DispatchMaster

The picture is not particularly graphic, though it is traumatic obviously. All it confirms is that the rider was ejected in view of the on ride camera.

Not exactly. It is considered that components of a machine will fail, but that the machine can and should be designed in a way that any failure is contained or mitigated to prevent catastrophic outcomes.

Based on the pictures, two things are apparent: the guest was not at all exceptionally large, and the clamshell was completely open upon returning to the station. I assume these systems prevent dispatch when the clamshell hasn't reached a latched position. I would further assume that whatever sensor determines whether the clamshell is latched is fail-safe, such that if the sensor itself were mis-positioned or had otherwise failed, that too would prevent dispatch. If all of that is accurate, then yes, that points to the incredibly unlikely scenario of a double/catastrophic failure of the clamshell's redundant latching mechanism during the ride, which would most likely be explained by poor maintenance. And while it is correct that a seatbelt may have sufficiently secured the rider in this case, it's also worth considering this from a risk analysis perspective. This type of B&M coaster/restraint has provided literally hundreds of millions of rides without issue until now. Adding a seatbelt creates additional maintenance tasks associated with the seatbelt itself, as well as additional loading procedures. I understand and empathize with the mindset of never allowing something like this to happen ever again, but if the root cause is found to be inadequate maintenance, it seems like adding a seatbelt is something that would please the underwriters, and therefore the SF executives, without really addressing the root cause. On the other hand, the redundant latching mechanism reduces likelihood of failure very close to zero, but not all the way to zero. Even something with a infinitesimally low chance of occurring can still occur, after all. And in that case, yes, it's worth considering whether a seatbelt would have helped in this case, but it is not a forgone conclusion that it would have. All that said, we are putting the cart miles ahead of the horse here until the investigation plays out and the failure mode is understood.

That one was definitely as close to a surprise as I can recall, but there were still indicators. The vicinity of the plot it now occupies had seen survey and other activity, plus it was announced months earlier that the ride would no longer be installed at SF Mexico, and would instead be installed elsewhere. So yes, SC was as surprising as any announcement I can recall in 20+ years, and that's probably due to the fact that SF had an expensive piece of equipment with no home, and there just to happened to be an already-cleared plot of land at CP sufficient to accommodate the ride's size. So there are some definite parallels to AFO there, but still lacking an already cleared plot of land (all the suggestions I've seen would require additional excavation/clearing) as well as the survey work ahead of SC's announcement.

There hasn't been a true "surprise" install of a major attraction since at least before both the Internet and the advent of Halloween extending operating seasons into late October. The former makes it effectively impossible to keep any development, no matter how small, secret, while the latter forces construction to begin earlier, since Halloween events reduce the duration of the park being closed to the public. For example, as I recall, in addition to the removal of trees around and draining of Swan Lake prior to 2008's opening day, there was a footer installed in or adjacent to the midway, I believe for either the helix or splashdown hill. Presumably this was done because it would not be practical to access the midway during the season in 2008, and the footer needed to be installed to facilitate the completion of the ride during the 2008-09 offseason. Of course I could be misremembering details or dates, but yes, there are always indications long before a major ride is being installed. That said, that doesn't mean survey markers indicate anything other than routine maintenance.

I think that might even be giving them too much credit. 😆

Agreed that there is a difference between installing a B&M hyper and giga in the same park versus installing two RMCs in the same park. AF1 is basically a lesser version of TC by every metric other than AF1 being taller and a little faster. TC is significantly longer in duration even if you ignore the second lift hill, has the dueling/racing experience, and has considerably higher capacity. And RMCs pretty much all do the same or similar things, moreso than sit down B&Ms. Of course, this is SF we're talking about, so who knows. Making poor decisions is kind of their thing.

As someone who worked in movie theaters in the 90's, I can assure you this is not a new sentiment among a certain segment of the population.

Oh, I absolutely agree, and in fact I think these types of additions are vastly underrated by enthusiasts generally speaking. But for folks who, let's say, think Orion was underwhelming or whatever (so, your median enthusiast), The Boardwalk would not count as a "major addition", considering it was effectively the addition of a Wild Mouse and a restaurant, at the expense of losing Wicked Twister.

