Top Thrill Dragster Incident

[disco2000]

17 hours ago, Browntggrr said:

My gut tells me the "screenshot" yesterday of the Zamperla website is a total hoax.

Top Thrill 2?

CP has been VERY reluctant to acknowledge the ride formerly known as TTD other than new promotional video of the ride & the new formula for thrills.  Using TTD in any variation would be like KI using "Beast" in another coaster name.

Tomorrow will be fun and will hopefully move on from a very dark time in CP's history.  I highly doubt we will hear about the future settlement or result of the lawsuit against CP & hope the victim from a couple years ago gets everything +more.

Looks like your gut was wrong lol

But I do agree with you that it seems odd they would incorporate Top Thrill into the name.

[PKIDelirium]

Well I was wrong, good thing I'm not into betting!

I guess they figure Dragster was the most commonly known part of the name, so Top Thrill 2 for two towers works out?

[MDMC01]

Just saw the video; this is so cool that it's actually (going to be) a real thing. Reminds me a tad of when Steel Vengeance was announced and I couldn't believe how crazy the ride looked.

Also, the "guaranteed rollback" is nice; I never got one when I rode TTD.

The next question is, will people count this as a separate credit? I think I will as unlike Son of Beast removing the loop, most of the track (minus I believe the top hat/break run) is all new).

[disco2000]

So is this going to be known as T3, TTT, or TT2?

[Kenban]

I was pretty confident that the specifications which had been listed on Zamperla’s website were correct, and they are.  But had a hard time believing the name would be this terrible.

Really the biggest surprise to me is it looks like they are not even moving the queue.  The concept arts shows it in the in field and they just put a cover over it.  

[Browntggrr]

2 hours ago, disco2000 said:

Looks like your gut was wrong lol

It absolutely was- probably why I'm not in marketing.

Someone at Zamperla gonna get put in timeout!

[robintodd]

While I do appreciate the rollback aspect (although some will make the comment that it will not be a complete rollback like was experienced by few in the past).  I am a bit concerned about throughput.  The switch track is just one more possible thing to break down.  Plus before the ride took 18 seconds (10 to clear the top hat).  Once the top hat was cleared a new coaster could be (actually already was) put in place.  With the new design it will be longer to slide the new car onto the track.  Plus the next car can't be put on until the first one clears the top hat (after 3 launches).

Seems like the wait will be longer (no more staging/loading 2 vehicles at a time) and the posibility to go down will be greater (with the addition of the switch track).  Both are things that should have been avoided at all costs in my opinion.

As for the name....UGH.  I was sure they would have stayed away from the previous name entirely because of the previous incident.  For those of us old enought to remember another re-used ride I shall come to call it Top-Thrill Re-Run!   (Rest in peace Avalance).

[teenageninja]

3 minutes ago, robintodd said:

While I do appreciate the rollback aspect (although some will make the comment that it will not be a complete rollback like was experienced by few in the past).  I am a bit concerned about throughput.  The switch track is just one more possible thing to break down.  Plus before the ride took 18 seconds (10 to clear the top hat).  Once the top hat was cleared a new coaster could be (actually already was) put in place.  With the new design it will be longer to slide the new car onto the track.  Plus the next car can't be put on until the first one clears the top hat (after 3 launches).

Seems like the wait will be longer (no more staging/loading 2 vehicles at a time) and the posibility to go down will be greater (with the addition of the switch track).  Both are things that should have been avoided at all costs in my opinion.

As for the name....UGH.  I was sure they would have stayed away from the previous name entirely because of the previous incident.  For those of us old enought to remember another re-used ride I shall come to call it Top-Thrill Re-Run!   (Rest in peace Avalance).

Eh, the old train held 18, now it'll be 20.

They didn't launch a train every 18 seconds, they'd launch two, then have to load, move cars into position, etc.  It wasn't that efficient.

Depending on how the switch track works, they might get a better average launch time than before, thereby increasing capacity.

Also, LSM should be a lot more reliable than the hydraulic system.

