elemist

Skip the opening hours.. Can we have those prices!! haha These are awesome photos - so great to see how far the park has come.

Actually this would be a reason i wouldn't go. Usually the last thing i want to do after spending a day at a theme park - especially a water park, is go straight to another event. I would much prefer to go back to the hotel, take a shower and get changed before heading out again for the night!

Personally i think AW is now at an interesting point as to where they move to next. They've invested heavily into pretty much every area of the park and have a pretty good mix of both thrill rides (rampage, power surge, abyss, goliath) and plenty of water rides/slides. The kids area is pretty great and they've also got Kahuna Falls. Potentially they could look at investing in something mid range and more family orientated. Something that's more exciting than the kids rides in Dragons Kingdom, but not as thrilling as Abyss etc. Power Surge is kind of this, but it's still pretty thrilling for younger kids. I'm thinking something along the lines of The Shockwave at Dreamworld maybe? That would be a pretty good replacement for Bounty's Revenge - exciting and fun, but not outright scary. The other reason i don't see the need for another major thrill ride is they don't really need it from a marketing side of things. By most reports they're doing pretty well with them hitting capacity a few times and generally very busy. The question is whether if they don't build something new and thrilling whether that would be detrimental to crowd numbers in future years.

Not so sure about that - after a few rounds of the tight curves on Turbo Mountain you just about had to see a chiropractor to have your neck/spine re alligned!

Perth Local here who has been visiting the park for years. I think i would struggle to call it a theme park myself based on the actual meaning of the name, and for that matter same really for any of the parks in Australia. Movie World is the closest we have i think in that most attractions throughout the park are movie/entertainment themed. Dreamworld got close with its few themed areas - the wild west areas, and then the industrial type areas of ToT and giant drop etc. To me the strict definition of a theme park requires either a single unified theme through out the park, or if more than one theme then dedicated areas and attractions to each theme which are easily and clearly distinguishable as separate areas. So that means it extends far past just the theming of the attraction/ride to things such as pathways, gardens, staff costumes, signage, naming etc. That being said - AW is somewhat unique in that it really doesn't fit any of the suggested categories. It's not an amusement park - to me that's something that's primarily trailer rides/side show stalls/fun fair type stuff. With the amount of water rides/slides you could argue it contains a water park. I wouldn't call it an adventure park either, as to me an adventure park is more about physical activities - flying foxes, rope courses, hiking trails etc. So where does that leave AW? Good question.. i think the only name for it though is still a theme park. Maybe not in the dictionary meaning, but more in the common meaning of a place containing rides and attractions both wet and dry that you go for fun.

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? The ride has reopened rather than becoming a yet another SBNO attraction.

It's very Adventure World ish TBH.. i would guess maybe Mark's influence there.

Well i mean it's not every day you get such a quality Dulux Yellow Loop Top design fence now is it..! It does end the months of speculation around just what colour and style fence they would install. Personally i thought they might go for more of an off white - maybe egg shell colour. Glad they went with the loop top though, much better suited to the area than other options... /sarcasm

You have a point - though i think it would also do better being closer to surfers too. It's also more of a one off activity - IE once you've seen the show once your not likely to go again unless the show changes, or your entertaining visitors etc. TG i see as more of something you might do every couple of months, and maybe more often if you were keen on Golf itself. Also having the bar/restaurant means repeat business too. I doubt many people will drive 25 - 30 minutes from Surfers which is full of good food/drinking establishments just to go to TG. There's also a practicality factor - in surfers you can pretty much walk from anywhere to your hotel after a few drinks - it's expensive to get a 30 minute taxi/uber each way.

I think right now it's not the best place, and yes land availability issues asides would probably do far better closer to surfers. From a tourism point of things, i would find it just a little too far away to go for dinner and a drink. I would however probably try it once for something to do. But let's face it - this isn't a short 5 year thing, it's a long term plan and a big investment in the area itself. It's a bit of a chicken and egg scenario really. If they want to build hotels and have people stay in the area, then they need to build attractions to keep people entertained. Sure you've got the parks right there, and AOS/PC etc, but you still need way more. TG also has some good dining facilities and bar facilities as well which would be sorely lacking otherwise.

maybe they should spend some money and improve the safety of those light globes!

AW is a bit unlucky with the weather.. we've had pretty nice sunny warm weather for the past few weeks, then bang on their opening weekend cold and showers also continuing into next week.

My point was not about what could be done accidentally/deliberately, but the mitigation and response when an incident occurs. An older more experienced Fork Lift Operator is more likely to recognize an unsafe situation, or react quicker to an unfolding situation than a younger less experienced person. Whereas the younger operator may panic when a load becomes unstable, the more experienced person can and probably would take steps to mitigate the situation - maybe he lowers it immediately, so there's less distance for it to fall or maybe he steers away from the racking. These are of course generalizations and there's exceptions on both sides. It's also worth mentioning younger people are generally more gung ho, where as older people tend to err more on the side of caution. One common thing with accidents is there's rarely ever just one cause. There's a chain of events up to the incident occurring, and the immediate response after in occurring. In most accidents its the first response immediately afterwards that can determine whether people live or die.