It's also worth considering that adding a block zone (a requirement for an additional train on the circuit) would not necessarily increase capacity, and could actually decrease it. Depending on interval, adding a third train could just mean a third train regularly stacks on the brake run. Before Siren's Curse was dumped into CP's lap, the last major installs were TT2 in 2024 and SV way back in 2018 (I think we would agree that Wild Mouse is not exactly a "big project"). We can infer that nothing is coming until 2028 at the earliest, so that's 3 "big projects" in 12 years and counting at CP. That said, I don't see CP getting AF1, and if KI were my home park I'm not sure I'd want it going there either. I'd much rather see KI get a proper RMC custom designed for the park, even if that meant waiting a few more years.

The problem is that with PE, there is often little overlap between what is good for the parks in the long term and what is good for PE in the short term. Growth is not generally going to come from parks increasing attendance, but rather from extracting more money from the guests that do show up. This is why Ouimet's longer-term vision was so refreshing, since he recognized the potential value of the parks and foresaw the basic steps to maximize that value. And much of that was tossed aside after his departure.

Of course, but the question becomes whether it's worth it to invest a bunch of money in the ride to shoehorn it into a park that it's really not well suited for (KI, CP, etc.), or to install it in a park where its lower capacity won't be a liability. Regarding FoF, it would be interesting to see the ROI case for converting it to LSM. There are presumably some efficiency gains there, but does it make sense to invest significant money in a 30+ year old ride, versus putting in something new? Normally I would lean toward "no", but with the current price of steel, other tariff effects, etc...

I agree that planning such events is not a huge hurdle, it's the cost and logistics of actually executing them that make these events unappealing for parks. I'm not saying that's how it should be, but it seems like that's the way these things are viewed by and large. In other words, I don't think it was some conspiracy or personal vendetta by Clark that any of these things get s-canned. Agreed, and I would assume these events did not result in the boost they hoped for, hence their becoming endangered. To be clear, I loved the smaller events I've attended over the years, mostly in the aughts, but they have become a different beast as years went on. Anecdotally it seemed more and more people complained every year no matter what parks did to accommodate them. "Too crowded! Boo!" So, parks raised prices... Cut to: "Now it's too expensive! Boo!" "Not enough ERT! Boo!" So, parks added rides to ERT... Cut to: "How can I possibly marathon MF and SV when they're so far apart! Boo!"

Why do we presume enthusiast events are a net-positive for parks to the extent that such events are worth the never-ending hassle of hosting enthusiasts? Enthusiast clubs/groups/events have historically been an avenue by which to communicate to and through enthusiasts as ambassadors of the parks. With the Internet and social media this has largely become irrelevant. Now, that is not to say that smaller, more niche events hold no value. But I just don't agree with the assumption that parks need such events, or even that parks benefit from them anymore, especially the larger ones like CM. Also, "improving the guest experience" in the broader sense is not likely to be achieved by hosting a minuscule fraction of guests for a special one-off event that those guests will almost certainly complain about no matter what the parks do (it's too expensive, it sold out too fast, the food wasn't as good as last year, we only got 7 hours of ERT, they ran out of T-shirts in my size, they didn't tell me their entire cap ex plan in detail for the next decade, etc.). Yeah, and CM got cancelled this year, didn't it? Does that not kick the legs out from beneath the whole "Tony cancelled KI's events because those weren't "his" events" theory?

Or, a third possibility: hosting enthusiast events seems roughly equivalent to the seventh circle of hell, which may be one reason such events have been dwindling down and/or disappearing over the years. Entitled enthusiasts with their never-ending complaints about what was or was not offered, etc., though, to be fair, it seems such issues are anecdotally more prevalent at the more major events like CM. Plus, it's no secret that these events are not necessarily big money makers for the parks. So just because an event "sells out" does not necessarily mean the juice was worth the squeeze in terms of profit. In any case, I have no dog in this fight, but it doesn't seem to me that the most likely explanation for these events getting cancelled is because Tony threw a hissy fit or whatever. To me, the overall state of FUN (price, company debt, economic forecast, etc.) seems far more likely to be the cause of such events getting cancelled rather than the effect. Though it's also possible that cancelling these events could contribute further to a downward spiral. But that presumes these events are holistic money makers in the first place, a premise of which I am skeptical.

