Leaderboard

A vehicle being stripped does not confirm a rides closure! In fact a stripped car is more promising than just leaving it as is until the end of the season.

I’m sorry. But if we are going on the tangent of rides like Tomb Blaster and Duel, being restored to their original states of operation, then I see no reason of Runaway Train being exempt. However any man and his dog could easily say this would never happen Burrito Bob is a lie. However the same principal lies around every myth snd rumour, regarding the future of any ride. The mysterious disappearance of the ride on the website is an interesting one. However until we get an official announcement or see the ‘demolition’ vehicles, the closure can neither be confirmed or denied. I believe we are getting some sort of development plan regarding Chessington any time now, so we shall all have to see what’s happening and whether any of this might affect Scorpion Express. As we know it!

Black Mirror no longer needs a time slot; you just queue as normal. Ghost Train slots tend to be available until the late morning/early afternoon in my experience. But that can depend on how busy it is.

So we have some more stuff to go through. Basically, the park have said they have nothing more to add about Objection 1 (the supports being in a bad flood zone), and have given more details about Objection 2. There is also a General Correspondence document from the council towards the EA: In short, it appears that the council are confused by the EA's position (specifically about "Objection 2" I believe), and are seeking further clarifications. As has been discussed in the past, whilst bodies like the EA can object to a development, the ultimate decision lies with the council. They can take these objections on board, but still decide to give approval, provided they give their reasoning. Seemingly, as things stand, the council side with Thorpe on Objection 2. And with Objection 1, it seems that Thorpe have nothing more to say. But, the park do have history with construction in these 'bad' flood zones (Swarm being the key example, which the park have leaned on). Optimistically, one could suggest that the council would be more inclined to again side with Thorpe over the EA in this case too, given the history there. The interesting subplot about this now that hasn't been mentioned really is timing. In the original, full, application, the park said they'd look to start construction in November. Obviously preliminary work would take place before then (and did earlier in the year). There's two things I wonder now: 1. Did the park stop doing preliminary work because of some uncertainty during all this? If so, has that delayed them? If not, why was construction going to start in November, when they anticipated a summer approval originally? 2. The absolute earliest this could be approved now is October, but even then, there's no guarantee it will be considered then. Could this be dragged out long enough that, if approved, construction starts later than planned? Will the park literally be having to play catch up from the word go?