GoGoBoy

Actually wonderbus it isn't 'a load of crap'. I have spoken to 4 people outside of these forums about the new ride. As Richard suggested, in the conversation I usually tell people there is a new ride being built at Dreamworld called The Claw (a fairly logical statement). 3 out of the 4 people instantly said to me something along the lines of "oh yeah, I've seen/been on that ride before at the easter show" or "is that the same Claw that travels around?". I should mention that the fourth person was my mum who doesn't have a clue about rides and 2 of the people have a moderate interest in amusement parks

Actually wonderbus it isn't 'a load of crap'. I have spoken to 4 people outside of these forums about the new ride. As Richard suggested, in the conversation I usually tell people there is a new ride being built at Dreamworld called The Claw (a fairly logical statement). 3 out of the 4 people instantly said to me something along the lines of "oh yeah, I've seen/been on that ride before at the easter show" or "is that the same Claw that travels around?". I should mention that the fourth person was my mum who doesn't have a clue about rides and 2 of the people have a reasonable interest in amusement parks

The majority of comments on this site regarding the new ride have been positive. I think most of us are excited about the type of ride Dreamworld has chosen and the fact that we are getting something new after a few years of waiting. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss all the pros and cons and what is being handled well and what we think could be handled better throughout the implementation stage. How boring would these forums be otherwise

And would there not be some kind of occupational health and safety issue when it comes to the actual operators themselves being exposed to the rain and various weather conditions?

I've seen some bad press releases and copy come from parks including Dreamworld which is what makes this press release seem better. I actually really like it. I do agree that there is an overkill on the "thrill/adrenaline/nightmare" factor which is clearly not going to be lived up to by the gyro swing. But apart from that I think it's effective and at the very least entertaining. Obstructure - you mentioned that there is a certian reason why the ride is called The Claw. Is the obvious answer the fact that it looks like a claw (you have to use your imagination for this association) or has it got something to do with Tiger Island? Please fill me in because I'm grabbing at anything for justification. Also, you mentioned that it is going to be themed to Ocean Parade? How is that going to work? An underwater tiger claw? That's just too weird

Richard you are spot on. The main park is (overall, minus a few bits and pieces) visually very appealing. I would say this is partly, but not entirely, due to the fact that a lot of the infrastructure, layout and theming was already there and left in place from the 1995 reincarnation. On the other hand Maloney's Corner is a completely new area where they have basically just layed a heap of asphalt and stuck trailer-mounted rides on top. That's it. I'm sure even they'd agree that it's a pretty average effort. Let's hope they fix it soon. Regarding wet weather and operators booths. I assumed that's how most parks overcame this problem. It is a logical conclusion for so many reasons. Although it's not something I normally take notice of, when I think back to ANY park I've visited they always have some kind of operators booth or building... even for the smallest rides. It's another 'temporary' issue LPS really should look at if they're planning to keep the amusement park for the long term

I will say it again - bad name, bad, bad, bad name. Everyone I have spoken to about it instantly says "oh The Claw? You mean the one that travels around to all the shows?". So what is going to happen is that everyone is going to think Dreamworld has done a Luna Park and installed a very 2nd hand portable carnival ride. Not good when they have actually spent $6 mill on something brand spanking new. GREAT press release though which is surprising. Maybe it's thanks to Dreamworld's new marketing director. Really well written

I wil lsay it again - bad name, bad, bad, bad name. Everyone I have spoken to about it instantly says "oh The Claw? You mean the one that travels around to all the shows?". So what is going to happen is that everyone is going to think Dreamworld has done a Luna Park and installed a very 2nd hand portable carnival ride. Not good when they have actually spent $6 mill on something brand spanking new

I agree but can you explain why so many of the rides are so temporary looking? And what about the plastic (I'm thinking it might have actually been glad wrap) over the control panels? Surely that cannot be a permanent measure? Don't forget that the $100 million dollar refurbishment was MOSTLY spent on things like the Big Top, the Crystal Palace refurb and the car park. The rides were already on site from 1995 so you can't say LPS spent a lot of money on rides

I was walking through Luna Park on a fairly wet day (definitely not going on anything, just observing) during the school holidays. It had been raining on and off for most of the day and was quite windy although the park was still busy with people going on the rides (are these people totally crazy?). I noticed that a number of the ride operators control panels had big sheets of ripped up plastic sticky taped over the buttons. Most of the control panels are out in the open and are within sight of all guests either just observing, standing in the queue or actually going on the ride. I personally felt it looked unprofessional and a bit worrying and I'm guessing was to stop the water getting in. What do other parks (big or small) do in this situation? While I respect a number of features and endeavours being undertaken by LPS management, there is a major issue with the temporary feel of the rides. It covers all things we have spoken of before such as lack of facades and the unattractive Maloney's Corner. This rain incident and the cheap method of protection for the rides control panels just highlights the temporary nature of the rides. It really makes me wonder what their long term intentions for the existing attractions are. Sometimes it feels like they are just experimenting until they decide to make some things a little more permanent

A master blaster would be awesome. I would probably prefer a good master blaster over a swinging water coaster thing