Are you absolutely certain they don't need to worry about slope? If so, what makes you so certain? That the track already has drive wheels does not necessarily mean the track isn't sloped, it often means the slope of the track is very slight, requiring drive wheels to make the train go fast enough to clear the block in the appropriate amount of time.

But was it Tony's decision to cancel Coasterstock?

Can you elaborate on this?

I think it's being substantially underestimated just how involved, and therefore costly, it would be to add a block zone to this coaster, assuming the existing track isn't already long enough to add one just by adding the necessary hardware, which doesn't seem to be the case. Adding a block zone would then of course require additional track length, which would therefore require there to be substantial excess energy/speed as the train hits the existing brake run in the worst conditions - cold, empty train, headwind, etc. It's hard to tell if that's the case with this coaster.

Indeed, but not sure either standard layout would fit in the area without removing Congo Falls, so it'd have to be custom, which I don't believe we've seen yet for this model? It would be interesting to see what Vekoma could do with a custom layout.

The portions where I added emphasis are what I'm questioning as a given. Is there more than a tiny fraction of guests who are even aware of who owns what parks? And how many of those are aware of any consistent differences between the brands? I'm not saying I have strong thoughts either way, just questioning whether the CF vs SF branding is as meaningful as we assume, considering the majority of guests are happily clueless to the minutiae that us enthusiasts tend to obsess over. For example... Some enthusiasts look at Orion and qualify it as "only" a faster coaster that is ~25% higher, with a ~40% taller, considerably steeper drop, whereas a typical guest probably just sees what looks like another thrilling world class ride in a park filled with them, hops in line and has a great time riding. In other words, a typical guest does not focus on inane details the way that enthusiasts tend to. My prior is to assume that extends to their knowledge and perception of quality of owners' branding. All this to say - are there any reputable brand-focused surveys that suggest otherwise? Again, I have no fervent opinion either way, just questioning the assumption that "Six Flags = poor quality" in the eyes of a nontrivial number of guests.

Are we actually sure that the "Six Flags" brand is harmful and/or associated with low quality in the eye of the park-going public? What I mean by that is that while, yes, within the enthusiast niche the brand isn't held in high regard, is that the case with John Q Public at large? Often it is the case that the things enthusiasts focus on or take note of are in now way on the minds of the average guest, most of whom couldn't name a coaster manufacturer with a gun to their head.

I have no knowledge of how things are structured under SF, but anecdotally it seems like the best results are had when individual parks' P&D groups are left alone to do their thing with little, if any, oversight or parenting from "corporate". I'm not saying that is or isn't happening in this case, but talented as Ken Parks may be, it could be the structure of things within SF that produces uninspired names like "Thrill Glider".

There's a difference between relaying a final score of a game and what you clearly did with the MLive article, which was lift several whole sections of the article and restructure and reword them and then present it as if the information and thoughts were your own, without linking to or even mentioning the original article or the author who did the actual work on getting the information. It doesn't take an "expert" to see that what you did is borderline plagiarism, no? Further, you can dispense with the straw man BS of mentioning me in every new thing you post with regard to fact vs opinion. That you seem triggered by the mere request that things you cite as factual should be supported by something other than "because I say so" is no reason to spam topics with irrelevant, snarky, troll-ish comments.

Any lack of investment by SF into MA was due to mismanagement, not budgetary or having too many parks or whatever. In fact, having a broad portfolio can provide diverse revenue that can withstand regional issues like a bad stretch of weather during a holiday weekend that would otherwise adversely affect annual revenue to the point it could affect cap ex plans. And in the case of MA specifically, any lack of routine maintenance (fresh paint, etc.) is strictly the fault of SIX's mismanagement, and is not a broader indictment of a company that is "too big". After all, MA was well cared for under Cedar Fair. Yes, this is clear when reading the original MLive article you pretty clearly "borrowed from" without attribution.