Movie World Maintenance Schedule 2025

[Naazon]

Did Road Runner increase throughput when its trains were replaced?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I'm not sure - but given it has individual harnesses, each one would need to be checked, wouldn't it?

[Brad2912]

Mon 15th Dec looks like re-opening date for both Superman and Flash which is great for school holiday capacities 

Also, yikes...

[New display name]

Wicked Witch has come out of maintenance early too.  

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I think you meant to say Wicked Witch has come out of Maintenace.

[Levi]

Batwing was also constantly testing most of today as well, with it sometimes not even having a break between cycles and from what i counted launched 4 times within 7 minutes. they just have needed new air compressors and need to do a certain amount of tests before it can reopen.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

12 hours ago, Levi said:

launched 4 times within 7 minutes.

Geez that thing must be really broken. They're going to have to work all night on it to bring it back into Village operations standards.

[themagician]

Despite the hiccups earlier in the week, it seems they’ve managed to get everything back open that wasn’t already closed

[Spotty]

On 19/11/2025 at 1:20 PM, Naazon said:

Did Road Runner increase throughput when its trains were replaced?

Given back in the day when roadrunner had the original trains, myself and one of the supervisors actually managed to beat the capacity that the ride was stated in the manual (700 a hour with 2 trains) I very much doubt it. I was pretty much running down the platform to check those lap bars and doing our best to make sure that by the time the train was coming into the brakes we would be dispatching the next train.

Was certainly a work out back in the day lol. It was even funnier when the ride then faulted because we were dispatching too fast and the computer crapped out lol.

[mba2012]

On 19/11/2025 at 6:15 PM, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

I'm not sure - but given it has individual harnesses, each one would need to be checked, wouldn't it?

Each one needs to be checked, but it's done by the attendant and the supervisor in parallel, so in theory it wouldn't have an impact. I never noticed much difference between operating it pre and post refurbishment.

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

I was pretty much running down the platform to check those lap bars and doing our best to make sure that by the time the train was coming into the brakes we would be dispatching the next train.

You'll never see that happening now; the procedure changed several years ago and now the supervisor can't leave their panel to check the harnesses until the other train is stopped in the brakes.

[Spotty]

4 minutes ago, mba2012 said:

Each one needs to be checked, but it's done by the attendant and the supervisor in parallel, so in theory it wouldn't have an impact. I never noticed much difference between operating it pre and post refurbishment.

You'll never see that happening now; the procedure changed several years ago and now the supervisor can't leave their panel to check the harnesses until the other train is stopped in the brakes.

The supervisor didn't leave when I was there, they stayed behind the panel. I was the second loader on the exit side, this was back in the days of the single lap bar. Many good memories, back in the early 2010's when IMO operations and the overall park was probably at it's peak.

[jjuttup]

@Spotty i'm curious, how much do you think these changes to load times are because of management vs post 2016 safety laws? And to add to it enthusiasm working with friends (like your story above) vs i guess the i don't want to be here days everyone has.

[Spotty]

On 22/11/2025 at 3:17 PM, jjuttup said:

@Spotty i'm curious, how much do you think these changes to load times are because of management vs post 2016 safety laws? And to add to it enthusiasm working with friends (like your story above) vs i guess the i don't want to be here days everyone has.

100% it would have caused some changes, however to what extent I wouldn't be sure. I'd say right after the incident things would have been very strict for a while before loosening off a little bit. However I feel that the parks are still being a bit over the top, how much of that comes down to corporate (and staff just not caring) or procedures enforced by over-cautious insurance is hard to say.

I'd say it's a combination of both, but also possibly due to workplace culture. When you have management that actually cares it shows, because staff want to actually be there if they are being treated well and respected. Something that the Dreamworld management seem to be very good at (And having worked at MW during the time that they were running things, they actually really do care about their staff)

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Sounds like efficiency has gone down if the supervisor performs harness checks but can't leave the panel until the train reaches the brake run. You might as well just run one train.

So yes, the dual harnesses would reduce throughput as the supervisor needs to check their side.

[Spotty]

2 hours ago, DaptoFunlandGuy said:

Sounds like efficiency has gone down if the supervisor performs harness checks but can't leave the panel until the train reaches the brake run. You might as well just run one train.

So yes, the dual harnesses would reduce throughput as the supervisor needs to check their side.

