Santa07

What would you like to see at Gold Coast Theme Parks soon?

130 posts in this topic

Themeparkgc you are absolutely correct. Cyclone was erected over what was formerly the overflow carpark. In the years before WWW opened, you could still see the remnants of the carpark situated in between the first drop and turnaround. Cyclone was very close to Thunderbolt but it NEVER encroached on any land that was utilised by the ride. Cylcone was built on reclaimed land only. Gary86 was 100% right in his initial posting

quote name="AlexB" post="95906" timestamp="1397784504"]

The space from Thunderbolt was long since taken over by Cyclone and WhiteWaterWorld.

The last time we'd heard about Vortex, it was sitting in pieces in storage out the back behind Tiger Island White Water World maintenance bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been trying to find overheads or aerial shots whilst the two rides were standing. It's been nigh on impossible. It's hard to believe (considering the rides stood side-by-side for almost 3 years) that there are no good photos of that particular area.

I was certain cyclone protruded into Thunderbolt's envelope, because both tracks curved toward each other... and it does, but barely. .

I wasn't suggesting it wasn't built over the roadway (it's obvious to see from the lift hill) - only that cyclone rested on part of thunderbolts ride envelope. The image posted above seems to show the three loops very closely aligned, but the Meisho loops are rounder, and now that i've looked back on the footprint layout, you can see the loops are presented at an angle.

Here's a comparison using the Meisho floorplan - for those that don't remember, the Flowrider store is the old station-house for Thunderbolt - so i've lined them up as closely as possible for scale...

post-152-0-56709900-1397974715_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's pretty well spot on what i put together too... so while it was built on the parkway - it clearly extends into the envelope.

In the USA - the Parkway would have remained open and people would have been able to drive under it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's pretty well spot on what i put together too... so while it was built on the parkway - it clearly extends into the envelope.

In the USA - the Parkway would have remained open and people would have been able to drive under it.

Great pic RAC2703 well done!! Given the fact that the ride only extends onto Thunderbolt land ( as opposed to the ride envelope) by a small section of the helix , that pic clearly illustrates that over 95% ( and I am being fairly conservative here) of Cyclone was built on the reclaimed land as was originally posted. I think it is more accurate to say that the Cyclone was built on land acquired for the new ride and not "thunderbolt land being taken up by Cyclone"

Sorry AlexB, I still have to disagree with your original proposition as I don't think that pic supports what you originally posted!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original post that my comment responded to was from Santa07, who said that Dreamworld still had the thunderbolt land to build on.

My response pointed out that they didn't have thunderbolt land to build on, as it was taken over by Cyclone and WhiteWaterWorld.

It may only be 5% cyclone and 95% whitewaterworld, but my statement is still 100% true:

The space from Thunderbolt was long since taken over by Cyclone and WhiteWaterWorld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given Thunderbolt's ride envelope extended to the carpark boundary fence, and the subsequent construction of the Cyclone was inside that boundary, as you can see below, Cyclone was within the same envelope. They may not have crossed tracks, but 'thunderbolt land' was taken up by Cyclone.

Nah AlexB that was not the quote I was referring to-I was merely referring to the one above in which you intimated , that Cyclone was built entirely within Thunderbolts ride envelope and entirely on Thunderbolt land. That's how it reads and thats why myself,Themeparkgc and Gary86 sought to gently clarify and correct with our postings. Since then we have definitively ascertained that Cyclone was built on reclaimed land on the overflow carpark and that a small section of the helix protruded onto Thunderbolt territory but NOT its ride envelope. This information and confirmation does NOT support your above statement no matter how you read it. Edited by Jobe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post quoted was my original statement. I sought to elaborate on it when it was apparent my meaning was not clear.

If you read the post AFTER the one you've quoted, I clearly said "I wasn't suggesting it wasn't built over the roadway (it's obvious to see from the lift hill) - only that cyclone rested on part of thunderbolts ride envelope. "

To further clarify - in case we have different views - my view on 'ride envelope' is essentially the boundary upon which after you cross it - no further fence, wall or structure comes between you and the ride structure - Perhaps we have a different view as to what constitutes 'envelope', because i would also substitute the word 'territory' which you have used above with a different meaning.

