Existential Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Are you regulars to the park seeing enough clearing work to assume this is a next year thang? Doesn't seem like a lot of commotion or hurry. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fryoj Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 There are 2 ways to deal with DB, one takes a path through the turn, over the photo; the other runs down the middle of WWC. I just can't see it. Over the photo also means over the midcourse, and thats pretty tall right there. I have trouble thinking they'd go over Diamondback anywhere, let alone the midcourse. Thats an evac point. Going over WWC through the middle would take it over the conveyor lift, the queue, the coin op water cannon area and WWC itself in multiple places. The coin op area alone is pretty wide. With this scenario, the "bridge" of the ride is up by the train tracks, meaning its not going to bridge over any of that. I just don't see why they bridge over the train or whatever up there, and not bridge over all that on WWC if thats the path. The thing about this ride, is it was designed to go a certain path. They wouldn't design it to make things harder. They could simply design it with a bend 20 feet over and avoid having to go over so many obstacles. Maybe you are right, but I'd have to see a pretty convincing layout to agree that it is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CP Maverick Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 The path over DBs photo takes it through a pretty wide gap under the midcourse, and around the outside of the turn. The path through the middle of WWC puts the "bridge" over the conveyor lift. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fryoj Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 To put the bridge at the conveyor lift, that puts the bend between "stations" in the middle of one of the picnic area buildings. If we can tear down those buildings, it opens up a whole lot more room for ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldschool75 Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 And as indicated previously. The plans that were acquired are only specified for a very small section. That section and details for that section are only required to be accurate on the drawing submitted to the City of Mason. CF could easily had the engineer give a "generic" layout for the overview portion. As it says in many parts of the drawing that the specifics pertaining to the ride will be provided by the ride manufacturer later. These plans are for the footing/concrete work. It could be any manufacture. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CP Maverick Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Here's the last couple I looked at... again, assuming the scale and orientation match the plans we saw at city hall. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiamondBanshee Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Where people are saying that it can't go OVER the track, could it perhaps go under? DB, trying to think outside the box (or is it inside that ugly thing?) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CP Maverick Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 That last image in my previous post has it over the photo then under the midcourse. I doubt they would dig too close to existing foundations, though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KI Guy Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 And as indicated previously. The plans that were acquired are only specified for a very small section. That section and details for that section are only required to be accurate on the drawing submitted to the City of Mason. CF could easily had the engineer give a "generic" layout for the overview portion. As it says in many parts of the drawing that the specifics pertaining to the ride will be provided by the ride manufacturer later. These plans are for the footing/concrete work. It could be any manufacture. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yeah, people seem to be extrapolating too much. I'm skeptical of the steel supports thing myself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyMartyFly Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 What steel suppports? Where is that illustrated? Miss that. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Goddard Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 In the plans it mentions "Girder Truss", which led some to believe this will have steel supports. I personally think it will have steel supports to help keep it compact and require less clearing. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyMartyFly Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Thanks for the explanation, I can't wait for more and telling hints from KIPR, but I guess I will have to wait unless Don feels the need to throw us a bigger hint soon. Haha!! Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldschool75 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 The girder truss would be for the train bridge. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fryoj Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 And as indicated previously. The plans that were acquired are only specified for a very small section. That section and details for that section are only required to be accurate on the drawing submitted to the City of Mason. CF could easily had the engineer give a "generic" layout for the overview portion. As it says in many parts of the drawing that the specifics pertaining to the ride will be provided by the ride manufacturer later. These plans are for the footing/concrete work. It could be any manufacture. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Projects on acad are all usually one big file and they turn layers on and off for whichever view they are using. To do the mini top down view, they'd just take the main file and shrink it. They wouldn't take the time to draw another version. Unless they are internationally trying to hide things. It is a possibility if this thing has some secrets they don't want out yet, but I'd be somewhat surprised if the miniature isn't legit. That being said, it would make a whole lot more sense if the layout was a little different. Here's the last couple I looked at... again, assuming the scale and orientation match the plans we saw at city hall. I think I see why we are coming to different conclusions. I have the scale larger than you do. Not a whole lot, but enough to make a difference. Not saying yours is necessarily wrong though as your first one certainly does fit. I've redone mine a few different ways though and came to the same/similar sizing as before. But looking at yours, two and three I think we can probably rule out as is, simply because there is no room between Diamondback and WWC at the turnaround to fit anything. Take a look at bing birds eye to see what I mean. Your first one though does "fit" for the most part. I don't like the place where it crosses itself at the bottom happening over top of wwc, but that could be just off due to the nature of the overhead photos. My biggest question on it is, would they have the station so far away from Rivertown? It's similar to how far away The Bat is from Banshee. So its not out of the question, but my question is why would they design it that way? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastien6221 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 ^^Doesnt always imply to ground supports, look at buildings. Sent from my N9130 using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CP Maverick Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I believe that they would expand Rivertown to the area closer to the new ride and WWC if they go that route. It's really looking like other area modifications will be made. I just don't know if it will be the train, the log ride, or WWC, or none of the above. I plotted the area of work to scale and rotate the ride. We have a pretty good idea of how much land that center strip takes up, with those plans being right on 20' wide. You can see that section in black on my images. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GavPenn Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 They wouldn't move the funnel cake stand and reroute the WWC queue line if that space didn't play a part in what's to come. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenban Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Crazy speculation to link all of the work which we have seen being performed in the park this year. What we are missing is that the path of the train will change to circle most of the park. Since the train tracks to the south of WWC will no longer be located in the current location there is plenty of room for the coaster. The trees are being cut down near The Beast so that the train can pass through. One new station will be located where the old action theater is currently located which is why they are clearing out the building. The second new station will be located in the front of the park next to Congo Falls. Then it will pass over a bridge which will be built in front of the park entrance. The path of the train will also take it down to the clearing behind Banshee where we saw dirt pushed around earlier in the year. This is because we will also be getting a hotel with its own stop on the train. For what might actually happen I would look at trying to figure out the path of least resistance. It appears that this will have to pass over WWC. I would think it would do so as few times as possible in locations which are easy to build. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silver2005 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I found Prowler's ride page including construction footage, and it appears footings didn't start appearing until late September/early October. http://www.worldsoffun.org/prowler_construction.asp If this is a GCI, it may be a while until we see some hard evidence. I imagine (just guessing) a RMC would follow a similar construction schedule. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 That depends on when RMC needs a coaster to launch. 15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fryoj Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I believe that they would expand Rivertown to the area closer to the new ride and WWC if they go that route. It's really looking like other area modifications will be made. I just don't know if it will be the train, the log ride, or WWC, or none of the above. I plotted the area of work to scale and rotate the ride. We have a pretty good idea of how much land that center strip takes up, with those plans being right on 20' wide. You can see that section in black on my images. I think there's why. We have a different scale. That double section of track is 22' wide. 2 8' gaps, and 3 2' posts. The abutment "boxes" are 24' wide. Makes a 10% difference in sizing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastien6221 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 That depends on when RMC needs a coaster to launch.Probably when everyone is seated, restraints checked and all clear given I assume? Sent from my N9130 using Tapatalk 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CP Maverick Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I believe that they would expand Rivertown to the area closer to the new ride and WWC if they go that route. It's really looking like other area modifications will be made. I just don't know if it will be the train, the log ride, or WWC, or none of the above. I plotted the area of work to scale and rotate the ride. We have a pretty good idea of how much land that center strip takes up, with those plans being right on 20' wide. You can see that section in black on my images. I think there's why. We have a different scale. That double section of track is 22' wide. 2 8' gaps, and 3 2' posts. The abutment "boxes" are 24' wide. Makes a 10% difference in sizing. Mine may be 22' as well (I was going off memory), but how long is your station and transfer shed? I have mine at 56' and 67' 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fryoj Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Thats the sizing I have as well. I think I was off on map scale though. I'm using the GIS site and think I did a calculation error. I'm closer to what you got now. Still not the same, but close enough for the margin of error in satellite images. I'm still not sold on that location just because I think it would have been easier to pick another route. This is the design they chose for a reason. With your route, they have to tear down the barn by WWC(not sure if that matters or not) and have to go over top of the conveyor and a wide guest area. I'm just not sure they'd make that choice. Honestly, I'm still trying to figure out why the whole north part isn't flipped to put the station closer to Rivertown. But for now, I don't have a better layout that what you do, so I'll have to defer to it. Something you said(and kenban as well) did spark an idea though. The train station and tracks are all easily moved. The station is really just a concrete pad with fence and gates. And the path the track takes is not hard to relocate at all. We could see a relocation(and possibly expansion) of the train. That could explain some of the hints we've been seeing. And makes it a little easier to place. Although I tried ignoring the train and didn't see a better layout, so this could be completely wrong as well. Decoding Banshee was so much more fun. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AintNutinElse2Do Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Cost of moving railroad track isn't quite as cheap as you'd think. Typically 1 to 2 million per mile. In the real world (not theme parks) that cost can climb much higher to buy right of ways, blasting rock, and etc. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenban Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Cost of moving railroad track isn't quite as cheap as you'd think. Typically 1 to 2 million per mile. In the real world (not theme parks) that cost can climb much higher to buy right of ways, blasting rock, and etc. Is it strange that I actually consider it more likely if it can be done for only 2 million a mile? Total track length to circle the park would be under 2 miles. Even if you really want to make it scenic and take it down to the river you are only looking at 2.5 to 3 miles to totally circle the entire property. The problem is how much work will be needed for bridges and even then there will be areas which will likely be steeper than current grades. I remember the train wheels spinning on a slight slope the morning of Coasterstock. They almost had to back up and try again. The thing about roller coasters at Cedar Fair parks is that the projects become almost like slush funds. They end up paying for a bunch of slightly related things in the area. Not sure if this is to hide the cost of the ride, make it seem more expensive than it really is, or hide the cost of the other improvements. The coaster is likely already paying for the WWC improvements, the new funnel cake stand, etc. Moving the train tracks is doable but I was mostly just throwing out a crazy speculation to try to tie everything together. Having said that I do think a small change in the path is possible but I have my doubts. I would love to see it happen. Even just making the trip longer would be nice, it is a little short right now. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fryoj Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Cost of moving railroad track isn't quite as cheap as you'd think. Typically 1 to 2 million per mile. In the real world (not theme parks) that cost can climb much higher to buy right of ways, blasting rock, and etc. True, but I'm not talking about going around the whole park. More about relocating things in that area. Even still, I'd be surprised if those tracks are up to railroad line specs as they would have to deal with much lighter weights and speeds. Possibly a narrower gauge as well. Depending on the route change, it could be talking a couple tenths of a mile. So $200,000 even at full railroad cost? They probably spent that much cutting trees down. lol 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBInternational Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Went to the park today. Saw a tree removal company hard at work in between WWC's queue and the train station. I noticed a marker in a place I wasn't expecting it today. The picture is kind of blurry unfortunately so it's hard to make out. That's here: (Aerial pic taken from hamilton county maps) If my memory serves me correctly, most of our speculation so far hasn't come anywhere near this marker. But who knows, maybe this marker is for something else... 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyMartyFly Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 Can you post the link to the Hamilton County map source? Thanks!! Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldschool75 Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 That was cleared out during Coasterstock Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.