Yep, when it was 2 trains with the old ones the supervisor had to stay behind the panel while the train was on the lift (to stop it if needed) but the second the train left the lift, they would leave the panel to allow people to get behind the gates while the operator would check the single lap bar harness. It worked very well TBH. To run it really efficiently with 2 trains now you'd basically need 2 loaders and the supervisor but that won't ever happen.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

41 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Yep, when it was 2 trains with the old ones the supervisor had to stay behind the panel while the train was on the lift (to stop it if needed) but the second the train left the lift, they would leave the panel to allow people to get behind the gates while the operator would check the single lap bar harness. It worked very well TBH

And it makes absolute sense - there is no MCBR. As soon as the train leaves the lift hill, there is absolutely zero you can do to prevent any mishap or accident until it hits the final brake run, which is automated and failsafe - The train will stop no matter what (and if it doesn't, nothing the operator does will change that).

Some genius who has no idea about efficiency decided that the supervisor should stay at the panel 'just in case...' without ever finishing that sentence. They probably got paid thousands too.

See - the seatbelt thing at Rivals - I don't agree with it but the liability issue makes sense - physically plug in the seatbelt, do it in front of your co-worker, and you've both witnessed a proper push-pull check of the main restraint lock, and then attached the seatbelt. You've got two people who will testify the harness was down, locked, and the supplementary restraint was engaged. It's why if one loader stops because there is an issue, the other one doesn't keep going.

Taipan takes this further - the RFID swipe proves the operator was present for the seatbelt locking and the computer records it. 

These examples both make absolute sense from a liability standpoint. 

Keeping the RRRC op at the panel until the other train parks is absolutely pointless.

[Levithian]

In this day and age, regardless of how the control system works, there is NO chance of being able to get away with the ride operator leaving the control panel. Just the notion of there not being a person there to respond in the event of an emergency, even if they can't actually do anything other than hit an estop that makes no difference until the train reaches a brake run opens you up to being crucified if another accident happened, especially if it made it to an inquest because of a death. It really brings question to how you operate everything, people start making judgements on if something would have been different if you were at the panel and could respond quicker, even if that's just you being able to generate an e-stop and immediately radio through a code for attendance. The old adage, seconds matter, can actually ring true, plus it also brings in a level of confusion when something actually happens. I've seen people walk right past responders in the event of an incident because they were overwhelmed, so trying to locate someone that by nature is a fluid position (ie, they are moving), it's just another one of those things that can make matters worse. Basically, it's just a slippery slope that nobody wants to die on (argue against) when being put before investigators, so the person in control of the ride is going to stay at the panel. 

The laws introduced say nothing at all about operations and or how you run a ride. Rightly, they leave that up to the ride manufacturer and trust that the operator (the park) is following their guidelines and knows what they are doing. The accident was just the catalyst to go a bit over the top.

Previously, operational procedures basically came from the ride manufacturer and that was largely how things were run. Then, during the mid to late teens, people within management culture thought they knew better, despite none of them actually having any qualifications to support this and started implementing their own controls above the ones specified by the manufacturer. Then it completely snowballs to the point where additional control measures are required above existing devices, and new procedures are invented despite everything being monitored to within tenths of a mm, in addition to which everything has double or triple redundancy. 

Now its to the point where evacuations are pretty much mandatory any time a safety fault occurs, no matter if its just a protection fault and can be reset fine. Some of the newer procedures put the members of the public at greater risk than trusting the ride control system to be reporting correctly and utilising the judgement of multiple trained/skilled people to make an assessment on the situation and return the train or cars back to the station with people still firmly within their seats. Climbing out of seating or vehicles, walking along catwalks, climbing down ladders, all these things open people up to greater risk of injury than if the ride was still under control. But it is what it is. 

When you get down to it, there is a lot of contradictory statements/opinions floating around in procedure documents, what's right in one situation is no longer good enough or completely overlooked in another. Ultimately its entirely down to risk avoidance though. If you keep that in mind any time you question why, you start to see it making more sense. Well, maybe sense is a strong word, how about you start to gain some understanding of why things are done the way they are. 

It's been a progression over the last 10 years. It actually frustrates ride manufacturers because there have been instances where control systems had to be modified or reprogrammed because additions wouldn't function correctly. 

But it's the village way and nothing is going to change that now. 