I agree. Love the colours but hate the name. It's going to be interesting to see when it all comes together. Maybe they're going to add some other bits and pieces in that area to make it fit in. All I know is if they try and pass it off as an Ocean Parade attraction they are going to fail. Also, does anyone know what the deal is with that concrete brick control room? Surely it is not going to be the operators booth?! It doesn't have any windows or anything. I sure hope they're going to cover up those walls with some nice theming and colours

That's what I say. New rides are good... very good. And seeing as though there is apparantley no construction going on at any of the other parks it looks like DW will be the only one with something new this year. Movie World and Wet 'n' Wild are going to have to pull something pretty special out soon. All we've had from WnW for the last few years is a really bad spa/whirlpool attraction and the worst thing is every year they keep promoting it as something new and amazing

Wow that's a great pic... thanks Richard. The supports look good and are definitely very striking. I'm actually starting to look forward to giving this ride a go. It's about time we had something NEW at DW for the big kids

Thanks for the review and the great photos Schwarz

Ofcourse it wouldn't. The fact that Wonderland, Sega World, and Fox Backlot are now defunct is probably one of the biggest factors in Luna Park's current success. The park has opened with exactly the same rides as it had it in the failed 1995 version (minus it's star attraction the Big Dipper) and yet appears to be enjoying very high patronage. What other reason could there be?

Ofcourse it wouldn't. The fact that Wonderland, Sega World, and Fox Backlot are now defunct is probably one of the biggest factors in Luna Park's current success. The park has opened with exactly the same rides as it had it in the failed 1995 version (minus it's star attraction the Big Dipper) and yet appears to be enjoying very high patronage. What other reason could there be?

I think Luna Park might be suffering from a bit of overcrowding during the school holidays and obviously that can take its toll on everyone involved. They do have quite a few high capacity rides and features but it doesn't seem to be enough to absorb the masses. The problem is that it is the only attraction of its kind in Sydney and you have not only local residents visiting but people from surrounding areas like Central Coast, Newscastle etc. Luna Park currently has a monopoly over the market which means it doesn't really matter how dodgy their rides are, people will still go anyway (until something else opens up). So the fact is that Aussies seem to love rides and fun parks but we have a severe shortage in NSW at the present time

You are right about those particular buildings and attractions being heritage listed Shifty, however you are wrong about them not being able to add an extension to Coney Island. I saw the plans with my own eyes. The extension is in actual fact a separate entity to Coney Island but it does jut out from the back of it. This would not interfere with any of the original Coney Island facade. On top of that, from what I could tell the building extension was mostly glass so you could see through to Coney. It was a rather odd design

Richard, do you have any ideas or suggestions that might work well for Maloney's Corner? When you talk about replacing the portable rides with something more true to Luna Park, can you give any specifics? I heard that they originally planned to have another function/theater building attached to the back of Coney Island where the marquee in Maloney's Corner is currently standing. They apparantley decided to go with a more temporary building (hence the marquee) to test the area out first. So there is a good chance that a more permanent structure will take up some space to the back of Coney Island but I believe this would still leave most of Maloney's Corner available for other features. By the way, Maloney's Corner during most days of the school holidays IS just as crowded and noisy as the Royal Show. Seriously, I have walked through some days and it has been absolutely packed

Richard, do you have any ideas or suggestions that might work well for Maloney's Corner? When you talk about replacing the portable rides with something more true to Luna Park, can you give any specifics? I heard that they originally planned to have another function/theater building attached to the back of Coney Island where the marquee in Maloney's Corner is currently standing. They apparantley decided to go with a more temporary building (hence the marquee) to test the area out first. So there is a good chance that a more permanent structure will take up some space to the back of Coney Island but I believe this would still leave most of Maloney's Corner available for other features. By the way, Maloney's Corner during most days of the school holidays IS just as crowded and noisy as the Royal Show. Seriously, I have walked through their some days and it has been absolutely packed

Richard, do you have any ideas or suggestions that might work well for Maloney's Corner? When you talk about replacing the portable rides with something more true to Luna Park, can you give any specifics? I heard that they originally planned to have another function/theater building attached to the back of Coney Island where the marquee in Maloney's Corner is currently standing. They apparantley decided to go with a more temporary building (hence the marquee) to test the area out first. So there is a good chance that a more permanent structure will take up some space to the back of Coney Island but I believe this would still leave most of Maloney's Corner available for other features

Schwarz - I have no idea what happened to the giant spider. Same with the giant pyschadelic bug which used to stand out the front of the Tumble Bug. In the map illustration of the new Luna Park the bug is still out the front of the ride so maybe they planned to put it back but it never happened. I saw the bug sitting in storage out the back for some time so I'm sure they could have kept it if they wanted it. It is a real shame that they didn't restore these pieces as they looked great. They helped to make the rides look a little less temporary (especially the Spider) and without them some parts of the park look like a very basic travelling carnival

Exactly. Honestly I'd rather DW spend less on this gyro swing rather than blow their budget buying a huge one. This 16m version still seats 32 or so people which is pretty good. It should be a fun sensation. I'm just hoping the money saved on this will go towards bigger and better things in the NEAR future and as you said Richard, this will just be an entree

So in that case I'm guessing it's a standard compact gyro swing? Based on the pics, do you guys think it will be a similar size to Drayton Manor's Maelstrom?