dbo121

did you not read the next three paragraphs? And comprehend my post it’s in entirety..

I have not suggested we can assign blame to one party at moment . Nor that is that the intent of the inquest. It should not be the intent of this forum either. Once the inquest is complete separate civil cases may occur which may weight the responsibility. One thing I have not read is about the underlying rail installation yet. That was new and increased the chances of a raft getting stuck upon water pump failure as well. Live with it just meant the mental scars of being part of it and slim potential to reduce impact. No more.

Yes operators will have to live with knowing that hey had a chance.. no matter how slim that they could have lessened impact of the tragedy. This is not assigning blame to a person or company There are a number of parties responsible. Employers, employees , regulators and government . As per the 57 second time line it sounds plausible that it was when the initial raft was stuck and the collision. The pump failure time would not have been recorded. As for noise we have all been there and know that the 2nd operator could have walked over to main panel in say 5 seconds.

There was a series of errors with the system. Not just one. One issue with ride cannot be highlighted to understand tragedy. Yes the tragedy could have been avoided with the press of a button on either the unload or main panel. The operators had 57 seconds to do that on either panel. Not sure why at least this did not occur on the main panel during this time besides distraction .They will have to live with that unfortunately. Yes if the system was automated in water levels that could have also prevented. Yes if conveyor was not on all the time the tragedy could be prevented . The inquiry is on the system and how to improve process in future. Hard to say anyone is at fault despite ardent not having a better automated system . However, it was allowed to operate in this manner hence workplace qld need to also question what role they had.

Yes increasing visitor numbers and ticket prices would be in their project analysis. On receivership my point is still valid. Borrowing too much with little capital in bad times caused issues. If they did that to fund new rides the same could result. The next owner after receivership came in with a purpose. Inject capital, drive efficiency and sell to make a quick profit hoping someone would buy the park recovery story after some initial cashflow injection. Was never planning to be a long term owner.

Capital is not infinite and needs to be allocated efficiently to maximise shareholder value. If the expected returns do not stack up (cost of project having negative internal rate of return) or lower potential positive irr to other projects in pipeline than it will not get done. Ardent could lever up. That is acceptable to a theoretical point but by doing too much ardent may be more likely to go bust. At this point in time corporates are more likely to take on less new projects and spend less capex. Confidence generally is low. Over time dreamworld has entered recievership a few times so a park running is better than a closed park with a 20m rollercoaster for sale!

Got it thx!

That map makes no sense!

Looks like it?

What is the structure underneath the fibreglass? Is it made of bricks like the imax?

Yes i believe the track did change (from riding experience). Probably about the time the green skeleton was added?

If you can comprehend why it closed then you can understand if a reopen or refurb is even possible.

Upon further reading that info was already known! It would have been down to cost v benefit at that time. Spending the capital on the control system for a short term gain does not appear completely logical to do. Especially when the ride was closed 2 years thereafter.(they should of known the expected remaining life). In 2004 capex was being spent on the claw and visitor numbers expected to grow from that alone. Why bother upgrading the control system then? It could of been closed earlier. Therefore i suspect it was closed for structural or safety reasons. But the structural reasons should have been forseen. Both could be fixed if the benefit v cost stacks up. New management equals new assumptions... Www opened in 2006 but was planed capex wise years in advance..before 2003.....

Hi i am new to posting on this forum but i do have some information. In 2003 the ride and brake system was replaced. It did not close that far thereafter. Why go to the effort then and close shortly after that?