[johnjniehaus]

There's pros and cons I think. Will it be a great ride yes! The new design still delivers 400' tall top hat and speeds of 120mph and I think capacity has potential to be better. I like that the ride time is extended seeing as the original was over so quickly. The ride is going to be huge (literally) when it opens. Here's what I find disappointing, (1) The "rollback" element won't be a a full rollback because the launch won't send you as high up the top hat before rolling back. (2)The name is terrible! So tacky and unoriginal. If they were going to be lazy they should have just called it Dragster and been done. Everyone I know always shortened the name to The Dragster anyway. Now I have to say "hey guys let's go ride Top Thrill Two?" Doesn't roll off the tongue very well. (3)the launch is obviously more gradual so while I'll enjoy the new ride, you won't exactly get that rush of 0-120 in 4sec anymore. (4) obviously with Zamperla we don't know what to expect but if this is anything like Pantheon or other mulit launchers with switch tracks, it will have a ton of downtime. Dragster already had its share of maintenance and downtime issues but I have to say I'm not looking forward to standing in a 2-3hr line and this breaking down. 

[WoodVengeance]

I think the ride looks solid, but wow. Cedar Point needs to work on their coaster names.

[jsus]

2 hours ago, robintodd said:

While I do appreciate the rollback aspect (although some will make the comment that it will not be a complete rollback like was experienced by few in the past).  I am a bit concerned about throughput.  The switch track is just one more possible thing to break down.  Plus before the ride took 18 seconds (10 to clear the top hat).  Once the top hat was cleared a new coaster could be (actually already was) put in place.  With the new design it will be longer to slide the new car onto the track.  Plus the next car can't be put on until the first one clears the top hat (after 3 launches).

Seems like the wait will be longer (no more staging/loading 2 vehicles at a time) and the posibility to go down will be greater (with the addition of the switch track).  Both are things that should have been avoided at all costs in my opinion.

As for the name....UGH.  I was sure they would have stayed away from the previous name entirely because of the previous incident.  For those of us old enought to remember another re-used ride I shall come to call it Top-Thrill Re-Run!   (Rest in peace Avalance).

TTD 1.0 could only launch 1 train every minute.  It rarely even did that, even when it was allegedly fully operational, not down mechanical or weather, which happened extremely frequently.

If TT2 could actually reliably slam out trains every 60 seconds, that would go from 1080 to 1200 RPH.  Except if the control/mechanical/launch systems are fairly reliable, it might actually stand a very good chance of doing that.  You only need to dispatch a train every 67 seconds to meet the theoretical capacity of TTD 1.0 because of the 20 vs. 18 seat trains.

Keep in mind that the track switch can shift over as soon as the back of train 1 clears the top of the top hat (as told by a prox at the apex).  Looks quite quick according to Zamperla's promotional video, so long as it can do that reliably day after day.

As for the actual 3-launch cycle, again keep in mind that unlike TTD 1.0, there's no need to stop at a Christmas Tree and wait for the green lights - because you were really waiting from the catch car to come back and latch onto the train.  Instead, you can join the mainline track and just launch immediately.

There seems no real reason why they can't beat 1000 riders per hour reliably - something TTD 1.0 never could - so long as they get the system reliability down (TTD 1.0 set a low bar there), and so long as they can get guests seated and restraints checked quickly.  So, basically, the crew needs to hustle like they're your pit crew - it's not a lot of time.  Start with train 1 in the station, guests checked, train locked/cleared.  T=0, train 1 is dispatched, begins to roll forward.  Train 2 enters station (better not be as glacially slow as Steel Vengeance), parks.  Around here, the track switch activates as train 1 waits; once the switch is locked, train 1 launches.  Restraints release, guests exit (no separate unload station here, it seems).  Guests board.  Ride ops check restraints.  Train 2 is locked/cleared.  The back of train 1 clears the apex of the top hat, prox switch alerts that the block is now clear.  Track switch shifts back for train 2 to leave the station, signaling to the crew that everyone is waiting on them to hit the green button.  Train 2 is dispatched.  Repeat with train 3 and on until the ride goes down weather/mechanical or for the end of the night.

