you said Jamberoo beat WnWS on was location... and on that point I have to solidly disagree, pretty well for the reason already stated above - WnWS is close. it also doesn't have a tractor bolted above your head when you're on a slide. I haven't been to WnWS, and the last time I was at Jamberoo was well before Funnel Web - but if i were visiting sydney - i'd probably find it more likely to visit WnW whilst I was there than Jamberoo... and in case there weren't enough reasons as to why i'll give you one more - @pin142 is shouting me a ride on the skycoaster. Would I also want to go to Jamberoo - hell yes, as a matter of fact i'd prefer it (this is me agreeing with you) but realistically, I know which one i'm more likely to get to. Pretty much everything else you said I agree with. I've seen pictures of WnWS. I've read the stories, and many people hate its poor set up, poor operations, lack of shade and landscaping... but yet they still go... because it is in their eyes, all they've got.

Heh. I've got between buckleys and none of taking you up on that.

I feel like Push has asked this same question before, and I also think the same answers were given back then too.

Thanks for sharing your photos and being a great contributor to the forums @SuperV! Great to have all these new members actively and positively participating in the discussion!

Permanent, yes, but its hardly infrastructure in the scheme of things, IMO - to me it says services - water, electricity, onsite refueling and maintenance bays etc. A cement slab can be utilised for many things... but it is semantics i guess, depending on your view. Well, that would fit in nicely with the rest of their upcharges, wouldn't it?

I'm aware of how risk assessments are carried out. I do them weekly. Your hierarchy of control is accurate - but note that the most effective method is to remove the hazard, which in my previous post, would be shutting down the ride entirely. However the risk assessment needs another tool: So for example: you could identify a risk of falling out of a roller coaster. risk mitigation would say - add restraints that have redundancies that cannot be removed during operation. Risk is mitigated. Fine. But then you might suggest that there is a risk of the bolts that hold the restraint onto the car could fail. What is your control measure for this risk? Inspect the bolts. Quite effective, but it doesn't eliminate the risk - which is the most effective. How do you eliminate the risk of the bolts failing? The answer is that you can't. You can overengineer something. You can use way more bolts than are necessary so that if one fails the rest can still bear the load - but you can't ELIMINATE it - which is the most effective mitigation strategy. So what do you do? As a hypothetical - assume that an OTSR is mounted onto a rollercoaster with 8 bolts. Assume that no other parts (ie: ratchet locks) can possibly fail. Assume that the only possible point of failure is those 8 bolts. Now I won't go Newtonian on you, but just for this hypothetical, say that the maximum weight that will ever be supported by the harness is 500kg, and say that each of the 8 bolts is rated to 750kg. By everyone's view, a single bolt would be enough to hold onto that harness, so we're using a safety factor of 12 times the rated capacity, so we're good, right? But all bolts could fail. Moreso, all bolts could fail simultaneously and catastrophically. Perhaps they are overtightened because the incorrect torque was applied to them when they were fitted, stretching the thread and compromising the bolt integrity. Perhaps the alloy mix was flawed in this batch from the manufacturer and never identified. There are many ways that things can catastrophically fail without any prior warning, without anyone being able to predict it happening, or identifying the flaw prior to it failing. Sure, it's highly unlikely - even improbable - but still possible. Based on the matrix above, we're still at a medium risk, which is hardly ideal. So you might add a seatbelt. But they can fail too, can't they? The point is, there is always risk. And many people will consider the risks, and input reasonable and sensible control measures for almost every conceivable outcome. Almost. Despite one former staff member saying that 35 years ago, they witnessed the precise incident that occurred on TRRR, nobody foresaw it happening. The slats have been pointed to as being a cause - as it was a modification to the original design - but if it happened 35 years ago, clearly the slats weren't the cause (although they may have been an aggravating factor) @Tim Dasco - you say that you do risk assessments and controls. You say you have to identify every possible hazard - even so far as pointing to the risk of a car crashing into the site. So I ask you - do you identify as a hazard a commercial aircraft crashing into your building site? Earthquake? Terrorist Bombing? Hostage situation? Locusts? (By the way if you do - please share the control measures. I'm keen to hear them). I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't. Because it isn't something one would contemplate when performing a risk assessment. it's not conceivable that these things would happen, even though if we're being objective - they could. Further, once you have done your assessment (and I presume every other person working on site has to perform their own or at least review the assessment you have done too), how many other people then review that assessment? Do you have independent auditors routinely review your assessment and control measures? Do you have government inspectors do the same on a regular basis? ...And if you do, how regularly do you review your own assessment? If your answer to that last question is longer than "every five minutes" then I put to you that: In the time it's taken you to read this post, your assessment is now outdated and invalid - time to check it again.

it reeks of a run to Bunnings (or sub with Hudson, Stratco or Masters) with a flatbed to load up every sheet of corro and every stick of 4x2 they could find... but as the article mentions, it almost blends in and i think they've done nicely with it. I think their intention was to hide it short term so that they could reopen. I don't think they've really set a date on how long it should last, although I presume they'd have estimated how long it would need to be up before TRRR is gone, and have factored that in to the quality of construction. I do hope that they don't get a really blowy storm through though - that thing would act as a pretty big sail - you'll wanna hope the existing fences and structures they've anchored it to are strong enough to hold against the forces of a SEQ summer storm.