Edited Thursday at 12:36 AM by Levithian

[Gobbledok]

You are completely right and it makes no sense when a safety rated control system can be used to bring guests back to a safely designed station to exit the ride vehicle yet parks decide that know better and develop insane evac procedures just because 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 27/11/2025 at 10:23 AM, Levithian said:

In this day and age, regardless of how the control system works, there is NO chance of being able to get away with the ride operator leaving the control panel. Just the notion of there not being a person there to respond in the event of an emergency, even if they can't actually do anything other than hit an estop that makes no difference until the train reaches a brake run opens you up to being crucified if another accident happened, especially if it made it to an inquest because of a death.

It's a management cop-out to push this narrative though. You've destroyed your efficiency, you make guests wait hours for something that is unnecessary, you keep charging more, and giving people less for their money - and is a complete fallacy.

A courageous person would be confident to stand in front of the Coroner and testify that even though the incident happened at X point in the ride, nothing the supervisor could have done would have changed the outcome until the train reached the brake run. (Let's not forget that the ride time is just over a minute and almost half of that is the lift hill).

If that isn't good enough, or you want to go further than that, install additional E-stop mushrooms along the station wall so the operator can reach it from any position on the station - or a pull-cable strung down the length of the station like they do on quarry conveyors so you can pull it no matter where you are along the length.

This is the problem with people doing risk assessments with only the direct cost in mind. Someone did a risk assessment on TRRR and concluded that many safety upgrades were needed - but due to cost, they decided not to do them all straight away and went with what they felt was the most important features first (they were wrong). A lot of the TRRR safety measures that had been implemented were administrative controls - and keeping the supervisor at the panel - when it is clear that first, it makes no difference and second, it hurts your guest experience - when for a little extra cost you could upgrade the attraction to eliminate the issue, is pathetic. 

If you're going to knee jerk your way into tanking your capacity, then spend the money on additional labour so the supervisor can stay at the panel, AND you have another station attendant to check harnesses to keep the trains moving.

[Levithian]

TRRR is a vastly different situation stemming from negligence though, but I don't want to get into it because it takes the conversation away from here. 

100% its a cop out by applying blanket rules to everything instead of actually taking up a lot of time developing sop's and managing each appliance in a case by case basis. But that's pretty much how all industry is these days, it's a desire for uniformity. Nobody wants to expose themselves to any risk at all as even if you did all you could, if you weren't found negligent or culpable in even the slightest way, it still opens you to being sued (and facing settlement) for causing injury or death. It puts your entire business under a microscope, not just now, but history going back decades. Not to mention the public fall out and the brand damage that follows. So what happens? you go from looking at worst case scenarios to looking at apocalyptic, never in a million years type events. These are the cascading type ones where multiple issues have to combine together to create disaster. So they try to be proactive and mitigate those possibilities from ever happening, let alone the major risk that's present if they combine. It's frustrating for pretty much everyone. All facets of employees, guests, even ride manufacturers, but it is what it is. 

People really do NOT understand how serious the green lantern incident was years earlier and just how much village roadshow took away from this situation. It is primarily responsible for setting in motion major changes right through the company, not just in how risk is managed, but how far they can offload responsibility to other parties too. You'll find village roadshow a company with a safety culture that is seen to go WELL above the minimum standard as far as procedures and operations go. They constantly receive feedback from regulators praising their efforts, so it's just how it is. I've said MANY times on here, village are prepared to suffer negative publicity and discontent from guests to implement their style of management and operational control. They aren't prepared to take what is largely seen as a backward step at all. It's just non negotiable. 

People can argue as much as they want, question why, come up with all kinds of weird theories or even offer to walk in and fix all their operational issues, but at the end of the day it simply comes down to they aren't going to deviate from the core. 

The ONLY thing you can realistically do to improve things like load times and really slow operations is simply to spend more money. More money on increasing permanent staff. More money to retain existing staff. More money to train all staff. There really isn't any point in going any further while this is still a fundamental issue. You could implement existing policy and procedures far more effectively and probably make changes where needed without deviating from their plans, but you can't do it without addressing those 3 issues. 

Need more staff. Need more competent staff. Need those you have invested in to stick around. Village have always had a bit of a culture of people can be replaced, and there are more employees out there. So when combined with the dysfunctional and insular management many staff members have experienced over the last 15 years, it's been tough going actually retaining staff across many different departments. VERY tough going keeping the good employees you really want sticking around. They either know their worth and move on, while many suffer burn out, or are driven from the company out of frustration. 

Business as usual though. They aren't serious about addressing guest satisfaction in the slightest. Not until their hand is forced. I've seen a number of people blame private equity as the reason, but that's really misguided. This took root long before the sale of the company, and more or less the same people are still in charge. 

Edited 40 minutes ago by Levithian