KI Coaster Ride Count

[Jasper]

I was just browsing on KI's main site and I came across a bit of information while I was looking at the coasters. The Beast's record ride year was 1980 when it gave 2,150,353 rides were given. Then I kept browsing and I looked at Firehawk. Firehawk has given only 1,601,205 rides. I know it has only been open for 4 years and it has a bad capacity, but this stat kind of just apalled me at first. Does anyone else find this interesting?

[corn4ahead]

well that stat about FH would probably not include this year so it would b over 3 years. However, you do have a point. Awful capacity.

[TopThrill]

Firehawk was not made for good capacity.

[Jasper]

Firehawk was not made for good capacity.

I know it wasn't but I was simply saying that this statistic took me by surprise when I first saw it.

[PhantomTheater]

Actually, Firehawk actual has a better theoretical capacity.

http://www.rcdb.com/3793.htm

http://www.rcdb.com/67.htm

[KIfan1980]

Actually, Firehawk actual has a better theoretical capacity.

http://www.rcdb.com/3793.htm

http://www.rcdb.com/67.htm

The key word there is "theoretical" (although that is not how RCDB.com states it).

Neither Firehawk or Beast is anywhere near capable of hitting those numbers.

[KIfan1980]

Sorry - double post.

[The Interpreter]

X-Flight seldom had any problems keeping up with the crowd at Cedar Fair's Geauga Lake.

Oh, wait. . .

[TopThrill]

I think the numbers for Firehawk were based on a three train op? but KI only runs two trains.

[frisbeefan]

1430 Riders per Hour? HA!

[Oldiesmann]

The problem with Firehawk is that they take too long to dispatch the trains. It is possible to send one train out before the other one returns, but it rarely happens. If they got the trains out faster, the capacity would be better and the wait would be shorter.

[Cormaster]

Ok on that note WHAT IS THE DEAL WITH Firehawk? When it went up in '07, they acted like its dual loading station was revolutionary and was going to save all kinds of time, but honestly I don't see how it saves any! You watch the Ride Ops and they quite literally load both trains at the same time, dispatch one, then wait till the first one's in the brake run, then dispatch the second one, then wait till both trains are back in the station to re-load and dispatch again! IT would be nice yes if they could say get both trains going at the same time, but you know what would help alot? IF their was always at least one train going! Why do they load the thing so inefficiently? Sometimes you think its broke because you'll look over and see no trains running on it. Nope the ride ops are just taking too long as usual to launch one!

Seriously anyone have any insight as to why Firehawk is so inefficiently loaded? I've been dying to know since I first rode it!

[BeastForever]

Actually, Firehawk actual has a better theoretical capacity.

http://www.rcdb.com/3793.htm

http://www.rcdb.com/67.htm

The key word there is "theoretical" (although that is not how RCDB.com states it).

Neither Firehawk or Beast is anywhere near capable of hitting those numbers.

Maybe not Firehawk but The Beast probably has that much capicity. The Beast line always seems to move fast for me. Also, their trains are made up of 6 3-row cars witch means their is A LOT of rows that riders can scramble too. Yet the downtime on Beast seems to be a factor because of it's old age and the small seats that riders have to get situated into so I'm not really sure...

[The Interpreter]

Beast? Old age?

Sigh....

Terp, who was nearly as old as Beast is now when he first rode Beast...

[KIfan1980]

Maybe not Firehawk but The Beast probably has that much capicity.

Math time.

• RCDB quoted Beast Capacity: 1200 riders per hour
• Full Train: 36 people
• Trains per Hour to hit 1200 riders: 33.33 trains (1200/36)
• Dispatch Speed to achieve 33.33 trains per hour: 1.8 minutes between trains (60/33.33)
• Ride Length: 4 minutes and 50 seconds according to the spiel (4 minutes and 10 seconds according to rcdb)
• The current block scheme seems to always ensure that there is a train unloading/loading when the prior train stops (and waits) in the final brake run, meaning that at best trains dispatch about every 2.5 minutes
• At 2.5 minute dispatches, capacity is 864 riders per hour
• At 3.0 minutes dispatches, capacity is 720 riders per hour

Someone probably knows what the average dispatch time is - I don't claim to.

As an FYI On Firehawk - if the ride time is really 2min-10sec (again, I don't know), and they had a train constantly "on-ride", capacity would be ~672 riders per hour (60 / 2.1 = ~28 * 24). Definitely not 1430, which also is not possible even with a theoretical 3 train system.

And yes, I'll admit to being an Engineering type geek

[chaddie]

I did not go back and read this entire thread (go ahead, Terpy, kill me). I think that the capacities are based on perfect conditions. The manufacturers are in the business of selling rides to parks. They want to present the best possible scenario, not the worst case one. Those capacities are based on riders being ready to ride. They are not based on riders who take off their shoes even though the ride ops say "Shoes are required to ride Diamonback" or people who leave their shoes on the concrete even though "all items must be placed in the metal bins before Delirium can start".