So my view of the word used (whether correct or not) was only to elaborate on my original post. Being that the original boundary fence of the park enclosed the western end of thunderbolt - and cyclone infringed that boundary, my statement still stands. I've used three different words now "Space" "Envelope" and "Territory". You've implied all three have different meanings. I'm suggesting in the usage i've employed them, they're all intended to be the same.

At this point if you can't see where i'm coming from we'll just have to agree to disagree. I may not have explained and elaborated very well, but my original post (in retrospect) made my intention clear enough.

Edit: at this point no doubt most moderators are sick of this discussion as am I. In my mind my meaning was clear and if i've not articulated that correctly then my fault, but read together it makes perfect sense to me and if others can't see it then I don't really care. Now since we've spent the best part of a page discussing a ride that has been defunct for almost a decade in a thread talking about new attractions to the GC parks, feel free to move the thunderbolt shit elsewhere, or delete it. (however if someone can take the pic RAC posted and stick it with the thunderbolt pics for future reference it would be great).

Edited by AlexB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep happy to move on.

The discussion is pointless anyway since you seem refuse to acknowledge any one else's opinion or view especially when it differs from your own. The fact that myself and 2 other posters interpreted the meaning of your SECOND POST ( just to clarify which WAS the one I quoted , NOT your first post, which was in response to Santa07) really validates that this second post WAS either, a) incorrect or B) misinterpreted from what you originally meant. That's not our fault and you should certainly care how your posts are elucidated.

I certainly DID read your post after that which clarified your position on where "Cyclone was built" but its funny that this clarification came AFTER 3 posters had questioned your answer. Doesn't this imply that your meaning was NOT exactly clear??

I think we do have differences of meaning of the word usage you described- in my mind ride envelope refers to the space directly under and including the extension of the ride and land or territory is the space outside the ride envelope but is still considered part of the ride overall. In my mind, Cyclone does NOT sit in Thunderbolt's ride envelope as shown by the subsequent pic, but a small portion of the helix DOES protrude onto Thunderbolt land. To me this is a fairly logical assumption, but I am happy to explain it again if you wish. This is a point I have raised again as you seemingly ignored it the first time.

Really this is an discussion about the use and interpretation of language. Usually I am quite happy to let things like this slide but in this instance, I wanted to get MY opinion across. When it is blatantly ignored that's when I care. I knew that this was playing with fire as in the past, you do tend to react rather badly when questioned on anything. Please note that there is nothing personal in this- I really enjoy your posts and you always bring a different perspective to the forums and your knowledge is vast and extensive. I do expect that you will not resist another long and verbose reply but since you tried to effectively shut down any of my rebuttal in your last post, we will just have to agree to disagree. I just want to make it absolutely clear that I bear you no rancour whatsoever. As I have stated in another thread, its really all semantics!

To all other posters- I am sorry that this divergence has hijacked this thread somewhat. It will now be restored to discussing, as AlexB suggested, to new attractions for the Gold Coast Theme Parks. Cheers! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, back to the topic of new rides on the Gold Coast. I was in Disneyland Paris last week, and space mountain won as my favorite ride. It's a very different experience, and something I'd love to be able to see on the Gold Coast. I'd love to see it at movie world, there's plenty of space out behind scooby doo that a building of the right size could be built. And for the sake of a theme, Gravity would work really well IMO, it's a WB film, and the idea of dodging debris would fit in well with the movement of a roller coaster.

So, that's my idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the idea MBA. Despite it's simplicity - Space Mountain will always be my favourite (although i'm with California here). My Wife is very sheltered when it comes to coasters, and only left the country for the first time last year. After SFMM, Knotts, Universal, Sea World SD and Disney - she also sits with SM as her favourite too (and we nearly didn't get to ride it!).

I'd love to see them do similar (gravity is a great theme btw), but I can't see them knocking up a show building from scratch - it's just not in the budget these days. We'd have to see maybe 5 years investment put into a single attraction (like the old days) to get a half decent imitation...

(although to be fair - the lighting expertise present in the VRTPs these days is well known, and i've got a feeling given the freedom and the budget we'd see something pretty special...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright. I started this post but I haven't posted my opinion yet. Now's the time.