The full circle turnaround is amusing, given the 1989 film The Wizard.

@YLFATEEKS - Skeet - just remember: Who gives out the residency visas anyway? I think they need a safety audit.

What a ridiculous statement. You CAN be too safe. When the cost of doing safety checks, or the time it takes to do them outweighs the profit made from running it, or the time it actually operates, it becomes unviable as an attraction, and closes down. Now - allow me to clarify - if it costs to much to make something safe, it shouldn't operate. I'm not advocating to put costs ahead of guest safety. What i'm saying is when every expert in the field has decided something is safe to operate, imposing additional inspections or checks above this is redundant, wasteful and pointless. So if there is no such thing as 'too safe' - you might as well shutdown every ride in the world. Stop all transport systems, and walk everywhere you go. Actually - don't walk anywhere - just in case you trip over. Just sit down before you fall down... The inspection\audit conducted at the parks in the wake of the dreamworld incident was the most thorough across the board inspection our industry has ever seen... and very few issues were identified, and none of those endangered the lives of guests. As I understand it, most of the issues that were identified were a matter of "it was compliant to the standard it was held against at the time it was built, but the audit applied the current local standard to it and it failed that because it was of a much higher standard." Sure its great to have high standards, but the standard it was built to operated just fine since it was installed, and any defects were identified long before a catastrophic failure (excepting of course GL and TRRR - but in the case of TRRR - nobody could have predicted it would happen, and in the case of GL, all required maintenance checks and audits were done - it was a design fault that nobody could have foreseen.) By that logic, we should immediately retrofit every ride in the parks with a full perspex rider safety bubble, complete with reinforced titanium alloy, with auto-deploying airbags and crash foam, just in case a plane crashes into the ride.

I don't think they'd have needed to pull the ride system apart at all - unless other rides had the same treatment - which would see half the coast closed for months. Although not recent, the ride is modern enough that that sort of thing is extremely unlikely. More likely it is something outside of the track and ride cars - probably something building or theming related causing an issue.

the tech involved in such a conversion would be massive - each boat would need to be retrofitted, targets placed around the ride and all that connecting to a scoring system that you can see on your way out. The animatronics and effects in the ride were deemed uneconomical to repair - which they would also have had to have done in order to keep it running. it'd have been nice, but not really a realistic option.

The install, yes - but testing a slide like Super 8 is not the same as testing a complex bit of machinery like doomsday. Pumps: On Timing System: Preferred but not necessary A few test slides by staff and it'd be ready to go.

I agree with everything you said except ^ that. How is a 2002 movie 'recent' ? Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets came out in 2002. That's the SECOND of EIGHT films. The Santa Clause 2 came out that year. Star Wars 2 (Attack of the Clones), Men In Black 2, The Ring, The original Ice Age... Pierce Brosnan was still James Bond in Die Another Day, Mike Myers was still Austin Powers in Goldmember, Adam Sandler was Mr Deeds, Britney Spears released Crossroads and Sacha Baron Cohen released Ali G Indahouse. Also in 2002 - The Queen Mother died, Avril Levigne released her debut album, the first ever American Idol premiered in the US giving us Kelly Clarkson, the commonwealth games were held in Manchester and the first Mozilla Firefox is released. We are almost 15 years past that. Some of the members on these forums weren't even alive when that film was released. Hardly 'recent' by any standard. Simple - shit movie, star studded cast - people went to see it because of the names in it and the franchise it was attached to. By the time you realise it's shit, you've already started watching it. Plus Arnie was probably short some cash at the time.

dune buggy \ go karts... close enough. LOL

Or perhaps there is a major problem with something in the building and they can't open until they fix it.

It was part of the bushranger show for the Sturt paddlewheeler, wasn't it?

How long ago was WnWJr? Surely that counts? And Super 8 - although the same experience, is technically a new slide - albeit a replacement.

depends on whether you're in challenge or sandbox mode in RCT3,

It would require tires (crash barrier) and cement or bitumen. That'd be about it. You can drop a refueling point off the back of a ute, and do your maintenance off site. Maybe some power to have red and green lights... or you could just use a flag. That's it. Not really 'infrastructure' as such.