"S3 V2.1""][quote=""Faulty Towers""][quote=""S3 V2.1" wrote:
A steel one would have a higher capacity, and for a ride this size you'd need a capacity exceeding that of Nemesis.
I doubt the guy is wrong, not when he has hundreds of theme park contacts around the world, and when he is head of the ECC.
I'm confused.Why would a steel coaster have a higher capacity? :-?
Train capacity-nope (some woodies have trains of 36, B&M max is 32, Intamin is far less)
Train loading- nope (virtually the same)
Speed of lifthill- nope (can be the same)
Speed of ride- nope (usually the same.I think its called gravity)
No. of possible block sections- nope (can be as required)
As for capacity, this is measured by people per hour, so why would it need to be higher than Nemesis just because its a longer ride :-?
I really think you are doing the ECC a dis-service with comments like that :W[/quote]
1. Some Intamin hypers (which is basically what this coaster would be) have 36 person trains.
2. More or less (depending on the type of coaster, Intamin cable lifts are really fast), the one on Expedition ge-force pulls you up like a rocket.
3. Don't patronise me please, if I didn't know the basics of gravitational acceleration, I wouldn't be studying Engineereing (I am aware you don't know this), and I did take it into account.
4. It depends, how many lift hills does the ride have, most would assume two, as it was on the original plans. But it depends on where the station is, is it in the valley, is it in UG-Land, or FV? If it's in the valley, I wouldn't put it past it, to see a set of mid-course brakes, but then again there are rides which can run 3 trains, without mid-course brakes, and with only one lift hill.
5. Bigger queues? A hyper coaster attracts alot of people. Possible longer waiting times due to a longer ride? Since a ride like this hasn't been built at AT, no-one can say anything definate.
I don't feel I am doing any sort with the ECC, they aren't the sort of organisation who usually get their facts wrong. I don't know what goes on in the planning stages, I trust them. Half of the stuff I read on the internet is bull. Maybe Justin is wrong, but I wouldn't question him, he knows a hell of alot. :)
Hope you can appreciate my side. :D[/quote]
You have fundamentally failed to tackle your main point, which was that the application was withdrawn due to concerns over capacity and that a steel hyper/giga/other stupid random name would be better.
1. Correct, and I count (2) Intamin hypers have a capacity of 36. It is irrelevant as it takes the same amount of time to load/unload as a wooden coaster, except allowing for untrained, badly prepared workforce.
2. Great comment about a lifthill!. The original Woodie plans called for 2 lifthills; 28 metres, and 23 metres high. Quite what benefit an Intamin cable lift would do here I don't know. Not much scope for a big lifthill with such a big valley though.
3. Woodie original plans allowed for a 4 minute ride cycle across 3 trains or 1350 people per hour. How would this be bettered with a steel version as you still have to allow for unload, load and safety checks?
4. I do not have any qualifications in engineering and do not need them to see obvious weaknesses in your theory. I do however, have a keen sense of detection for one of Jim Henson's rejects.