Let's start with Sea World. Would love to see Wild go ahead, but if they end up closing Sea Viper before then, it would be cool if they used the land cleared for Wild to make something huge and really cool. Or, they could shrink Wild, and make a new big, scary, rollercoaster to replace Sea Viper.

Now for Movie World. The Gravity idea is a great one, MBA. If you think about it, we haven't actually had a proper 'thrill' attraction since GL in 2011 (and even that's not that scary). The idea to put several flat rides in the river ride building is also a good idea. I'd like to see something big, fun, and unique to Australia.

Wet n Wild. Those tables in the extreme H2O zone would make a perfect place for a new attraction. There's also a little room behind Aqualoop where part of the Speedcoaster/Twister was that could cater for a smaller attraction. I wouldn't mind seeing a set of master blasters (NOT like WNW Sydney's, but more like the Crush n Gusher at Disneys Typhoon Lagoon (and they have the tubes for that too :P )), a White Water West rattler, a proslide tornado wave or tantrum alley (or hybrid tantrum alley/tornado wave/bowl), or something like this.

White Water World. They need to use the rest of the Thunderbolt's footprint. Put something that I mentioned in Wet n Wild (of course, not the master blasters).

Dreamworld could do heaps. Put something in the place of the reef diver/stingray (even a small rollercoaster like a Vekoma boomerang or Intamin impulse), AND REPLACE THE FRIKIN MINE RIDE!!! Put a spinning coaster or something similar there. Done and dusted. Easy peasy.

Yeah, that's my ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always liked the idea of a eurofighter at Dreamworld. It'd draw inevitable comparisons to Green Lantern with a beyond vertical drop, but people would likely prefer the eurofighter as most eurofighters are better than El Locos. A eurofighter could easily fill the space where Thunderbolt was. Hell, there's probably enough room for a eurofighter near the scale of Takabisha, so they could attempt to get the world record for steepest drop, just as an extra "up yours" to movieworld.

Re: Alpina Blitz - if Dreamworld is to get a megalite it's Intamin or nothing for me :P

Oh and I'm another person in favour of a Gravity themed ride. That movie was insane and I'd love to see the feeling captured in a ride somehow. Obviously a darkride would be perfect for that but a spinning flat would work fine too.

Edited by alex_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: Alpina Blitz - if Dreamworld is to get a megalite it's Intamin or nothing for me

I'd be much more inclined to go with Mack, purely because of the better build quality and better train design.

Anyway, all of these new Mack mega coasters seem to be getting rave reviews, so I'm not at all hesistant to say it would be the way to go.

It's not like you see mack rides being closed after only 5 years of service, or Mack coasters having to be rebuilt within months of opening due to dodgy calculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even a small rollercoaster like a Vekoma boomerang.

Wash your mouth out.

With the gravity ride they could have something similar to space mountain. This would fit the theme of gravity and plenty of effects could be added. It could almost be a more thrilling version of the Scooby Doo spookey coaster.

Wow - what a great idea... MBA, why didn't you think of that...

oh... wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Projekt Helix just opened at Liseberg, and looks better than anything Intamin have put out in a while. Bear in mind this coaster is ridden with lapbars too!

WOW That's a bit of a panty stainer!!

Sadly I think it would be a tad ambitious to think we would get a coaster that long - certainly not with lapbars only surely.. Looks great though - right to then end, just keeps thumping.. Umm are those a couple of LIM power ups along the track?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always liked the idea of a eurofighter at Dreamworld. It'd draw inevitable comparisons to Green Lantern with a beyond vertical drop, but people would likely prefer the eurofighter as most eurofighters are better than El Locos. A eurofighter could easily fill the space where Thunderbolt was. Hell, there's probably enough room for a eurofighter near the scale of Takabisha, so they could attempt to get the world record for steepest drop, just as an extra "up yours" to movieworld.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of this idea. Don't see why put something similar to GL when they could do something new to Australia. I'd also prefer to see the rest of thunderbolt's land used for WWW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Parkz Crew

    Support Parkz... join the Crew for:

    • Ad-banner free viewing
    • Parkz Crew profile badge
    • Extended editing
    • See who's liked your posts
    • Purchase discounts

    Join Now from $20/yr

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.