[DeLorean Rider]

Maybe not Firehawk but The Beast probably has that much capicity.

Math time.

• RCDB quoted Beast Capacity: 1200 riders per hour
• Full Train: 36 people
• Trains per Hour to hit 1200 riders: 33.33 trains (1200/36)
• Dispatch Speed to achieve 33.33 trains per hour: 1.8 minutes between trains (60/33.33)
• Ride Length: 4 minutes and 50 seconds according to the spiel (4 minutes and 10 seconds according to rcdb)
• The current block scheme seems to always ensure that there is a train unloading/loading when the prior train stops (and waits) in the final brake run, meaning that at best trains dispatch about every 2.5 minutes
• At 2.5 minute dispatches, capacity is 864 riders per hour
• At 3.0 minutes dispatches, capacity is 720 riders per hour

Someone probably knows what the average dispatch time is - I don't claim to.

As an FYI On Firehawk - if the ride time is really 2min-10sec (again, I don't know), and they had a train constantly "on-ride", capacity would be ~672 riders per hour (60 / 2.1 = ~28 * 24). Definitely not 1430, which also is not possible even with a theoretical 3 train system.

And yes, I'll admit to being an Engineering type geek

"Ride time" includes the lift which is at least half of that time. As soon as a train crests the lift you can put another right back onto it. The actual ride time from lift crest to brake run is no longer than a minute. This means if you can clear those brakes fast enough (using both stations) you can drop a train from the lift into the gravity zone every minute.

Try your calculation Mr. "Engineering Geek" type multiplying 24 riders by 60 cycles in an hour to get a really optimized theoretical capacity of 1440. 1200 theoretical doesn't seem so far off now.

(this isn't really engineering, it's just math)

Also when I worked The Beast we could bust our ass and get 28 trains in an hour at most. Do your math to figure out what our capacity was.

[jcgoble3]

Math time.

• RCDB quoted Beast Capacity: 1200 riders per hour
• Full Train: 36 people
• Trains per Hour to hit 1200 riders: 33.33 trains (1200/36)
• Dispatch Speed to achieve 33.33 trains per hour: 1.8 minutes between trains (60/33.33)
• Ride Length: 4 minutes and 50 seconds according to the spiel (4 minutes and 10 seconds according to rcdb)
• The current block scheme seems to always ensure that there is a train unloading/loading when the prior train stops (and waits) in the final brake run, meaning that at best trains dispatch about every 2.5 minutes
• At 2.5 minute dispatches, capacity is 864 riders per hour
• At 3.0 minutes dispatches, capacity is 720 riders per hour

Someone probably knows what the average dispatch time is - I don't claim to.

In the times I've been to KI this year, I've seen, on more than a few occasions, Beast trains being consistently dispatched before the next train reaches the brake run when there's a decent crew operating. (I'm not saying this happens all the time, just that it can and does happen.) In this scenario, we have three trains every five minutes (exact dispatch time is irrelevant here because trains can only be loaded as fast as they come back), or 36 trains per hour * 36 seats per train = max capacity of 1296 riders per hour. Actual capacity will be slightly less because seats are not assigned and there is no single rider line, meaning there will occasionally be an empty seat here and there when a group doesn't want to break up, but the effect of that is negligible. The point here is that the RCDB listed capacity can be achieved with a decent crew.

[flightoffear1996]

I have been to KI 30+ times this year and been on Firehawk once. Whats that tell you about the ride. It sucks of a ride for how long the line is. One train loading one on the course or nearly ready to be. KI might as well not even use the dual loading station.

[XGatorHead 8904]

I have been to KI 30+ times this year and been on Firehawk once. Whats that tell you about the ride.

It tells me you don't really like Firehawk. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Cormaster]

I have been to KI 30+ times this year and been on Firehawk once. Whats that tell you about the ride. It sucks of a ride for how long the line is. One train loading one on the course or nearly ready to be. KI might as well not even use the dual loading station.

I hear yah. And thats what I'm talking about really. Basically its like this. Both trains are in the station, both trains are loaded. They launch the REd Train, then they wait till the Red Train's in the brake run, and launch the Yellow Train. While the Yellow Train is out they will unload the red train but they will NOT reload the red train until the yellow train is back in the station. I've asked it a million times. Why do they load it this way? Its like Kings Island never learned how to load the thing! Seriouly if they wanna wait for the brake run to launch the next one thats fine, but IMO there should ALWAYS be a train ready to go! As soon as one hits the brake run, the other one should be launched and heading up the lift hill. The way they do it now quite frankly is just stupid and pointless.