[Shaggy]

On 7/19/2023 at 11:46 PM, Shaggy said:

I can already sense the potential for possible disappointment by all the CP fans when this announcement is made.  I think those that have their hopes up for this to have a 500', 600', 700' (etc etc etc) spike, or a drastic change to the layout are going to be upset.  All the speculation over this ride has really run the gamut - there's like a million Youtube videos on it.  LOL!

In my opinion, its pretty clear as to what they are doing... and they probably don't need a spike any taller than the tophat in order to accomplish it.

Also, the name is pretty synonymous with CP... so it may be a simple update like "Dragster 2.0" or such.

 

TYS... ;-) LOL

[Leland Wykoff]

Cedar Fair disavows negligence in Top Thrill Dragster incident, seeks dismissal of suit, or failing that, a jury trial:

https://www.themeparktribune.com/cedar-fair-denies-negligence-in-response-to-top-thrill-dragster-lawsuit/

[disco2000]

53 minutes ago, Leland Wykoff said:

Cedar Fair disavows negligence in Top Thrill Dragster incident, seeks dismissal of suit, or failing that, a jury trial:

https://www.themeparktribune.com/cedar-fair-denies-negligence-in-response-to-top-thrill-dragster-lawsuit/

Typical defense language.  I wonder how much of the “damages, if any, were proximately caused by intervening and superseding acts or omissions of persons or entities” other than Cedar Fair." is targeted at that nurse that wanted her 15 minutes of fame and was chastised by others in the medical community, or if that was simply typical language.

[jsus]

27 minutes ago, disco2000 said:

Typical defense language.  I wonder how much of the “damages, if any, were proximately caused by intervening and superseding acts or omissions of persons or entities” other than Cedar Fair." is targeted at that nurse that wanted her 15 minutes of fame and was chastised by others in the medical community, or if that was simply typical language.

Typical legalese indeed.  The document itself is part of the process of a lawsuit.  The plaintiff makes their complaint, the defendant is given a chance to respond, the judge at some points determines how to proceed.  You don't file a lawsuit and immediately drag someone into court, generally.  Note that it is titled "Answer of Defendant, Cedar Fair, L.P, to Plaintiffs' Complaint (Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon)".  They do make a request for dismissal with prejudice, because of course the lawyers have to try even if they know the judge will not grant that request.  Just like how they threw everything at the wall to see what sticks with the "affirmative defenses", which are rather bizarre in reality given the available facts.

The one that I find most bizarre is: "Plaintiffs' damages, if any, where caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff."  What?  A most peculiar claim, how do they figure that one?  Is it not publicly known that the victim was merely waiting in the TTD queue when a flag plate struck her in the head?  If you're going to make a claim like that, you should have to immediately back it up with relevant evidence/facts...

Do they have their paralegals just come up with every possible way it could be anyone else's fault and include that as a standard script?

Typical disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, thus I am not your lawyer, and this post does not constitute legal advice, but rather my personal understanding of the legal system.

[disco2000]

9 hours ago, jsus said:

Typical legalese indeed.  The document itself is part of the process of a lawsuit.  The plaintiff makes their complaint, the defendant is given a chance to respond, the judge at some points determines how to proceed.  You don't file a lawsuit and immediately drag someone into court, generally.  Note that it is titled "Answer of Defendant, Cedar Fair, L.P, to Plaintiffs' Complaint (Jury Demand Endorsed Hereon)".  They do make a request for dismissal with prejudice, because of course the lawyers have to try even if they know the judge will not grant that request.  Just like how they threw everything at the wall to see what sticks with the "affirmative defenses", which are rather bizarre in reality given the available facts.

The one that I find most bizarre is: "Plaintiffs' damages, if any, where caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff."  What?  A most peculiar claim, how do they figure that one?  Is it not publicly known that the victim was merely waiting in the TTD queue when a flag plate struck her in the head?  If you're going to make a claim like that, you should have to immediately back it up with relevant evidence/facts...

Do they have their paralegals just come up with every possible way it could be anyone else's fault and include that as a standard script?

Typical disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, thus I am not your lawyer, and this post does not constitute legal advice, but rather my personal understanding of the legal system.