So your right - for the most part the job doesn't require any special skills or knowledge. The thing is, when something does go wrong it's potentially life threatening or fatal. In these events maybe an adults experience, knowledge and common sense may be the difference between an incident or a near miss. The problem as i see it thought, is how do you gain and retain these older staff. It's not most peoples dream job, and i can't see the park's having the budget to offer high enough salaries to actually attract people. It's also very seasonal and fluctuating work, they need a lot more staff during the busy periods, but not so much during the quiet ones. Most adults have fixed overheads - mortgages, families etc, they can't just stop working for 3 months over winter because the parks quiet. Think about a park like Adventure World - they're closed for a few months during which time they lay off majority of the staff and just have a skeleton team.

Out of interest - what was your pick of name?

Thought the same thing - why is this such a big deal to the general public. I mean people die every day on our roads, in work place accidents and various other causes. Yet there's rarely anything but friends and family involved. People say its because it's relatable - but surely driving on the road is relatable to pretty much everyone. I think Dreamworld will ignore it as much as they possibly can. They'll probably do something internally with the staff prior to opening, and make a public statement in response to all the inquiries they'll no doubt receive. Outside of that, i suspect the only thing they'll do is marshal where any flowers get left, and then remove them at the end of the day.

What will be more interesting to see is what maintenance has actually been done to the ride. Just because KMG haven't seen it, doesn't mean it hasn't been maintained. Similar to how you can take your car to an independent mechanic rather than back to the dealer - it doesn't mean the car's been any less well maintained, and at least when it comes to cars i have more faith in independent mechanics than i do in the dealers. Same applies for aircraft - they don't often return to Boeing or Airbus directly for maintenance rather they go to approved maintenance companies. I would assume (especially in the case of on the road rides), that it's impractical to return the manufacturer's location for servicing. They could find them selves on the opposite side of the country. The most interesting thing to me is the oversight of these rides. Who is responsible for ensuring all maintenance works are carried out by the book before being allowed to be put into service? Is there any independent checking of the maintenance work, or does some inspector just rock up to check the book has been signed off (by god knows who), and says your all good to go? I'm surprised that the insurance companies don't have a process in place as well, i mean there's quite high public liability insurance on these rides. I would assume in order to be covered there would be some checks and balances required. I think it's also worth noting that it's probably a bit early to throw blame around. The operator could have followed the manufactures maintenance inspections/works by the book, and even gone over and above. This could have been a previously unknown area of weakness, there could have been contributory factors - maybe other damage, maybe it operated near the ocean and the salt has caused higher than normal corrosion levels. One thing i've learnt following lots of accidents is it's rarely just a single thing that causes an accident - it's generally a number of contributory factors that alone were negligible, but together add up to an accident.

More than likely it would be revised from something like "keep an eye out for signs of corrosion" to "Keep an eye out for signs of corrosion, looking specifically in the arms near where the gondolas attach". Along with a bunch of details on what specifically to look for and test, plus the frequency at which it should be tested. At 18 years old, i would be interested to know when it was last stripped down/rebuilt. Anyone know if this is considered old for a trailer ride, or about average?

This is pretty bad - it sounds/looks like it may have hit something on its swing through looking at the video, or its dropped and hit the floor of the ride. Does anyone know what the inspection regime is for trailer rides? If i recall from prior accidents, there was quite a bit of grey area over which authorities were responsible for ensuring the rides safety. Considering how often these rides are pulled apart and put back together, i think its surprising there's not more incidents like this. These operators must have amazing attention to detail. I mean i can't even pull IKEA furniture apart and back together when moving house without having a screw or bolt left over at the end!

I'm sure it probably won't be needed, but if it is they will of course pay a premium. My issue is more they're selling off an asset thats currently giving the business value. A smaller land holding means reduced assets the business has and reduced value to the business as a whole. Reinvesting it into the park will go someways to improving the value of the park itself, but if they put it into immaterial/quickly depreciating things like renovating existing buildings (painting/fitout) and to an extent rides etc, then it's not going to realize anywhere near the value the land currently has.

Bloody media.. always beating up on Dreamworld! This seems very shortsighted tbh.. They should be injecting money into the business, but not by selling of land. That lands going to cost them a premium to buy back in the future when they need to expand. I would also be calling for not only an upfront cash injection for new attraction, but commitment from the board to a continued level of expenditure over say the next 3 - 5 years. It's all well and good to splash a bit of cash around now, but the park needs ongoing investment if its to succeed and return to profitability.

Will be interesting to see the size in person, its hard to judge in photos/videos. It didn't look that big when i drove past, in the photo's it looked huge and in the today tonight videos it looks about the same as the claw. I guess the bigger than the claw statement doesn't have to be by a lot to be true does it.. 1cm taller would still be "bigger than the claw"! I think it's a great addition either way, i loved the Claw!

So same style lap restraints.. interesting. I guess it provides for a bit more upper body freedom, but will it really make the ride that much different to the claw?

So has anyone speculated what the "difference" in the harnesses will be?

Looks way bigger in the photo than it did from Northlake Road! From the shadow it looks like the main swing arm is in place already as well.