The thing that sucks on Firehawk is you usually gotta wait at least a half hour to ride it... on a day when the park is totally dead. And its not out of popularity not at all... no usually the line isn't even that long, like lanes of the queue being full, and you'll be waiting a half hour!

[KIfan1980]

(this isn't really engineering, it's just math)

Also when I worked The Beast we could bust our ass and get 28 trains in an hour at most.

Really, it's just math? Maybe that is why I began my post with "Math Time"

And thank you for sharing your experience as a ride op - as stated, I didn't know the dispatch time. Stating that a good crew busting ass can dispatch up to 28 trains an hour (1008 riders) confirms the original contention that The Beast isn't "anywhere near capable of hitting those numbers" (1200 riders per hour)

My belief on why has to do with what's changed on Beast over the years (block scheme, first lift hill speed, restraints). A higher number was likely possible previously. I could be wrong, but that's my guess.

"Ride time" includes the lift which is at least half of that time. As soon as a train crests the lift you can put another right back onto it. The actual ride time from lift crest to brake run is no longer than a minute. This means if you can clear those brakes fast enough (using both stations) you can drop a train from the lift into the gravity zone every minute.

Try your calculation Mr. "Engineering Geek" type multiplying 24 riders by 60 cycles in an hour to get a really optimized theoretical capacity of 1440. 1200 theoretical doesn't seem so far off now.

You are right, on Firehawk, if you drop a train into the gravity zone every minute, you could get to 1440 - close enough to the 1430 quoted on rcdb.com. The math works fine.

Operationally, however, this doesn't work because it requires one train to be running the gravity portion of the course for the minute that the other train is on the lift. In reality, though, trains need to stop in the station to load and unload - and on Firehawk, the 'Raise - Unload - Load - Check - Lower' sequence is the limiting factor on ride throughput. Hence why a third train wouldn't help capacity as I've heard was determined somewhere along the way when it was x-flight.

[DeLorean Rider]

Operationally, however, this doesn't work because it requires one train to be running the gravity portion of the course for the minute that the other train is on the lift. In reality, though, trains need to stop in the station to load and unload - and on Firehawk, the 'Raise - Unload - Load - Check - Lower' sequence is the limiting factor on ride throughput. Hence why a third train wouldn't help capacity as I've heard was determined somewhere along the way when it was x-flight.

Correct, however that's where 2 stations comes into play. If there were 3 trains, you could have a train on the lift, a train in a station doing it's business, and a train in the gravity section ready to go into the brakes and a station awaiting it's arrival. Theoretically duel stations would cut the dispatch interval in half giving them 2 minutes per train to raise, unload, load, lower. Perhaps a REALLY good crew with 6 bar checkers could achieve this.

Still, who are we kidding; in reality none of this every happens. Disabilities, height checking, loose articles, flip flops, tiny restraints, upbars, downbars, rechecks, guests chickening out, etc. No way.

[Cormaster]

Did Firehawk ever have 3 trains running (as X-flight of course)? I just don't see how that would work with the dual loading station. IT seems it would be a stacking nightmare!

[PhantomTheater]

It did stack, all the time. Nothing like a hot sunny day being stuck on the brakes on X-flight, it was not a pleasant experience.

[markr]

Like KIFan, how parks figure capacity absolutely puzzles me. Let's take Raptor as an example. I believe they quote the hourly capacity at 1600. I've timed the wait with a full queue at around 1 hr 20 minutes give or take a few minutes. I've counted the queues at 30 rows. Also, I've counted how many people fill up one row and it is around 25 people on the average. Multiply 25 by 30 and you get 750 people-that means about 750 people would move through the line at 1 hr and 20 minutes. That is way off 1600 in an hour. It just makes no sense to me.

[Cormaster]

Yeah I know that Kings Island decided to use the 3rd train for parts, and I Figured the 3rd train was pretty much included as a spare. The way the Coaster is designed it seems like its designed to use 2 trains. To me if its going to stack then what's the point? When Trains are stacking, you have too many trains period.

[TylerRider]

Was Firehawk originally supposed to lower on the lift hill?

[TH13TEEN]

^ Yes it was... Good ol' Vekoma...

[bkroz]

However, it's not something that could be accomplished now - the idea was abandoned and now the lowering mechanism is in the station. What difference it would make, I don't know. It would be a bit less uncomfortable for the fifteen seconds in between, but unless they also put the lifting mechanism on the block brakes, it still wouldn't get them out of awkward moments of basking in the sun when the ride brakes (which is the main problem).

GYK, who thinks that, despite its gimmick, this particular make & model of roller coaster was much better suited for a smaller park like, say, Geauga Lake, Great America, or Carowinds, not a former-flagship. Kings Island needed Geauga Lake's Intamin twisted impulse coaster, or Dominator.