Yeah that one struck me odd as well.  Like what is CF going to say "She should have had a Fast Lane and she wouldn't have been in that line.  She should have been shorter so it hit someone else.  She should have stayed in her own state and went to Michigan's Adventure. She should have not been waiting for an Intamin Ride. She had pre-existing conditions and shouldn't have been in line for that ride.  She had pre-existing conditions and shouldn't have been in line for the ride.  She shouldn't have been drinking earlier in the day."  Like what is their claim?

Like you said, by all accounts, she was standing in line just like everyone else and just happened to be the unlucky one.  It could have just have easily been someone else.

Unless they have video of her in a restricted area at the time of incident or something bizarre like she was standing on the queue railing and had she not been doing that the piece of metal would have flown over everyone and harmed nobody, it seems like a weird claim to make and hope it sticks.

If a lot of people pay attention, it will probably sour them on CF.  Saying you assume all risk when entering the park is one thing.  To then blame you when you were abiding by all policies and rules sure doesn't seem like a customer friendly thing to be saying.

[jsus]

3 hours ago, disco2000 said:

Yeah that one struck me odd as well.  Like what is CF going to say "She should have had a Fast Lane and she wouldn't have been in that line.  She should have been shorter so it hit someone else.  She should have stayed in her own state and went to Michigan's Adventure. She should have not been waiting for an Intamin Ride. She had pre-existing conditions and shouldn't have been in line for that ride.  She had pre-existing conditions and shouldn't have been in line for the ride.  She shouldn't have been drinking earlier in the day."  Like what is their claim?

Like you said, by all accounts, she was standing in line just like everyone else and just happened to be the unlucky one.  It could have just have easily been someone else.

Unless they have video of her in a restricted area at the time of incident or something bizarre like she was standing on the queue railing and had she not been doing that the piece of metal would have flown over everyone and harmed nobody, it seems like a weird claim to make and hope it sticks.

If a lot of people pay attention, it will probably sour them on CF.  Saying you assume all risk when entering the park is one thing.  To then blame you when you were abiding by all policies and rules sure doesn't seem like a customer friendly thing to be saying.

Exactly.  Definitely not a good look, but on brand for the lawyer stereotypes, unfortunately.  Note that none of their "affirmative defenses" are backed up with any relevant facts at this point.  They don't even list who they think the plaintiffs left off the complaint.  So basically it's the victim's fault, it's INTAMIN's fault, it's some unnamed 3rd party's fault who modified the ride, and perhaps it's even the fault of unnamed guest(s) interfering with the emergency response.  Or are they trying to throw their own EMS and Sandusky Fire under the bus?  Really, it just reads like, "don't look at me" when everyone knows they have some liability here.

Good thing is that judges and juries can see right through all of this.  Bad thing is that it's a huge mess that ideally would've settled by now, and none of it should've happened in the first place.

Ideally, instead of wasting more than necessary on attorney costs, all sides would be able to come to an agreement.  There's still time for the parties to settle out of court.  Personally don't see INTAMIN or Cedar Fair getting away with paying nothing here, but in court, anything can happen.

[disco2000]

They settled.

https://www.13abc.com/2024/04/12/woman-hit-by-metal-roller-coaster-cedar-fair-reach-settlement/

[BeeastFarmer]

But did that horrible nurse practitioner, who may have been under the influence, who's brother was filming on ride and could have caused an injury, who claimed to be a medical doctor, who interfered with EMS, who then claimed she was a trauma nurse, who demanded that EMS give fluids and a medication that would make the injury worse and who blasted out details of this all over social media, violating privacy principles...did she face any repercussion from any regulatory bodies in Ohio?

[disco2000]

3 hours ago, BeeastFarmer said:

But did that horrible nurse practitioner, who may have been under the influence, who's brother was filming on ride and could have caused an injury, who claimed to be a medical doctor, who interfered with EMS, who then claimed she was a trauma nurse, who demanded that EMS give fluids and a medication that would make the injury worse and who blasted out details of this all over social media, violating privacy principles...did she face any repercussion from any regulatory bodies in Ohio?

Only thru the media....